Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:31):

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Turnbull government is backing business with more competitive taxes to help Australian businesses invest, grow and employ more workers as well as pay them more. More than a million Australians have got a job since this government was first elected back in 2013. That is a credit to the hundreds of thousands of businesses around the country who have taken the risks, put in the effort and given an Australian the best of all opportunities, a job.

The transformation of someone being able to come off welfare and get into work is the ultimate 12-point turnaround. The opportunity to actually prevent someone from not being in a job and get them into the job: this is what is driving our economy forward; this is what is driving the nation's finances forward. It all comes down to ensuring that you back business to invest and create jobs.

This is a central plank of the strong plan for a stronger economy that was set out in this year's budget. We're delivering on that commitment. As I said, more than one million extra jobs have been created. Employment is now at a record high of over 12½ million Australians now in work. I stress: that million jobs is net—that's net additional jobs.

As we know, there has been transition and dislocation in our economy as we've come off the top of the mining investment boom. Some $80 billion stripped out of our economy over that period, yet we continue to grow and we continue to add more and more jobs—more than a million jobs—to now have 12½ million Australians employed.

We're delivering on our commitment for a stronger economy through our more competitive business taxes. The government has already legislated tax cuts for 3.3 million small and medium Australian businesses, employing 6.8 million workers, as part of our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan.

We have increased the unincorporated small business tax discount rate from five per cent to eight per cent (up to a cap of $1,000). This rate will increase to 16 per cent by 2026-27.

Further, by lifting the small-business entity turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million, access has also been extended to a range of small-business tax concessions, such as the $20,000 instant asset write-off.

This movement of defining this turnover of up to $10 million is one of the biggest things, if not the biggest thing, to happen to small-business taxation in generations. And it comes from an acknowledgement and an understanding by the government about what a small business actually is. A small business has a turnover of up to $10 million, and there are actually small businesses with turnovers even above that. One of the businesses I visited just last week—I am still constantly struck by it. This is a business with a turnover of almost $50 million. It has 35 employees. It's hardly a multinational. It's a radiator business in Rockhampton.

So businesses of up to $10 million now have rightly—rightly—been defined as small businesses and are attracting the tax arrangements that have been designed to support small businesses. So we're backing those small businesses by cutting red tape through streamlining GST reporting for around 2.7 million small businesses, and we are backing small business by levelling the playing field through countering illegal phoenixing and extending unfair contract term provisions.

On the issue of illegal phoenixing, this is a significant issue. It's an issue where businesses are often forced to go bust themselves because of the improper and illegal behaviour of other businesses who don't pay their bills and try to use the system to reinvent themselves and walk away from their obligations. It's not fair, it's not right and in this budget the government has taken strong action to ensure that that practice is obliterated wherever possible.

This bill will continue the government's plan for a stronger economy so that businesses can prosper, grow and hire more Australians. The bill continues the government's strong record of supporting small business to invest and grow by extending this successful $20,000 immediate deductibility threshold for a further 12 months to 30 June 2019.

Small businesses with annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct purchases of eligible assets each costing less than $20,000, which are first used or installed ready for use for another year to 30 June 2019.

Assets valued at $20,000 or more can continue to be placed into the small-business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter. The pool itself may also be immediately deducted if its value falls below $20,000 at the end of the financial year.

To facilitate access to this measure, the 'lockout rules' that stop small businesses that elect out of the simplified depreciation regime from re-entering it for five years will continue to be suspended until 30 June 2019.

This $20,000 instant asset write-off, first introduced in the 2015-16 budget, will continue to benefit small business, improving their cash flow and helping them to replace or upgrade their tools and equipment and write it off immediately.

This initiative reduces red tape for small business as they no longer need to track the annual depreciation for assets that are written off immediately, or maintain detailed records substantiating their depreciation claims.

The extension of this measure is welcomed by the small-business community all over the country.

Around 3.3 million incorporated and unincorporated businesses with aggregated turnover annually of less than $10 million will be eligible to access the $20,000 instant asset write-off.

It will continue to boost activity and investment for another year, encouraging hardworking Australian small businesses to renew their capital base so they can grow and create jobs.

Everything this government does is premised on the basis that, if you increase investment, then you increase the number of jobs there are in the economy. And, when you do that, then you're heading in the right direction. And there are more than a million jobs that have been created since the 2013 election, when we were first coming to government, that demonstrate that this plan is working, this plan is delivering, that this government's plan for a stronger economy continues to provide the direction that the country needs to ensure that the next decade we live in will be a decade of a stronger economy under these policy settings.

We have a plan for keeping business competitive to grow jobs and to support better wages.

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

I call on all members to give this measure their full support and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018 bolsters the ability of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to provide oversight of the Australian financial sector.

APRA is Australia's prudential regulator overseeing banks, credit unions, building societies, general insurance and reinsurance companies, life insurance, private health insurance, friendly societies and most of the superannuation industry.

It is an independent Commonwealth government body set up under the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 (APRA Act).

In recent years, APRA has had an extensive program of supervisory and policy work. It has implemented important reforms to bolster the soundness and stability of the Australian financial system, including those originating from the financial system inquiry that the government initiated after being first elected in 2013, as well as the recently passed crisis management bill. This critical work must continue. In recent years, APRA has also rightly given greater attention to issues of governance, culture and accountability within the financial sector. This important work must also continue.

A good example of this is the recent prudential inquiry by APRA into the governance, culture and accountability within the CBA group. While CBA is undoubtedly financially sound and provides strong returns to shareholders, the APRA report showed that shortcomings in governance, inattention to aspects of risk management, and a complacent culture can occur without strong and constant vigilance by boards, who have the primary responsibility for the management of their institutions. To ensure they are up to the task, regulators must keep their spotlight on these issues too.

The Laker report, as I said at the time of its release, is essential reading for every single board director and every single company in this country, and I commend the authors of the report once again in this place.

As part of doing this, APRA will, amongst other things, be heavily engaged in following up these measures in implementing recent reforms to the banking sector to improve the accountability of bank executives. It will also help foster competition and drive out complacency amongst incumbents by supporting the entry of new banks into the sector. Beyond banking, APRA's work on risk culture and remuneration will be very important across the financial sector as a whole. And there are a range of emerging issues—including cyber risks—that need on-going attention and focus.

The community benefits from a strong and capable prudential regulator, and the government is committed to ensuring that APRA at all times continues to have the strong and capable leadership necessary to fulfil its important role as the financial system evolves. I particularly want to commend Wayne Byres, who continues to be an outstanding head of APRA, for his work and his leadership in driving that organisation.

Under its enabling legislation, APRA is currently headed by an executive group consisting of not less than three and not more than five members. The terms and conditions of the appointment of members are set out in the APRA Act, and the members are appointed by the Governor-General. Currently one member must be appointed chair, and another member may be appointed deputy chair.

The legislation has already been introduced to appoint a second deputy chairperson at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to enhance its effectiveness. The government considers it also appropriate for this to occur for APRA.

The amendments in this bill, by permitting a second deputy chair to be appointed, will provide greater flexibility in the way in which APRA is governed and for the allocation of responsibilities to each member. This helps to maximise the skills and capabilities available to APRA within its leadership.

In so doing, the changes can facilitate more oversight of the financial sector at this critical time, as well as allow the chair to have a greater oversight of the entire system and of APRA's overall performance.

These amendments will enhance the ability of APRA to undertake its critical functions.

The ability to appoint up to two deputy chairs will assist with the recruiting of very senior and experienced members as needed, and so enhance the ability of the APRA executive group to manage new or more complex issues in the future.

Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that the APRA Act be amended so that a second deputy chairperson can be appointed if that is considered necessary.

The amendments would permit, but not require, that there be two deputy chairs, thereby providing flexibility depending on the circumstances. Similarly, the legislation does not prescribe a particular role for each deputy.

The measures contained in this bill are part of a comprehensive and extensive set of measures that the government has been pursuing for many years now to ensure that our banking financial system is accountable, that it's fair, that it's competitive and that it is innovative and is focused on the needs of consumers.

Our banking and financial system is arguably one of the strongest, if not the strongest, in the world. Our financial system's stability is absolutely critical to the efficient and effective performance of our national economy, upon which everything else depends.

There are definitely issues of misconduct in behaviour that need to be addressed and are being addressed through the measures that the government has introduced, whether it's the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which stands up later this year, or the additional resources and powers that have been provided to ASIC to pursue and prosecute, with penalties which now, with further changes, will see the maximum jail time extended from five years to 10 years, individual penalties of up to almost $1 million and for organisations themselves some $200 million, potentially, in terms of fines.

These are serious powers and serious capabilities. A complaints mechanism which has teeth, without the need to lawyer-up on every occasion, which we know is used by those institutions to basically exhaust the complaints that others rightly seek to make. These are important changes.

The banking executive accountability regime. This is an important change which is changing the nature of how accountability is already being addressed within these financial institutions.

At the heart of the problems in our banking and financial system has been this lack of accountability. That is what has had to be addressed, and the government has already taken that action. The Laker review bore that out, the wisdom of the actions which the government has already been taking.

We will continue to take actions, but we will continue to take responsible actions because it is important that our banking and financial system continues to be one which is competitive and innovative and responsive and one that is meeting the needs of our national economy.

There will be those who will make arguments that there must be more regulation, more controls and more constraints. They were making these arguments previously and they will use whatever means necessary to try and continue to make those complaints.

But what we must also be aware of is that, if we are not careful in how we responsibly respond to these issues—these very genuine and real issues—that are occurring in our banking and financial system, we could cause great self-harm to our national economy.

The easiest thing for a bank to do to avoid all risk is to not make a loan. If banks stop making loans, people can't buy houses, they can't start businesses, they can't expand their operations and they can't employ more people.

This parliament must be very cautious, as the government has been cautious, to ensure that these genuine issues in our banking and financial system are dealt with sensitively and responsibly, a measuredness that is absolutely critical to continue to backup and support the financial system's stability that is so essential for the performance of our national economy.

So, we must continue to take care, but we must continue to take action. That's what the government is doing, through both this measure and the many other measures that I've recounted to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The only thing that guarantees the essential services that all Australians rely on is a stronger economy. That's what guarantees them. That's what Australians can have confidence in when they are looking for the support of the services that make all the difference in their lives, particularly the most vulnerable Australians. Whether it's Medicare, whether it's the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, whether it's aged care or disability support, whether it's the pension, whether its Newstart—all of these things are only guaranteed at the end of the day by a stronger economy. We only need to look at the fiscal wreckage of other countries that have ignored that principle and seen that social safety net ripped away from them for no other reason than that those who were running those countries lost sight of the fact that, unless you plan for a stronger economy and act on those plans, all the other noble social causes and social issues that you may believe in become of nought. So the greatest test I think of any government's commitment to these social services, and I say that as a former Minister for Social Services, the greatest test of your real commitment to them is not the noble way you speak about them; it is about the practical plans you put in place to pay for them. Because if you can't pay for them and you can't support them they are completely meaningless—they are not worth the paper they are written on. There are too many people sitting in developed economies today who understand that better than they ever hoped they would, as they've seen their pension payments and other things evaporate because of the mismanagement of governments that failed to understand that without a stronger economy you can do very little.

Through our plan for a stronger economy, which is what this budget is all about, the Turnbull government is guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. Funding for Medicare has been guaranteed in legislation, but, more importantly, it is underpinned by our plans for a stronger economy. And the delivery of those plans, as I have reminded the House now on many occasions, has resulted in more than a million jobs being created since the election of the coalition government in 2013. In our most recent calendar year, the record jobs growth, the strongest jobs growth on record, in which, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, some 75 per cent of those jobs were full-time—the official record shows.

That stronger economy means the government are no longer—because of the performance and the improvements in our economy, not just now but into the future—in the position, thankfully, that we need to make any adjustments to the Medicare levy. As I announced in the budget, we are not proceeding with that previous measure. Where you don't have to increase taxes you shouldn't. Taxes as a share of the economy should be kept under control. They should be constrained. If you fail to constrain your taxes then you punish the economy, you cost jobs, cost investment and you undermine the very basis for supporting the essential services and social services that people rely on. So you must be careful about tax policy. You must not allow your taxes to rise to unsustainable levels and stay there. If you can't control your taxes it means you can't control your spending. If you're not prepared to control your taxes it means you're not prepared to control your spending. These are emerging as very significant issues in the Australian political and policy debate today.

This bill will assist Australians on low incomes by continuing to exempt them from paying the Medicare levy. This bill increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2016-17 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2017-18 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index.

The Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets—such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset—generally do not incur the Medicare levy.

The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with taxable income that does not exceed $21,980 in 2017-18 (increased from $21,655). Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their taxable income does not exceed $34,758 (increased from $34,244).

Further, in combination with the individual thresholds, couples and families who are not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $37,089 (increased from $36,541). Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $48,385 (increased from $47,670). The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,406 for each dependent child or student (increased from $3,356).

These new thresholds will apply to the 2017-18 income year and future income years.

The government's plan for a stronger economy is delivering more jobs, as I've said, but it also means that we're guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. We're doing this by ensuring at the same time that the government continues to live within its means. These are the things that I think provide the certainty and surety to Australians as we look out over this next decade with the economic plan that the government has again confirmed in this budget and continues to roll out and deliver so that, as we look into the economy Australians will live in under this plan, they'll be better off; they'll be more confident; they'll be more assured about the essential services like Medicare because of the government's economic management and financial management. That facilitates and unleashes the sound and wise decisions of businesses all around the country which are employing Australians and fuelling our economy and expanding it to ensure that we can deliver the broader and just social safety net of which this country can be rightly proud.

This bill deals with one of the most important elements of that social safety net, which is the Medicare system, to ensure that it's supported and funded in a way that is fair. Now, we all know that the Medicare levy does not fully fund—not even remotely fully fund—the cost of Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It doesn't come anywhere near it, but it is an important part of how we support that program. The government is absolutely committed to these key pillars of our social safety net. It is part of the society that we are in. We understand that the only way you can guarantee them is by ensuring that you focus your policies on a stronger economy that can pay for them.

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

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (09:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill helps implement the Asia Region Funds Passport framework which the government committed to by signing the international memorandum of cooperation in April 2016.

This bill makes minor consequential amendments to the Corporations (Review Fees) Act 2003 (review fees act) stemming from the Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018 (passport bill). It updates the definition of 'review date' to be consistent with the passport bill and includes notified foreign passport funds in the list of entities required to pay review fees.

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

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (10:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The coalition government is introducing a new era of superannuation guarantee enforcement.

This government has introduced a robust package of legislation into parliament that will, when enacted, mean dodgy employers can't hide from their obligations to pay employees their full superannuation entitlements. This bill gives the ATO the tools it needs to detect future noncompliance and punish it appropriately, including with criminal sanctions in the most egregious cases.

But we know that historical noncompliance has been significant. Last year the Australian Taxation Office found that, while 95 per cent of superannuation guarantee obligations are paid in full, in 2014-15, around $2.85 billion went unpaid.

Some superannuation guarantee underpayment is malicious on the part of dodgy employers. Some is inadvertent, or is as a result of poor payment systems, often in stressed small business employers. However, in all cases, it's the employees who miss out.

This bill introduces a one-off amnesty to employers who come forward and do the right thing by their employees by rectifying historical noncompliance with their superannuation guarantee obligations.

To qualify, employers will have to come forward voluntarily, without direct prompting from the ATO. And they will have to pay all of their employees' entitlements.

We want employers to bring these debts out into the open and pay them off so that their employees can receive the superannuation that they are entitled to and would otherwise miss out on.

The bill offers both a carrot and a stick approach to encourage non-complying employers to come forward.

The bill does not reduce employees' entitlements by one cent. Everything that an employer owes its employees must still be paid, and paid in full.

Rather, the bill removes the penalties and fees paid to the Commonwealth that might otherwise apply to historical superannuation guarantee noncompliance by employers that are eligible for the amnesty.

Employers who do the right thing and come forward during the amnesty period will also be able to claim tax deductions for payments made under the amnesty, which is the same outcome as if they had paid on time.

Those are the carrots.

The stick will be reserved for employers that could come forward during the amnesty but choose not to do so and are subsequently caught by the ATO. Their failure to come forward will be taken into account by the ATO, which will generally impose a minimum 50 per cent penalty on the employer on top of the other penalties and charges that are ordinarily associated with late payment of superannuation guarantee obligations.

Of course, throughout the amnesty period, the ATO will still continue its usual enforcement activity against employers for any historical noncompliance that they don't own up to voluntarily.

The amnesty runs for twelve months, beginning today, and applies to any historical superannuation guarantee debts up to and including the March quarter of 2018.

The bill also introduces an employer shortfall exemption certificate for certain employees with multiple employers. Currently, employees can breach the concessional contributions cap from compulsory contributions where they have multiple employers.

This measure will allow certain employees to avoid this outcome by applying to the Commissioner of Taxation for an exemption certificate in respect of one or more of their employers. A certificate will mean that their employer does not have to make superannuation guarantee contributions for them for up to one year. It will also mean employees are not forced to breach their concessional cap and enable those employees to instead choose to negotiate with their employer to receive the superannuation guarantee contribution as part of their cash or non-cash remuneration.

To be eligible for a certificate, an employee must be likely to have excess concessional contributions for the financial year and have at least one other employer who is required to make superannuation guarantee contributions for them in that year. This targets the measure to those employees likely to breach the concessional cap because they have multiple employers and ensures that employees still receive superannuation guarantee contributions from their employment.

The bill also introduces reforms to further support the operation and integrity of the superannuation taxation reform package announced in the 2016-17 budget. These measures ensure our superannuation system is fair, sustainable and used for its core purpose of providing income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension. The amendments also improve confidence in the system by reducing the extent that superannuation is used for tax minimisation and estate planning.

