Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (12:06): I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum.

Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (12:07): I want to put on record my thanks to the minister for the briefing in relation to the amendments that appeared in the Senate to this Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018.

I think these nine amendments do go some way towards strengthening the bill. I do want to reiterate my concerns that I put on the record in the House, though. We still have a number of concerns on our side of the House. There's clearly a lot of work to do to get this new commission up and running by 1 January. I hope that the government gets onto that job without delay. I also want to put on the record that Labor has not at any stage tried to impede the passage of this bill in getting through either house of parliament. We know how important these bills are to people who are currently in the aged-care system, their families and their loved ones. We need to make sure that we give them as much protection as we can. Obviously, there's now a royal commission into aged-care services in Australia, but I just wanted to put on the record that Labor does support these amendments. We still don't think they go far enough.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (12:08): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

These amendments reflect the best of the way in which the parliament works. The amendments are a reflection not only of government but also of opposition and the senators who contributed to the amendments strengthening the bill in order to ensure the quality and safety of senior Australians within the settings they are in. I do want to thank the Hon. Julie Collins for her contribution to the debate as the shadow minister. I appreciate the support she has given in ensuring the passage of the bills so that we're able to establish the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. I thank you and commend the bill.

Question agreed to.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:10): Labor supports the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. These two bills will implement a number of the recommendations of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review, conducted by Michael L'Estrange and Stephen Merchant, by establishing the Office of National Intelligence, or ONI, which is to be led by the Director-General of National Intelligence.

The Office of National Intelligence will be responsible for leading Australia's national intelligence agencies. While the new Director-General of National Intelligence will not be empowered to direct the specific activities of agencies, he or she will be able to direct the coordination of agencies to ensure there are appropriately integrated strategies across the suite of agency capabilities. The Director-General of National Intelligence will also be tasked with keeping the Prime Minister informed on matters relating to Australia's intelligence agencies.

Each of Australia's Five Eyes partners currently has a single point of coordination for its intelligence agencies, and this is what the Office of National Intelligence will provide for Australia. In addition to its leadership role, the Office of National Intelligence will replace the Office of National Assessments and be responsible for preparing strategic assessments and reports in relation to international and domestic matters that are of political, strategic or economic significance to Australia. As is the case with the Office of National Assessments, those assessments and reports will be prepared on the basis of information that is collected from publicly available sources. This marks an extension of the ONA's existing assessment and evaluation function, which is currently limited exclusively to international matters.

Labor also supports the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, which repeals the Office of National Assessments Act 1977 and makes a series of consequential amendments to other acts to reflect the proposed operation of the Office of National Intelligence.

The bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security looked carefully at these two bills and recommended four improvements, each of which was accepted by the government. The amendments tabled by the government yesterday give effect to the committee's recommendations. Among other things, those amendments will ensure that the Privacy Commissioner is directly involved in drafting the ONI's privacy rules and that those rules are made publicly available on ONI's website.

Since 2014, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has considered 15 substantive national security bills and made over 300 recommendations for amendment, all of which have been accepted by the government. I commend my parliamentary colleagues on the committee—Labor, Liberal and National—for their careful, considered and bipartisan approach to these two bills and for recommending a number of improvements. This is how national security issues should be dealt with, and that is how national security issues have been dealt with in recent history.

In that spirit, I urge the government to work with Labor to implement two of the other recommendations that were made by Michael L'Estrange and Stephen Merchant in the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Strong and effective oversight does not undermine our national security community; it enhances it. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies are best ensured through strong and rigorous oversight and scrutiny. Australia has a unique configuration of oversight that spans the parliamentary, judicial and executive branches of government. Institutions, such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, have complementary functions. Labor's existing proposal for reform of the committee recognises and maintains these arrangements. The proposal is embodied in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015, which is presently before the Senate. This bill arose out of work done by former Senator John Faulkner and others, and contains a suite of measures designed to ensure that the committee has the powers it needs to acquit its duties to the parliament and the Australian people.

As it happens, the substance of Labor's proposals was largely adopted in recommendations 21 and 23 of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review. However, despite receiving the review well over a year ago, and despite the fact that the government has said that it will implement the recommendations of the Independent Intelligence Review, the government has yet to act on these two recommendations. So, while Labor is pleased that the government has now acted on Mr L'Estrange's and Mr Merchant's recommendation to establish an office of national intelligence, there is more work to be done. I commend the bills to the House.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (12:15): It is with great pleasure that I get up to speak on this important legislation, the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. I understand that a lot of people look at this legislation and say it's anodyne in its attempt, and it's largely administrative for a lot of the operations of different government agencies. But the reason I want to talk about it is its critical role, particularly around parliamentary oversight. As you know, there is an amendment that makes it possible for greater oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Parliamentary oversight is one of the most fundamental principles that sits at the heart of our democracy. The truth is that it is within the wisdom of the crowds of people who sit in this place—and I accept wholeheartedly that that wisdom is challenging at the moment—and of parliamentary oversight and transparency that our democracy works. When you have bodies that operate with a high degree of secrecy and a high degree of absent transparency—and, I might stress, for legitimate reasons, because of the seriousness of the issues that are being affected, like the Office of National Assessments—it's incredibly important that there is proper parliamentary oversight of their procedures, of their practices and of their activities. That's what parliamentary committees do.

As you know, I'm the chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics, which has parliamentary oversight of a lot of the independent regulators. I appeared before the Senate as a former commissioner or parliamentary officer, as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner. Appearing before the Senate was a critical part of my role of making sure that those who are commissioned or charged with incredible powers are held accountable to the people whom they serve, who are ultimately Australians, and, by proxy, through their representatives.

I think this is particularly important in the space around intelligence. A simple basis is: we know why information can't be released in the public square. We know that, when we're dealing with allegations of terrorism, investigations or undercover officers, and looking at how data is collected and what it's used for, there must be a robust secrecy and a protection not just to the people who may be directly affected but to people who may be undercover or contributing to the activities of an operation—and not just to them, but to their families and their friends—and to make sure there are successful investigations and other activities, and to make sure that there is success to keep Australians safe.

It goes to a point of trust: trust that Australians should be able to have in our government and in our federal authorities to do their good and important work. What I've seen consistently is that there is a very high degree of trust in agencies like ASIO and the Australian Federal Police—I don't think most Australians would know the Office of National Assessments. One of the reasons Australians trust them is that they know they do important work, and they know that they keep us safe. But there is a comfort that comes from parliamentary oversight, and, frankly, I'd like to see a lot more of that. I'd like to see parliament holding agencies to account. This is not a point of partisanship—although, sometimes we might devolve into that—it's a point about how we're going to run our bureaucracies and our agencies.

Frankly, I don't think there's enough oversight of the Australian Taxation Office, an agency that is set up to manage the tax affairs of the nation and make sure we secure the revenue to support the base of activities that we decide happen in this place but then goes on to provide the services the Australian people have come to expect. There isn't enough oversight over agencies often that have the power to investigate people's private affairs, particularly their tax and financial affairs, and frankly I think there is probably a case to have much greater scrutiny over how a lot of those agencies operate and whether they successfully work with individuals, small business and big business to do their job.

Sometimes when I'm driving along, I hear these ads on radio by companies that promote the concern that many Australians have about the Australian Taxation Office and whether it is going to be on their back. Don't misunderstand; I believe that Australians should have respect for the state and its purpose, because it is a common wealth of all of us. But I also think that there should be accountability for those people who seek to implement and interpret the law. You hear this all the time from small businesses who are concerned about it, who fear taking on the ATO because they fear they might have a very dangerous consequence to their business and they're going to get adverse rulings, or they fear they are going to get dragged through bureaucratic bullying. Certainly, that's the fear.

I know that might sound a little off topic, but the same principles apply to national security agencies. We should be able to hold the police to account. That's not to question their motivations and it's not to suggest that they're doing anything wrong; but they are here to serve the people, to maintain a degree of law and order in our society. What parliamentary scrutiny and accountability does, whether it's through committees or any other means, is achieve that end in the national and public interest. So, while seemingly irrelevant amendments to the Australian Border Force Act 2015 may not excite the public mind, they are critical. They are critical to our duty to the people we serve. These amendments are critical to the degree of confidence that Australians can have in our democracy. They are critical for the electoral legitimacy that we all secure in sitting in these seats. And it's a privilege and a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. It's a privilege and responsibility that serves our country well.

It goes back, of course, many decades, back to looking at parliamentary oversight of the setting of tax rates and why ministers or the Crown shouldn't be able to impose legislation or regulation around rates or any other means which has the effective consequence of a tax without parliamentary sovereignty and approval. It goes to the heart of parliament itself. And it doesn't just apply to tax; it applies to every artifice that this government—Liberal, Labor or anything else—entertains. That's why one of the great challenges we face in our modern democracy is that the executive is not all powerful. The executive has a critical and important role to represent the Crown and to administer the Commonwealth of this country, to govern for the national interest and for everyone. We're going to have some disagreements—everyone will from time to time—about how that is best done, and rightly so. The role of departments is to regulate and implement that through to execution for the Australian people, and we in this place in parliament have a responsibility as well.

Based on what I've been told only moments ago, there is going to be increased scrutiny in this parliament as numbers change. That wasn't going to be the point of my remarks today, but it's an interesting coincidence. But it does highlight the power and the sovereignty of this place and the legislative means that we go through to maintain that accountability. And, frankly, one of the things that I find most difficult and disturbing in this age is how much power parliament hands to the executive. That's not a comment on this government or, particularly, the previous one or the one before that or the one before that or the one before that. We, as parliamentarians, must defend parliamentary sovereignty because, if we don't, who will?

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:25): I want to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. As the 2017 Independent intelligence review noted, the challenges faced by our intelligence community will intensify over the coming decade. In a rapidly changing world, Australia's intelligence architecture needs to change too. Our intelligence agencies need to be positioned to respond to the next conflict, the next terrorist threat or the next technological innovation. Whatever comes our way, we need to be ready.

Our national intelligence community agencies demonstrate excellence, but, as the 2017 Independent intelligence review stated:

These forces of change are challenging the structures in place for co-ordinating the activities of our intelligence agencies.

That is why the reviewers recommend the establishment of an office of national intelligence, and that is why the passage of these bills is so important.

ONI's leadership function and the requirement in the bill that it perform this function in ways that promote the appropriate integration of intelligence capabilities across the national intelligence community will go a long way to achieving greater coordination. ONI will also be responsible for providing advice to the Prime Minister on national intelligence priorities, requirements and capabilities, and matters relating to the national intelligence community as a whole. Further extending ONI's assessment and evaluation functions and its ability to cooperate with other national intelligence community agencies will enable ONI to better support the work of others. The positioning of the Director-General of National Intelligence as the head of the national intelligence community, with the responsibility of keeping the Prime Minister informed on matters relating to intelligence, will enhance this coordination.

The Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 makes amendments to a number of acts to support the proposed operation of the ONI bill. Though many of these amendments simply reflect the transition of the office of national assessments to the ONI by updating references and other legislation, other more substantive amendments will provide important functionality to the new organisation. Some amendments will improve the ability of other national intelligence community agencies to cooperate or share information with the Office of National Intelligence. Some will enhance oversight; others will enable ONI officers to better perform their functions by accessing and assuming identities regimes.

All in all, these arrangements, along with transitional provisions, will ensure that the ONI is able to function effectively from its establishment. The Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 contains a number of other measures to support the operation of ONI and the Director-General of National Intelligence, including directions and guidelines powers, access to information provisions, secrecy provisions, the continuation of the national assessments board, and privacy rules to protect Australians.

I'd like to thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for their detailed consideration of the bills. The work of the PJCIS has led to four government amendments which fully implement the committee's recommendations and will be tabled shortly. In particular, the committee consideration has contributed to enhanced transparency provisions being incorporated in relation to the privacy rules, and I want to thank the PJCIS for their deliberations. I also thank my colleagues from both chambers and all sides of the chamber for recognising all of these important needs.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:29): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

Mr HAWKE: I move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together:

(1) Clause 43, page 34 (line 18) to page 35 (line 32), omit the clause.

(2) Clause 53, page 43 (line 16), after "Security", insert ", the Privacy Commissioner".

(3) Clause 53, page 43 (after line 18), after subclause (4), insert:

   (4A) The privacy rules must be published on ONI's website as soon as practicable after the rules are made, except to the extent that the rules contain information that has a protective security classification.

(4) Clause 54, page 45 (before line 11), before paragraph (2)(a), insert:

   (aa) the power to approve an authority of another country under subsection 13(2);

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:30): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ) (12:30): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:31): by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2):

The amendments were not available at the time of publication.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:31): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:32): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased today to present this bill, that will significantly reform the electoral funding and disclosure regime in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Reform is necessary to support the integrity of Australia's electoral system, and Australia's sovereignty, by ensuring that only those with a meaningful connection to Australia are able to influence Australian politics and elections through political donations. It will also ensure that the Commonwealth's electoral funding and disclosure regime keeps pace with international and domestic developments and provides transparency for Australian voters.

The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017 will improve the consistency of the regulatory treatment of all political actors. This includes political actors that have emerged in the Australian political landscape, who neither endorse candidates nor seek to form government, yet actively seek to influence the outcome of elections through their campaigning activities. While this is a positive indicator of the strength of Australian civil society and civic engagement, it is important that these actors are subject to the public accountability of more traditional actors, such as registered political parties or candidates.

The Electoral Act has long recognised that there are a range of political actors who participate in Australian elections. These include political parties and their associated entities (which include unions and fundraising entities), candidates, and third-party campaign groups. This bill makes several changes to the regulation of political actors, which are necessary to keep pace with modern campaigning and to assist the implementation of restrictions on foreign interference.