The amendments address the possibility of self-managed superannuation fund members' circumventing the cap on tax-free retirement phase assets through limited recourse borrowing arrangements or non-arm's-length income.

The bill includes the outstanding value of limited recourse borrowing arrangements—or LRBAs—in the total superannuation balance of SMSF members at particular risk of entering into certain tax minimisation strategies. This measure will stop those members using LRBAs to circumvent the $1.6 million limit on non-concessional contributions.

The bill also amends the existing non-arm's-length income rules to also capture non-arm's-length expenses. This will ensure that superannuation funds cannot circumvent the contribution caps by using non-arm's-length expenditure to inflate their overall income, for example, by borrowing money from a member at a reduced interest rate.

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

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (10:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce a bill that delivers on the government's commitment that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission costs for specific regulatory activities requested by an entity should be fully recovered from that entity. This is referred to as 'fees-for-service' and is the second and final phase of the ASIC industry funding model and will commence on 1 July 2018.

The first phase of the industry funding model commenced on 1 July 2017. This enabled ASIC to recover costs associated with its general regulatory activities via levies. This involves ASIC's regulatory costs being allocated across 48 industry subsectors based on the actual costs of ASIC's regulation of each subsector in the previous financial year.

The industry funding model's introduction has had significant benefits, including:

improving equity, as only those entities that are regulated by ASIC and create the need for regulation will bear its costs, rather than ordinary taxpayers;

encouraging regulatory compliance, as good conduct will reduce supervisory levies;

improving ASIC's resource allocation, by providing ASIC with richer data to better identify emerging risks; and

enhancing ASIC transparency and accountability.

The current fees charged for the services and activities ASIC provides is not a true reflection of the actual costs incurred by ASIC. Historically, these services and activities have only attracted a nominal fee. As a result, any difference between the fee an entity pays and the actual costs incurred by ASIC is subsidised by taxpayers.

To give effect to the government's commitment, this bill amends the Corporations (Fees) Act 2001 to:

set that a fee for a chargeable matter may not exceed $200,000;

set that a fee or sum of fees for a chargeable matter may not exceed $300,000, except for services in relation to a market licensee and a particular or potential conflict. The total fee may not exceed $300,000 in a 12-month period;

expand the meaning of a chargeable matter and define who is liable to pay and when the payment is to occur; and

provide ASIC with a legislative instrument making power to enable ASIC to determine the criteria for whether a type of application for a particular regulatory service that is to be charged, is low, medium or high complexity. In the event that a legislative instrument is not made, the default fee will be the lowest fee in that category.

These amendments will allow ASIC to better align its fees with the costs ASIC incurs when providing regulatory services to a specific entity—such as processing a licence or registration application—provided that the fee directly represents the efficient costs of providing the regulatory activity or service.

These fee amounts will be reviewed every three years. The review process will involve a public consultation process utilising a cost recovery implementation statement. Both the cost recovery implementation statement for fees for service, and for levies, will identify and explain all proposed changes to fees or levies. The cost recovery implementation statement must include a summary of the consultation process, the issues raised, how those issues have been considered and an explanation of the costing model for the activity. In addition, ASIC will include industry funding on the agenda of all their external committees and panels for consideration, with a particular focus on seeking feedback during the annual cost recovery implementation statement consultation process, as an extra accountability mechanism. The government will review this industry funding model accountability framework in three years.

Further complementary amendments are given effect and described in the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018, the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018.

The fees attached to ASIC forms relating to updating an ASIC registry database are not in scope for industry funding and will not be recovered under this model. The fees for lodging these forms will continue to be set separately.

This bill gives effect to the government's commitment in accepting recommendation 29 of the financial system inquiry to introduce an industry funding model for ASIC.

The government has consulted extensively with industry on the design of the ASIC industry funding model. Nearly 300 submissions were received and considered.

Subsequently, public consultation on the introduction of the fees-for-service regime was conducted between November and December 2017. Public consultation on the draft legislation was undertaken in April 2018.

This builds on other key initiatives undertaken by this government to ensure ASIC has the powers it needs to promote trust and confidence in the financial system, including:

establishing and implementing the recommendations of the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce, to substantially increase the penalties available to ASIC and to boost its regulatory toolkit;

appointing a new ASIC Chairman, James Shipton, who brings deep regulatory and financial market knowledge to the role;

creating a second Deputy Chairman role with a focus on enforcement, and appointing the highly regarded Daniel Crennan QC to this position;

legislating to remove ASIC employees from the Public Service Act, to enhance ASIC's ability to attract and retain the best staff; and

legislating to include competition considerations within ASIC's mandate.

The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

In conclusion, the introduction of the second and final phase of the ASIC industry funding model is a critical component of the government's reforms to strengthen ASIC and better protect Australian consumers. Industry funding ensures that the costs of regulation are borne by those that have created the need for it, rather than Australian taxpayers. These amendments allow ASIC to better align its fees, by enabling ASIC to charge a cost reflective fee for the services it provides for a specific entity.

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

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (10:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's costs for specific regulatory activities requested by an entity should be fully recovered from that entity.

To give effect to the government's commitment, this bill amends the Credit Fees Act to state that the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Regulation 2010 may allow for a particular chargeable matter, different fees based on the type of entity.

This amendment will allow ASIC to better align its fees with the costs ASIC incurs when providing regulatory services to a specific entity—such as processing a licence or registration application—provided that the fee directly represents the efficient costs of providing the regulatory activity or service.

Further complementary amendments are given effect and described in the Corporations (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018; the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018; and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018.

The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations has been notified in relation to this bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

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

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (10:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's costs for specific regulatory activities requested by an entity should be fully recovered from that entity.

To give effect to the government's commitment, this bill amends the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Act 2012 to set that a fee in relation to applications to be a self-managed superannuation fund auditor may not exceed $3,000.

This amendment allows ASIC to better align its fees with the costs ASIC incurs when providing their regulatory services in relation to applications to be a SMSF auditor.

Further complementary amendments are given effect and described in the Corporations (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018; the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018; and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018.

The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to these bills as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

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

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (10:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's costs for specific regulatory activities requested by an entity should be fully recovered from that entity.

To give effect to the government's commitment, this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to allow ASIC to recover costs in relation to an application to vary or revoke the conditions or cancel the registration of an approved self-managed superannuation fund auditor.

Specifically, the SIS Actis amended to allow the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Regulation 2012to provide for two new fees in relation to an application to vary or revoke the conditions or cancel the registration of an approved SMSF auditor.

This amendment will allow ASIC to better align its fees with the costs ASIC incurs when providing regulatory services on this matter—provided that the fee directly represents the efficient costs of providing the regulatory activity or service.

At the same time, the annual statement lodgement fees will be removed for SMSF auditors. This change will be given effect in the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Regulation 2012.

Further complementary amendments are given effect and described in the Corporations (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018; the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018; and the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018.

The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to these bills as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (10:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018 will increase criminal penalties and introduce new criminal offences and civil penalties for conduct that is unacceptable for live-stock exporters.

Those who obstruct or hinder an accredited veterinarian or an authorised officer, or dishonestly influence any person performing their functions or duties, or exercising powers in relation to an export program, will be penalised.

Exporters who commit an offence, intending to obtain a commercial advantage over their competitors, or by committing an offence cause economic consequences for Australia, will face penalties.

Executive officers who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the contravention of certain provisions of the law will also be held personally liable.

Courts will be empowered to make adverse publicity orders, to name and shame those who commit offences or contravene civil penalty provisions.

Infringement notices will also be able to be issued in certain circumstances.

In bringing forward this bill, we will ensure that penalties and sanctions in legislation governing live-stock exports are high enough to provide the level of deterrence and punishment necessary to protect the animals carried on export voyages. We do not want the financial and other penalties to simply be viewed as a 'cost of doing business'.

Live-stock exports are a legitimate business option for our farmers and were worth over $1.4 billion in 2016-17. The livelihoods of farmers across Western Australia and parts of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, as well as 1,800 jobs, depend on the live sheep trade.

These are real people with real bills to pay. Any decisions regarding live-stock exports must not be taken lightly—rather, decisions must be based on science and evidence.

The calls to ban live-stock exports disregard the value of this trade to our farmers and others in rural and regional Australia. Banning, or even suspending, live-stock exports at this time is simply a 'knee-jerk' reaction, and would be a poorly considered decision.

It's amazing how quickly we have forgotten the 2011 suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia and its impacts on farming families. These impacts were felt through the whole supply chain and included businesses that provide transport, mustering, feed and agistment services.

The government has moved quickly to make changes to improve the welfare of our exported livestock. Independent observers were immediately placed on vessels carrying our livestock to the Middle East, and three important reviews are being progressed. The government has accepted all recommendations from the McCarthy review of sheep exports to Middle East during the northern summer, which was released on 17 May 2018.

The review of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock and the review into the capability, powers and culture of the independent regulator will be reporting to government in due course.

Each of these measures are critical and we will do what is necessary to support our farmers and maintain our reputation as a world leader in good animal welfare practices.

This bill is another important part of the government's plan to address animal welfare concerns with livestock exports. We need to ensure that there are appropriate regulatory settings and enforcement tools to provide the right levels of deterrence and punishment. This bill will strengthen measures to deter and punish wrongdoers.

Of course, the penalties and sanctions available under this bill will not be a concern for livestock exporters who meet their obligations. However, for those that would seek to flout our laws, the full force of those laws will be felt.

The government supports the farmers who rely on live export, and the exporters who do the right thing. The government is also committed to providing the standards of animal welfare Australians expect. We need this trade to be conducted properly and sustainably.

Our farmers, the Australian community more broadly, and our trading partners should have confidence in the livestock export industry. This bill is a step in building that confidence.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General) (10:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian government is committed to ensuring the safety and protection of the Australian community. Law enforcement and security agencies must have access to the tools and capabilities that they need to manage the ever-evolving terrorist threat.

To this end, and consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, this bill extends the counterterrorism powers and offences that are scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2018.

The control order regime, the preventative detention order regime, the declared areas offences, and the stop, search and seizure powers will continue for a further three years, until 7 September 2021.

With respect to control orders under division 104 of the Criminal Code, they are a preventative tool designed to disrupt planning for terrorist acts. They allow for the overt, close monitoring of terrorist suspects who pose a risk to the community—either directly, or by facilitating others. Each of the controls in a control order must be reasonably appropriate and adapted to protect the public from a terrorist attack.

With respect to preventative detention orders under division 105 of the Criminal Code, they are also an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist attack. They allow a person to be detained without charge to prevent a terrorist act or to preserve evidence of such an act. The gravity of these powers means that they can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within a 14-day period.

The declared areas offences in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code form part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters. They make it an offence to enter, or remain in, conflict zones in a foreign country in which terrorist organisations operate and that is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There are only very limited reasons for entering such an area, other than to participate in the conflict or train with terrorist organisations. The offences recognise this by allowing for a very small range of exceptions.

Finally, the stop, search and seizure powers in division 3A of the Crimes Act give police officers appropriate powers to act in the event of, or in anticipation of, a terrorist act. These powers allow police to request a person to provide their name, address and certain other details, to stop and detain a person to conduct a search for terrorism related items, to seize terrorism related items in Commonwealth places such as airports, and to enter premises without a warrant to prevent a terrorist act or avert a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.

These powers and offences have been used rarely since they were enacted. Six control orders have been made since 2005. There have been no preventative detention orders made as of yet, and no incidents demanding the use of the stop, search and seizure powers. As the PJCIS and INSLM both recognised, the sparing use of these powers is not an argument that they are irrelevant. Rather, it underscores that the AFP and others have been appropriately judicious in exercising these serious powers, and that the extreme circumstances for using a number of them have thankfully not yet arisen.

The bill will also continue the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's questioning, and questioning and detention powers, in division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. These powers will be extended for a further 12 months until September 2019.

This will enable the government to consider the PJCIS's recommendations in relation to ASIO's powers. In the meantime, ASIO will continue to have access to these important tools in its efforts to gather critical intelligence to enhance Australia's counterterrorism efforts.

Importantly, all the extended regimes will continue to be subject to the extensive, and in some cases extended, safeguards and oversight mechanisms that are appropriate.

Other technical changes

There are some other technical changes contained in this bill, insofar as the bill also makes a number of technical and procedural changes to implement other PJCIS and INSLM recommendations about control orders and declared areas.

The bill will extend the minimum time period between an interim and a confirmation hearing for a control order from 72 hours to seven days. This will more realistically reflect the minimum time it takes for both parties to prepare for confirmation proceedings, which are sometimes quite complex.

The bill will also allow the person the subject of a control order or the AFP to apply to vary an interim control order, but only with the other party's consent. This is to provide flexibility for both parties to seek minor changes to the original terms of an interim order, but not the substantive terms of the order.

Further, the bill will make clear that a court generally cannot order costs against the subject of control order proceedings. This reflects the AFP's longstanding practice, and recognises the significance of control order proceedings. However, the bill will allow the AFP to seek costs where the subject of the proceedings has conducted their case unreasonably.

In relation to the declared area offence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be authorised to revoke a declaration of a declared area even where the legislative test for the declaration continues to be met. This will allow the minister to revoke a declaration that may be no longer necessary or desirable, but where hostilities against a terrorist organisation may still be ongoing.

The bill will also amend the list of legitimate purposes for entering a declared area so that it more clearly allows for the important role that the International Committee of the Red Cross performs in conflict situations.

Additional oversight

With respect to additional oversight, with such counterterrorism powers and offences come very important responsibilities. Therefore the bill will require information on the exercise of these powers to be collected and introduce additional oversight measures.

The AFP will be required to notify the PJCIS in writing after the making of an initial or continued preventative detention order or a prohibited contact order. These measures provide the PJCIS with additional oversight of these orders.

The PJCIS will also have the power to report to parliament on any declaration made by the foreign minister under section 119.3 of the Criminal Code at any time whilst a declaration is in effect, including during the disallowance period.

The bill also implements PJCIS recommendations in relation to reporting on the use of stop, search and seizure powers in division 3 of part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914. There are currently no such reporting obligations. The bill will require the AFP to report as soon as practicable after the exercise of these powers and require the minister to table an annual report on the exercise of the powers. These measures will thus provide enhanced transparency and oversight.

The important functions of the PJCIS will also be further strengthened through amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The PJCIS will continue to have a duty to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the control order, preventative detention order, declared areas offences, and stop, search and seizure powers. As with its recent statutory review, the PJCIS will be required to provide a further report on the extended legislative regimes by 7 January 2021.

The PJCIS will also be empowered to monitor and review the performance by the AFP of its functions under division 3A of part IAA of the Crimes Act, and the exercise of the Minister for Home Affairs' power to declare prescribed security zones.

Minor machinery of government changes

Finally, the bill makes technical amendments to the Criminal Code to reflect the new division of responsibilities between the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs following the recent machinery of government arrangements.

Concluding remarks

By way of conclusion, I would note that this bill ensures law enforcement and security agencies continue to have the capabilities to deal with the changing national security and threat environment while also protecting individual rights, including through further transparency and oversight measures.

The measures in this bill implement the first part of the government's response to the recommendations of the PJCIS and the INSLM's recent reviews. The second part of the government's response to these reports—which concerns the creation of an extended supervision order regime—will form part of a further bill to be introduced later in 2018.

The PJCIS and INSLM have comprehensively examined the counterterrorism provisions addressed in this bill and have recommended, in light of the current threat environment, that they be continued. I acknowledge and appreciate the extensive and continuing work of the PJCIS and INSLM.

I also appreciate the ongoing partnership with states and territories in our joint effort to keep the Australian community safe.

To this end, this government is unwavering in its commitment to ensuring Australia's counterterrorism and national security framework continues to be as robust and responsive as possible.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General) (10:36): I table the government response to the reports by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor on the reviews of stop, search and seizure powers, control orders and preventative detention orders, and declared area provisions.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (10:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018.

The bill has six schedules and would implement several new initiatives to deliver a range of services to veterans and their families to give them the support and services they need.

As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs I recognise the Australian community has a clear expectation veterans and their families will be well looked after, long after their service ends.

This bill demonstrates the commitment this government made in 2016 to put veterans first and continues on from the eight measures we introduced earlier this year under the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Act 2018.

Schedule 1 of the bill would enable a veteran who is studying full time as part of an approved return to work rehabilitation plan to be paid their incapacity payments at 100 per cent of their normal weekly earning after 45 weeks.

Currently, a person's incapacity payments 'step down' to 75 per cent (or a higher percentage depending on weekly hours worked) of normal earnings after a period of 45 weeks.

We know the best type of support for our ex-service men and women is the economic independence that comes with a job.

Which is why we will continue to promote employment for veterans by ensuring the business community recognises the many benefits of employing a veteran.

Quite simply, it's good for your business to employ a veteran. They bring skills of leadership, discipline, teamwork and patriotism, which will benefit businesses around Australia.

We want to encourage and support our veterans to get back into the workforce, and assisting them financially while they study as part of a rehabilitation plan is one important way we can do this. Participation in a Department of Veterans' Affairs rehabilitation plan may include study to assist a veteran in returning to ongoing meaningful employment outside of the Australian Defence Force. For veterans participating in a rehabilitation plan, and in approved full-time study, their incapacity payment will not be reduced after 45 weeks.

Injured veterans are naturally concerned about financial security not only for themselves but also for their family. These amendments will allow those former members studying full time as part of their approved rehabilitation plan to focus on their study and not be concerned about financial matters.

As we know more than 5,000 men and women leave the service each year. This measure aims to make a real difference to how injured service men and women who are leaving the Australian Defence Force manage the transition to civilian life, in particular for those undertaking full-time study. This measure promotes veterans' employment and builds on the jobs and growth measures announced in the 2017-18 budget.

Schedule 2 of the bill would give effect to a new Veteran Suicide Prevention pilot.

Reducing suicide, including among veterans, is a key priority for the government. Consistent with this focus, the government is committed to improving veterans' mental health. Suicide is an issue that affects many Australians, and the ex-serving community, tragically, is not immune. The 2017 National Mental Health Commission's review of suicide prevention services reinforces that suicide prevention is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted service response.

The government takes this issue seriously and is working to ensure that members of the ex-serving community experiencing mental health issues can access the support they need. The Veteran Suicide Prevention pilot will provide mental health support for veterans who have been hospitalised after attempted suicide, suicide ideation or who may be at increased risk of suicide because of their mental health or other factors. The Veteran Suicide Prevention pilot will target a small subset of veterans with complex mental and social health needs, including homelessness.

The pilot will deliver a 'step down' service that takes into account factors that may lead to suicide, such as primary health, financial stress, housing and employment. The Veteran Suicide Prevention pilot will provide intensive services to ensure the veterans are accessing treatment and provide support to reduce the risk of suicide and enhance their quality of life.

This measure not only sets out to provide intensive support for up to 100 veterans who have complex mental health challenges but its evaluation will also inform future policy direction for veterans' mental health services.

Schedule 3 would give partners under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 more time to choose whether to receive the compensation payable for their partner's death as a weekly payment, lump sum or a combination of both.

The proposed amendments would give partners, during what is a very difficult time, two years rather than the current six months to decide how they would like to receive their compensation.

The commission would retain the discretion to extend the time frame within which a partner can ask for more time to decide how they would like to receive their compensation, where special circumstances exist, beyond two years. This may be the case where there are complicated family law issues to be resolved, for example.

This measure demonstrates this government is listening and is putting the veteran community at the centre of decision-making so partners and families can determine when they are ready to decide when and how they receive the compensation and support that they need.

Schedule 4 would extend the Long Tan Bursary to the grandchildren of an Australian Vietnam veteran, who has operational service in Vietnam. The Long Tan Bursary is part of the Veterans' Children Education Scheme.

Currently, the Long Tan Bursary scheme is limited to eligible children of an Australian Vietnam veteran. The proposed amendments would extend the eligibility so that an eligible grandchild of an Australian Vietnam veteran who has operational service in Vietnam, may apply for and be granted a Long Tan bursary to enable them to undertake post-secondary education.

The children of Vietnam veterans will remain eligible and their applications for Long Tan bursaries will be given first priority during the assessment process. This honours the original intent of the scheme.

It also demonstrates how we continue to recognise the important contribution of the Vietnam veterans who have given so much to our country to protect our great nation and freedoms and way of life. It is only right we support them and their families.

Schedule 5 would deem a submariner's service on a submarine between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992 as operational service, where they served on a submarine special operation during that period.

A deeming provision will enable all submarine service during this period, by persons who have served on submarine special operations, to be treated as operational service. This provision will address the difficulties in determining whether an injury sustained or disease contracted by a submariner is related to service on a secret operation.

This amendment will ensure the classified nature of information about submarine special operations does not hinder access by these personnel to the benefits and entitlements available to those with operational service. In addition, this means submariners who are deemed to have operational service will have their claims assessed against the more generous provisions than those that apply to peacetime service.

This measure gives full effect to the intent of the Clarke review and will benefit those veterans and their widowers to be able to access the benefits to which they are entitled.

Schedule 6 would enable veterans with Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 coverage to lodge a claim for compensation orally. This amendment supports the veteran-centric reforms being made by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and will lead to improvements for clients.

Currently, a claim for compensation must be made in writing and is distinct from a claim of liability. For those clients who wish to do so, they will be able to continue to make a written claim for compensation.

However, the amendments would mean a client will be asked during a needs assessment telephone call whether they want to make a claim for compensation and their oral statement will be treated as a valid claim under the act.

This means a client will have the option to make a claim for compensation in writing or orally. This is all about making it easier for our clients to engage with us.

This demonstrates this government has listened to the concerns and frustrations of veterans and their families and is committed to put them first and at the centre of the decisions we make.

Each of the set of amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families.

I commend this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (10:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill 2018 contributes to the implementation of the Australian government's 2015-16 budget decision to work with the sector to develop a new unified quality framework, which includes a single set of consumer focused quality standards which will apply across all aged-care programs.

This bill lays the foundation for the introduction of a single set of aged-care standards, to be called the Aged Care Quality Standards, to apply to providers of Commonwealth funded aged care.

The single quality framework places consumers at the centre of their care and focuses on giving people greater choice and flexibility. It is part of the reforms being progressively implemented in aged care to create a competitive, market-based system where consumers drive quality and where red tape is reduced for providers of aged care.

By providing for a single set of standards that apply across all aged-care programs, the amendments are intended to, once implemented, drive improvements to the quality of care delivered to older Australians, decrease regulatory burden on aged-care providers and encourage innovation, excellence and continuous improvement.

Currently, there are four sets of quality standards that apply to providers of aged-care services:

Accreditation Standards, which apply to residential aged-care services and some forms of flexible care;

Home Care Standards, which apply to home-care services, Commonwealth Home Support Program services, and some forms of flexible care;

Transition Care Standards, which apply to providers of transition care; and

the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program quality framework, which applies to providers under that program.

With these amendments, provision will be made for the same set of quality standards to apply across all types of aged-care services for the first time. The introduction of the new standards will also reflect contemporary evidence and community expectations of the quality of care and services, with the Accreditation Standards being updated for the first time in 20 years.

The Aged Care Quality Standards will be enacted through amendments to the Quality of Care Principles 2014, issued by the Minister for Aged Care under the Aged Care Act 1997, consistent with the manner in which current Accreditation Standards and Home Care Standards have been issued. Principles are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance, meaning that the final content of the Aged Care Quality Standards will be able to be transparently reviewed by parliament.

A single set of standards will increase consistency across aged-care services and make it easier for consumers, and their families, carers, and representatives, to make choices about care and services, including as care needs change. Not only will the standards focus on quality and safety for consumers, they will also encourage providers to offer care and services that promote quality of life and wellbeing by placing greater emphasis on consumer choice and identity and partnering with the consumers in their care.

The Aged Care Quality Standards to be made under the reforms in this bill have been developed through significant consultation and co-designed with the aged-care sector. The Department of Health has undertaken research and consultation with the public, the aged-care sector, and other government organisations. A standards technical advisory group was also established by the department. The Australian Aged Care Quality Agency is developing guidance and educational material to support assessment of the standards, and has conducted field testing of the draft set of standards.

In October 2017, the government released the Review of national aged care regulatory processes which included recommendations regarding the content of aged-care quality standards. These recommendations are being addressed through the new Aged Care Quality Standards.

The bill also makes amendments to the Australian Aged Care Quality Act 2013, to provide the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency with the power to accredit residential aged-care services and to conduct quality reviews of home-care service providers, in accordance with the standards of the new Aged Care Quality Standards.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency will also have the power to assess the quality of flexible care services, Commonwealth Home Support services and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program services, through a specification instrument made by the Minister for Aged Care.

The bill also makes amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 so that protected information is exempt from the provisions of that act. Protected information is information collected by the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency in the course of its functions that is either personal information or information that relates to the affairs of an approved provider. The Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Act 2013 already contains criminal penalty provisions for unauthorised disclosure of protected information.

The Aged Care Quality Standards are an important part of the broader aged-care regulatory framework—they promote consumer confidence that Australian government funded aged-care services are safe and of a consistent quality, by setting out core expectations that apply across all services. This bill is an important part of the government's reforms to promote quality aged-care services that focus on outcomes for consumers.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (10:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill implements a range of measures including the OECD hybrid mismatch rules, which are designed to strengthen the integrity of the tax system, continuing the Turnbull government's work on combating multinational tax avoidance. It also includes an amendment to strengthen the Producer Offset and encourage filmmakers to employ Australian cast and crew, as well as measures to provide tax exemptions to support the International Cricket Council to hold the World Twenty20 in Australia and an update to the registered list of Deductible Gift Recipients.

Schedules 1 and 2 to this bill further reinforce the government's commitment to tackling multinational tax avoidance, by implementing the OECD's hybrid mismatch rules, as first announced in the 2016-17 budget.

The OECD's hybrid mismatch rules are one of 15 actions resulting from the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project.

Under this government Australia continues to be a strong supporter of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project and remains at the forefront of global efforts to address multinational tax avoidance.

The hybrid mismatch rules build upon previous actions by this government on tax avoidance including the introduction of stronger transfer pricing rules, the multinational anti-avoidance law and the diverted profits tax. The government has also increased penalties for companies who fail to take reasonable care when making statements to the ATO and has expanded the ATO's capacity through the Tax Avoidance Taskforce.

These rules are designed to prevent multinational companies from exploiting differences in the tax treatment of instruments or entities between jurisdictions, which enable those companies to defer or reduce tax. The rules will also address situations where a company operates in multiple countries, each of which has a differing view about whether or not the company has a taxable presence in that particular jurisdiction.

The hybrid mismatch rules neutralise these mismatches by modifying the outcomes that arise under our income tax law. This includes disallowing an income tax deduction or including an amount in a taxpayer's assessable income.

The government has also extended the scope of the hybrid mismatch rules to include a targeted integrity rule. This rule will apply to taxpayers who attempt to circumvent the hybrid mismatch rules by routing funds through foreign interposed entities, with the aim of gaining an Australian income tax deduction and avoiding the hybrid mismatch rules.

As a result of these rules, multinational companies will no longer gain an unfair tax advantage compared to their solely Australian based counterparts. Furthermore, the hybrid rules will help to strengthen the integrity of the tax system both in Australia and overseas and prevent erosion of the global tax base by ensuring that multinational companies pay tax on their global operations and cannot exploit differences in the tax systems of different jurisdictions.

Schedule 3 to this bill clarifies the expenditure that can be claimed under the Producer Offset for films undertaking principal photography overseas.

The government is committed to supporting the Australian screen industry.

One of those mechanisms, the Producer Offset, allows production companies to claim a tax rebate on qualifying Australian production expenditure for films with significant Australian content. In situations where the subject matter of the Australian film reasonably requires shooting in a foreign location, some overseas expenditure may be claimed within this offset. For example, a documentary about Gallipoli would naturally require some filming to take place in Turkey.

The 'Gallipoli clause' outlines what expenditure can be claimed under the Producer Offset for films undertaking principal photography overseas. This amendment clarifies that only expenditure relating to services provided for the film by Australian residents in such 'Gallipoli' cases is eligible to be claimed under the Producer Offset. It will further encourage the employment and use of Australian cast and crew at all stages of production.

Schedule 4 to this bill will deliver on the government's 2018-19 budget commitment to provide a five-year income tax exemption to a subsidiary of the International Cricket Council for the ICC World Twenty20 in 2020.

The exemption will assist the International Cricket Council stage the ICC World Twenty20 in Australia.

The bill provides in particular an income tax exemption to the ICC Business Corporation FZ-LLC (referred to as the IBC) for the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023.

The bill will also provide the IBC an exemption from withholding tax liability for interest, dividend and royalty payments it receives for the same period.

The World Twenty20 is a great opportunity to showcase women's and men's cricket to all Australians and indeed the entire world. Therefore this is an important step in encouraging that.

Schedule 5 to this bill will include the Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee Inc. as a specifically listed deductible gift recipient between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. Deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to the Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee between those dates.

The Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee is a registered charity created to establish a war memorial in Melbourne to honour the service and sacrifices of the Australians who served in the Korean War between 1950 and 1953. Granting deductible gift recipient status to Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee will assist the organisation with fundraising for a very worthy and important cause.

Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister for Finance) (11:02): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Dubai World Exposition in 2020.

On 25 March 2018, the government announced Australia's participation at the 2020 World Exposition. Australia's participation at Expo 2020 presents a unique opportunity to deliver a distinct image of Australia in the Middle East. Through engaging exhibits and targeted business and cultural programs, Australia will be promoted as a secure destination for investment, a producer of innovative and high-quality products and a provider of quality education and other services.

Expo 2020 will be the first international expo held in the Middle East. Themed around mobility, sustainability and opportunity, it will take place in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, from 20 October 2020 to 10 April 2021. Expo 2020 is expected to attract more than 25 million visitors, with more than 70 per cent of visitors expected to come from outside the United Arab Emirates.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has responsibility for this project and will manage Australia's presence at the expo. The Public Works Committee has been briefed on the project by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and supports the project taking place. The Public Works Committee will maintain a connection to the project, receiving regular briefings and updates on the progress of the project as well as a post-implementation report.

Previous Australian pavilions at world expositions in Seville, in 1992; Hanover, in 2000; and Aichi, in 2005, were exempted from referral to the Public Works Committee on the grounds of urgency. Like these previous projects, the lead times between the announcement of Expo 2020 participation and the fixed deadline of the expo's opening are insufficient to undertake the design, build, statutory approvals and fit-out processes as well as accommodating a full formal Public Works Committee referral process. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister for Finance) (11:05): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Jindalee Operational Radar Network Phase 6 facilities project.

The Department of Defence is proposing to undertake a number of infrastructure works at Jindalee Operational Radar Network sites in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. The surveillance of Australia's air and sea space is a fundamental responsibility of the Australian Defence Force, and this surveillance capability is critical to providing border security through the detection, validation and tracking of air and surface targets. The 2016 Defence white paper noted the importance of the Jindalee Operational Radar Network and advised of the government's intention to upgrade the network. The works proposed will significantly upgrade the network's capability and effectiveness in line with innovation and technological advancements.

The total estimated cost of the infrastructure project is $50.7 million excluding GST. This includes management and design fees, construction costs, furniture, fittings and equipment, information and communications technology, contingencies, risk and escalation provisions. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants, contractors and construction workers, with up to approximately 200 personnel and an average construction workforce of up to approximately 15 personnel. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is planned to commence in early 2019 and be completed by late 2020. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Social Services) (11:07): I move:

That:

(1) a Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence be established to inquire into and report on matters relating to welfare dependence of families and outcomes for children, and in conducting the inquiry, the committee:

(a) examine the reasons for welfare dependence, with particular focus on why some families require welfare assistance for short periods only and why others become 'trapped' in the system;

(b) consider:

   (i) the factors preventing parents from gaining employment;

   (ii) the impact of intergenerational unemployment on children;

   (iii) the important role of parents as 'first teachers';

   (iv) a multi-generational approach which assists parents and their children together;

   (v) the impact, if any, of welfare in creating disadvantage; and

   (vi) the impact of economic development in different locations and geography;

(c) recommend options for:

   (i) breaking cycles of disadvantage;

   (ii) measuring the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions;

   (iii) the improvement of the financial capacity and security of families; and

   (iv) better coordinating services between tiers of government to support families; and

(d) consider any other related matter;

(2) the committee present an interim report on or before 20 September 2018 and its final report on or before 12 April 2019;

(3) the committee consist of eight members, five members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, and two members nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips and one non-aligned member;

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

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

(6) the committee elect a:

(a) Government member as its chair; and

(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

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

(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member and one non-Government member;

(10) the committee have power to:

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

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

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

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

(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

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

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

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

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

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

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (11:07): Two weeks ago, we saw a Joint Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence magically appear on the Notice Paper as a joint select committee. It was the first time anyone in this House had heard anything of it. Far be it from me to tell those opposite that the definition of the term 'joint' generally implies that something is shared. How could it be joint if no-one was ever consulted? Nobody ever spoke to anybody on this side of the House and, as far as we know, there was no consultation with anyone in the community sector.

So we actually went out, on the Labor side, and did the government's job and actually spoke to the key stakeholders in this area. Labor consulted with ACOSS, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Catholic Social Services and St Vincent de Paul. You know what? They all opposed the establishment of an inquiry framed to demonise those suffering disadvantage. These groups told me that family poverty, entrenched disadvantage, the structural and geographic forces that contribute to disadvantage, and best-practice interventions in breaking cycles of disadvantage should be the focus of any select committee.

Of course we agree that getting people into work should be a top priority of any government. Anyone who can work should be able to. The problem is there are 1.1 million Australians underemployed. We currently have around seven applicants for every job. We have very high youth unemployment, and long-term unemployment is actually on the rise. So Labor's view is we need to do everything we possibly can to address poverty and disadvantage and help people into work. The difference is we want to do it in a way that doesn't demonise vulnerable Australians who rely on our social security system. We don't agree with the terms of reference that are proposed by the government for this committee. I'm very concerned that the government wants to use complex social and economic problems to score political points. We do fear that the government will use this committee to just drop out sensational stories to push its political objective, which, we have seen over the last five years, is all about cutting our social security system.

You'd have to say this lot over there have got a lot of form—cutting hospitals and Medicare, cuts to schools, cuts to pensions, cuts to family payments, cuts to Newstart. Who could forget this is the government that wanted to make young unemployed people wait six months before they could access any income support? Who could forget that it was this government that wanted to cut the aged pension by $80 a week over 10 years? Who could forget that it was this government that wanted to cut family tax benefits by 8½ billion dollars? The Liberal National Party government wanted to take 8½ billion dollars out of family tax benefits. They still want to increase the aged pension age to 70. The conservatives' idea of welfare reform seems to just be, when you look at their record, to drive people into poverty and make it impossible for them to get out.