Firstly, a registration regime will be introduced for all third party campaigners who incur political expenditure above the disclosure threshold. Political expenditure includes the production of material that is 'intended or likely to affect voting in an election'. These groups are already required to report annually to the Australian Electoral Commission on this expenditure. A registration scheme will improve transparency for voters and complement this government's reforms to the authorisation of electoral matters—enabling voters who receive material attempting to influence their vote to look up an entity on the register. Registration will also assist the AEC's compliance and education activities by identifying political actors and providing a contact person for AEC communications. Registration of third party campaigners reflects current practices in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.

In the 2015-16 financial year, which included the last election, third party campaign groups spent almost $40 million on election advertising, polling and campaigning. It is clear that elections are no longer just fought between political parties and candidates, and it is appropriate all participants who choose to expend significant amounts of political expenditure are subject to transparency.

In recognition of the prominent role that third party campaign groups play in public debate and their growing influence in elections, a new category of political campaigners who incur significant political expenditure, such as those who spend more than $100,000 in a financial year, will have disclosure obligations in line with other prominent political actors, such as political parties. The creation of this new 'political campaigner' category enables significant political actors to be subject to greater transparency befitting their significant expenditure while providing less onerous compliance measures for smaller third party campaigners.

The relevant disclosure obligations applicable to all political actors will also be expanded to require reporting of directors' names, political memberships and the details of government grants and contracts received.

Additionally, the bill will clarify the current definition of 'associated entity' to include the activities of groups who operate to the benefit of political parties. The requirement to register and disclose will not curtail in any way the freedom to participate in political activity. Instead, it will provide transparency, allowing Australian electors to access better information when evaluating the efforts of those who seek to influence Australians' voting decisions and the outcomes of Australian elections.

There has been growing concern amongst the community about foreign interference within our domestic political landscape. Media reports of foreign donations to parties, candidates and third parties have affected the perceived integrity of elections which is critical to our peaceful and democratic government. The need to address this concern was highlighted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its second interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 federal election, which recommended that legislative action be taken to prohibit foreign donations.

To keep foreign money out of Australian elections, political parties, candidates, Senate groups and significant political campaigners will be banned from receiving foreign gifts over $250 or any money transferred from foreign accounts.

Because many third party campaigners, such as charities, also carry out non-political activities, they will not be prevented from receiving foreign gifts. Instead, third parties will be prevented from using foreign money for political expenditure. It is important that third party campaigners are covered by the measures in the bill to level the playing field. Banning foreign gifts to political parties but allowing third parties to use foreign gifts to incur political expenditure would have the same effect of allowing foreign interests to fund political campaigning by some entities but not by others.

A special exemption has been provided for significant political campaigners where they are registered charities or registered organisations under the Fair Work legislation to afford these entities the less onerous compliance burdens required of third party campaigners. This reduces the regulatory burden on such organisations while maintaining the integrity of the foreign donations ban.

As a consequence, the bill does not restrict the ability of charities to receive foreign gifts for non-political purposes. Nor does it restrict the political activities that charities can engage in with contributions from Australians.

To maintain the integrity of the foreign donations ban, no entity will be permitted to use foreign money for their political expenditure. Foreign interests do not have a legitimate role in Australian elections, so they should not be funding things like election advertising or handing out how-to-vote material at polling booths—regardless of whether these activities are carried out by a political party or any other entity. This approach is consistent with foreign donation bans in other jurisdictions.

Appropriate anti-avoidance measures are included in the bill so that the funnelling of foreign donations through an intermediary, setting up a shell company in Australia or splitting donations to avoid these thresholds are banned.

The bill also contains improvements to the public election funding regime. Public election funding is payable in relation to any candidate who receives more than four per cent of the total first-preference votes cast in an election. While this qualification requirement remains unchanged, the bill will limit public funding to demonstrated electoral spending, which will prevent political actors from profiteering and achieving private gain by standing candidates.

The bill introduces reforms to one of the oldest pieces of legislation in our country—the 99-year-old Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918—to improve the funding and disclosure regime for the benefit of the Australian public and Australian voters. This will improve public confidence in Australia's political process by increasing the accountability of those involved in political finance and election campaigns. It will also restrict foreign influence on Australian political actors, including campaigners, through restrictions on foreign donations. I commend the bill.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:40): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in respect of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017. It is 729 days today since Senator Farrell introduced opposition legislation in the Senate to ban foreign donations from our political system. Labor believes that political donations from foreign sources are eroding our political system, and urgent attention is required to address this. If you care about foreign cybermeddling in elections, you should care about foreign donations affecting Australian election outcomes.

After the government opposed our bill in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition sought to progress this urgent reform here, in the House. The government again refused to support this change, so Labor made the unilateral step of saying that we would voluntarily refuse foreign donations. More than a year ago we acted to say that we would not take foreign political donations, not because the law banned us from doing so but because it is the right thing to do. I today join with my colleague Senator Farrell in calling on the Prime Minister and every Liberal and National party member of this House to immediately—this moment—stop taking foreign donations. Don't wait for this bill to become law. The member for Mitchell just said that he believes that foreign donations are 'inappropriate', yet if you went to his political party right now as a foreign donor with a cheque to give to the Liberal Party of Australia, they would take that money. I say to the Liberal Party of Australia: Say no to British citizens like Lord Ashcroft. Say no to American political donors like Peter Briger. Say no to foreign political donations from any noncitizen, and say it today. Do not take another dollar in foreign donations. Do not wait for this bill to pass the parliament. Act right now, while you can.

Donations that seek to influence our political system are a threat not just to our electoral system but also to public faith in our democracy, faith which has been eroded, sadly, over recent months through the revolving door in the Prime Minister's office and through what many people see as the increasing pettiness of the way in which this government behaves. Labor believes we have an opportunity to finally stop foreign political money influencing Australian elections. We won't ignore that opportunity.

Two years after we moved to ban foreign donations, the government has finally presented this final version of the ban on foreign donations. The opposition will be supporting this bill, which incorporates the various lengthy amendments we've requested and which were supported by the Senate. I would also note that this bill is not the last word in donations reform. In the other place, Senator Farrell's second reading amendment indicated our commitment to lowering the disclosure threshold for political donations. As Senator Farrell said:

Reducing the disclosure threshold to $1,000 is Labor policy and it has been for a long time. We understand the importance of greater financial accountability and we are going to act on that. If we form government, this is a policy we would look to implement, and we would do so with proper consultative process. We understand that there would be a range of entities that would want to have a say on how best to implement greater transparency around a lower threshold. We have shown throughout our consultation around the current Electoral Act amendments that we value the input of many different voices, and we would undertake that process—

were we to form government—

in exactly the same vein.

Returning to the bill before the House today, the government's approach seeks to define and prohibit a class of foreign donors. It seeks to create an offence within the Commonwealth Electoral Act for anyone seeking to influence our elections through donations or gifts from foreign sources, and extends that offence to those wilfully receiving them. This bill aims to prohibit those who seek to influence Australian voters from doing that with the support of foreign sources of funding, including foreign states or state-owned enterprises.

While I've noted that the opposition is supporting this bill, the process of getting here has been far from easy. The original legislation caused such significant unrest within civil society that our trusted charities and not-for-profits created a new alliance. There we go: the Liberal-National Party bringing charities together against their ham-fisted legislation. The Hands Off Our Charities alliance was formed to combat the pernicious and problematic effects of the first draft of this bill.

The bill was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters not once but twice—once to review the bill and then to review the proposed changes—and both times the members of that committee worked diligently to engage across the parliament and with civil society to make recommendations for reform. I acknowledge, in particular, the Labor members: Senator Ketter, Senator Brown, the member for Oxley and, particularly, the deputy chair, the member for Scullin, for their vital service on those inquiries. I also acknowledge the members on the Hands Off Our Charities alliance with whom I've worked extensively in my capacity as shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits. I would note that this is the first time that either major party has had a shadow ministry for charities and not-for-profits. This process has reinforced the importance of having that position—not just for us; it's something I would urge for those on the other side of the House.

By working closely with civil society, we've secured two key commitments that give charities and not-for-profits confidence and clarity in interpreting the scope of these reforms. The first is a clearer and more concise definition of what is considered to be an electoral matter. The definition, acting as the gateway to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, won't capture legitimate public policy advocacy and should be reserved for those seeking to influence a voter or the result of an election. The second is a guaranteed review of the practical operation of the bill by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

But, over the course of the last two years, the coalition has not only moved at a snail's pace but managed to stumble in a way in which snails don't. It's a remarkable achievement that they have managed to act with such tardiness and ineptitude. The original bill didn't just ban foreign donations; it hit charities, not-for-profits, advocacy groups and churches. The coalition, it seemed to us, was trying to hijack bipartisan support for banning foreign political donations as an opportunity to shut down their critics. If they'd gotten their way, Australia's charities and not-for-profits would be reeling from yet another coalition attack; yet another front on the war on charities. Initially, when that draft bill was tabled in the Senate, the finance minister maintained that, 'Nothing in this bill prevents charities from expressing their views or advocating for or against political parties, candidates or election issues.' But the sector disagreed, unanimously, loudly and in great detail, with the minister's assessment.

Charities have learnt pretty quickly that, when it looks like an attack on the charitable sector, that's probably because it is. The initial bill had no consultation on exposure drafts. It contained no regulatory impact statement—a little strange from a government that touts its willingness to reduce red tape. It's little wonder that charities saw this as a strategy to marginalise their voices through the process, with the ultimate goal of silencing their vital role in advocacy. The Human Rights Law Centre warned of:

… serious risks that the legislation violates Australia’s constitutional protection of freedom of political communication.

St Vincent De Paul said:

… the ultimate effect for charities will be a set of complex, cumbersome and costly administrative requirements. This will force many charities to divert resources away from frontline services and advocacy. For some charities, it may also have a "chilling" effect, deterring them from speaking out about injustices in order to avoid the onerous administrative costs that such advocacy would incur.

The Australian Conservation Foundation were worried that the law 'poses a significant threat to all charities engaging in issues based advocacy'. The legislation effectively conflates the advocacy activities of independent, non-partisan, civil society groups with the electioneering of political parties. They said:

It's an unprecedented restriction on advocacy and on contributions to election debates …

A spokesperson for Pew Charitable Trusts said the new rules would prevent Pew from using international donations to pay for groups of Indigenous Australians to visit Canberra and Perth to advocate to federal and state parliaments for Indigenous causes. He said:

The government clearly doesn't want to make a distinction between electioneering and advocacy … that conflation is a fundamental challenge to what is a basic function of our democracy …

RESULTS International, which receives 85 per cent of it's funding from international sources, noted that the government's initial approach would have harmed their ability to advocate for improved funding for AIDS screening and tuberculosis immunisation in Australia and our region. Pew also noted the impact on organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund, which, over a number of years, has been a strong advocate for Australia in our role in conserving the Antarctic. That advocacy is, in part, supported by international donors, and so the original version of this bill would have hampered that push.

As a summary of the ACF noted:

Under the proposed bills, ACF would find it much harder to amplify stakeholder voices and support communities in far west NSW in the development and implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Burnet Institute, which has lobbied the federal government to include new direct-acting antiviral drugs for the treatment of hepatitis C, said that because the work was considered advocacy, the original version of this bill could have jeopardised the Burnet Institute's efforts to have medicine subsidised for people in need.

I've noted Pew Charitable Trusts' concerns about the original bill impeding their ability to support Ngadju leaders to travel to meet with government officials and media representatives in Perth and Canberra to discuss their work on the Indigenous ranger program. Anglicare Australia network members provide emergency relief and disaster recovery that would have been put at risk by new rules on how charities can collect donations, meaning that they might have struggled to respond to events such as bushfires. WWF Australia receive funding from international philanthropy and uses that, in part, to help penguins in the Antarctic. They were concerned that their work of protecting penguins might have been caught by the initial bill.

The heart of the problem was that the definition of 'political expenditure' was too broad to support the demanding and punitive framework of reporting compliance and enforcement. Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey explained to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the key definition at the heart of the government's scheme was:

… so extraordinarily badly drafted that it could, frankly, apply to anything.

This is one of our foremost constitutional experts describing the original bill as being 'extraordinarily badly drafted'.

Charities were concerned about the original bill's application to public advocacy work. The Benevolent Society said the definition of 'political purpose':

… is too vague to be meaningful and enforceable … In effect, it could cover comments or views on any issue at all as there is no way to determine what is likely to become an electoral issue in the future.

They also said:

… almost anything that a charity says or does publicly could be captured. Acts such as preparing a submission to a public inquiry, or participating in a public hearing, or even corresponding with a Member of Parliament could be captured by the clause …

It is extraordinary that this parliament would pass a bill that would shut down the ability of charities and not-for-profits to do what we often ask them to, which is to get engaged in the process of scrutinising bills before the House.

Academics argued the bill would effectively prevent meaningful engagement with government and with the parliament. The university sector body, the Group of Eight, said:

This definition is extraordinarily broad in scope, potentially capturing a range of common and legitimate activities routinely performed by universities and academics during the course of their required activities.

They also said:

… any issues significant enough to have become subject to a parliamentary inquiry or departmental consultation process have a strong potential to become election issues at a later date.

Arts organisations raised concerns:

It is not uncommon for works of art … to express views or to communicate and inspire public debate or insight on issues of social importance …

Determining where an artist’s artistic intent ends and political or social intent begins is not clear cut. Introducing a law that requires such a distinction is inappropriate.