Australia does not need more unfair cuts. We don't need any more sensational stories that conform to the conservatives' ideological view of the undeserving poor. What we need in Australia is a new agenda for tackling inequality, a new approach to social policy, a new approach to addressing entrenched disadvantage. That's what this committee should be looking at. We actually believe, on this side of the House, in a society that protects and invests in people. A significant body of evidence also emphasises the need to focus on areas of deeply entrenched poverty and social exclusion. That's why Labor is committed to developing proposals to address severe disadvantage but we want to do so based on an understanding of the complexity of entrenched disadvantage, that it requires support and investment from before a child is born, in the early years—health and parenting support—to early and ongoing education, drug and alcohol and mental health supports and intensive efforts to help people into work.

There's already some great work going on around the country with different groups tackling disadvantage through collaborative location based approaches. I'm very glad the member for Rankin is in here because I wanted to mention the excellent work going on in Logan in South-East Queensland, an area that does have a very high percentage of children who are considered to be developmentally vulnerable and at risk associated with pockets of deep social disadvantage. For a long time, the service delivery system in Logan was considered to be inadequate to address these issues but Logan Together arose from the local community as a means to address these issues and aims to reduce the number of children who are developmentally vulnerable, and develop strong and stable families that have adequate access to resources and opportunities. That's the sort of thing that this committee should be looking at.

Labor also believes that social security payments should be targeted to those who need them most. Our priority is to make sure that vulnerable Australians have an adequate income. That's why we oppose the Turnbull government's plan that's in the parliament right now that would see Newstart cut by $8.80 a fortnight. That's actually what this government opposite wants to do. By contrast, Labor recognises that the current rate of Newstart is very low and is a barrier to finding work. That's why we want to undertake a root-and-branch review into Newstart. It is important to make sure that the changes are appropriate and fit within this broader framework that we think should apply to our social policy. We also believe we should be trying to ensure that people affected by disruption and change have the skills and support necessary for them to participate in Australia's economy. We believe in employment-centred economic growth that ensures opportunities are available to all Australians, including the long-term unemployed, to succeed. We don't accept the failed theory of trickle-down economics and unfair cuts to our social security system.

We are very, very disappointed with the terms of reference that the government wants to propose, but, of course, the government has the numbers. They're now creating this committee not as a joint committee; just as a committee of the House of Representatives—they've got the numbers to do so. Labor's representatives on the committee will do everything they possibly can to develop policies that will protect and support vulnerable Australians.

Question agreed to.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (11:17): The 14th of December 2017 is a day that I will never forget. It was the final hearing of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse. As I approached the building, I could see the unmistakable blue and yellow shirts of the Clannies standing out against the grey suits of downtown Sydney. The Clannies are, of course, the Care Leavers Australasia Network, a support group of survivors of child abuse. They were there with the irrepressible Leonie Sheedy—kind, determined and resilient. Leonie is one of the most remarkable people I've ever had the good fortune to meet.

There are so many people who've made an enormous contribution to the cause of justice for survivors of child sexual abuse, including Leonie and everyone at CLAN and Caroline, Carol and everyone from the Alliance for Forgotten Australians. I'll never forget Caroline telling me her story to help me understand the horror of what had been done to her and so many others. The late Anthony Foster and his wife, Chrissie. Chrissie and Anthony Foster discovered in the 1990s that two of their daughters, Emma and Katie, were raped by their local priest. Emma began harming herself after the trauma she experienced. In her teens, Katie was hit by a car, leaving her permanently disabled. In 2008, Emma died of an overdose. And so began Chrissie and Anthony's tireless fight for justice, taking on the Catholic Church and eventually suing the church, personally giving counsel and support to hundreds of survivors. To this day, Chrissie continues to be a powerful advocate for survivors, particularly on the issue of redress.

I remember Chrissie saying to me on that day that we must implement the recommendations of the royal commissioners. These commissioners, she said to me, were the people who had listened to the experiences of the survivors of child sexual abuse. The commissioners had spent five years considering their recommendations and they must not be ignored. The hearing room that day was packed, and as the commissioners very formally filed in there was a loud cheer. So many people had been heard. So many people had finally been believed. The people in the room that day and all the others who have been so badly abused are now relying on us to establish a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and we must not fail them. As the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan, chair of the royal commission, stated in his final address that day last December:

…the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of a child lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the problems faced by many people who have been abused are the responsibility of our entire society.

We, as lawmakers, must uphold our responsibilities to the survivors. We must not fail them as a society. We must not fail them again, and we must establish a national redress scheme, and this time we have to make sure we get it right. On the day that Prime Minister Gillard announced the establishment of the royal commission back in 2013, she said:

There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil.

I believe in these circumstances that it's appropriate for there to be a national response through a Royal Commission.

And she was right. Over the five years of the commission, there have been 57 public hearings held over 444 days. The commission heard evidence from 1,300 witnesses. Commissioners held almost 8,000 private sessions to listen to the personal accounts of survivors. There have been more than 2½ thousand referrals to authorities, including the police. The royal commission estimates that around 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions. It found that there were more than 4,000 institutions where sexual abuse took place. Thousands of vulnerable children were subjected to truly horrific sexual abuse in institutions right across Australia. Think about it: 20,000 people in 4,000 institutions—so widespread, so devastating.

I want to thank the survivors who gave evidence to the commission. I want to say to the survivors directly: without your extraordinary courage in giving evidence, the realities and extent of child sexual abuse would not have been truly recognised—I'm looking at the member for Swan—nor would the failure of institutions to respond to that abuse be fully known. I want to say loud and clear that I believe you. We, all of us here, believe you. The parliament of Australia believes you. I say this so sharply but also so sadly because, for years, these survivors were not believed. Your personal stories greatly contributed to the royal commission's recommendations, and none of us, I think, can allow any of these recommendations to sit on a shelf and be ignored.

The national redress scheme was recommended in the royal commission's interim redress and civil litigation report released in June 2015. The royal commission's case studies and private sessions made clear that many people, while children, were subjected to terrible sexual abuse in institutions. As the royal commission said, many of the injuries were severe and long-lasting. Many people have been and continue to be affected by injuries for the rest of their lives. It is the case that many, many survivors have still not had the opportunity to seek compensation for their injuries. The royal commission acknowledged:

… it cannot now be made feasible for many of those who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse to seek common law damages, there is a clear need to provide avenues for survivors to obtain effective redress for this past abuse.

The establishment of a national redress scheme will acknowledge the abuse that occurred. Labor understands—and I think everybody understands—that no amount of money can make up for the pain and trauma experienced. However, redress is a vital step along the path to healing—a vital step that we all have an obligation to put in place.

It's also important that, under this legislation, survivors will have the opportunity to receive a direct personal response from the participating institution or institutions responsible for the abuse. A direct personal response is a statement of acknowledgement, regret or apology and will be delivered to survivors by the relevant participating institution after the survivor has accepted the offer of redress. We did announce support for a national redress scheme back in October 2015 and, unfortunately, it has taken too long to get to this point. Nevertheless, we do welcome the recent significant progress that has seen the majority of states and territories sign up to the redress scheme and we strongly urge the remaining states and institutions that are yet to sign up to do as soon as possible. Access to redress must not depend on where you live.

The royal commission recommended that the Australian government announce a willingness to establish a single national redress scheme by the end of 2015 and that the scheme should be accepting applications by no later than 1 July last year, so it is very, very disappointing that this legislation is nearly a year late. But, that said, it is now time to get on with it.

The two bills that we're debating here today supersede the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Sexual Abuse 2017, otherwise known as the Commonwealth bill. The original 2017 bill would have created a redress scheme only for the few survivors whose abuse occurred in the territories and in Commonwealth institutions. Following the announcement that New South Wales and Victoria would join the scheme, the national bills that we're debating here today were drafted. On 17 May the New South Wales parliament passed redress legislation, and earlier this month legislation was also introduced into the Victorian parliament that will refer powers to the Commonwealth. On 30 April the Queensland government announced that they would opt in. The ACT and the Northern Territory have indicated their support, as has the Tasmanian government. That is very good news, and we certainly hope the remaining states will follow very quickly.

We have referred these bills to a short Senate inquiry to make sure that survivors of child sexual abuse get a redress scheme that they think—that they think, that the survivors think—is appropriate and fair. That inquiry will report by 15 June.

We of course want to see a national redress scheme established without further delay, so, as a gesture of good faith in our ongoing discussions with the government to resolve Labor's concerns, we will support this bill in the House today. I do, however, want to outline some of the continuing issues that Labor has with respect to the proposed redress scheme in the bill that we're debating. First, we do want to make sure that there are enough support services for all survivors of child sexual abuse and that they're accessible no matter where the survivor lives. Second, we want to make sure that survivors have sufficient time to decide whether or not to accept an offer of redress. The bill gives applicants at least six months to make this decision, while the royal commission recommended a year. It's very important that survivors have sufficient time to consider this decision, as only one application to the scheme is permitted. For many people, this will be a very emotional and overwhelming process. We must do what we can to make sure that people have a reasonable amount of time to work through their claims.

The next concern we have is the compensation amount. The bill places an upper limit of $150,000 on the amount of redress that would be payable to any one survivor. The royal commission recommended that the maximum payment be $200,000. Accepting an offer will also mean signing away any rights that any survivor may have to pursue their claim for compensation through litigation. That's why it's so important that the amount of redress available under the scheme is adequate.

We also want to make sure that anyone who is eligible for the scheme is able to get the redress that they deserve. We are very concerned that it could be possible, for a person whose abuse was not deemed the responsibility of government and for whom there is no remaining institution responsible, that they could be left with no avenue for redress. This outcome is unacceptable. We've sought urgent clarification from the minister and a guarantee that no-one will be left without any avenue to seek redress, either through the redress scheme or through civil litigation. This is an absolutely critical issue.

The indexation of past payments is a matter particularly close to the heart of many survivors who fought long and hard for compensation. The national bill sets the rate of this adjustment, specifying that an earlier amount received as compensation would be multiplied by 1.019 for each full year since the receipt of the original amount. The Care Leavers Australia Network has been campaigning for indexation to be dropped from the scheme. For many people, past compensation amounts were small. Legal fees often ate up a significant proportion of what people received. As a result, CLAN argue that it's unfair for the past redress amount to be indexed. I fear, as the survivors do, that some survivors who are eligible for redress will end up with nothing after indexation is applied because of previous compensation payments. Survivors have been waiting for many, many years for this redress scheme. We know that. In the event that someone gets no redress because of indexation, that would really be a devastating result. We know, of course, that redress is about more than money. It is a tangible recognition of the suffering experienced by survivors. We do not believe that past redress amounts should be indexed.

The bill also limits eligibility for the redress scheme to people who are living in Australia and who are Australian citizens. We know that horrific abuse occurred in institutions that cared for child migrants and that abuse of children has occurred in immigration detention. We're concerned that these people will not be able to access redress if they have returned to their country of birth. We also want to see the minister take the steps that are available under the proposed legislation to include former child migrants and immigration detainees who no longer live in Australia. This is an important issue of justice, and we're seeking a clear commitment from the government that these people will have access to the scheme.

I'm sure that all members agree that providing counselling to survivors is a top priority. We also know, each and every one of us, that no amount of money can make up for the pain and suffering endured. That said, access to good-quality counselling is vital. We are concerned that the counselling provided to survivors through the redress scheme will not be adequate. The royal commission recommended—and this is very important—that recipients of redress be able to access counselling for the rest of their lives. This bill only provides access to state provided services for the length of the scheme or a payment of up to $5,000 to be put towards counselling. Frankly, these arrangements are woefully inadequate. We, therefore, call on the government to give assurances that this will be addressed. Survivors often consider that government, particularly the state governments, are responsible for their abuse, so they do not necessarily want to use state- or institution-run services. So this needs to be taken into account when consideration is given to who delivers the services. Labor also holds concerns that survivors who are granted redress late in the life of the scheme could be disadvantaged if they're not able to access services for the same length of time as those survivors who are granted redress early in the life of the scheme. It's very important that this be taken into account in future reviews. For survivors who receive the $5,000 payment for counselling, this amount of money is highly unlikely to provide adequate access to support. It is critical that these issues are addressed urgently.

The government has sought to place restrictions on survivors from accessing the redress scheme who themselves have a criminal history. We also believe this is unfair. The bill requires that those who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more have special permission from the scheme operator to access the scheme. This rule ignores strong evidence that shows that people with a history of childhood abuse and trauma are more likely to be incarcerated later in life. The first Senate inquiry into these issues was inundated with evidence from a variety of witnesses and submitters that this rule is cruel and likely to increase recidivism. So we do believe that this policy should be changed.

That said, for all of these concerns, I do want to acknowledge that establishing this national redress scheme is a very, very complex task. I acknowledge the Minister for Social Services, Dan Tehan, for his diligence in getting the outcome that is before us today. It is, as I said earlier, very encouraging that most of the jurisdictions have already agreed to sign on, and I understand the other two are working closely with the government.

It is, next, imperative that those institutions responsible for the abuse of children sign up and pay redress. No institution should back out of its responsibility for the abuse of children that took place where it had responsibility to care for those children. There is still time to get this right, so I call on the government to consider the issues that I've raised today. I do want to make it clear that, if we are successful at the next election, a Labor government would seek to work with the states towards addressing the areas of concern that I've identified here in these remarks.

I want to finish by, once again, thanking the courageous survivors who shared their own personal stories of abuse at the royal commission. It was their evidence that enabled the royal commissioners and the Australian people to understand in some way the extent of their suffering. It's also why we're here today, debating this very important piece of legislation. I want to thank the royal commissioners—what an extraordinary group of people—and all the staff who supported the survivors to tell their accounts of abuse over many years of hearings. I want to thank Julia Gillard for establishing the royal commission. It was a very big decision. Nicola Roxon, who was the Attorney-General at the time, and I worked with Prime Minister Gillard to get this started.

The evidence presented to the royal commission shocked and appalled all Australians. It exposed heinous crimes. Listen to the forgotten. Believe those who had been for so long ignored. We understand the royal commissioners did not make their recommendations lightly. We do believe that all of their recommendations should be implemented faithfully, and the task for us all now in this parliament is to deliver a national redress scheme for survivors. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:39): I rise today in support of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018. I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Jagajaga. It has been a journey of many years for us, not only on the redress scheme but in dealing with victims of institutional sex abuse. The member for Jagajaga mentioned the work of the royal commission. She and I have heard many stories—she described them as heinous. We have heard tragic stories of things that should never occur in a civilised society. We have heard enormous stories about abuse in all manners and forms. The commission has listened to four or five years of that. I take my hat off to them and acknowledge their contribution to the legislation before the parliament today.

The member for Jagajaga was quite emotional during her speech—and I join with her and that. Jenny, I would like to come over and give you a hug—as we have done with many CLAN people over the years whom we have dealt with on this issue. I feel your lifelong passion in this parliament towards this achievement that is coming out today. When I leave this place, if I could talk about only one thing it would be the efforts we have made towards getting where we are today. I think both sides of the parliament need to be congratulated. There has been an effort from many of us to help these people.

It was 10 years ago that I delivered my maiden speech in this chamber, during which I said I wanted to draw attention to the national issue of institutional child sex abuse. As a former ward of the state, I saw it as my responsibility to champion the issues of care leavers and children who had suffered abuse in institutions across the country. For the last 10 years, I have continued to advocate for a redress scheme which would see institutions that inflicted this abuse held accountable for what they did to far too many of the nation's children.

The member for Jagajaga also mentioned in her speech that Peter McClellan had said it is a problem of our entire society. In my maiden speech, I mentioned a little girl named Shelley Ward. She wasn't in an institution but she starved to death in a home in New South Wales under the care of her own parents. We have heard the many stories about institutional child sex abuse over the last 10 years. They are often reflected in private homes around Australia as well, for which there is no form of redress at all under the system. After our achievement today, we need to look at child abuse in private homes and how the children continue to be returned to the abusers.

If there was one thing I could call for—and I know a lot of people don't agree—it would be the reintroduction of the death penalty for paedophiles and people who continually abuse children. I'm sure that won't get far, but it's a personal passion of mine.

Moving forward four years from my maiden speech, I, along with parliamentary colleagues, welcomed former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's announcement that a royal commission into institutional child sex abuse would be held—which I and a number of members on both sides of this chamber had called for. Again, the member for Jagajaga was influential in getting that over the line.

I note that the member for Maribyrnong is in the chamber. I congratulate him on his efforts. I congratulate the leaders of both sides of parliament who, during this time, have had people like me and Jenny continually knocking on their doors looking for their support for a national redress scheme. I acknowledge all the leaders. The Prime Minister has made promises about this. We all remember his speech where he uttered the words that the member for Jagajaga has just used: 'We believe you.' That was vitally important on the day of that apology.

Over the next five years, an extensive investigation into the wrongdoings of institutions was conducted. In March 2013 the Royal Commission Act was amended to allow for private sessions, the first being held in Sydney two months later. The first public hearing was held at the County Court of Victoria in April and, by June, the first issues paper was released allowing for individuals and organisations to contribute responses to the issues raised. The following April, in 2014, the first roundtable was held enabling representatives, regulators, policy experts, survivors and advocacy groups to discuss key policy issues. The interim report was released in June. Due to the scale of the evidence received, it was obvious the royal commission has only scratched the surface on this national issue. And so in September 2014, the royal commission was formally extended to December 2017—again, with the support of those opposite. The following three years saw the working-with-children checks report released, along with the redress and civil litigation report and the report on criminal justice. In March last year, the royal commission had its 57th and final public hearing. In December of 2017, the final report was presented to the Governor-General detailing the culmination of a five-year inquiry into institutional responses to child sexual abuse.

I would like to share some of the facts which the previous member mentioned on the royal commission with the House, which are available on the royal commission's website. I think they give insight into the scale of the royal commission. Over the five-year inquiry, there were 42,041 calls handled, 25,964 letters received, 8,013 private sessions held, and 2,575 referrals to authorities, including to the police. That's a staggering amount of referrals. It's an indictment on that period of time in our society. The royal commission identified more than 4,000 institutions where abuse took place. It estimates that almost 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions. In addition, more than 6,500 victims who gave private evidence said more than one person had abused them.

These aren't just statistics; these are experiences of real people, real Australians who were sexually abused by the people charged with their care and protection, charged to nurture them. No child should ever experience what they did. I've said in this chamber before that I can only imagine the horrific experiences people suffered. They missed out on the joys of being raised in a loving and nurturing family home. I remember early back in the time the member for Jagajaga talked about the courage of people giving evidence and relaying their stories.

I have an institution in my electorate which looks after young ladies who have been abused either sexually, physically or who have drug issues. I arranged for some care leavers to come and tell them their stories. These young ladies were in their early 20s. They sat around and listened to the stories of the care leavers and what they had experienced. I spoke to the lady who brought them to the meeting afterwards in my office. She said they cried all the way home. These were young ladies who thought they were having issues of their own but once they heard the care leavers' stories, they had forgotten about their own problems and realised that generations have been going through abuse and troubles in our society for a long time. Again, I say 'hats off' to these people who have the courage to not only tell the member for Jagajaga and myself their stories but to then relay them to commissioners, who they have no knowledge of and no affection with or anything like that, and for their desire to tell their stories to make sure that people nationally across this great country get the redress that they deserve.

As the member for Jagajaga said, it will never fix or compensate for the problems they have had but it's the aftercare response, the necessary care and welfare—psychologically and physically—that we need to make sure we provide these people with to make sure the rest of their lives are peaceful and in a good state. No child is responsible for the circumstances in which they are born or for the reasons they were put into care. Be it financial hardship, or the breakdown of a family unit, all children should feel safe and loved. This is where we failed them as a nation.

I will put a personal touch on it. Once I realised my own story, I researched my sister, Jennifer, and found that she had been put into an institution at the same time I had been, along with my brother, Raymond. Jennifer died at the age of 12 while she was under the care of an institution. When I accessed her Victorian Human Services records and read through them, the evidence was in the paperwork that she was systematically put through foster care homes and sexually and physically abused during her time in foster care homes—not while she was in the institutions but while she was in the foster care homes. Again, that's another area we need.

I take my hat off to foster parents. I had foster parents. But there were times when that evidence was there and was ignored as well by people in the institutions.

Unfortunately, she passed away at the age of 12, and I recently found her unmarked grave. She's now got a headstone on it. It was part of her journey that she was never recognised. She was buried in a pauper's grave. I found out that my own biological mother wouldn't pay for that, so there was never a headstone on her grave.

There are many stories like that across Australia, but that is just to give you some idea. There is a lot of emotion for these people. It affects all of us. Today, bringing this legislation before the parliament will help them. It won't give them compensation. It will never fix the problems that they suffer from, but it will support them, hopefully for the rest of their lives.

The psychological, physical and emotional injuries affect the survivor, as I just said, for the rest of their life. We have learned from the evidence taken that many of the survivors have had issues in their relationships with their own children and often in their dealings with authorities, issues stemming from the abuse they were subjected to as children. We heard the member for Jagajaga mention Leonie. When Leonie contacted me to assist her with the Care Leavers Australia Network on institutional child sexual abuse, she knew that I'd spent time in an institution. She asked me about my reactions and how I dealt with certain issues that I faced in life as I travelled through my life. She said, 'This is the standard response for people who have spent time in institutions.'

Leonie, hats off to you and the work that you and Joanna have done. Leonie always rings me up and says, 'Never give in,' and she hasn't given in in the whole battle that she's been through this whole time. She's actually taking over my office in a couple of weeks to have a CLAN meeting in Perth. We said: 'We need to find a location for you. Don't send out the invite until we've found it for you.' But she sent the invite out anyway, so she's taking over my office in couple of weeks. But that's part of the journey that the member for Jagajaga and, I know, the member for Blaxland have been through. Leonie's organisation is in your electorate, and you've been along for that journey as well, so hats off to you as well.

I'll be forever grateful to the survivors who bravely gave evidence to the commission for reliving their emotional, physical and sexual abuse and trauma while telling their personal stories. Without their courage and sharing their experiences, and without their bravery in having to detail and explain their ordeals, a scheme like this would never have been established.

On 4 November 2016, the coalition government announced the Commonwealth redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and on that day invited states, territories and non-government institutions to join the Commonwealth scheme to deliver redress to the survivors of these wrongs. Along with the member for Jagajaga, I hope that the final two states and the people and all the institutions get on board and come and join this redress scheme. I must say that it was a privilege for me to have been there on the day when the now Attorney-General, the former Minister for Social Services, made the announcement in my home town of Perth. I know this was a welcome announcement for my colleagues on both sides of the chamber.

Member for Jagajaga, I've put you in here. I've mentioned you a few times. It has been a privilege to work with you on this as well.

It's been a long journey to get here. It must feel like an eternity for the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. Through this journey I've had the privilege of meeting many of them. Many of them are incredible characters. Another thing that Leonie often says when she rings me up is, 'The jacks are on their way.' As a Victorian, I know who 'the jacks' are. They don't know who they are in Western Australia, but I know who they are in Victoria. The banter is still there. There have been many tears but many laughs along the way as well.

In the short time I have left, I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed, helped and assisted in getting to this point. Jenny, I heard your comments at the end of your speech. If there's any way I can assist in achieving the things which would give a better outcome for the survivors, I'll work with you on trying to achieve them. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (11:54): I thank the member for Swan for his words that we just listened to. I think a lot of Australians get rightly frustrated with parliament. They feel that we're not dealing with the issues which go to their daily lives. But sometimes you can hear speeches and contributions from across the political spectrum which I do think measure up to the hopes and ambitions which Australians rightly have of their parliament. This debate, I think, does pass the test of dealing with and improving the lives of Australians.

In saying that, I want to begin by acknowledging the magnificent Leonie Sheedy and her mighty CLAN army; Caroline, Carol and other members of the Alliance for Forgotten Australians; and Chrissie Foster and the late Anthony Foster. I want to acknowledge every survivor and loved one and carer that my colleagues and I have had the privilege to meet along the way—all those brave people who fought a very long battle to be heard. I say to you that the parliament of Australia is debating this legislation today because of your courage, because of your determination and because, somehow, you and other survivors and the people who love you found a strength which is quite frankly unimaginable in many circumstances, to refuse to be silenced, intimidated, ignored or, indeed, patronised. I want to thank the royal commissioners for the quite gruelling but thorough yet caring way they went about their work, and I want to acknowledge the work of the staff of the royal commission. I think it is appropriate to salute the leadership of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who had the conviction to establish the royal commission and put redress for child abuse on the national political agenda, and of course the member for Jagajaga, who's championed this cause for so long.

Within days of Prime Minister Gillard's announcement in 2013, Gerry Ann sent an email to the commission requesting a private session to tell her story. Over the next three years, she cancelled on numerous occasions. Sometimes she didn't feel psychological ready; sometimes she was just frustrated or disengaged. But one day, after reading reports of a particular priest's testimony, she ended up trying to take her own life, and ended in intensive care. This was a turning point for her. In 2015, with help from her daughter Rachel and from commission case workers, Gerry Ann came forward to tell her story. She said:

My time at [the orphanage] robbed me of my innocence, and set the benchmark of who I would become: frightened, petrified, scared, fearful, not worthy, introverted, isolated, segregated, sad and constantly suicidal. … My personality was destroyed by the very people that were supposed to protect me.

Gerry Ann's story is about the calculated, cold-hearted abuse of a scared but very precious little girl. It is unique to her.

Only she will ever know how dark the days were, just how deep the memories run, but it is the same trauma, the same betrayal and the same violation of sacred trust that fills the pages of the royal commission's final report. Thousands of our fellow Australians had their childhoods stolen and their faith in people shattered. Nine hundred orphanages across the time. Literally hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians. The scars still cover our nation: crimes that were ignored; people whose stories were ignored; perpetrators who were sheltered, quietly tut-tutted and moved on; institutions who protected their reputation rather than the children who were supposed to be in their care; and, of course, the graves of those who did not live to see justice done.

We understand that no set of words can make this right. No amount of compensation can restore a childhood. No dollar sum can put back together souls that have been broken. But we can in this place show perhaps a fraction—a portion—of the courage and resolve that survivors already have. What we can do is match words of sorrow with deeds of redress. What we must do is vow that this cannot happen again. We must ensure that every single survivor gets every dollar they deserve and every second of support they need. We must deliver on the recommendations of the royal commission and live up to its spirit.

A national redress scheme has been Labor policy since 2015. However, we are not the current government. Today we're required to vote and judge upon the basis of the government's proposal. It's a little-known fact that sometimes the hardest decisions for an opposition are not to decide what to oppose but what to agree to. Today we have to ask ourselves: is this legislation good enough? Is it the best deal that we can strike in the circumstances? It's not the legislation that a federal Labor government would have drafted, but that doesn't mean that I think that the federal government hasn't done its very best. It is hard work wrangling states and navigating the legal arguments and strengths of institutions with deep pockets. To the states and institutions yet to sign up, I would repeat what I have said on many occasions: the time for lawyers is over; the time for justice is here.

In our view, the legislation is an overdue step in the right direction, but it cannot be the end of the road. Labor will be voting for this bill before the House because we believe the start date of 1 July this year is vital and because, as an opposition, and on an issue like this, we should not seek to make the perfect the enemy of the acceptable. But, as the member for Jagajaga powerfully indicated, we do have concerns about aspects, important aspects, of the legislation and we are prepared to work in good faith with the government of the day to address these issues prior to the scheme commencing on 1 July. If we cannot solve these problems from opposition, we will sit down with the states and institutions to work on fixing them in government.

In large part, our concerns arise from when the government's legislation departs from the recommendations of the royal commission. For example, the royal commission recommended a maximum payment of $200,000. This legislation seeks to cap that at $150,000. It is near enough to vote for, but not enough to give up on. This isn't the time for haggling; it's not an opportunity to perhaps save $50,000. I think that Australians are more generous and more decent than this. I wonder, if we had a plebiscite on this question, whether or not Australians would vote for $150,000 or $200,000. The royal commission recommended survivors be given one year to decide whether to accept an offer of redress. Legislation gives them only six months. It is near enough, but perhaps not good enough. We're talking about a complex legal and emotional decision, because, by accepting the offer, you sign away your rights to litigation down the track. I think that, in this set of circumstances, every day does matter. After so many years of making Australians wait for justice, I do not feel comfortable in telling them that they must rush to a decision.

Of course, it's not just about the money. Support services are vital. The royal commission recommended survivors have access to counselling for the rest of their life. The legislation provides only for counselling services for the life of the scheme or to the value of $5,000. With regard to this particular proposal, I will not stand up in front of survivors and say that I think it is near enough. I will not say that this is all there should be. I think this is something we can work on fixing. I think we have a collective responsibility to make sure the right support services are available to every survivor, wherever they live and whatever language they speak. I do not regard the right to counselling as a charity to be rationed but a right that has been earned in the most unfortunate and undesirable of circumstances.

As it stands, this legislation limits redress to people living in Australia and to Australian citizens. Our nation has apologised to child migrants for the abuse they suffered in Australian institutions, but if, after what they've been through in this country, they've returned to their country of birth, I do not think that should put them beyond the umbrella of Australian justice. This legislation also seeks to place a restriction on access to the scheme for survivors who've served a prison sentence of five years or more. They would need special permission from the scheme operator to access redress. It is perhaps better than what was initially proposed, but I will not tell survivors that I think it is fair, because I do not believe that. I think it misunderstands or ignores the tragic reality that childhood abuse puts people on a path to incarceration later in life. What puts people into incarceration is a chain of events—it can be a range of circumstances—but, because of other mistakes, I do not see how we absolve ourselves of our contribution to that chain of events. The Senate inquiry heard a great deal of important evidence saying a provision like this not only was cruel but increases risk of reoffending. I think we need to revisit this restriction.

There is one final concern of ours, which is the indexation of past payments. It has been raised with me many times. Let me explain this briefly. As it stands, a small sum of compensation that someone received in the seventies, for example, will be subject to 40 years of indexation when their final redress amount is calculated. This could potentially create a set of circumstances where a survivor of abuse is left entitled to nothing on 1 July this year because of a token sum provided to fob off a claim not believed half a lifetime ago. I think, as a nation, we can do better, but I acknowledge that this legislation is an advance on where we are. I look at the end of Gerry Ann's testimony in 2016, she said:

I'm shutting Pandora's box this year … I've handed it to you now. It's not my problem anymore … I'm not carrying this anymore … It's not my guilt, my shame …

I say to Gerry Ann: you have no reason for guilt; no cause for shame. The system failed you; people betrayed you; the nation ignored you. But no more. No longer. Today we say that Australia believes you. The Parliament of Australia will do right by you.

Today is a most important start. It is a step forward after decades of inaction and denial. But today cannot, should not and must not be the end of the matter. On this question, near enough will never be the same as good enough. All of us in this place on all sides are measured by what we do next. I do not say that anyone can guarantee you that all of what is fair is what will be delivered. I do not say that it is automatic that all of the issues that we've raised here today will be fixed. There are hard conversations to be had with states and institutions, but let us all strive to deliver proper access to counselling, because injury is not time limited. Eliminate indexation of payments so survivors are not discounted and ripped off because of past decisions. Extend justice to forgotten Australians and to those whose childhood trauma saw them spend part of their adult life behind bars. And ensure that the levels of redress reflect the decency and generosity of Australian people.

When you stop to look at the photos, as I did, in the CLAN office, and you see how common the system of orphanages was for so long, and you see the photos and the faces of the boys and the girls in their second-hand uniforms, scrubbed up, you wonder what is really going on when that photo's not taken. When you look at how our fellow Australians who've survived can summon the courage to stare down dark corners of memories, and relive hard moments, I think that we can do better than near enough. We can do good enough.

In closing, for me, the reason why I support this legislation but will not tell people who survived that this is the end of the matter is that I wonder what would happen if my wife, Chloe, and I were no longer able to look after one of our kids. I wonder what would happen if one of our children went through a system and then came out the other end and were told, 'The legislation now deals with your matters.' I wouldn't want my children to be treated in this manner and I don't expect any other children to be treated in that manner either. I thank the House.

Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (12:08): I begin this story of support for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 by talking about the first person who came into my office—not about the tragedy of his life but of his journey of hope. Dr J Michael Davey told me his powerful and inspiring story. Fostered as a baby, Michael was placed with an abusive family and in four separate state-run institutions where he experienced physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of his carers. Kidnapped by his father, Michael eventually returned home, only to discover that his mother was a violent and crazed schizophrenic who both hated him and blamed him for her illness. Devoid of love and care, Michael was mercilessly beaten by his mother. In the face of overwhelming odds, Michael overcame his past, finding success out of significant adversity. Michael's website reflects those words. He is a humble and beautiful soul, reaching out to others at all times with his extraordinary determination, courage and eternal optimism.

Children placed in the trust of our institutions were some of the most vulnerable members of our community. That they were sexually abused by the very people charged with their care and protection is a disgrace. No child should ever experience what they did. That is why it is time for all institutions and governments to take responsibility for what happened.

In the redress scheme we are looking for justice for victims. A process for this must provide equal access and equal treatment for survivors, regardless of their location, the organisation or the continued existence of assets of the institution in which they were abused. None of those are discriminatory. The scheme needs to recognise the suffering that survivors have experienced and accept that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for the abuse. It's really important to note that this government is leading by example and establishing the redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and, in addition, inviting state and territory governments and institutions to opt in to the scheme on the responsible-entity-pays basis recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Hopefully it is a fair and just plan moving towards positive outcomes.

The royal commission estimated that almost 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions. The royal commission identified more than 4,000 institutions where sexual abuse took place. The royal commission has clearly demonstrated that thousands of vulnerable children were subject to horrendous sexual abuse in institutions throughout our country. The psychological, physical and emotional injuries affect a survivor for the rest of their life. In spite of the severity of these injuries, many survivors have not sought or obtained any kind of acknowledgement or redress for this harm. At all times we should acknowledge the courage of these survivors who presented evidence to the royal commission, and we must remind ourselves that their past and continuing advocacy for redress is vital to the successful implementation of the redress scheme. In addition, we recognise that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse need and deserve equal access and treatment. They really do.

Some people may ask what the Commonwealth government's scheme is. To put it simply, it will provide support services to people who were sexually abused as children in Commonwealth institutional settings. It will offer a direct personal response for those survivors who seek it, psychological counselling and a monetary payment to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon survivors. Passage of these bills will enable the Commonwealth government to respond to the royal commission's redress recommendations by developing a best-practice redress scheme for survivors. That sounds somewhat clinical, but in some ways is probably the best way forward. The scheme will start on 1 July this year and run for 10 years. I know there are some who may say it's taken too long, and there are others who will criticise the scheme and the processes, but we really must have a nationally consistent approach to redress so that survivors across Australia get equal access and treatment. But the states and institutions need to be on board to achieve this. We're continuing those discussions with the states in the hope that this can deliver the best outcomes for survivors.

The scheme will recognise and alleviate the impact of past child sexual abuse—it is hoped—that has occurred in those institutional contexts by providing three components: firstly, a monetary payment of up to $150,000 with an expected average payment of around $76,000 as a tangible means of recognising the wrong survivors have suffered; secondly, access to counselling and psychological services either through a lump sum payment or a state and territory based service, depending on where the survivor lives at the time of the application; and thirdly, a direct personal response to those survivors from the organisation where they had such harm inflicted on them from those participating institutions—that's if they request one.