Concerns were also raised by Indigenous education groups, regional aid and conservation groups around the sorts of groups which are often encouraged by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to engage in cultural outreach. They were concerned that they might be caught by the draft bill. There was concern that, before handing around the collection platter to support an organisation such as an Anglicare or UnitingCare, the minister might have to tell those in the congregation: 'If you're not a citizen, don't put money in the collection plate.' That's how poorly drafted this original bill was.

So Labor stood up for free speech. We shared the sectors' concerns and fought for their interests. It wasn't the first time we had had to do this. It wasn't the first time the government had brought Australia's charities together against them. There have been two open letters to the Prime Minister complaining about attacks on charities. Indeed, under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, the current Prime Minister is the only one not to have gotten an open letter from charities complaining about the attacks on them by his government. The most recent of these open letters was signed by a plethora of community groups, including Volunteering Australia, Carers Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Community Council of Australia, Justice Connect, Philanthropy Australia and the Starlight Children's Foundation. As the Hands Off Our Charities team put it when expressing their concerns about the original version of this bill:

Most if not all charities seek to change society in some way to improve the circumstances and outcomes for the people, places or issues they represent.

… … …

Under the proposed Bill, the legitimate role of charities as advocates for their charitable purpose is fundamentally changed, with charities that seek policy and other reforms through a public process being recast as political entities engaged in the electoral process.

The problem with foreign money is it amplifies the volume of the voices who are speaking against the interests that charities seek to represent. Foreign political donations are very rarely employed in support of the little guy, in support of causes such as public health, deforestation, climate change, inequality, poverty and disadvantage. So removing foreign influence from our politics will clear the air. But, in their original iterations, these bills were far from doing that. As Hands Off Our Charities said, the proposed bills 'would weaken debate by silencing the voices' of interests that are 'typically represented by charities in the public arena, and by placing onerous restrictions on civil society groups representing the views of large numbers of Australians.' They said that, 'This will result in public debate being further dominated by those who already enjoy access and privilege.'

Whether by negligence or design, that was the coalition's vision for Australia, a place in which immigrants were told that they couldn't put money in the church collection plate, in which environmental charities were told that they couldn't work with overseas partners in dealing with the global challenge of climate change, in which consumer protection agencies told us they weren't sure they would be able to continue their campaigning on product safety, and in which international NGOs were saying, 'There's no way we'd set up our headquarters in Australia when you've got foreign donations laws which stop us working with international partners to get people around the world out of poverty'.

Labor values the work of charities and not-for-profits. For encouraging supermarkets to phase out battery-farmed eggs to demanding a royal commission into misconduct in the financial sector, our charities and not-for-profits have been at the forefront of progressive activism. But under the coalition, they have tried to silence the views of environmental charities and they've tried to prevent legal charities from being involved in law reform debates. Social services charities have been asked to sign government contracts containing gag clauses, an issue that I know my colleagues, Senators Pratt and McAllister, have been speaking about very strongly. And I know that the member for Barton is deeply concerned about it, as was her predecessor as shadow minister for families and social services, the member for Jagajaga.

The coalition crusaded for five full years to shut down the charities commission. From 2011 to 2016, their official stance was that Australia should have no charities commission. And when they were finally unable to get that bill through—it was introduced here and I spoke on the second reading—and pulled that bill, they appointed a charity critic as its head. There has been a survey done by Pro Bono Australia which found that two-thirds of Australian charities find it harder to be heard by the federal government now than they were five years ago. And when we look at how the coalition has spent the last five years, it's hardly surprising.

We've had six ministers over five years responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission: Kevin Andrews, Scott Morrison, Christian Porter, Michael McCormack, Michael Sukkar and now Zed Seselja.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I remind the member for Fenner to use correct titles.

Dr LEIGH: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. After a period in which we had the initial head of the charities commission, Susan Pascoe, doing her best to keep the organisation's morale up in the face of constant coalition attacks, and enduring up to 25 per cent staff turnover—frankly, it's hard to keep your staff when the government is committed to abolishing your organisation—we saw the appointment of well-known charities critic Gary Johns to head the commission.

The coalition was so proud of this that they made that announcement at the very same time in which this House was passing its historic vote on same-sex marriage! That's not what you do when you're proud of an announcement. Appointing Gary Johns to head the charities commission is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, or like putting Ned Kelly in charge of bank security or like putting Bronwyn Bishop in charge of transport for politicians! Let's go through some of the things that Gary Johns has said in the past, because the minister, when appointing him, said he hadn't read his work.

Gary Johns has said that the Abbott government:

… should deny charity status to the enemies of progress, …

Who knows who the enemies of progress are?

He believes in scrapping the Charities Act 2013, which effectively throws charities law back to the 1600s. I love the 1600s! Many great things came out of the 1600s, not least of them Shakespeare. But I don't know that our charities want their laws to go back to the 1600s. Gary Johns has said, 'There is a great deal of impure altruism in the charities business.' He has attacked Recognise, calling it the 'officially sanctioned propaganda arm of the Australian government'. He has attacked beyondblue for their work with LGBT+ people. He made the comment, 'a lot of poor women in this country, a large proportion of whom are Aboriginal, are used as cash cows, right'. I'm not sure how Indigenous charities feel about the fact that a man who made that comment now heads the charities commission. I don't know how welfare charities would feel about Gary Johns' statement:

If a person's sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.

I'm not sure how multicultural charities feel about the fact that Gary Johns, the head of the charities commission, said:

Australia is sucking in too many of the wrong type of immigrant. … There is no doubt many Australians have considerable misgivings about Muslim immigration and the ability of many to fit in.

That's Gary Johns, the head of the charities commission.

And I'm not sure how environmental charities working to boost renewable energy and get more of those solar panels on the roof that so many Australians enjoy would feel about the fact that the head of the charities commission has said, 'We know for a fact that renewable energy is the cause of the blackouts.'

Labor has engaged with charities across the country in working to boost charitable advocacy. As Welcome to Australia founder, Brad Chilcott, has said that the government's approach to charities is akin to saying, 'You can plant a tree but you can't protect the forest.' They want to put a velvet rope across the entrance to the public square. Labor is working with charities. We support the Justice Connect campaign to fix fundraising. We have held 16 Reconnected forums across Australia, with more than 1,500 charity heads discussing how to rebuild civic life in Australia—how to get around that 'disconnected' problem that Australia faces. We want to work with charities, not against them.

So, in working to redraft this bill, we endorsed the Hands Off Our Charities Red Line Principles. These principles guided the final amendments that were made to the bill. The commitment we made to support them underpinned our close and consultative work with Australian charities. We set out to fix the government's mess, and we have done just that. I want to pay particular tribute to Nick Terrell, in my office, and to Ben Rillo, in Senator Farrell's office, for their very impressive work on the details of this and engaging with the charity sector.

We have worked with charities but also with the goal of banning foreign donations. There were some on the Left of politics who said we just had to tear up the bill and start again. If we had listened to the Greens, we wouldn't be getting foreign money out of politics today. If the Greens had had their way, this bill would be dead. I don't think any reasonable person imagines that the coalition would have come to the table to get bipartisan support for a ban on foreign political donations. So Labor did what it always does: it found that sensible centrist path between the rip-it-all-up group on the Left and those who wanted to hurt charities on the Right. And, as a range of third parties have noted, we managed to get that balance right.

The CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O'Shanassy, has said:

When first introduced this bill was a draconian proposal that redefined non-partisan, independent, issues-based advocacy as political campaigning and would have subjected Australian charities to many of the restrictions in the Electoral Act that were designed and intended for political parties.

The proposal that has entered the Senate is:

… a significant improvement … addressing many of the concerns raised by charities and non-profits.

…   …   …

The change to the definition of 'electoral matter' in particular is a substantial improvement … and will free charities from a significant red tape burden.

ACF recognised the federal Labor Party, the opposition leader, and, in particular, shadow charities minister Andrew Leigh and shadow Special Minister of State Don Farrell for their ongoing consultation with the charities sector.

Professor Tony Cunningham, president of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes, says:

We're pleased to see that our concerns were heard, and this Bill now strikes a much better balance between protecting the integrity of our electoral processes while allowing for charities to speak out on important matters.

They have welcomed their ability to speak out on public policy issues, while working with international partners and receiving vital international research grants. They acknowledge the work of the Hands Off Our Charities alliance, as well as Senator Farrell, Senator Cormann, Senator Reynolds and myself.

Hugh de Kretser, the executive director of the Human Rights Law Centre, says:

The Human Rights Law Centre welcomes the electoral funding bill that is to come before the Senate today, which is vastly different from the initial proposal that would have stifled vital public advocacy by charities.

…   …   …

In December 2017, the Turnbull Government introduced a badly flawed bill, purportedly to address foreign influence in elections that would have stifled public advocacy by charities and other community groups. A strong campaign from the united charity sector highlighted the extensive flaws in the proposal.

…   …   …

Charities and community groups do vital work building a better, healthier society. Our democracy is stronger when they are free to speak up.

David Crosbie, the CEO of the Community Council for Australia and a tireless campaigner for the rights of charities and not-for-profits, said:

The Community Council for Australia (CCA) was very concerned about how the original Electoral Reform Bill (2017) would impact thousands of charities who would have faced quite complicated new administrative requirements and restrictions if they chose to make any public statements advocating for their cause or their community.

…   …   …

Since CCA first raised our concerns about the Bill, the Shadow Minister for Charities Andrew Leigh has been an active advocate for a more sensible approach that would protect issues-based advocacy by charities.

We are pleased that a more reasoned Bill is now being introduced into the Parliament …

...      …   …

The revised Bill is a good demonstration of how public policy can be improved when the concerns of charities are taken seriously. Our democracy is stronger when charities are able to actively represent their causes and ensure the least powerful in our communities are represented.

Misha Coleman, the executive director of Global Health Alliance Melbourne, says:

Global Health Alliance Melbourne welcomes the bipartisan and crossbench support for this version of the Bill, which is a drastically improved version from the original draft …

...      …   …

… investments from foreign donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to vital health and medical research—in areas from paediatrics to malaria—will now not be jeopardised.

Barry Traill, the Australian director of Pew Charitable Trusts, said:

It is vital for democracy and society that charities can speak up and advocate on issues of public importance. We welcome the changes made to this Bill that will allow this to continue. We congratulate the MPs from all parties that listened to concerns from charities and worked hard to make this legislation work for Australia and for Australians.

We need to get foreign money out of politics and we have done just that. The influence of foreign donations has been in the news in Australia. It was in the news last month in New Zealand with the Jami-Lee Ross scandal involving foreign political donations.

It is vital we get foreign money out of politics, and I return to where I began. The Liberals and Nationals have said they are supporting this bill. They must, therefore, instruct their party machines never to accept another dollar of foreign political donations, starting right now.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:10): I will start my contribution where my colleague and friend the member for Fenner, the shadow minister, left off. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2018 is about restoring trust and integrity to our political processes. That isn't all about the contents of this bill or, indeed, any piece of legislation. There is nothing stopping Liberal and National parties and, indeed, some other parties from abiding by its spirit now as the Australian Labor Party has been doing for quite some time. So I make that invitation. I join the member for Fenner in extending that invitation to our conservative opponents to act now and not wait for the enactment of this piece of legislation. They can show that they are genuinely committed to the principles this bill seeks to set out.

These principles are very important. I think the biggest challenge facing our politics is the erosion of trust and confidence in our politics and our political institutions. I think also that maybe the biggest failing of this parliament in recent years—although in the past five years there have been many spectacular failings—has been our inability across the aisle to address this challenge. I am pleased to be supporting this bill and, hopefully, to see it enacted into law, because it would represent the biggest step forward in electoral reform and campaign finance reform in well over a decade. It completes a journey that our party, the Australian Labor Party, embarked upon over a decade ago. I think this is worth reflecting on. I will also reflect on the journey this piece of legislation has been on, because I think that is instructive as well. But I think all members should be mindful of the fact that very similar proposals—adopting different mechanisms, it's true—have been, effectively, before this parliament for more than a decade. Indeed, the Australian Labor Party has had private members' bills and private senators' bills attending to this very issue in this parliament.

I think that, in reflecting on that, there's another matter that needs to be touched upon, and that is to ensure that when we seek to make progress in this area—as, indeed, in any area of reform—we cannot allow perfect to be the enemy of good. I think it is fair to say that this also goes to these questions about trust in politics and frustration with our political system. We have seen in the course of this debate members and senators taking the path of grandstanding rather than seeking to effectively make change. It's very easy to commentate, but I would submit and suggest to those in this place who choose to do so that there are plenty of places outside of our legislature from which they can do so. The choice that was presented to Labor members and senators when this bill arrived in the parliament was whether or not we could fix it or simply seek to reject it on its terms, which were manifestly inadequate, as we said. We chose the path of seeking to advance reform in this critical area and chose to seek to lift up this place, this parliament, as a place which can achieve meaningful reform, responding to a deep sense of frustration right across the community. I'm very pleased to say that our interventions along with civil society have resulted in a piece of legislation which does achieve a critical political objective.

If it's said that this piece of legislation does not resolve all the outstanding issues around campaign finance and donations reform, of course that's true, but it's just completely irrelevant. The bottom line here is that we have taken a step forward as a parliament and we will take a step forward as a polity, as a nation, because we have chosen not to allow perfect to be the enemy of good, because we have chosen to engage respectfully with one another as parliamentarians and, indeed, with affected stakeholders to take a big step forward. That's not to say there isn't more to be done—of course there is—but let us focus on the bill at hand.