A person will be eligible for redress under the scheme if they were sexually abused as a child before the scheme start date, if the abuse occurred inside a participating state or territory or outside Australia, if one or more participating institutions are responsible for the abuse and if the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident. New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory governments have announced their participation. It is hoped they will act as role models to the other states, so they also refer their powers to the Commonwealth. The Australian Capital Territory is not expected to refer because they can just be covered by the scheme.

Money will never compensate for the abuse that victims received. It's important also to know that the psychological and ongoing support they need is probably just as important as the payment, if not more so. In designing the blueprint for the Commonwealth redress scheme, we have exercised every available method and have endeavoured to give practical and operational effect to the recommendations of the royal commission. The Commonwealth redress scheme will not just be about facilitating individual monetary redress payments but it will be equally important that these payments across the scheme also provide emotional, mental and other support mechanisms to people who are survivors.

So as well as these monetary payments which are designed to provide some tangible recognition of their hurt and the harm that they have suffered, the Commonwealth scheme is also going to provide access to trauma-informed and culturally-adapted counselling over the life of the scheme. The scheme will provide redress for a significant number of survivors—1,000 survivors in Commonwealth government institutions, 9,000 survivors in New South Wales government institutions, 5,000 in Victorian government institutions and 200 in the ACT. That's an enormous number of children whose lives have been permanently changed, not always for the better. But some have come through that experience, grown and become amazing people.

Further survivors will be able to seek redress under the scheme as additional states and territories and non-government institutions opt in. The government is continuing negotiations with the remaining jurisdictions and non-government institutions to encourage their participation in the scheme. If all states and institutions across Australia opt in, the scheme could provide redress to around 60,000 people, which is the estimate provided by the Royal Commission into Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse. It's an extraordinarily high number.

The Commonwealth continues to consult with states and non-government institutions on the development of the national bill in anticipation of state-referring powers under chapter 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution to allow survivors in state government institutions to be covered by the scheme from its commencement in July. The government will exercise every endeavour to make the reach of our scheme as broad as possible, with the ultimate point being to try and make the system that will operate across Australia as consistent as possible for each victim, each survivor, no matter where they were located.

Sadly, the abuse of children is not new and, even more tragically, child abuse hasn't disappeared overnight. My grandmother was born in 1899. She was fostered to a number of different homes. The only knowledge I have of this came from just two sources. She had a really nasty scar on her forehead and, as a curious child, I said, 'Grandma, what is that line on your forehead?' In her very deep and saddened response, she said one of her foster fathers had been very drunk one night and he threw a knife at her. The other source of her multiple family existence arrived after her death, by way of a bundle of photos handed over via my estranged uncle. Old, sepia, torn and tattered, but every family in the photograph was different. Some were clearly wealthy, some perhaps not so much. It's an intriguing past, I'm sure, but one I can't trace. The orphanage where my Gran was originally left, I'm told, was burnt down. I'm betting she wasn't the only child with a story to tell. Sexual abuse occurs today not just in institutions but in other social settings.

So I begin the end of this story by expressing my gratitude that institutional sexual abuse is being addressed by a redress scheme that will, in part, begin the healing process but also with sadness that the respect and care we should be demonstrating for all our children in any place, in any group and in any setting, seems to be fading from reality with political correctness and the retribution fear factor. We have a court system that is at best ineffective and at worst facilitating more abuse on more children. It has a lack of fortitude in punishing wrongdoers. Police fear to follow up, charge the offenders and pursue the right action because they believe the court system may not record a charge or it may not be successful.

I fear we're opening a Pandora's box of bad behaviour that is totally unacceptable. Surely it's not too much trouble to set the dignity and safety of a child above the inconvenience of bringing the issue to the attention of the court. I know of exactly such an incident. I am greatly concerned of the consequences that could evolve from the lack of action, or action that is not protective, or action that pushes the decision-making responsibility back onto the child. How can this be? Rape of a 12-year-old child is rape; whether inflicted by a physical instrument or biologically inflicted, it's wrong. Inside, I weep that, in this day and age, we still don't fully understand the term 'child sexual abuse'.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (12:22): This week the Newcastle Magistrates Court convicted the Archbishop of Adelaide of concealing evidence of child sex abuse. Philip Wilson was the Bishop of Wollongong between 1997 and 2000. To my knowledge, he is the most senior Australian cleric to be convicted of such an offence. He should not be the last. Those who have covered up abuse and put the interests of their church and the reputation of their clerics above the suffering of abused children don't deserve the protection of either the congregation or the law.

Over five years the royal commission into child sex abuse established by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard has heard evidence from more than 1,300 witnesses and held over 8,000 private sessions to listen to the person accounts of survivors. It has handled 42,000 calls and received 25,000 letters and emails. After 57 public hearings lasting 444 days, the commission has made over 2½ thousand referrals to law enforcement agencies. The inquiry that many said was unnecessary has shone a bright light into some of the darkest recesses of once inscrutable public institutions.

The establishment of the royal commission, and this national response, is a matter of deep personal interest and of great concern to the community that I represent. Wollongong is a wonderful city but it has also harboured more than its fair share of abusers. My years at Edmund Rice College in Wollongong during the late 1970s and early 1980s were mostly happy. There was a darker side, however. For many years the school had been a dumping ground for sex offenders.

We now know that there were many instances where brothers were moved from other schools in Sydney after complaints and allegations of sexual abuse had been made against them. One example was Brother Chris Roberts. He attended St Patrick's College in Sutherland between 1975 and 1977. He sexually abused children. Complaints were made. Instead of reporting him to the police he was moved to Saint Edmund's College in Canberra, where he taught boys between the seventies and eighties. He abused more children and there were more complaints. He was not reported to the police. Instead he was moved to my school in Wollongong.

In 2007 he was charged with 21 sexual offences over many, many years. He has admitted guilt to 11 of the 21 charges. He was but one of many of a community of sex offenders which included my principal, my form master, my parish priest and too many of the brothers who taught at my school. Many, many more were complicit in a culture of silence and cover-up. The impact it had on boys at my school cannot be underestimated, nor can the impact of denial and cover-ups that accompanied the original crimes and allowed them to be repeated in place after place and with victim after victim.

Upon the release of the royal commission's interim report in 2005, Labor, before the government, announced our support for the national redress schemes. These recommendations should be faithfully implemented. The scheme provides for three elements of redress: monetary payment, access to counselling and psychological services and the opportunity to receive an apology from a representative of the institution responsible for the abuse. Applicants won't be limited to one form of redress. They'll be provided with access to support services and legal services if they accept an offer. They will also receive financial advice. Importantly, they will be required to sign a deed of release, waiving their civil rights against the responsible institution.

We compound the injustice visited upon the survivors if we think that this bill is the complete answer to decades of abuse. It is a good start, but the scheme does not go far enough. The bill establishes a scheme, but it only becomes operative if the states and territories, churches and other institutions agree to be bound and participate. It's encouraging that Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT, the Northern Territory and Queensland have publicly announced they will payment. Today we call upon the other states, churches and institutes to follow.

The scheme has to be improved. We need more support services, and the cap on compensation is insufficient. The royal commission recommended a maximum of $200,000, a figure that many advocates thought was itself insufficient. This bill provides for only $150,000, which seems to me mean-spirited. The scheme is limited to Australian citizens without good reason. We of all people should know that matters of citizenship are not straightforward as we thought they once were. There are many child migrants who attended schools or who were forcibly institutionalised and suffered abuse, and they should not be excluded. The government has sought to place restrictions on survivors who themselves have a criminal history from accessing the redress scheme. I simply point to the evidence that shows that many of the abused have found themselves up in a life of incarceration, and Labor believes this policy should be changed in that regard.

Because it's the faith in which I was raised, because it was where the majority of abuse came from and because I've known and spoken to so many survivors, I'd like to make some particular comments about the Catholic Church. At the request of the commission, the Catholic Church provided data on complaints, and the data is extraordinary. Between 1980 and 2015 alone, over 4,400 people alleged incidents relating to more than 1,000 separate institutions. Of the complainants, 78 per cent were male. Of the alleged perpetrators, 90 per cent were male. Sixty-two per cent of the perpetrators were priests or brothers. Seven per cent of all priests were perpetrators. Twenty per cent of all Marist Brothers and 22 per cent of all Christian Brothers were perpetrators. Can you imagine another institution in this country where close to one-quarter of its members were perpetrators? If that was any other institution in this country, there'd be calls to close it down. 11.7 per cent of priests from the diocese of Wollongong, 13.9 per cent of priests from the diocese of Lismore, 14 per cent of priests from the diocese of Port Pirie and 15 per cent of priests from the diocese of Sale were perpetrators. Five male religious orders—the Christian Brothers, the De La Salle Brothers, the Marist Brothers, the Patrician Brothers and the St John of God Brothers—represent more than 40 per cent of all claims made to Catholic Church authorities.

The first thing that strikes you about this data is the sheer immensity of the crimes. These are statistics, but behind the number stands an adult with vivid memories of their younger self—the moment when their faith, their trust and their body were abused by a person they were taught to revere. The second thing that is overwhelming about this is the sheer number of cases. These were instances where complaints were made and were documented by the church, but in the overwhelming number of cases no report was made to the police. The third thing that becomes obvious is that over 62 per cent of all perpetrators came from an order which imposed a vow of celibacy.

A scheme of redress must by necessity look backwards. That's what redress is all about. But this parliament must also look forward. We must say in clear and unadulterated words to the Catholic Church and other institutions: 'You must reform yourself. If you're imposing obligations upon your clerics that add to the risk of offence and impose a culture of secrecy, this must simply stop.' The rite of confession and the seal of the confessional is at the centre of this culture. It's where the faithful seek divine absolution from their sins through a genuine act of contrition. A confession is made, sins are counted and penance is applied. The practice is bound in confidentiality, known as the seal of the confessional. The priest must not disclose the details of the confession he has heard, even if they concern a serious crime like child sexual abuse. There can be no place in modern Australia where such an obligation is imposed. It is symbolic of the culture of secrecy and cover-up that has perpetuated generations of abuse. There are now many professions from healthcare workers, police officers and educators who have a mandatory obligation to report certain crimes, or even suspicions of certain crimes, because this is in the public interest and in the best interests of the child. Priests should be no different. If the church is to recover from the immense reputational damage it has suffered from the exposure of acts of hypocrisy and complicity in crimes against children then it must dispose of this anachronism.

That priests and brothers be celibate was not always the case in the church. In fact, it wasn't until the 12th century that it was seriously mandated, and it has not necessarily been honoured. It's time to rethink this practice as well. If 62 per cent of all perpetrators came from an order which imposed a vow of celibacy, it is right for us to ask in this place whether the practice is a part of the problem. In the hearings of the royal commission, the commissioners considered what role the vow of celibacy played in the occurrence of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. While there was some division of opinion among Australian bishops, evidence given showed them generally reluctant to concede that celibacy had a significant role to play in the sexual abuse of children. One bishop described it as simplistic. Most other authorities disagree. For example, when non-Catholic religious institutions accused of sexual abuse of children in their care were examined, it was rare that the abusers came from within their ministries. There is academic evidence which adds to the weight of this opinion. A report by two Melbourne academics, Desmond Cahill and Peter Wilkinson, published by RMIT last year, tackles what they call 'the scandal and tragedy of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church'. They emphasise the urgency of reform. They point out that the risk to children greatly increased 'if the child was in the pastoral care of a psychosexually immature, poorly prepared priest, unable to deal adequately with his sexual desires, his exercise of power and his obligations to chastity and celibacy'.

My church and many others have been robust contributors to social policy debates that we've had in this place, and I welcome that, even on the matters on which we deeply disagree. But this cannot be a one-way dialogue. This parliament is one forum where the public opinion can be raised, and the decision-makers within the church would do well to reflect on this if they are to regain an element of the respect and the prestige that they once enjoyed. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:35): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons. I had no idea that you would be in the chair when I came to rise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Neither did I!

Mr FALINSKI: But I want to say that, in my short time in this place, I've got to know you as the chair of the corporations committee and have discovered that you are a person of great talent, energy and capacity. Indeed, as the chair of a committee that includes the member for Burt and myself, you are a person with more patience than any human being should have to have! When people from time to time reflect on this place and say that we are somehow too narrow and that we have too many staffers, too many people who were union officials and, of course the worst sin of all, too many people who were lawyers, they should look at your speech on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, to see that this parliament does have a long and broad list of people with large experiences who bring many of those experiences to the business of this House.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard from thousands of survivors across Australia. Their stories opened our eyes to the prevalence of institutional child sexual abuse, the failures of institutions to respond and the lifelong impact it brings to bear. The findings and recommendations of the royal commission are powerful and far-reaching. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, their families and the organisations that represent them. Whether as children or adults, the reality is that for many years survivors were not listened to, were not believed or were not acknowledged. I thank them for their resilience and their determination to ensure that we all learn from the mistakes of the past and acknowledge the harm and suffering experienced by the many thousands of children who had been sexually abused in institutions where they should have been safe. No child should ever experience what some of these children endured. They were abused by the very people charged with their care and protection, and let us be clear: that is a disgrace. The establishment of the national redress scheme is an acknowledgement by the Australian government and participating governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was and is wrong.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the New South Wales government and its most excellent Attorney-General, Mark Speakman, for being the first state to opt in and already legislate for the scheme, along with a raft of new offences. The national redress scheme recognises the suffering survivors have experienced, accepts that these events occurred and states that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse. The government acknowledged the need to provide public recognition of the suffering experienced by survivors and investigate the inadequate responses provided by institutions through the establishment of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The royal commission estimated that almost 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions. The royal commission identified more than 4,000 institutions where sexual abuse took place. The psychological, physical and emotional injuries affect a survivor for the rest of their life. In spite of the severity of these injuries, many survivors have not sought or obtained any kind of acknowledgement or redress for this harm.

The establishment of the national redress scheme is the most significant step in addressing the wrongs of the past and providing an overdue response to survivors. It is also an important step towards healing. It ensures that governments and institutions take steps to safeguard against these crimes being repeated in the future. This bill package will establish the national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. From 1 July 2018 the scheme will provide redress where a Commonwealth institution or a New South Wales, Victorian or Australian Capital Territory government institution is responsible for the child sexual abuse and related non-sexual abuse which occurred before the date of the scheme's commencement. This bill will also allow other state and territory governments and non-government institutions, such as churches or sporting clubs, to voluntarily participate in the scheme on a responsible-entity-pays basis. The remaining state governments will need to adopt the Commonwealth law for the scheme to apply in those jurisdictions and for non-government institutions to provide redress where abuse has occurred in a state.

Passage of these bills will enable the Commonwealth government to respond to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse redress recommendations by developing a best practice redress scheme for survivors. The scheme will start on 1 July 2018 and run for 10 years. The scheme will recognise and alleviate the impact of past child sexual abuse that has occurred in an institutional context, by providing three components of redress: a monetary payment of up to $150,000, with an expected average payment of around $76,000, as a tangible means of recognising the wrong that survivors have suffered; access to counselling and psychological services through either a lump sum payment or state or territory based services, depending on where the survivor lives at the time of their application; and a direct personal response to survivors from the responsible participating institutions, should the survivor request one. A person will be eligible for redress under the scheme if the person was sexual abused as a child before the scheme start date; the abuse occurred inside a participating state, inside a territory or outside Australia; one or more participating institutions are responsible for the abuse; and the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident.

As I mentioned earlier, the New South Wales government along with the Victorian and Australian Capital Territory governments have announced their participation in the scheme. New South Wales and Victoria will refer their powers so that they can participate and the abuse occurring in their jurisdiction—that is, by non-government institutions—can be covered by the scheme. The Australian Capital Territory is not required to refer powers in order to participate or to allow abuse in its jurisdiction to be covered by the scheme.

The scheme will provide redress for a significant number of survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. There are an estimated 1,000 survivors of abuse in Commonwealth government institutions, 9,000 survivors of abuse in New South Wales government institutions, 5,000 survivors of abuse in Victorian government institutions and 200 survivors of abuse in Australian Capital Territory institutions. Further survivors will be able to seek redress under the scheme as additional states and territories and non-government institutions opt in. The government is continuing negotiations with the remaining jurisdictions and non-government institutions to encourage their participation in the scheme. Redress payments will be exempt from Commonwealth debt recovery and income tests related to government payments and will be non-taxable and reflective of the severity and impact of the abuse experienced. Redress support services will be available with the scheme to provide timely access to trauma-informed and culturally appropriate support for people during the application process. The scheme will also provide access to free specialist legal support services and financial counselling.

The royal commission released its Redress and civil litigation report in November 2015. In that report it recommended a single national redress scheme. The government is demonstrating leadership by responding to the royal commission's redress recommendations and establishing a best-practice redress scheme. A national redress scheme with an option for states and territories to participate on the responsible-entity-pays basis recommended by the royal commission is the best way of seeking to ensure that survivors across Australia will be able to gain redress on an equal basis. While New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT have committed to the scheme from commencement, the government is continuing to negotiate with the remaining states and institutions to ensure maximum coverage.

In line with the royal commission's recommendations, an independent advisory council was formed in December 2016 to provide significant input on the design and operation of the scheme. The council brought together people with expertise from a range of backgrounds, including survivors and their supporters, as well as experts on legal, psychological and redress issues. The council provided advice to ensure the scheme meets the needs of survivors. A single national redress scheme can only be established with full cooperative legislative action of the Commonwealth and states. The surest way is by referral of powers under the Constitution. States must refer powers to allow non-government institutions within their jurisdictions to opt in to a national scheme. On 10 May 2018, the Australian government introduced legislation to create the national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. The scheme will begin this year, on 1 July, subject to passage of legislation and will provide access to the psychological counselling so needed, a direct personal response from the responsible institution for people who want it and a monetary payment. If all institutions and state governments across Australia opt in, the scheme could provide redress to around 60,000 people estimated by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to have been abused in institutions. The Commonwealth continues to consult with states and non-government institutions on the development of a national bill in anticipation of a state referring powers as allowed under the Constitution. All survivors and state government institutions will be covered by the scheme from its commencement in July 2018. The governments of Western Australia and South Australia are the only two states yet to formally announce that they will join the redress scheme. If a state or territory does not opt in to the scheme, the Australian government will seek sufficient referral of powers to enable non-government institutions to opt in to the scheme.