Let's also focus on the journey this piece of legislation has been on. I mentioned earlier that proposals to effectively ban foreign donations to political parties have been put before this place for over a decade. This legislation was originally introduced over a year ago and its terms were manifestly unsatisfactory, as the member for Fenner has said. He was of course correct to cite one of our most eminent constitutional scholars, Professor Anne Twomey, noting her assessment that the original bill was 'extraordinarily badly drafted'. He has quite effectively set out the consequences or the potential consequences of allowing the bill as it was originally introduced to be enacted into law.

What that bill did do was enable an important conversation, a very important democratic conversation, in this place and in the wider Australian community. It reminded us that there are important considerations to be balanced here. A critical one that has been of great concern to me and all my Labor colleagues has been to get the balance right between preserving our political institutions from improper foreign interference through the mechanism of foreign donations and not stifling the legitimate operations of a robust civil society, not least as a check on people in this place and, in particular, in executive government. It is extraordinary—we should reflect on this—that the bill as originally introduced achieves something that many, including me, would have thought was impossible: it brought together the IPA, the Human Rights Law Centre and myself in opposition to a proposition. It unified almost the entirety of Australian civil society, including groups which have very diverse ideological and programmatic objectives, in opposition to a bill which, on the face of it, was dealing with foreign interference with our formal politics but would have had an extraordinary effect.

Of course there are considerations to be balanced here. I think all of us in this place understand there is political activity that is conducted by organisations and entities that are not registered political parties. That is something we need to be mindful of, but we need to be mindful of that in a considered and measured way, not simply in terms of formal legal consequences but in terms of having regard to the shape of our democracy and whether or not we believe it is imperative to retain a robust civil society that can hold all of us to account. I pay tribute to those civil society organisations who campaigned and engaged so effectively over the duration of the journey to this bill being debated in this place today—those groups that came together in the Hands Off Our Charities alliance. They came together and reconciled their own positions, as well as grappling with significant first principle concerns, to establish a set of red line principles that informed my consideration of the provisions before us and, I think, shaped ultimately the disposition of senators in considering this bill too. They enabled us to address whether the measures were proportionate to the broad societal and political interests we were seeking to advance. They enabled us to come together with a package of amendments before us today which do justice to the twin objectives: dealing with the question of removing the influence, real and perceived, of foreign donations on our politics whilst recognising the legitimate interests of many civil society organisations and ensuring that they are not unduly fettered by any such law being introduced, as would have been the case with the original bill.

I'm very pleased to have served in this parliament as the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I'm pleased to have worked with a number of colleagues on that committee from across the parliament. I think the work of that committee in considering the original bill—the bill as originally presented to the parliament—was important and perhaps another marker of the way in which we can work together to rebuild a sense of trust and confidence in this institution. I think it is striking that a government bill was considered by this multipartisan committee, which was able to then reach agreement in terms which recommended a radical reshaping of the bill and which drew attention to its fundamental antidemocratic deficiencies. I would like to acknowledge once more the work done by the former chair of the committee, Senator Reynolds, who managed a challenging process professionally, courteously and with an eye to her very clear sense of the wider objective that ought to unite all of us in this place: to uphold the quality of our democracy so we can play out the important policy and ideological debates in this place. I think, but for the contribution of Senator Reynolds, we would not be standing here making such a statement, such a step forward, when it comes to reform of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

I'd also like to acknowledge another former member of the committee, former Senator Lee Rhiannon from the Greens party. I think, again, Senator Rhiannon showed herself to be an incredibly effective presence on the committee in dealing with this piece of legislation and, indeed, other issues, recognising that this was an issue where we should try to bring the parliament together—and we did through the committee. The Greens, the Australian Labor Party and the government came together with a series of recommendations that substantially took us to the place we are today. I note Senator Rhiannon's contribution because I think it does deal with the issue I touched on earlier. This question of us living up to the expectations of our constituents and the Australian public requires we who are given the privilege to be lawmakers to engage principally with the act of lawmaking—not with grandstanding, not with commentary and not with indulging ourselves from the position of the sidelines, but by getting in and seeing if we can reconcile issues by having the debates that certainly Lee Rhiannon and I would have when it came to questions of policy. So I pay tribute to her very significant contribution.

I also acknowledge all my colleagues on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, because that initial report did not dispose of this. The government came back with a redrafted bill. We had another look at it. On this occasion, the parties represented on that committee were unable to reach unanimity, but Labor members—me, the member for Oxley, Senator Ketter and Senator Brown—put forward another series of suggestions. I'm very pleased that the substance of those concerns we expressed have, in the second advisory report on the bill, substantially been addressed.

I join the shadow minister, the member for Fenner, in acknowledging the work of staff in assisting us in this. I note that we have in the advisers' box Ben Rillo from Senator Farrell's office and also Nick Terrell from the member for Fenner's office. I am personally indebted to their contributions. I also acknowledge that Don Farrell, as the senior shadow minister, has done a wonderful job in progressing an issue that has been on the Notice Paper in one way or another for a very long time. If not for Senator Farrell's efforts, working in collaboration with Senator Cormann, we would not be in the place we are now.

Members and senators have made the choice to act on this issue of foreign donations. We made the choice not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I hope that is a choice that members in this place will also embrace—that people will not give in to the temptation to talk about what is not in the bill rather than what it is in it. Of course, there are many aspects which are fundamental to improving our democracy and our politics which are not contained in this bill. I would have thought that was self-evident. That's not to say that they should be introduced into the bill.

In many contributions I know that both the shadow minister and I have talked about Labor's bold vision for democratic reform. It would be remiss not to mention the resolution in this place yesterday in that regard, where this place and the other place have called for the establishment of a national integrity commission—a call which it appears government members regard as a fringe matter, although sufficiently 'unfringe', I may say, for them to vote for it in Australia's House of Representatives.

There's more to be done, of course, when it comes to real-time donations, lowering the donation threshold and many other matters that really go to the heart of taking money out of politics and all improper influence out of Australian democracy. These are important matters. They are so important that they should be debated properly, not used as cheap debating points in the context of this bill. We should continue—and we on this side of the House will continue—to make the case for our vision of tidying up Australian democracy and for our vision to ensure that Australians can have confidence that decisions in this place are made on their merits, not on the basis of undue influences, be they foreign or otherwise. But these are distinct debates and they should be treated with the respect they deserve. Legislation should be introduced, and I certainly hope the government will enable us to debate either the private senator's bill or the private member's bill that have been introduced, or legislation in similar terms.

Labor continue to be committed to our wide-ranging vision for restoring Australian democracy, but today we are here to debate a big step forward. It deserves to be discussed in its own terms, because those terms are important. They're important because the goal of banning foreign donations is one that, I think, is genuinely shared by every member of this place, and, equally importantly, because the issue of democratic reform has been a question that has bedevilled this parliament for decades. Today we take a major step forward. Let us celebrate that step forward, and let us then move on to furthering the work. I'm pleased to support this bill.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:25): I thank the previous speaker, the member for Scullin, for his words and for framing the debate in a bipartisan way. But, in doing so, I want to remind people of some history, because I think history's important. The intent of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2018 is to ban foreign donations from the Australian political system, and this has been Labor policy for years. Labor went to the 2016 election with a policy to ban foreign donations, require disclosure of donations over $1,000, ban donation splitting, ban anonymous donations over $50, limit public funding of campaign expenditure and to introduce new offences and increase penalties. Not just did we go to the 2016 election with that policy; we introduced a bill into the Senate in 2016 to ban foreign donations.

The government insisted on bringing in its own legislation, which had the remarkable effect of uniting all the charities, not-for-profits, advocacy groups, churches and industry associations against it—a remarkable achievement! They got GetUp! and the Institute of Public Affairs to agree on something; it was remarkable. The government's bill created such concern that a number of our trusted charities and not-for-profits formed the Hands Off Our Charities alliance to oppose the changes. The government's first bungled attempt at this bill would have captured a whole range of worthy organisations—charities, churches, community groups—in a maze of regulations and obstacles. It was absurd and ridiculous overreach. I think it's important to remember that it was incompetence on a grand scale. These organisations would have been unable to meet their quite legitimate aims. Some of these organisations were so concerned that they demanded the bill be opposed outright.

During this policy and legislative disaster, we on this side did two things—took two constructive actions. We voluntarily decided to refuse to take foreign donations, something I'm very proud that we committed to. I would add that those opposite, the Liberal and National coalition parties, made no such commitment. Clearly, it was to our financial disadvantage to limit the groups and organisations we were able to receive support from, but we believed that it was the right thing to do. This was an action which did not require legislation; we simply did it. The Australian public is wondering why those opposite, the coalition parties, are not doing the same.

The second thing we did was to work constructively with the charities—the churches, the not-for-profits—to fix this legislation. The bill was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the committee first to review the bill and then to review the proposed changes. The Labor members of this committee—the member for Scullin, who we just heard from, the member for Oxley and Senators Ketter and Brown—did great work in making the bill more workable and more effective. That's why I want us to remember the bill's history and remember the principled stand that has been taken by members on this side of the House, members in the great Australian Labor Party. Labor members of that committee did very good work.

This bill is important. We believe that foreign donations are eroding our political system and eroding public trust in our democratic processes, and we believe that there are external threats to Australian democracy and our democratic institutions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:11): by leave—I move:

That further statements in relation to the death of Bonita Mabo AO be permitted in the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:26): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 184: nuclear cooperation UK.

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

Mr BROADBENT: by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 184.

The report deals with the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

The Australian government has an export policy for Australian nuclear materials that permits Australian nuclear materials to be used only for peaceful purposes.

Australia's policy also requires the safe and secure storage of Australian nuclear materials, and imposes an accounting framework to ensure that Australian nuclear materials are always subject to Australian standards.

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. Subject to final agreement between the UK and the EU, a transition period during which the UK will be subject to EU laws may apply up until 31 December 2020.

When the UK leaves the EU, it will also leave Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community.

Australian nuclear materials in the UK have until now been covered by the Australia-Euratom nuclear cooperation agreement.

When the UK leaves Euratom, that agreement will cease to apply to Australian nuclear materials in the UK.

Consequently, a new nuclear cooperation agreement with the UK is necessary to enable the uninterrupted transfer of Australian uranium to the UK and to maintain smooth commercial operations for Australian mining companies.

The proposed agreement will ensure that Australian nuclear safety standards continue to apply to Australian nuclear materials in the UK post-Brexit.

The UK and Australia have an extensive history of nuclear cooperation, and the UK has a reputation for supporting nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. The UK also has an established and expanding civilian nuclear industry.

The UK holds a third of Australia's nuclear materials in the EU, and is a significant international manufacturer of nuclear fuels.

This means that Australian nuclear materials exported to the UK are regularly transferred to third parties following processing into nuclear fuel.

Third-party transfers of Australian nuclear material from the UK can only be made to countries with which Australia has a nuclear cooperation agreement.

As an added precaution, third-party transfers from the UK can only be made with Australia's prior consent.

This means that Australian nuclear materials exported to the UK will always be subject to Australian standards and can be accounted for through their life span.

The committee believes that the Australia-UK nuclear cooperation agreement is in Australia's interest and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.

On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.

Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:29): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 12 of 2018.

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

Mr GOODENOUGH: by leave—Of the new bills examined in chapter 1 of this report, 15 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit, or do not engage, human rights. The committee has also requested further information in relation to the human rights compatibility of two bills, and has considered three bills on an 'advice only' basis. Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of a number of pieces of legislation.

Of the bills assessed as not raising human rights concerns, I would like to highlight the statement of compatibility accompanying the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2018. This bill amends a number of acts relating to the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemical products in a manner that engages and limits a number of human rights, including the right to privacy, freedom of expression and criminal process rights. The statement of compatibility comprehensively sets out each of the rights that were engaged and limited by the measures in the bill, which allowed for an assessment that the measures, in context, were permissible limitations on human rights. The statement of compatibility accompanying this bill is an example of how, when human rights issues are fully addressed in the statement, the committee is able to conclude its analysis without needing to seek further information from legislation proponents.

In this regard, statements of compatibility are the primary document that sets out the legislation proponent's assessment of the human rights compatibility of legislation, and are a key starting point for the committee's technical examination of the human rights compatibility of legislation. The committee has, in recent months, been undertaking a project to improve statements of compatibility including by engaging with legislation proponents and providing training. The aim is to improve the quality of statements of compatibility by explaining the committee's expectations, underpinned by the legal requirements, as to the content of the statements of compatibility and information as to how the statement of compatibility could be improved.

I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's latest scrutiny report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 12 of 2018 to the chamber.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:33): I am in continuation. I previously outlined our history, the history of those on this side of the chamber in relation to this issue and, in particular, the foreign donations policy we took to the last federal election. That's on the record. Suffice to say, we've been leading in this area. Actions are important. This bill will mean that foreign donations are banned. We will get improved protection of our elections from foreign interference, and that is important. This is going to be achieved without imposing unnecessary and onerous restrictions on charities and the civil sector, and that is important.

It does remain to be seen how effective compliance and enforcement will be, so I just wanted to make the point that consultation with the Australian Electoral Commission, the AEC, will be required to ensure that the practical operation of the foreign donations ban has good outcomes for our electoral processes and our nation. We need to ensure that there are no unfortunate unintended consequences. I hope that all of us in this parliament will remain vigilant to ensure that the integrity of our democracy is maintained and public trust in our democracy is preserved. For our part, Labor have consistently said that we support increased transparency throughout our political system. We believe that the current disclosure threshold for political donations is too high at $10,000, indexed to inflation, which effectively means it is now $13,800. We propose it should be $1,000 and not indexed.