To receive redress, the person must accept the offer and, in doing so, release all responsible participating institutions from any liability for sexual abuse and related non-sexual abuse covered by the scheme. The redress scheme was designed in close consultation with state and territory governments, an independent advisory council and non-government institutions. Abuse that occurred outside Australia is within the scope of the scheme, so long as the participating institution is responsible for the abuse and the person meets other citizenship requirements at the time of application. The decision to exclude those found guilty of serious crimes was reached in consultation with state and territory governments.

Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, I think it only right to recognise your role in bringing this legislation to the House and to congratulate you for it. I commend this bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) (12:49): I thank the member. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. If the member for Isaacs will just indulge me, as I'm just about the leave the chair, I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the current Attorney-General in his time as the Minister for Social Services and the enormous amount of work he did in consultation with me during this process—also to the current member for finalising the work that the previous social services minister did. Thank you, Member for Isaacs.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:49): In speaking about justice, Martin Luther King once said with characteristic eloquence:

Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Every step towards the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle, the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.

The work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse provides a potent example of the tireless exertions and passionate concern in the pursuit of justice that Mr King described. That royal commission was announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in November 2012 and was established in January 2013. I'm proud of many of the things the Gillard government achieved, but I feel that the royal commission will be shown to be one of the government's more important initiatives—an initiative that, in addressing the most appalling of injustices, will have a lasting benefit for the Australian community. The royal commission we announced was led by six royal commissioners—the Honourable Justice Peter McClellan AM; Mr Bob Atkinson AO, APM; Justice Jennifer Coate; Mr Robert Fitzgerald AM; Professor Helen Milroy; and Mr Andrew Murray. Mr King's reference to the 'tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals' could have been written for those six commissioners whose work over the five years of the royal commission was truly Herculean. Through their efforts, some of which will be brought into effect by these bills now before the House, a measure of justice will be delivered to tens of thousands of people who have suffered the most grievous injustice.

During the five-year course of the royal commission, it handled over 42,000 calls, almost 26,000 letters and emails, and held just over 8,000 private sessions with survivors of child sexual abuse. The final report of the commission comprising 17 volumes was delivered to the Governor-General on 15 December last year. The Turnbull government has said that it will respond to that report next month.

We in Labor, the survivors and their families, along with the wider Australian community, look forward to seeing that response because how we as a nation respond to the recommendations of the royal commission is of critical importance. Because while the royal commission has concluded its investigations, finished its hearings and delivered its final report, the work of delivering justice to the survivors of child sexual abuse is very far from completed. And so too the work of ensuring that our children are protected from the horror of sexual abuse in institutions, such as churches and schools, is in no way completed by the delivery of the commission's final report; rather, the protection of children from sexual abuse in the future will depend on the extent to which the Commonwealth, state and territory governments are willing to invest the effort and resources required to fulfil the 409 recommendations the royal commission has made.

Sadly, we have seen the recommendations of other royal commissions developed through years of tireless work and the most extensive consultations languish without proper implementation. It is my very sincere hope that such a lack of commitment does not compromise the tremendous work done by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and that its recommendations are fully implemented, which brings me to the subject matter of these two bills, the national redress scheme.

Paragraph (d) of the letters patent establishing the royal commission called on the commission to answer the following question:

(d) what institutions and governments should do to address, or alleviate the impact of, past and future child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts, including, in particular, in ensuring justice for victims through the provision of redress by institutions, processes for referral for investigation and prosecution and support services.

In September 2015 the royal commission released its final report on redress and civil litigation. This redress report contained the commission's concluded view on the question of redress. The commission issued that report more than two years ahead of its final report because it said:

By reporting as early as possible on these issues, we are seeking to give survivors and institutions more certainty on these issues and enable governments and institutions to implement our recommendations to improve civil justice for survivors as soon as possible.

In keeping with this sense of urgency, one of the recommendations in the redress report was that:

The Australian Government should determine and announce by the end of 2015 that it is willing to establish a single national redress scheme.

And that the national scheme be:

… ready to begin inviting and accepting applications from survivors by no later than 1 July 2017.

It's deeply regrettable that the previous Attorney-General, the former Senator Brandis, showed absolutely no interest in doing the work required to establish a national redress scheme, as evidenced by the fact that he did next to nothing to comply with the royal commission's recommendations and deadlines while survivors of child sexual abuse waited patiently for justice to at last be done. However, with responsibility for redress taken from Senator Brandis and given to other ministers in the government, negotiations began with the states and territories, and survivors finally began to see some forward motion.

Now this legislation is before the House that will at last implement a national redress scheme. That scheme will be operational a full year after the deadline that the royal commission set, but nevertheless it is a step forward in delivering justice to survivors. For this reason, and subject to some serious concerns I will set out now, Labor will be supporting the bills in this House. However, we will be carefully considering the recommendations of the Senate committee's inquiries into the scheme when it reports on 15 June, and we will be reserving our position in the other place until that occurs. In the meantime, we will continue to negotiate on a number of outstanding issues of concern with the government in good faith.

With that said, I will now briefly address some of our outstanding concerns about the redress scheme set out in this legislation. The very first recommendation in the redress report is titled 'Justice for victims'. It is important that we do not lose sight of this fundamental point: the redress scheme is at its core about delivering justice to survivors of the most hideous crimes against them. That first recommendation states:

A process for redress must provide equal access and equal treatment for survivors – regardless of the location, operator, type, continued existence or assets of the institution in which they were abused – if it is to be regarded by survivors as being capable of delivering justice.

Recommendation 2 sets out the three foundations by which the proposed redress scheme would provide justice. It states:

Appropriate redress for survivors should include the elements of:

a. direct personal response

b. counselling and psychological care

c. monetary payments.

The primary concerns we in Labor have about the redress scheme the Turnbull government has put forward relate to the failure of the scheme to properly provide for the second and third elements and the significant gaps between what is provided for in this scheme and what was recommended by the royal commission.

I will deal with the requirement of counselling and psychological care first, because the failure of the scheme set out in this bill to comply with the royal commission's recommendations in relation to ongoing counselling and psychological care concerns me most. Recommendation 9 states:

Counselling and psychological care should be supported through redress in accordance with the following principles:

a. Counselling and psychological care should be available throughout a survivor's life.

b. Counselling and psychological care should be available on an episodic basis.

c. Survivors should be allowed flexibility and choice in relation to counselling and psychological care.

d. There should be no fixed limits on the counselling and psychological care provided to a survivor.

The redress report also states:

It is clear that many survivors will need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives. At times, a survivor may need very intensive therapy and support. At other times, a survivor may go for years without needing counselling or psychological care.

…   …   …

Survivors told us in private sessions and public hearings about the severe and sometimes lifelong impact that institutional child sexual abuse can have across all of these areas of life.

We have been given many examples of the severe impacts that untreated trauma of institutional child sexual abuse has had on survivors. We have had a number of private sessions with relatives of victims of institutional child sexual abuse who have committed suicide. Their relatives have told us of the terrible impact that the abuse had on the victims and the ongoing impact that the abuse and victims' suicides has had on their families.

Recommendation 11 deals with the need for ongoing care by explicitly stating:

Redress should fund counselling and psychological care as needed by survivors rather than providing a lump sum payment to survivors for their future counselling and psychological care needs.

The redress scheme set out in this bill directly contradicts those explicit recommendations of the royal commission and, instead, provides for a lump sum payment for counselling and psychological services. This is cause enough for concern, but it is of even greater concern to us that the maximum amount of the lump sum payment that will be available is $5,000. To put this amount in perspective, the Australian Psychological Society's current recommended schedule of fees sets the standard fee for a 45-60 minute consultation at $246. That means that a survivor who received the maximum redress payment for counselling of psychological services and who paid a standard fee to a psychologist for individual sessions would be able to pay for approximately 20 sessions with a registered psychologist.

The royal commission consulted extensively with survivors, their families and mental health experts in making its recommendations, and, given that it has recommended the need to provide for psychological care on an ongoing basis when it is required for the survivor's life, it is very concerning that a decision has been made to instead provide a lump sum payment of up to $5,000 for a lifetime of psychological care. That is 20 sessions only, even for survivors of the worst kinds of child sexual abuse, to last them for the rest of their lives. Of course, it's true that some survivors may not seek psychological support at all, but some survivors who will make claims for redress will need far more than the $5,000 on offer under this scheme. Some may still be teenagers with many years of psychological struggle ahead of them. In ignoring the explicit recommendations of the royal commission for lifetime care in this context and instead proposing a maximum lump sum of $5,000, the government was obviously not informed by any kind of medical evidence.

The royal commission also recommended that a range of changes be made to Medicare to help provide for rest-of-life psychological care to survivors of child sexual abuse. It may be that the government is intending to act on those recommendations to fill the gap in care this scheme creates. If that is the case, I look forward to seeing those changes.

I turn now to the second issue of concern: the quantum of monetary payments. The royal commission recommended that the maximum level of monetary payment for the most severe cases of child sexual abuse should be $200,000. The commission reached this conclusion after careful deliberation and extensive evidence regarding the appropriate monetary payment to provide tangible recognition of the seriousness of the hurt and injury suffered by a survivor. While payments under the redress scheme are not meant to be compensatory in the same way that damages from a civil claim against an abuser would be, I note that survivors of the most heinous forms of child sexual abuse have been recovering in excess of $1 million in civil actions against their abusers. In this context, the decision of the Turnbull government to reduce the maximum amount payable to survivors of the most serious forms of child sexual abuse to $150,000 is deeply disappointing to Labor, as I'm sure it will be to many survivors. How is it that the Turnbull government has no problem finding $80 billion to give to big businesses in tax cuts—including $17 billion just to the banks, which already make billions of dollars in profit a year and pay their executives multimillion dollar bonuses—but says it has no choice but to short-change the survivors of childhood sexual abuse?

The third issue I want to raise is the question of who will step in to make payments to survivors when no-one else is liable—the so-called funder of last resort. Once again, the royal commission was explicit on this matter and recommended that the Commonwealth, as well as state and territory governments, should act as funders of last resort to ensure that no survivor eligible for the scheme is left without a source of redress. It appears from this bill that these recommendations may not have been fully implemented, and there remain questions over who a survivor will be able to seek redress from if the institution in which they were abused is no longer in existence and had no links to government. It's my expectation that any gaps of this kind will be addressed as the scheme is rolled out so that no survivor eligible for redress is left unable to seek it.

In conclusion, I once again thank the royal commissioners and all of those involved in the commission's work for their tireless efforts. While the redress scheme provided for in these bills is late and falls short in some important respects from the scheme recommended by the royal commission, I have no doubt that it will provide a measure of justice to survivors, and I commend both bills to the House.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:04): I too thank the member for Swan not only for his eloquent and moving speech in the House today but for his long-term advocacy on behalf of all Australians who suffered institutional child sex abuse. Having reviewed some of the member for Swan's contributions on this topic going right back to his maiden speech, I know that he has been a passionate, committed and effective champion for the cause of redress for many years. It is gratifying to see him have the opportunity to speak today as part of this landmark step forward for survivors. The member for Swan and I, and some other colleagues, just a couple of nights ago were reflecting that one of the advantages of being in this role is to be able to make meaningful change where it is needed.

I know that all of us were shocked and disturbed by the seemingly endless flood of terrible stories which emerged throughout the hearings of the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. In fact, an ex-colleague of mine was involved in representing certain people at the royal commission. He was a gentleman who had spent many years as a detective and many years as a criminal barrister. He would tell me that sitting in and listening to what was going on in these hearings made him physically ill. For a man who had spent much of his life dealing with very unsavoury parts of today's society to have said that speaks volumes.

In total, the royal commission handled 42,000 phone calls and almost 26,000 letters and emails and held 57 public hearings all over Australia. In addition, it spoke to around 8,000 additional individuals as part of its private sessions. Along with my colleagues in the House, I'd like to express my sincere gratitude to the survivors who took part in this process and courageously told their stories describing the devastating impact of the abuse they have suffered.

As we rightly focus on the suffering of survivors today, I'd like to ask members of the House and anyone watching today's proceedings to spare a thought also for the commissioners—the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan, the Hon. Justice Jennifer Coate, Bob Atkinson, Robert Fitzgerald, Helen Milroy, Andrew Murray—and senior counsel assisting, Gail Furness SC, and all other support staff. I know from my past life as a barrister that to hear and review, in their case, so many thousands of harrowing stories and to relive those experiences face-to-face with so many thousands of survivors must've been exceptionally difficult for them and indeed their families. It will most definitely have taken a heavy toll on these men and women. We too often forget the psychological impact that working with survivors of trauma can have on our emergency services personnel, our counsellors and our legal officers. The commission and the staff did Australia and all survivors an important and exceedingly challenging service, and I hope and trust that they too are receiving the support that they need going into the future.

The royal commission identified a staggering 4,000 institutions where abuse took place—from schools to sporting clubs. To date, 2575 referrals, from a broad range of institutions, have been made to police. Of particular personal concern to me is the prominent place of the Catholic Church in these shocking statistics. On 6 February 2017, counsel assisting, Gail Furness SC, submitted a research report to the commission as an exhibit. The report resulted from research conducted by the royal commission supported by the Truth, Justice and Healing Council, which is the Catholic Church's body for coordinating the response to the royal commission, and Catholic Church authorities. It sought to estimate the number of priests and non-ordained religious members of the church authorities who were alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse in at least one claim reported between 1980 and 2010, with incidences stretching back to 1950.

The figures made for horrible reading, though we should remember that they relate to allegations of misconduct and not to proven findings of guilt. In that report, 1,880 alleged perpetrators involved in the Catholic Church were identified in claims of child sexual abuse. In total, 4,444 people alleged child sexual abuse incidents. Of the alleged perpetrators, 30 per cent, or 572, were priests, 693 were non-ordained religious brothers or sisters, and 543 were laypeople. This means that, in Australia, seven per cent of all priests are estimated to have been identified in a claim. Tragically, the average age of male victims was 11½ years old, while for girls it was just 10½.

The data likely underestimates the number of perpetrators. It includes only cases where the complainant came forward and actually made a complaint. As we know well, many do not. It also includes only claims where the claimant sought redress or where the complaints were accepted by the Catholic Church without redress being sought. Unfortunately, we know that, until recently, in too many cases the Catholic Church did not accept complaints and did not act to deal with alleged perpetrators. Gail Furness SC put it very succinctly and comprehensively when she said:

The accounts were depressingly similar. Children were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations were not investigated. Priests and religious were moved. The parishes or communities to which they were moved knew nothing of their past. Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover ups. Priests and religious were not properly dealt with and outcomes were often not representative of their crimes. Many children suffered and continued as adults to suffer from their experiences in some Catholic institutions.

We heard a stark reminder just two days ago of that attitude with the conviction of Philip Wilson, the Archbishop of Adelaide. The archbishop ignored the 15-year-old Peter Creigh in 1976 when he told the then assistant parish priest about his abuse at the hands of Father Jim Fletcher. I understand that the archbishop is now facing a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, which arguably demonstrates the seriousness with which we should, and do, treat the nature of his actions. Had Archbishop Wilson informed the police of the allegations against Jim Fletcher, it would perhaps have helped to convict the priest more than a decade earlier and prevented further abuse from taking place. It seems likely that Archbishop Wilson's conviction will prompt further prosecutions, and we can look forward with optimism to the hope that this will dissuade individuals in the future from failing to report abuse.

Though the Catholic Church's past record in this area is disgraceful and difficult for Catholics like me to understand, it is, of course, sadly not unique. Out-of-home care institutions, sports clubs, recreation and hobby groups, other religious groups, and even schools and youth detention centres have been implicated in failures to prevent or properly deal with incidents of child sexual abuse.

Since the royal commission's report, the attention of the government and of the Catholic Church has rightly turned to the question of redress for victims. Redress is not simply about financial compensation. After all, no amount of money can change what happened to survivors or take away its impacts. Redress should be founded on two key principles: on the one hand, recognising the suffering of survivors and, on the other, helping them both to assimilate the experiences of their past and to build a better life in the future.

As the royal commission rightly identified, to achieve this, redress should have three elements. Though money cannot change the past, it is appropriate, first, that redress include monetary compensation. These payments constitute only a material recognition by the institutions involved of their wrongdoing and their contrition but it also provides funds which can help survivors create new opportunities or improve the comfort of lives often blighted by abuse. The redress scheme in this bill meets this requirement by including awards of redress payments of up to a maximum of $150,000 for each survivor, dependent on the level of sexual abuse and related non-sexual abuse.

Second, redress should include counselling and psychological care to help support survivors with the mental health impacts of their experiences. Once again, the redress scheme in this bill meets that requirement by making survivors whose applications are accepted entitled to access counselling services where offered by their jurisdiction. Where their jurisdiction is not registered to provide these services, survivors will be entitled to a further payment of up to $5,000.

Third, the royal commission identified that a redress scheme must include a direct personal response from the institution to the survivor. This bill enables that by giving all survivors whose applications are accepted the right to a personal response. The survivor will be given the opportunity to tell the story of their abuse and describe its impact on them. They'll be entitled to receive, as appropriate, an apology, an acknowledgement of the impact of the abuse on the person, an opportunity to meet with an appropriately senior person from the relevant institution and an assurance as to the steps the institution now takes to protect children in their care against abuse.