This bill is a significant reform. It's a significant step forward. But it's taken a lot of hard work by many people, including by many charitable and not-for-profit groups, who have had to expend considerable resources—resources that should have gone to their charitable objectives—to save those opposite from their own incompetence. Having said that, this bill is a step forward. It remains to be seen how enforcement will work, but hopefully it will, with proper enforcement, mean that, in the future, our electoral process remains good and without foreign interference.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:36): I won't take up much of the House's time with respect to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill. While I think every person in this House believes that electoral funding reform is important, it's fair to say that we've had very slow movement in this place with respect to electoral reform. Now we know that political campaigners will now need to register to disclose their donations, it's disappointing that Labor did not pursue a thousand dollar donation limit for all donors, not just foreign donors. I note that in the other place they got cold feet and moved a second reading amendment instead. Let's face it: that was tokenistic and a meaningless gesture.

It's important to remember that if we want to restore the faith of the Australian people we can do that in no easier way than through donation reform. Personally, I would like to see something closer to Canada's model. I think that politics has become about big business. It has become about big money and less about grassroots movement and grassroots representation. So, for a future parliament, or perhaps even this parliament, I would like to see that we have real and meaningful reform with respect to political donations.

We should have real-time disclosure. We should also have, I believe, a limit of no more than $1,000 being donated by man, woman, child or, indeed, corporation. I think there's a sense out in the community that if you donate a couple of thousand dollars to a candidate or a political party it is a gesture. However, when a organisation or individual donates $100,000—or more than that—one has to question the motives for donating that much. I believe we need to question whether people in this place make decisions based on the donations that they receive and the vested interests that they are.

I will be moving some amendments. These are amendments that were moved in the Senate, and I would hope that the opposition in particular would look at these amendments again. These amendments require the disclosure of gifts and loans that exceed the disclosure threshold to be delivered each calendar month. We need to be sharing this. The value of the gift and loan and the identity of the person who provides the gift and loan must be disclosed, and those disclosures must be made within 10 days after the end of the calendar month. As I said, the disclosure threshold at the moment, which is more than $13,000, is too high. That really means, effectively, a family of five can donate the best part of $50,000 and nobody knows—nobody has any idea of the money flowing, particularly into the major political parties.

In closing, I think we can do a lot more if we want to gain the trust of the Australian community. We need to get money out of politics. I look forward to a time when members from both of the major political parties actually take this issue seriously and we address real funding reform for political parties.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:40): I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 62 (after line 14), after item 45A, insert:

45AA After section 304

Insert:

304A Monthly disclosure of gifts and loans

Gifts

(1) If, in a calendar month, a political entity or a political campaigner receives one or more gifts, the recipient must notify the Electoral Commission, in the approved form, of the total value of those gifts within 10 days after the end of the calendar month.

(2) If, in a calendar month, a political entity or a political campaigner receives a gift whose value exceeds the disclosure threshold, the recipient must notify the Electoral Commission, in the approved form, of the following within 10 days after the end of the calendar month:

(a) the value of the gift;

(b) the name and address of the person who made the gift.

Loans

(3) If, in a calendar month, a political entity or a political campaigner receives one or more loans, the recipient must notify the Electoral Commission, in the approved form, of the total amount of those loans within 10 days after the end of the calendar month.

(4) If, in a calendar month, a political entity or a political campaigner receives a loan the amount of which exceeds the disclosure threshold, the recipient must notify the Electoral Commission, in the approved form, of the following within 10 days after the end of the calendar month:

(a) the amount of the loan;

(b) the name and address of the person who made the loan.

The amendment is quite simple. It is an amendment that was moved in the Senate on 15 November, and it is my hope that this House considers the amendment differently than the Senate did. It will require the disclosure of gifts and loans that exceed the disclosure threshold, including if the cumulative total exceeds a threshold each calendar month. The disclosure can be made within 10 days after the end of the calendar month. The value of the gift loan and the identity of the person who provides the gift loan must be disclosed to the Electoral Commission. These disclosure requirements are not audited; they are in addition to the annual disclosure requirements that are audited and can be found in section 305B. The disclosure threshold of $13,800 indexed until June 2019 is not altered in any way by the proposed amendments. As I said in my speech, if we want meaningful change in this place, and if we want the Australian community to have faith in us, I believe changes to political donations need to happen.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:42): The question of the donations threshold is one that has a long and special history to those of us on this side of the House. It was the Hawke government in 1983 that first introduced laws requiring donations to a political party exceeding $1,000 to be disclosed. Labor opposed the decision of the Howard government in 2006 to increase the disclosure threshold to $10,000 indexed to CPI, which has taken it to the $13,800 it is today. Indeed, I would note the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters back in 2011, which recommended reducing the disclosure thresholds on donations to $1,000 not indexed.

Labor believes that donations over $1,000 should be disclosed. It is the practice that we maintain as a political party. But Labor will not be supporting this amendment because it is important, in making the reform, to ensure that there is significant consultation with the Australian Electoral Commission and, indeed, with charities and not-for-profits. It has been Labor that has stood shoulder to shoulder with charities and not-for-profits throughout this debate, making sure they are not impeded by the way in which we crack down on foreign donations. Real-time disclosure may be straightforward for a large entity, but real-time disclosure may not be feasible for a small entity. We on this side of the House will not support changes which would see small entities incurring significant fines for failing to comply with the law. We want to work with those charities and not-for-profits, as we've done through this process.

I'd say to the member for Mayo that we have made clear to her colleague Senator Griff in the other place that we will work with her party, should we be fortunate enough to win government, to see these two things happen: to move to improving transparency and to disclose donations over $1,000. But we must do it in consultation with the AEC. We must do it in a way that doesn't hurt charities. And anyone who has been watching this debate over the last year will have seen how badly hurt charities and not-for-profits are. To now support this amendment would risk hurting the very same charities and not-for-profits that Labor have stood up for over the course of the last year. We will not see that happen. We support the reducing of the disclosure threshold, we support greater transparency but, because we also support charities and not-for-profits, we cannot support this ill-considered amendment at this time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:45): I want to thank the member for Mayo for this amendment. The amendment proposes a form of regular disclosure of political donations. The government is committed to consulting all the relevant experts through the open government partnership to progress the work of open government. Civil society groups, however, as the opposition has noted, who would have to disclose under the electoral funding and disclosure scheme, would need sufficiently sophisticated internal administrative processes to deal with any new requirements of the new regime. Unlike the many other amendments that have been adopted in this bill, this proposal hasn't been subjected to consultation with regulated entities and there hasn't been consultation with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in a thorough policy process. For those reasons, the government's committed to a considered and collaborative approach to real-time disclosure and will not be supporting the amendment. I note that this amendment was considered in the Senate and was rejected.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:46): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (16:49): It's a great privilege to provide the summing up to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. I'd like to thank all members of this chamber for their contributions to this debate and thank the Attorney-General for all the work he's done in this debate.

The main FCFC bill brings together the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, to be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Contrary to the contributions of members opposite, this bill does not in any way abolish the Family Court. It provides a consistent family law court structure, designed to make it as easy as possible for Australian families to get on with their lives.

The consequential FCFC bill removes the appeal division of the Family Court and establishes the family law appeal division in the Federal Court. It also facilitates the transition for court users from the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on the commencement of these provisions. These changes will help to ensure that Australian families have certainty and consistency in their experience navigating the court system.

I note that, when the government introduced these bills into this parliament on 23 August this year, it was scheduled to commence on 1 January 2019. However, due to the time frame for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bills, the commencement date of 1 January 2019 is no longer achievable. The government will move amendments today to substitute the original commencement date reference to '1 January 2019' for a reference to 'the commencement day'. The commencement day will be defined in the bill as:

A single day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the day after the end of that period.

The government amendments to be moved will also make two changes to this bill to clarify that the Family Law (Fees) Regulation 2012 applies to services requested or documents filed in the family law appeal division—the FLAD—of the Federal Court of Australia, and to ensure the continuation of the current practice of the federal courts of not charging fees for child support matters. I also acknowledge the issues raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in Scrutiny Digest No. 10 of 2018 in relation to the delegation of administrative powers. These issues are under active consideration, and the government will respond in due course.

We know the family law system is in bad shape. The cracks in the system have turned into crevices. Families are exhausted by the time taken to transfer matters between the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court, the outcome of which can often require them to start their matter afresh. It takes over a year from filing for defendant matters to be heard at trial. The potential difference in cost between matters going to trial in the Family Court compared to matters going to trial in the Federal Circuit Court is substantial. This government has made addressing the family law system a priority. The best way for Australian families to feel immediate benefit from family law reform is by resettling the federal family law court structure. This is the most appropriate starting point, and it will allow us to implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in the context of a more efficient and effective user-friendly court structure that is not the subject of the ALRC's family law system review.

The main FCFC bill brings together the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. The Family Court will continue as Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the FCFC, and the Federal Circuit Court will continue as Division 2 of the FCFC. Judges appointed to both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court will continue their appointments in the new courts. Judicial family law expertise will not be lost. The bill retains the family law qualifications for judges appointed to Division 1 and introduces a new appointment requirement for Division 2 judges to ensure they are suitable for that position. Importantly, the new requirement will enshrine in legislation a broader consideration of a potential judge's qualifications, experience and attributes. That being said, the government is very confident of the family law expertise of the family law judges in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. We note that, currently, the Federal Circuit Court has the highest number of specialised family law judges, at 41, with an average of 25 years experience in family law.

The FCFC will effectively be a single point of entry into the family law jurisdiction of the federal court system and will hear first instance family law matters. Both Divisions 1 and 2 will have the same original jurisdiction in family law matters, with Division 2 also retaining the Federal Circuit Court's existing general federal law and fair work jurisdiction. Family law appeals will go to the new family law appeal division in the Federal Court. Removing the appeal division of the Family Court means that more judges of the FCFC will be able to hear more trials. This will ease the growing backlog of first instance family law matters waiting to be heard and reduce median case waiting times.

The reforms will also improve the family law case management system. The reforms mean there'll be no wrong door for family law matters. People will be able to file their matter in either division knowing it will be overseen by a case management team led by judges, and allocated, at the appropriate time, the most appropriate judge in the most appropriate division.

The government is serious about improving the family law system. To assist this work, we've allocated $4 million in funding to the Federal Court to review court rules and assist with implementing the reforms. By creating standardised rules and procedures within family law, the FCFC will be simpler to use and more efficient. While these increased efficiencies are predicted to save $3 million like the reforms in 2015-16, this money will be invested back into the courts to continue rebuilding the family law system to improve Australian families' experiences.

The consequential FCFC bill amends the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to establish the new family law appeal division, which will hear appeals from judgements of the FCFC, a family court of a state or single-judge decision of a supreme court of a state or territory exercising family law jurisdiction. The government anticipates that the majority of appeals from the FCFC (Division 2) will be heard by a single judge, freeing up judicial resources to reduce delays in family law appeal matters. The bill ensures that appropriate transitional arrangements are in place, including for matters before the Federal Court from the commencement date of the provisions. This bill is an important companion to the main FCFC bill.

This is an important day for Australian families. The purpose of the government's reforms is to ensure Australian families experience shorter waiting times at court and a reduction in the potential for conflict caused by prolonged and acrimonious family disputes in our court system. The government is committed to delivering better family law court structure for Australian families as soon as possible. We are ending the confusion in the family law jurisdiction caused by striking different procedures, practices, rules and fees. We're stopping delays caused by cases bouncing around between these two federal courts. We're ceasing the prolonged pain drawn-out cases can cause to children and families. I encourage the parliament to say yes to a new federal court structure that will put the needs of Australian families first and support them getting on with their lives.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (16:57): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

Mr ROBERT: I move government amendments (1) to (4):

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 1 and 2), omit the table items, substitute:

[commencement]

(2) Clause 7, page 8 (after line 9), after the definition of civil practice and procedure provisions, insert:

commencement day means the day this Act commences.

[commencement]

(3) Clause 8, page 17 (line 6), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

[commencement]

(4) Clause 8, page 17 (line 9), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

[commencement]

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (16:58): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The SPEAKER (17:14): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (17:18): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (127), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

Mr ROBERT: I move the government amendments, as circulated, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 34), omit the table items, substitute:

(2) Schedule 1, page 69 (after line 2), before Division 1, insert:

Division 1A—Introduction

256A Definitions

In this Part:

commencement day means the day this Schedule commences.

(3) Schedule 1, item 257, page 69 (line 7), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(4) Schedule 1, item 258, page 69 (line 12), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(5) Schedule 1, item 259, page 69 (line 18), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(6) Schedule 1, item 260, page 69 (line 24), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(7) Schedule 1, item 261, page 70 (line 3), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(8) Schedule 1, item 262, page 70 (line 9), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(9) Schedule 1, item 263, page 70 (line 20), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(10) Schedule 1, item 264, page 70 (line 29), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(11) Schedule 1, item 265, page 71 (line 6), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(12) Schedule 1, item 265, page 71 (lines 10 and 13), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(13) Schedule 2, item 291, page 114 (lines 16, 21 and 28 and 29), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(14) Schedule 2, item 291, page 114 (after line 32), at the end of section 106.4, add:

(4) In this section:

commencement day means the day Schedule 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences.

(15) Schedule 2, item 473, page 140 (line 28), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2018".

(16) Schedule 2, item 526, page 148 (line 18), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the day Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences".

(17) Schedule 3, page 192 (after line 30), after item 10, insert:

10A After paragraph 1.04(1 ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) a service requested, or the filing of a document lodged, under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 on or after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018, in relation to the Family Law Appeal Division of the Federal Court; and

(18) Schedule 3, page 193 (after line 14), after item 15, insert:

15A After paragraph 2.08(1 ) ( c)

Insert:

(ca) a proceeding under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 or Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988;

(cb) an appeal under section 47A of the Family Law Act from a decree of a court exercising jurisdiction under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 or Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988;

(cc) an appeal under subsection 24(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976:

   (i) from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia exercising original jurisdiction under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 or regulations under either of those Acts; or

   (ii) from a judgment of a court exercising appellate jurisdiction under section 47A of the Family Law Act in relation to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 or Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988; or

   (iii) from a judgment of a Family Court of a State, or a Supreme Court of a State or Territory constituted by a single Judge, exercising original or appellate jurisdiction under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 or Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988;

(cd) an application for leave to appeal under section 47B of the Family Law Act;

(ce) an application for leave to appeal under section 24A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 from a judgment of a court exercising jurisdiction under or in relation to:

   (i) the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989; or

   (ii) the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988;

(19) Schedule 3, item 16, page 193 (lines 25, 27, 29 and 31), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(20) Schedule 3, item 16, page 194 (lines 3 and 4), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(21) Schedule 3, item 16, page 194 (after line 8), after subsection 3.02(2) (after the note), insert:

(3) In this section:

commencement day means the day Schedule 3 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences.

(22) Schedule 3, item 32, page 197 (lines 6 to 11), omit the definition of general federal law proceeding in section 1.03, substitute:

general federal law proceeding means the following:

(a) a proceeding in the General Division or the Fair Work Division of the Federal Court;

(b) a proceeding in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), other than a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975.

Note: For a proceeding in the Family Law Appeal Division of the Federal Court, see the Family Law (Fees) Regulation2012. That regulation also applies to a proceeding in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) under the Family Law Act 1975.

(23) Schedule 3, item 38, page 198 (lines 7 to 9), omit the heading to section 2.09, substitute:

2 Fee not payable in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) proceeding

(24) Schedule 3, item 39, page 198 (lines 10 to 15), omit the item, substitute:

39 Subsection 2.09(1)

Omit "Federal Circuit Court", substitute "Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)".

(25) Schedule 3, item 58, page 202 (line 8), before "The amendments", insert "(1)".

(26) Schedule 3, item 58, page 202 (lines 12, 14, 16 and 18 and 19), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(27) Schedule 3, item 58, page 202 (after line 19), at the end of section 5.05, add:

(2) In this section:

commencement day means the day Schedule 3 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences.

(28) Schedule 3, item 59, page 202 (lines 20 to 22), omit the item, substitute:

59 Part 1 of Schedule 1

Omit "fees payable in relation to proceedings in the Federal Court", substitute "fees payable in relation to proceedings in the General Division or the Fair Work Division of the Federal Court".

(29) Schedule 3, item 133, page 216 (lines 28 and 29), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(30) Schedule 3, item 134, page 217 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute:

134 Subregulation 39BB(3)

Repeal the subregulation, substitute:

(3) In this regulation:

commencement day means the day Schedule 3 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences.

(31) Schedule 4, page 222 (after line 1), before item 2, insert:

1A Definitions

In this Part:

commencement day means the day this Schedule commences.

(32) Schedule 4, item 2, page 222 (lines 6, 9 and 13), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(33) Schedule 4, item 3, page 222 (line 28), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(34) Schedule 4, item 4, page 223 (line 4), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(35) Schedule 4, item 5, page 223 (lines 9 and 10), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(36) Schedule 4, item 6, page 223 (lines 15 and 16), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(37) Schedule 4, item 7, page 223 (line 21), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(38) Schedule 4, item 8, page 223 (line 28), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(39) Schedule 4, item 9, page 224 (lines 3 and 4), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(40) Schedule 4, item 10, page 224 (lines 12, 15, 18, 23, 25, 28, 31 and 34), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(41) Schedule 5, Part 2, page 228 (lines 1 to 6), omit the Part.

(42) Schedule 5, Division 2, page 235 (lines 10 to 15), omit the Division.

(43) Schedule 5, item 86, page 248 (lines 22 and 27), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the day this Schedule commences".

(44) Schedule 5, Division 2, page 249 (lines 1 to 15), omit the Division.

(45) Schedule 6, item 42, page 265 (line 29), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the day that Schedule commences".

(46) Schedule 6, item 42, page 266 (line 2), omit "1 January 2021", substitute "the day after the end of the 2‑year period beginning on the day Schedule 6 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences".

(47) Schedule 7, item 1, page 267 (after line 7), before the definition of standard Rules of Court, insert:

commencement day means the day this Schedule commences.

(48) Schedule 7, item 2, page 267 (lines 12 and 13, 19, 29 and 32), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(49) Schedule 7, item 4, page 269 (table item 1, column 2), omit "on 1 January 2019", substitute "at the same time as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2018 commences".

(50) Schedule 7, item 11, page 307 (line 12), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the day that Schedule commences".

(51) Schedule 7, item 11, page 307 (line 14), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "the day after the end of the period of 30 months beginning on the day Schedule 7 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences".

(52) Schedule 8, page 308 (after line 3), before Part 1, insert:

Part 1A—Introduction

1A Definitions

In this Schedule:

commencement day means the day this Schedule commences.

(53) Schedule 8, item 1, page 308 (lines 10 and 16), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(54) Schedule 8, item 9, page 335 (line 12), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the day that Schedule commences".

(55) Schedule 8, item 9, page 335 (line 14), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "the day after the end of the period of 30 months beginning on the day Schedule 8 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences".

(56) Schedule 8, item 10, page 336 (lines 7 and 13), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(57) Schedule 8, item 13, page 338 (line 15), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the day that Schedule commences".

(58) Schedule 8, item 13, page 338 (line 17), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "the day after the end of the period of 30 months beginning on the day Schedule 8 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences".

(59) Schedule 9, item 87, page 348 (line 16), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the day that Schedule commences".

(60) Schedule 9, item 87, page 348 (line 18), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "the day after the end of the period of 30 months beginning on the day Schedule 9 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 commences".

(61) Schedule 10, item 1, page 352 (after line 4), before the definition of Family Court of a State, insert:

commencement day means the day this Schedule commences.

(62) Schedule 10, item 1, page 352 (lines 8 and 12), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(63) Schedule 10, item 2, page 353 (line 24), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(64) Schedule 10, item 3, page 353 (line 28), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(65) Schedule 10, item 3, page 354 (lines 5, 10, 15, and 23), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(66) Schedule 10, item 4, page 354 (lines 25 and 29), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(67) Schedule 10, item 4, page 355 (line 5), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(68) Schedule 10, item 6, page 355 (line 15), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(69) Schedule 10, item 7, page 355 (line 30), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(70) Schedule 10, item 8, page 356 (line 10), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(71) Schedule 10, item 9, page 356 (line 21), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(72) Schedule 10, item 10, page 357 (line 5), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(73) Schedule 10, item 11, page 357 (lines 15 and 16), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(74) Schedule 10, item 12, page 357 (lines 20 and 23), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(75) Schedule 10, item 13, page 358 (line 15), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(76) Schedule 10, item 14, page 358 (lines 19 and 24 and 25), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(77) Schedule 10, item 14, page 359 (lines 1 and 6), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(78) Schedule 10, item 15, page 359 (lines 11, 16 and 23), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(79) Schedule 10, item 17, page 359 (line 33), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(80) Schedule 10, item 18, page 360 (line 16), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(81) Schedule 10, item 19, page 360 (line 28), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(82) Schedule 10, item 20, page 361 (line 8), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(83) Schedule 10, item 21, page 361 (line 22), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(84) Schedule 10, item 22, page 362 (line 4), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(85) Schedule 10, item 23, page 362 (lines 9 and 12), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(86) Schedule 10, item 24, page 363 (line 6), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(87) Schedule 10, item 24, page 363 (line 10), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(88) Schedule 10, item 24, page 363 (line 12), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(89) Schedule 10, item 25, page 363 (line 17), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(90) Schedule 10, item 25, page 363 (line 23), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(91) Schedule 10, item 25, page 363 (line 25), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(92) Schedule 10, item 26, page 364 (line 13), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(93) Schedule 10, item 26, page 364 (line 16), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(94) Schedule 10, item 26, page 364 (line 18), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(95) Schedule 10, item 27, page 364 (line 32), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(96) Schedule 10, item 27, page 365 (line 4), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(97) Schedule 10, item 27, page 365 (line 13), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(98) Schedule 10, item 27, page 365 (line 15), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(99) Schedule 10, heading to Division 2, page 365 (line 18), omit "1January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(100) Schedule 10, item 28, page 365 (line 24), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(101) Schedule 10, item 28, page 365 (line 32), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(102) Schedule 10, item 28, page 366 (line 9), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(103) Schedule 10, item 28, page 366 (line 28), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(104) Schedule 10, item 28, page 366 (line 32), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(105) Schedule 10, item 28, page 367 (line 1), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(106) Schedule 10, item 28, page 367 (line 5), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(107) Schedule 10, item 28, page 367 (line 15), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(108) Schedule 10, item 28, page 368 (lines 12, 15 and 19), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(109) Schedule 10, item 29, page 369 (line 4), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(110) Schedule 10, item 29, page 369 (line 6), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(111) Schedule 10, item 29, page 369 (line 12), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(112) Schedule 10, item 29, page 369 (line 24), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(113) Schedule 10, item 29, page 369 (line 31), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(114) Schedule 10, item 29, page 370 (line 2), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(115) Schedule 10, heading to Division 3, page 370 (line 17), omit "1January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(116) Schedule 10, item 30, page 370 (line 23), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(117) Schedule 10, item 30, page 370 (line 31), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(118) Schedule 10, item 30, page 371 (line 7), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(119) Schedule 10, item 30, page 371 (line 18), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(120) Schedule 10, item 31, page 372 (line 19), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(121) Schedule 10, item 31, page 372 (line 26), omit "31 December 2018", substitute "the day before the commencement day".

(122) Schedule 10, item 31, page 373 (line 1), omit "after 1 January 2019", substitute "on or after the commencement day".

(123) Schedule 10, item 33, page 374 (line 20), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(124) Schedule 10, item 34, page 374 (line 24), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(125) Schedule 10, item 35, page 375 (lines 7, 10, 15, 18, 23 and 26), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(126) Schedule 10, item 36, page 376 (line 4), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

(127) Schedule 10, item 37, page 376 (line 17), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "the commencement day".

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (17:22): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The SPEAKER (17:23): The question is that the bill be read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (17:26): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017. The bill that is currently before the House is yet another example of why this government is not for Australians living on low incomes. This is a bill that hides punitive, draconian measures targeting the most vulnerable in our community under the guise of housing affordability. This is a bill that's like The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. This is a bill that combines sensible administrative changes to the National Rental Affordability Scheme with an attack on those in our society who are already down and out.

The member for Barton has already highlighted the opposition's support for ensuring landlords are not taking advantage of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. That is not our issue with the bill. In my speech today, I want to highlight the disturbing nature of the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme. This is a scheme that targets low-income Australians, demonstrates a disregard for social housing and lays bare a disgraceful ideology around the nature of government assistance.

The bill has been brought to the House by a government that doesn't care about Australians living on low incomes. We know that 99 per cent of social housing tenants are able to pay their rent on time, and are happy to do so. Already, 86 per cent of Australians living in government owned housing participate in voluntary rent deduction schemes. Going after one per cent of tenants who may not be able to pay is cruel and it is petty. This is a government that only cares about economically supporting the top one per cent rather than the bottom one per cent. With no cap on the amount of arrears that might be deducted from each fortnightly welfare payment, who, does the government think, will suffer under these measures? We know that families make up a large proportion of social housing tenants. In putting up legislation like this, have the government considered who they are going to impact by recovering 100 per cent of an individual's Centrelink payments? This will impact not just those on welfare payments but their children and other family members—those who will have done nothing to contribute to the situation of rental arrears but who will suffer greatly should a significant portion of the welfare payments be forcibly quarantined.

This government has been nothing if not consistent in its failure to take meaningful action on Australia's housing crisis. The name of the bill is misleading. This is not a government that is for housing affordability. It's quite the opposite actually. Social housing is an essential component in providing adequate supply of affordable, quality housing to all Australians. This piece of legislation makes clear how little this government values social housing. It views social housing as a handout rather than as an essential piece of economic infrastructure. It views circumstances that may cause tenants to default on their rent as reason for punishment rather than compassion.

Social housing is an important component of tackling housing affordability in this country. Social housing represents opportunity. It is a vital public infrastructure. It is the secure, stable home that all Australians deserve. It also enables those Australians on minimal incomes to access the housing market, relieving cost pressures on the low-cost private rental market.

I grew up in social housing in south-west Sydney. This was in an era when the government actually valued such a commodity. Those opportunities that come when children have secure, stable housing are remarkable, and the reason why I'm here. The value of family, a good education, a consistent roof over your head and adequate nutrition afford children the best possible start in life. The government must look to create these circumstances, which individuals living in social housing need to thrive, because we know that when we give vulnerable Australians the tools they need to succeed in society they are able to thrive. Growing up in a secure and stable home affords children the wealth of opportunities that this country has to offer. Implementing these compulsory rent deductions will create further undue stress upon family environments, which goes against the very principle of social housing itself.

The bill represents ideological whiplash. The minister, in his speech, discussed the benefits of streamlining NRAS delivery. In the same breath, he cited the need to get tough on social housing tenants who default on their rent. This is in spite of the fact that 99 per cent of social housing tenants pay their rent on time each fortnight. Given the minimal amount that the government might hope to recoup, the proposed Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme seems to be just another attempt to look tough at the expense of vulnerable Australians.

The Prime Minister is more than happy to wander around wearing a baseball cap supporting the cause of men than to stand up to those who commit the act of interpersonal violence. However, this week we need to meet in this place to debate a bill that could see uncapped automatic rent deductions for the damage caused as a result of domestic and family violence.