Because of the comprehensive and appropriate design I've described, I support the redress scheme encapsulated in this bill and I support the principles that lie behind it. However, I must use this opportunity to remind the future national redress scheme operator and its delegates of its heavy responsibility. In most processes involving claims of compensation or redress, the initial decision is subject to further independent or judicial review where requested on reasonable grounds. This process in general ensures the integrity of the system and helps to prevent injustices. In this case, it is the operator, the secretary of the department and their designated delegates who will make the decision, while only an internal review conducted by an official with no involvement in the original decision will be available to applicants. In order to keep the scheme focused on the needs of survivors and avoid them being dragged into lengthy or adversarial court proceedings which risk further harm, merits review in the AAT or judicial review in the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court will not be available to either survivors or participating institutions. For participating institutions, there is no process of review.

Those measures are part of this bill for the right reasons and are an important means of ensuring that the redress scheme is focused on the needs of survivors. We must continue to adhere to the principles of fairness and equity for all institutions and ensure as far as possible that accepted applications provide redress to bona fide survivors. Without this, not only will the scheme be at risk of perpetrating its own injustices and hurt the interests of people who continue to rely on many of these institutions today, but its credibility with the public would come into question. I would ask that the operators remember this weighty responsibility and bear it in mind in all of their deliberations.

To date, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT and the Commonwealth have all signed up to the redress scheme, and I understand from reports in The Australian newspaper that the Catholic Church, among other institutions, is working behind the scenes to join. If we can persuade all of the states and territories and institutions to opt in, this scheme would offer meaningful redress based on the right principles to the around 60,000 people estimated by the royal commission to have been abused in institutions. For that reason and for the sake of all of the survivors who's courageously testified before the royal commission, I commend the bill to the House.

Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (12:34): So much emotion, so much wrong to be righted and so much courage. In my speech today, I would like to acknowledge, honour and thank all those responsible for the royal commission: its inception, its operation, its administration and the delivery of the report. I'd particularly like to, as many of my colleagues have done, acknowledge the role of CLAN: Care Leavers Australasia Network. I'd also like to shine some light on the impact of the royal commission in my electorate of Indi; focus on redress, which we've been hearing about now; say that the job's not finished, that there's still more work to be done; and talk about one particular model that's been undertaken by the Victorian Women's Trust in this area. In conclusion, I'd like to offer my personal apology to the people of Indi and to those who have been hurt and have suffered pain because of the work of the churches and the institutions that we are all responsible for.

With that beginning, I'd like to start by talking about the Care Leavers Australasia Network. I thank people in my electorate, but particularly Rhonda and her team. As she has done with many members of parliament, she came and saw us, raised the issue, made sure we understood how important it was, kept us informed all the way through the royal commission and made sure that we knew what was going on. It's hard to find words to capture my admiration: courage, resilience, persistence, empathy, tolerance, more courage and patience. One of the things that Rhonda did, knowing that I would be making a speech today, was ask me to read this into the Hansard. It's a letter to 'My dear federal politician'. The heading is, 'Stop taxing the poorest of abuse victims'. It says:

I'm a member of CLAN and I was placed in an orphanage, children's home, foster care mission, and I am writing to you to seek your support to make representations on my behalf to the Prime Minister of all Australians, Malcolm Turnbull, CLAN patron. The national redress scheme is due to commence on 1 July. Whilst we commend the Liberal government for introducing national redress for those abused in orphanages, children's homes, missions and foster care, there are, however, many care leavers who will be extremely disadvantaged, angry and hurt on 1 July because they were not sexually used or abused in an orphanage, children's home, mission, foster care but suffered great cruelty and brutal physical and psychological damage as children. These care leavers, who have received as little as $2,000 redress from the Queensland, Western Australian and Tasmanian governments redress schemes will now be taxed on those payments at 1.9 per cent. This is like robbing the poorest of abuse victims, the government's children. None of these care leavers ever expected that government to tax those paltry amounts decades later. The Prime Minister plans on issuing an apology on behalf of the nation. This will be a hollow apology when so many care leavers will be excluded and reabused and retraumatised by this unjust redress scheme.

So we're not quite done yet.

The second area that I'd like to talk a little bit about is the impact on my electorate of this horrendous activity that's taken place in Australia. We've heard the figures from the royal commission about the size of the problem, but the bit that I'd like to concentrate on, again so sadly, is the Catholic Church and the Sandhurst diocese. The Sandhurst diocese is based in Bendigo, in Victoria, covers most of Indi and also includes the electorates of Murray and Bendigo. I will read from the Bendigo Advertiserof 6 February 2017. It says:

THE Sandhurst Diocese had the second highest rate of priests accused of child sexual abuse out of Australia's 17 Catholic dioceses during a 60 year period.

Figures released from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse showed almost 15 per cent of priests who ministered in the Sandhurst Diocese between 1950 and 2010 were accused of child sexual offences.

…   …   …

The diocese was second only to the Diocese of Sale …

I make this point because we've heard much about Ballarat but we've heard very little about Sandhurst and Sale. Sandhurst:

The diocese was second only to the Diocese of Sale for the proportion of priests alleged to have sexually abused children between 1950 and 2010.

Proportionately, more priests allegedly committed offences in Sandhurst than the Ballarat Diocese, where the Royal Commission sat to hear evidence from residents and former students …

There's something that's so sad about this for me, because Ballarat is a large city. It's got a lot of people in it. Poor old Sandhurst is a rural country electorate, and Sale similarly. So I think what happened is that these priests and brothers and others got sent to the country, and we poor, almost defenceless country communities had nowhere to go. We didn't have the advocacy, we didn't have the knowledge and we became a place for this. I just think it's so sad, particularly with the passion I bring to this parliament for rural and regional Australia. When I see it borne out in these statistics, it makes me even more sad to think the institutionalised church would do that.

But clearly it's not all negative. I'm really relieved that the Sandhurst Diocese says that there were no incidents after 2000, and no priests employed after 1990 were accused of any offences. So the vast majority of offences occurred during my growing-up years, the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In talking about Sandhurst, I probably need to keep the record straight, because the current Bishop of Sandhurst, Bishop Leslie Tomlinson, has apologised to victims and survivors of sexual abuse. He said that it was very sad that it happened and that the church will make amends, and he commits to working with victims, survivors and their families into the future. So that's really good to see, but somehow it doesn't take away the stain. It doesn't take away the lack of trust. It doesn't take away the hurt. So this redress scheme is really important.

I'd like to talk a little bit about redress. I welcome the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, about monetary compensation—the lump sum—about financial support, about apology and about assurances regarding cessation of alleged perpetrators' position. I'm really pleased to know that that's included in the legislation.

But, in my research to try to understand better the impact of the Catholic Church on my community, I've found it hasn't just stopped with child sexual abuse. There have been other sorts of abuses that have taken place. I'd now like to turn my mind to a submission to the royal commission from the Victorian Women's Trust, dated 9 March 2015. I'll read from the submission:

… over the past six years, we have been intimately involved in seeking redress for women who were former members of religious Orders. We began this journey with some published research. We then designed an Independent Advocacy Program. In the time since, we have successfully sought appropriate redress on behalf of many women religious.

From this significant advocacy experience, we believe we can offer some insight into the broader question of institutional culture and impact on victims as well as adding value to the consideration of key elements that must be involved in ensuring effective redress of past abuse and harm.

Their research culminated in the publication in 2009 of a research and discussion paper entitled The paradox of service. There is much wisdom, I have to say, in that report, and I'm extraordinarily grateful to the Victorian Women's Trust for the work that they've done in supporting nuns who have left the orders. I will turn my mind to the considerations they talk about in The paradox of service and in their submission about redress. They say, and I will quote from their three issues for consideration:

We support the statement of general principles (p.57) to guide the provision of all elements to redress—survivor‐focused; no wrong door; cultural needs of survivors including proper training and understanding; and redress that needs the needs of particularly vulnerable survivors.

And they talk about having a champion in your corner.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member for Indi will have leave to continue speaking in the debate when it resumes.

The SPEAKER (15:12): If members could cease interjecting, could I please have the attention of the House on this important matter: I'd like to read a fairly lengthy statement, and then I'll be tabling some documents. Earlier in the week, I advised the House I would provide an update on possible dates for by-elections in the seats of Braddon, Fremantle, Longman, Mayo and Perth. This update follows further consultation with the Australian Electoral Commissioner and party leaders. Under the Constitution, it is my responsibility alone to issue a writ for a by-election when a vacancy occurs, and generally it has not been the practice to provide an explanation for the exercise of this responsibility. I have varied from the usual practice because of the quite unusual—quite unique—circumstances surrounding these by-elections.

As the House of Representatives Practice makes clear, there is no statutory period within which I must issue the writ. As a matter of principle, Speakers have generally sought to issue writs as soon as electorally practicable to ensure that electors are not without a representative here in the House for longer than necessary. However, the timing of the calling of each by-election has varied considerably because of circumstances, and in this case there has been a unique set of circumstances.

While there has been much commentary around the five by-elections occurring on the one day, the Australian Electoral Commission actually has to consider whether this is feasible and desirable. The advice I have received from the Electoral Commissioner is that although this is the largest number of by-elections to be conducted at the one time since Federation, and the holding of them across four states adds complexity, the AEC believes conducting the by-elections on the one day is the preferred option. I intend to follow this preferred option.

As noted in my statement on Monday, the Electoral Commissioner advised me that the government was considering urgent changes through regulation to the nomination process to ensure that all candidates are aware of their obligations under section 44 of the Constitution. The implementation of these changes prior to the by-elections was supported by the Electoral Commissioner and by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in a unanimous recommendation. The latest advice I have from the Electoral Commissioner is that the regulations have been signed by the Special Minister of State and will be submitted to the Governor-General soon for his consideration, expected to be 29 May. Regardless of the date for submission to the Federal Executive Council, the AEC has advised me that it has commenced preparations to implement the regulations and will require approximately two weeks to do so. The implementation would need to be complete prior to the writs being issued.

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: I say to members: I'm giving this update as a courtesy—members on my right—and it would be in all their interests to listen to the entire statement. Let me repeat: the implementation would need to be complete prior to the writs being issued because nominations open as soon as writs are issued, at which time candidates can start nominating. This is, in part, to accommodate the requirements of the Electoral Commission but, more importantly, so that all candidates in the forthcoming by-election—all candidates—have sufficient time to comply with the new requirements.

Turning now to the date for the by-elections, the Electoral Commissioner has advised me that there is a complication of the school holiday period affecting all four states subject to by-elections, extending across a three-week period from 30 June to 21 July. Although, as the commissioner advises, it is possible to hold by-elections in the school holiday period, it does create additional difficulties for voters and risks disenfranchisement and low turnout. Let me say this is particularly—particularly—the case in by-elections, for, whilst in a general election there are significant absentee voting opportunities outside the electorate in which a voter resides, in by-elections there are not. If there is to be a single date for all by-elections and the school holidays are to be avoided, this pushes the next possible date to 28 July. Although the Electoral Commission—

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Members on both sides! Members on my right! The member for Bendigo! I say to those members interjecting: the majority of members are seeking to listen to my statement. Although the Electoral Commission would not usually provide advice about a preferred date, I can advise members on this occasion the Electoral Commissioner has advised that 28 July is the optimal date. As the commissioner notes in his advice to me: 'This achieves three things. It provides sufficient time for the AEC to implement the changes'—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned. The commissioner's advice states: 'It allows sufficient time for the AEC to implement the changes, enables prospective candidates to comply with the new requirements and ensures that voters are not disenfranchised.' I consider it is prudent in the current circumstances that I follow this advice and allow time for the changes related to section 44 to be implemented and avoid the by-elections taking place in the school holidays. I, therefore, propose to accept the commissioner's recommendation for the optimal date of 28 July. I will consult with the AEC about the date to issue the writs and the relevant dates for the by-elections and will advise the House when the dates have been settled.

One very important consideration for me has been that this will not impact on the elected members' ability to take up their seats in the House at the earliest opportunity because of the break in the sittings from 28 June until 13 August. The earliest date that any elected members could now take their seats regardless of the date for the by-elections is the resumption of the sittings on 13 August. Because of the particular nature of the issues surrounding these by-elections, I'm going to table the advice I've received from the Electoral Commissioner. There are two pieces of correspondence from the Electoral Commissioner, one dated 17 May 2018 and a further, updated letter of 23 May 2018, and this is not a precedent for the tabling of such advice by Speakers in the future.

Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, during your remarks, the member for Barton made a very unparliamentary remark, and she should withdraw it.

Mr Burke interjecting—

The SPEAKER: I say to the Manager of Opposition Business: the majority of members were listening. Some were interjecting and, surprisingly, not wanting to hear the statement or the reasons, but I have read them into the Hansard and the correspondence has been tabled. I couldn't hear what the member for Barton was particularly saying but I will ask her, as is the custom, whether she made an unparliamentary remark. The Manager of Opposition Business on indulgence.

Mr BURKE (Watson) (15:21): On indulgence, I'd like to note a few things about the decision, respecting the fact that the decision is not only made by you in terms of the advice that you have received from the Australian Electoral Commission, and ask that my comments be seen very much in that context. There are a number of by-elections which have occurred since you took the chair. In North Sydney, the writs were issued within three days; in Bennelong, two days; in New England, the same day; in Batman, six days. It will now be, for these by-elections, a delay of 14 days and, instead of the people going to vote 35, 36 or 44 days later, they will go to vote 79 days later.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will leave under 94(a).

The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.

The SPEAKER: I'm going to hear the Manager of Opposition Business on indulgence briefly. I'm happy to hear the Leader of the House on indulgence, and then I will exercise a brief right of reply, but I'm not going to debate the matter.

Mr BURKE: I also respect that the decision is now made. The letters that you have tabled you said were on 17 May and 23 May. Had the decision been made within the time that the other by-election decisions were made, it would have been made before those letters were even received from the Australian Electoral Commission. The Australian Electoral Commission have claimed they want all candidates to know the new rules. I think that, for anyone running for these by-elections, if they don't know by now what the High Court has decided, there is nothing that will help them!

The AEC normally would not recommend a date, as you have said. On this occasion, they have recommended a date, and they have used the fact that they want this new regulation as the reason. Now, they appeared before the relevant inquiry months ago. They had their involvement with the relevant inquiry through appearing last year. The regulations and discussions with the opposition happened more than a week ago. We have a situation now where that 79-day delay, which has not applied anywhere else, is on the basis of the Australian Electoral Commission, which, if the Prime Minister went down to Yarralumla and called an election today, would be able to conduct it for 150 seats in 33 days time. Instead, they say it has to be delayed all this period and it just happens to be on the day of the Labor Party national conference. It's a what-a-coincidence moment! What a coincidence from the Australian Electoral Commission!

The decision now made—

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that the indulgence is brief and, as I said, in explaining these reasons, as I've done, I've tried to do it as a courtesy to the House. As I pointed out on Monday, the past practice has simply been for the Speaker to report resignations and then report after the writs have been issued. I'm sorry that some elected members are either unaware of that or don't appreciate it. The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the point of order I wish to make is that an indulgence granted by you is also a courtesy. It's not an opportunity to have a debate and it certainly is not an opportunity to reflect on the Chair, which the Manager of Opposition Business is now perilously close to doing. You granted him an indulgence, which was generous, and he is taking advantage of it to debate a matter which, as a courtesy, you chose to tell the House of Representatives when you didn't need to. He should stop reflecting on the Chair.

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on indulgence—and he will wrap up his remarks.

Mr Burke: I raise one final point, Mr Speaker. Because of the way the Australian Electoral Commission have written to you and the arguments they have put, and because of the initial delay in waiting for their letters, communities around Australia that could have a representative on 16 June, had the writs been issued immediately, instead will not be represented in this place. What was allowed to happen in the other by-elections, including of members on that side, now means there will be a delay in parliamentary representation which could have been avoided and would not occur in the circumstances of a general election.

The SPEAKER: As I said, I'm not going to debate the matter. It was my decision to grant the Manager of Opposition Business indulgence. I'm going to make a couple of remarks—and the House ought to be capable of listening to them, and those members who want to listen to them should be able to do so without a wall of interjections. I'll make a couple of points. Firstly, the Manager of Opposition Business made a point about the date of the first letter being received. Let me assure members of the House, without going into the details of what are private consultations, that I did not simply sit there as Speaker and wait for a letter to arrive. You have oral consultations and written advice, which I had requested; it's made clear in the correspondence at the start. With respect to the timing of the calling of the other by-elections, without going over all the issues again, I just reiterate that the special circumstances relate to section 44 and the regulation and to school holidays. I simply make that point.

On the inference that this is unprecedented—I think you said 79 days—I'm happy to stand corrected but I do spend a lot of time considering these issues and I'm going to make a point. I think you'll find that the Gippsland by-election in 2008—I carry a lot of these figures around in my head and I'm pretty sure they're right—took 80 day. and I think it took about 40 days to issue the writs. If there were any extenuating circumstances, I wasn't aware of them at the time. Both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Opposition were in the House at the time, so if they can think of any—I would just make that point. And that was a single electoral event, not five events caused across four states. So I'd just like to make those points. The letters have been tabled. The Electoral Commissioner has provided those two pieces of very detailed correspondence outlining the reasons. I wanted to outline those to the House. I thought that was the right thing to do, notwithstanding I knew that a few members would find it impossible not to interject while I did it. I could have very easily issued a press release on the matter. I could have very easily done that; that's what other Speakers have done. For those who have listened in silence, I thank you, because I owe it at least to all of you to explain the reasons. I thank the House.

Honourable members: Hear hear.