We hold grave concerns on this side of the House about the practical implementation of these measures. It's difficult to imagine ordinary circumstances where social housing tenants would simply fall into rental arrears of their own volition. They're happy to be in social housing; they know what an honour it is to get a place. If a stressful financial system causes individuals and families to fall behind in their rent, acquiring entire welfare payments to recover the debt is likely only to worsen that situation.

When Labor was in government last we introduced the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013. This bill capped the rental reductions in order to allow for a reasonable ability for individuals to manage their other financial affairs. We required this to be communicated to tenants well in advance, and the compulsory deductions only applied to tenants at considerable risk of becoming homeless. In contrast, this bill that I speak on today allows for deductions that are unfair, unexpected and uncapped. Worse still, it includes all those on government benefits, the disability support pension and carer payments—people who are vulnerable and people who are looking after the vulnerable.

The Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme this bill proposes is a disproportionate and draconian response that patronises social housing tenants by suggesting they're unable to manage their own finances. We believe that any form of rental deduction should be applied as a last resort only, and only as a means of preventing homelessness—remembering that we're only talking about one per cent of these tenants. What's more, a Shorten Labor government would take a holistic approach to the issue of homelessness, encompassing all homelessness and housing insecurity, not just the rental arrears of one per cent of the nation's housing tenants.

In conclusion, as I said at the start of my speech, this bill is a strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. The government claims it is about housing affordability, and, while the NRAS reforms are badly needed and sensible, it's difficult to see how coming after social housing tenants in tough spots does anything to promote housing affordability. Really, all it will do is make people's lives worse and take away their opportunity to get better. Tying two separate reforms together demonstrates that this government does not care about the integrity of its policy. Labor will support the changes to NRAS, but the bill needs to be split so that we can deal with each component separately. If this were a government truly committed to the housing needs of our vulnerable and low-income Australians, it would allow the NRAS changes and the Compulsory Rent Deduction Scheme to be considered separately. As it stands, it is not right to support this legislation.

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (17:35): I am pleased to speak on this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017. What this government bill does is introduce an automatic rent deduction scheme that can be mandatorily applied to all tenants receiving social security or family assistance payments who live in public or community housing. Currently, under the Compulsory Rent Deduction Scheme, social housing tenants are able to request that Centrelink withholds a portion of their income support payment to directly pay their rent and other costs, such as utilities. So there is already a scheme. It's voluntary—people in social housing can ask to have a portion taken—and the scheme is already used by 86 per cent of households in the public and social housing sector.

But this bill goes further than that in that it creates an Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme. Under that scheme, state and territories, as well as community housing providers, would be able to request that the secretary withhold a portion of tenants' income support and/or family tax benefit payments and use these funds to directly pay rent and utilities costs on behalf of those tenants. The bill would allow automatic deductions from people in receipt of the age pension, disability support pension, carer payment and family tax benefit as well as those relying on Newstart or youth allowance. It would extend across the broad range of people receiving government payments. It would mean that funds could be withheld from tenants without their permission if a state chooses to apply it in this way. States and territories would have the absolute discretion to decide whether the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme would apply in their jurisdiction and the extent to which it is applied.

The government argues that evictions as a result of rental arrears of public household tenants are a cause of homelessness. According to data from the states and territories, in 2013-14 more than 8,900 households living in social housing were more than three weeks in arrears of rent and 2,300 people were evicted from public housing due to rent arrears. But given there are nearly 400,000 households living in public and social housing, that is actually a small number—less than 2.5 per cent—of people who are more than three weeks in arrears. So this is a very big stick, to use the government's language, to use on a circumstance that applies to a very small number of people. As I said, 86 per cent of people in social and public housing are already using a voluntary rent deduction scheme, as of 2015-16. We also know, because of evidence to the inquiry, that 90 per cent of tenants have no problems meeting their rental obligations at all.

The Parliamentary Library has also advised that over the five years from 2011-12 to 2015-16 national rent collection rates have averaged over 99 per cent across public housing, community housing and state owned and managed Indigenous housing. So we have a sector that is working 99 per cent of the time. But for that one per cent, we have a measure that this government wants to introduce that will make it possible for states and territories to make it mandatory for all those tenants—all of the 99 per cent that are managing quite well, as well as the one per cent—to have money taken from their payments without their consent. It's a disproportionate response. It is a very big stick for a problem that involves only a relatively small number of social and public housing tenants.

The Senate inquiry also heard that rental arrears are not a significant cause of homelessness—and we know this. Those of us that have organisations in our communities that work with the homeless will know that it's more likely to be complex issues such as mental illness, substance abuse, family violence and a lack of affordable options that contribute more greatly to homelessness in Australia than social housing rental arrears. I would urge the government to look at the broader causes of homelessness rather than impose such a harsh process on people in social and public housing.

A form of compulsory rent reductions, I have to say, was actually recommended in The road home: a national approach to reducing homelessness white paper, which the former Labor government commissioned. At the time of losing government in 2013, we did actually have a piece of legislation to enable a compulsory rent reduction scheme, known as the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013,which lapsed in the 2013 election. It was quite different to this very harsh, one-size-fits-all approach that the government has. There are a number of critical differences.

Firstly, under Labor's proposal the changes in the public housing tenants' support bill would only have applied to tenants who had rental arrears of more than four weeks, and only once other reasonable recovery action had been taken. This included requirements to connect people to financial counselling and other services. In the Labor proposal we had something that only applied to people who were in trouble, rather than this harsh measure that applies to 100 per cent of people, of whom 99 per cent are now doing just fine.

Also under Labor's bill, the deductions in the public housing tenants' support bill were capped. Deductions, under the public housing tenants' support bill, could only apply temporarily, up to 12 months after arrears were addressed to enable a person's circumstances to stabilise. The amount deducted was able to be varied in accordance with changes in rental and utility amounts, provided the tenant was notified. So Labor's proposal provided solutions for people who were in difficulty; the government's approach applies to everybody across the board.

There have been a number of stakeholder concerns, as you'd expect. The majority of stakeholders are strongly opposed to an automatic rent deduction scheme; most argue that compulsory deductions can only be justified in very limited circumstances to prevent imminent homelessness, and with strict oversight. They talk about some of the circumstances in which you find tenants who would be incredibly harshly dealt with under this government's very large stick. Withholding a portion of income for rent decreases the capacity of tenants to respond to emergencies, such as the need to replace an appliance or pay a large bill. Currently, it is common practice for social housing tenants to negotiate with the housing provider to defer a rental payment so they can meet unexpected expenses when they occur. As we all know, many people in social housing are on very, very tight financial constraints and aren't able to respond to those unexpected expenses. There is also concern that those who are named on the lease will shoulder an unfair proportion of costs. For example, as in other households, there are some cases where several adults share the rent. There is no capacity in this process for that to be taken into account.

In their submissions, welfare organisations have recommended that a cap be placed on the amount that the secretary may deduct from a tenant's income support payment to ensure that a minimum residual amount is available to meet the tenant's other needs. The Salvation Army has suggested the cap could be set at 30 per cent of household income. There are a number of different definitions and indicators of housing stress, but most of the definitions are that where households are spending more than 30 per cent of their gross income on housing costs they are in housing stress.

There were several witnesses to the inquiry that raised concerns that the amount deducted could include an amount to cover damage to the rental property. There was a universal condemnation of that. It was of concern that social housing tenants may not have damaged the property themselves and, as a cohort, are less likely to follow up on their rights to review and appeal as a result.

So there are many concerns with this bill as it stands. I would urge the government to consider why they feel the need to apply such a very large stick—again using their language—on people who are already coping quite well with the payment of rent. As the inquiry stated, 99 per cent of social, public and community housing tenants are paying their rent on time. There is a very small number that aren't. We would recommend that the government also look at Labor's proposal back in 2013, which addressed those who were having difficulty but left alone those who were capable of managing their own finances.

Again, this government is very, very good at attacking those who are most vulnerable. It can be very harsh in its approach to people experiencing difficulty. We would urge it to reconsider. There will be a Senate inquiry, and we will be looking very closely at the outcome of that inquiry as we put together our final view on this bill. But, as it stands, it's unreasonably harsh and it targets a broad range of people when perhaps it would be more appropriate if the government provided support mechanisms for those who are experiencing difficulty, rather than apply these harsh measures to the whole sector.

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (17:45): I would also like to make a contribution on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017, and indicate at the outset that I certainly strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. This is another example of the government's inaction when it comes to housing affordability. The government love to talk it up—they love to talk about housing affordability—but this is just another example of their inactivity when it comes to dealing with housing affordability. As speaker after speaker on our side have indicated, this bill, really, in terms of community housing, applies to about one per cent of the rental base. But, nevertheless, they actually see this as almost signature legislation for them. I would have thought it would have been far more beneficial for the government to actually address the issue of housing affordability and take a serious view about homelessness in this country.

If this government was serious about homelessness, it would certainly be doing something about mental health, which is one of the main triggers and issues of homelessness. It would also, particularly—as experienced in my own electorate—be doing something about the issues with crisis accommodation, particularly for women fleeing domestic violence. Clearly there are many, many other vulnerable Australians who would be part of this cohort of the one per cent that the government is really applying this legislation to capture.

I'd like to read to the House what Associate Professor Lisa Woods from the Centre for Social Impact says in her submission in terms of the intergenerational effects of the failure to invest in people for whom housing is unaffordable or inadequate. She says: 'We see there is a risk of inequity. A lot of people who are homeless have experienced childhood drama. There are many who are experiencing mental health issues. Many of them are victims of sexual abuse, so there are complex cases. These inequities are deep-rooted.' I think that's right. When it comes to these issues—when you think that 99 per cent of all those in social housing are able to meet their rental responsibilities on time—this is directed to that one per cent.

On many occasions I've spoken in this place about how I have the very distinct honour of representing what is the most multicultural community in the whole of Australia. It's very colourful; it's very vibrant. We certainly revel in its diversity. But, regrettably, it's not a rich community. As a matter of fact, I disproportionately have, it's probably fair to say, the lion's share of immigrants and, particularly, refugees who come to this country. The bulk of them feature in my area in south-west Sydney, particularly in the local government area of Fairfield.

It is also worthwhile noting that the average household income in my electorate is a tad over $60,000 per annum. That's not the average income; that's the average household income. As I say, mine is not a rich community and, therefore, housing affordability and social housing are very, very big and material issues for the people I have the honour of representing. As such, the issue of housing affordability is something that my office deals with regularly. I am indebted to the great work that is done by the various community housing organisations I have working in Western Sydney, particularly Hume housing and St George Community Housing. There is also the housing provided by the Gandangara local land council, as I have a large Aboriginal population based around Liverpool. These organisations do a great job, together with various other government funded agencies, in trying to accommodate the essential needs of people—and that is putting a roof over families' heads.

One other organisation I would like to mention—and I spoke a fair bit about it yesterday—is the Bonnie Support Services. Yesterday we spoke in this place about White Ribbon Day and violence against women. Bonnie Support Services is an extraordinary organisation that does an incredible job in providing not only support services and counselling to victims of domestic violence; it also provides crisis accommodation to those victims. So it is something which is just so fundamental in my community when bearing in mind that more than 50 per cent of all assaults reported to police in my community are domestic violence related. I would like to read to you what Tracy Phillips, the executive officer of Bonnie Support Services, particularly advised me. She said that:

… there is a clear lack of crisis and transitional housing for women and children, with individuals having to be referred to other organisations on a daily basis, due to their lack of capacity.

These are not figures that are just plucked out. These are things which are happening. I would imagine, in terms of domestic violence, my electorate doesn't stand alone in that. This is something that affects everybody. But I certainly know the impact it has in my community.

Instead of taking steps to rectify housing affordability in this regard, the government are fixated on this automatic rent deduction for social housing tenants and making changes to the administration of the national rental administration scheme. As I said from the outset, this is not a serious attempt to deal with housing affordability. It's just another tick-and-flick process that we've come to expect from this government. They have probably picked the most marginalised community to have a go at. That is what this does. It is clear from the outset.

We will support modest amendments to the National Rental Affordability Scheme, particularly in schedule 3 of the bill, which actually brings the scheme back in line with what our targets were when Labor formally introduced them. However, we still, as I say, hold great reservations about schedule 1 and schedule 2, which impose a mandatory automatic rental reduction scheme.

In trying to dig through this I sought the advice of the Parliamentary Library, a great asset we have in this place in terms of research capability. That advice shows that 86 per cent of public and social housing tenants voluntarily use the Rental Deduction Scheme. The Parliamentary Library also was able to indicate that, in terms of the rental collection rate, 99 per cent of all social housing or public housing tenants are able to pay their rent on time. Hence we get back to the one-percenters. This time we're not talking about the bikies, who those opposite like to talk about. The one-percenters in this case are the most vulnerable in our community, those who are, perhaps, age pensioners, people on a disability support pension or carer payment or people on family tax benefit—not to forget those on Newstart and youth allowance.

This may not be a big thing for those opposite, who have more-affluent electorates than the one I have the honour to represent. I've said my electorate's not rich, but it's certainly not uncommon for members, whether they're on my side or the other side, to have pockets of disadvantage. Perhaps my pockets, in areas of Western Sydney, are just a bit larger. These are matters that really go to the heart and soul of a community. Through this bill we are going to marginalise those least likely to be able to assist themselves without support—those who are suffering from mental health issues, those who are suffering from domestic violence, as I've mentioned, and the many, many age and disability support pensioners that my community supports.

The Senate inquiry into the bill heard overwhelming evidence that rental arrears is not the main cause for evictions from social housing and that homelessness in Australia cannot be tackled without assessing the issues of mental health, domestic violence and the lack of affordable housing. The Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that this bill appears to disproportionately negatively impact women, people with disability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I think that captures much of what I said earlier about the way I see this being applied in my electorate to those at the sharp end of this Liberal government legislation. A Labor government will tackle the holistic aspects of homelessness and ensure that the causes of homelessness and housing insecurity are addressed—not just issues around rental arrears but the underpinning issues—so that we can help people effectively break these bonds which link them to disadvantage.

We've got to actually listen to real people. There is no doubt some whiz-bang person, whether a consultant or otherwise, within the department thought, 'This is a good way that the government can retrieve a bit of revenue. It sounds really good out there in the public domain. We're going to get tough on social welfare. We're going to get tough on those who use and rely on social housing.' But, realistically, this is not what a government should be doing. A government should not have as its central aspect a signature policy that demeans the most vulnerable in the community, but that's what's occurring with this legislation. We'll be moving amendments to ensure there are appropriate safeguards to protect tenants and ensure the scheme does not place them in undue financial hardship. We see ourselves as the alternative government, and as the alternative government we have a responsibility to help lift people out of social welfare dependency. We need to help people to be able to raise a family. We need to be able to help people overcome issues of mental health. All these things go to what this bill strikes down.

I don't know what credible research the government want to pin this on. They're not going to make an arm or a leg that's going to affect the fiscal outlook of the country. This is not going to change the fact that they're going to rush to bring down the budget a month early next year so they can work out where they're going to throw the cash before the next election. Clearly they're not going to throw anything to assist people at the margins and the people that this bill is designed to negatively impact.

This is legislation that is retrograde for the parliament. It's certainly retrograde for anyone who wants to hold their head up and say they're a parliamentarian representing a community.

Professor Richard Holden, a professor of economics at the University of New South Wales, referring to the last budget, said that the biggest disappointment

… of all was the absence of any measure whatsoever to address negative gearing and CGT exemptions for rental properties.

This mob opposite want to fudge around and say they're doing something about housing affordability, so they just pick on the most marginal but don't do anything about the root cause of issues affecting housing affordability or, in particular, in this instance, homelessness. This is something that they should hang their heads in shame about. We have a real privilege in this place to do things for the benefit of the community. This is a piece of legislation that does the opposite.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (18:00): I rise to also contribute to the debate on this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this legislation has absolutely nothing to do with housing affordability, despite what the government might have named it. The bill before us today is a continuation of this government's policy of inaction and complete reckless disregard when it comes to housing policy. It does nothing to address the single greatest issue facing lower- and middle-income Australians—that is, rent is too expensive and purchase is simply out of the question for too many.

Not a single affordable home will be built or designed as a result of this legislation. Not a single young Australian will find it easier to compete against investors to buy their first home. Not a single person will see a reduction to their sky-high rents. Worse, Labor is very concerned that some of these provisions may only serve to drive already vulnerable social housing tenants deeper into poverty. Housing affordability remains a diabolical problem for millions of Australians.

While there is some correction underway in Sydney and Melbourne, there are many parts of the country where housing prices have risen more than 50 per cent in recent years while wages are barely keeping up with inflation. This is inflicting real pain. In fact, ACOSS's 2018 Poverty in Australia report showed that three million Australians are living in poverty, largely as a result of housing costs. Meanwhile, the National Debt Helpline is on track to receive a record number of calls this year, particularly from older Australians who are struggling to meet their mortgage or rent payments. Older women are especially vulnerable, with a 31 per cent spike in homelessness in this cohort between the 2011 and 2016 census. This is absolutely appalling and totally unacceptable.

If there is one area that demonstrates how out of touch, how heartless and how utterly beholden this Liberal government is to vested interests, it is housing policy. Regardless of who has been the Prime Minister, this Liberal government has consistently ignored the dire plight of millions of Australians struggling to pay their rent or get a foothold in the housing market. Housing affordability remains a national crisis that is driving people deeper and deeper into despair, and yet this government has spent the last five years doing nothing. It has failed to invest in affordable housing. It has abolished the position of housing minister. It has shut down the National Housing Supply Council. It discontinued the National Rental Affordability Scheme and it has doubled down on the absurd situation we have in Australia where property investors get more subsidies to buy their fifth, sixth or seventh property than young Australians get to buy their first home.

Not only that but the Australian taxpayer is footing the bill for these tax concessions, to the tune of more than $10 billion a year. This is more than we are spending on universities or child care. But this government has utterly refused to act on these blatantly unfair, expensive and market-distorting tax concessions. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (18:45): As I was saying, this is a government that has utterly refused to act on blatantly unfair, expensive, market-distorting tax concessions. Again and again those opposite back in wealthy property investors over the hundreds of thousands of Australians who just want to be able to buy their own home, and, when backed into a corner, they offer ridiculous suggestions to young Australians, like: 'Go get rich parents,' or, 'Move to the country.' Then, of course, they peddle nonsense about Labor's plan to rein in those expensive tax concessions. They use modelling that does not reflect our policy at all. They say that our policy will drive house prices down. Then they say it will send them sky-high. Sometimes they even say both things in the same interview! But, whatever they're saying, you can be sure they have the best interests of property developers and wealthy investors front of mind.

Labor understands this government has utterly failed low- and middle-income Australians, especially young Australians, when it comes to housing affordability. We have been listening to stakeholders and communities across Australia about what needs to happen. One of the lead organisations in this push has been Compass Housing Services, a non-government, community organisation based in my home city of Newcastle. Compass are world leaders in their field, so much so that they were the only Australian community housing organisation to take part in the global United Nations Habitat III conference in Quito, Ecuador. I congratulate Compass and the coalition of housing and social service organisations that have been actively campaigning for a national housing strategy.

Labor understand that we have a deep responsibility to address these issues, should we have the privilege of forming government. We recognise that safe and affordable housing is the foundation for a cohesive, productive and fair society. That's why housing will be a central feature not just of our housing policy but also of our infrastructure policy, our cities policy and our population policies. We've already made some fantastic announcements. If elected, a Labor government would: (1) reform negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions; (2) limit direct borrowing by self-managed superannuation funds; (3) facilitate a COAG process to introduce a uniform vacant property tax across all major cities; (4) increase foreign investment fees and penalties; (5) establish a bond aggregator to increase investment in affordable housing; (6) develop and implement, through the Council of Australian Governments, a national plan to reduce homelessness; and (7) re-establish the National Housing Supply Council and reinstate a minister for housing. Lastly, we would provide an $88 million injection over two years for a new Safe Housing Fund to increase transitional housing options for women and children escaping domestic and family violence, young people exiting out-of-home care and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. And that is just the beginning. There will be more announcements in this critical policy area as we get closer to next year's election. I can assure you Labor understands that there is no more fundamental obligation for governments than to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head.

I'd like to now consider some of the details of the bill before us today. As I've already mentioned, the bill doesn't go anywhere near doing the things that need to be done to address the dire housing affordability problems. Indeed, the changes that are being proposed are largely technical amendments which have absolutely nothing to do with delivering housing affordability. The first measure in this bill creates the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme, which gives states and territories the option of automatically deducting an amount from social housing tenants' income support payments for rent and utilities. It also allows the inclusion of an amount of money for property damage.

Currently, there is a voluntary scheme in place in which social housing tenants on income support have the option to ask the Department of Human Services to transfer some of their fortnightly pay directly to the housing provider for rent and some bills. It should be noted that the majority of social housing tenants are able to manage their budgets and keep their rent up to date. This is an important point because, in fact, 90 per cent of social housing tenants have absolutely no problems meeting their obligations and the rental collection rate for public and community housing is well over 99 per cent.

Having said that, Labor accepts that in principle there may be a place for automatic rent deduction. We understand there may be situations where such a system would have value—for example, if tenants are being pressured to give up their rent money to support people with drug or alcohol habits somewhere else. We realise there are times when compulsory deductions may make the difference in avoiding homelessness. Indeed, when we were in government we introduced a bill that would allow for the automatic rent deductions in response to recommendations in The road home homelessness white paper. At the time, the Liberals opposed this bill, saying it would 'increase housing stress and financial hardship', and now they've brought to the parliament this bill which is so much harsher.

But there are some important differences between what the Morrison government wants to do and what Labor had proposed in the past. Critically, the Liberals' bill contains none of the safeguards that would protect vulnerable social housing clients. Labor's legislation would only have applied to tenants who had arrears of more than four weeks and only after there had been a reasonable attempt to recover the money. There was also a time limit of 12 months that the scheme would be maintained after the arrears were paid off. Also, tenants needed to be informed before changes were made to the amount of their pay that would be withheld. These are just some of the fundamental differences between Labor's approach and that of the government.

We were so concerned about the impact this would have on vulnerable Australians that we referred the bill to the Senate for an inquiry. The inquiry heard from a number of witnesses that these provisions were unnecessarily broad. Senators were told that rental arrears are much more likely to cause homelessness and more complex issues like mental illness, substance abuse and family violence. The Chairperson of the National Social Security Rights Network, Genevieve Bolton, told the committee:

… we don't think that the proposed bill will meet its stated objectives, and we think it's a disproportionate response. It doesn't address some of the critical causes of homelessness.

On a similar note, Mr Roland Manderson, Deputy Director of Anglicare Australia, explained that the automatic rental deduction scheme has a number of serious flaws and said it would only serve to 'generate other problems for tenants across the board'.

Labor is persuaded by the arguments of stakeholders that there must be safeguards and limitations to the scheme. We want it limited to those in arrears and at risk of homelessness. We want deductions capped and we want a time limit on how long the scheme can apply. We want a provision that requires lessors to let tenants know of any changes to how much will be taken out. We would like to see changes such that only money for rent and utilities is deducted. We also agree there should be a requirement for the lessor to let the tenant know if any change is made to the amount deducted. Some of these issues are covered in the government's amendments, but Labor wants to see all of these protections guaranteed.

I also mentioned earlier that the bill seeks to make changes to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. NRAS, of course, was a fantastic initiative of the former Labor government. It was the first direct supply-side financial incentive scheme for the supply of new affordable rental housing. NRAS has provided 38,000 new homes and was on track to deliver 50,000. Regretfully, it was capped in the coalition's first budget. Labor would have continued and expanded NRAS. The changes in these bills don't do that; in fact, they are largely technical. They give authority for the transfer of an NRAS allocation from one property to another in specific circumstances. They also allow the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to make variations on the conditions attached to the incentive allocations. They allow flexibility on how maximum vacancy periods are prescribed, and they remove ambiguity on how below-market rents are calculated in any one year.

Of course, all of this is just tinkering around the edges and doesn't do anything to lighten the load for vulnerable Australians. Having said that, Labor will support the changes to the NRAS, but, as I mentioned earlier, none of this will help Australians who are being forced to take one or even two or three jobs just to keep a roof over their heads. In short, the legislation before us today does nothing to address the core issue of housing affordability. Like so many times before, this is a missed opportunity by the government. Only Labor will deliver on housing affordability in this country.

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (18:55): I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill and to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton. The cost of housing is making life hard for so many Australians—young people, low-income families and older women. According to a recent Grattan Institute report, house prices took off in the mid-1990s. Average house prices have increased from around two to three times the average disposable incomes in the eighties and early nineties to about five times the average disposable income more recently. This means median home prices have increased from four to five times the median incomes in the early 1990s to more than seven times the median income today. In Sydney, not far from my electorate on the New South Wales Central Coast, it's more than eight times the median income.

In a wealthy country like Australia, why are one-in-three single women over 60 living in poverty, many at risk of homelessness? Why is a young mother I met at her first appointment with a financial counsellor after leaving a violent relationship struggling to find $460 a week to keep her rental so her three children have a roof over their heads? Why is the grandmother I met in Bateau Bay, while on a surgery waiting list, housing her adult son in her garage because his partner died and he is no longer on the priority housing list? Why are some high-school students in my electorate living in refuges or struggling to get by in the private rental market while trying to finish high school?

If the government were serious about housing affordability and homelessness it would take action to address some of the causes of homelessness, particularly to improve the provision of services for mental health in the regions, to provide more support for women leaving family violence and to make sure that vulnerable Australians at risk of homelessness have safe, affordable housing. Why is it that a single-pensioner household faces spending up to 94 per cent of income on rent? This extreme level of housing stress is exacerbated by other pressures, such as increased healthcare costs, and must be urgently addressed.

I'll turn to the actual substance of the bill. What does this bill actually do to address homelessness? This bill imposes an Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme on social housing tenants and makes some changes to the administration of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. Labor referred this bill to a Senate inquiry to ensure it was given proper scrutiny. Labor has listened to the concerns raised by the housing and community sector. We know that the majority of social housing tenants manage their budgets and pay their rent on time. Evidence presented to the inquiry showed that 90 per cent of tenants meet their obligations. However, a form of automatic rent deduction may be appropriate to protect some social housing tenants who are genuinely facing a significant risk of homelessness in particular situations.

Labor will move amendments in the Senate to put safeguards in place to protect tenants and ensure that the scheme does not place them under financial hardship. At the moment, some social housing tenants who are also income support recipients can choose to have the Department of Human Services withhold a portion of their fortnightly payment and pay it directly to their housing provider to cover rent and some bills, like power bills. In this rent deduction scheme, participation is voluntary, and participants can leave the scheme whenever they choose. Around 86 per cent of the approximately 400,000 public and social housing tenants currently use the voluntary rent reduction scheme.

This bill would introduce an Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme. Under the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme, everyone who receives an income support payment and/or family tax benefit and lives in either public housing or community housing could have part of their payment withheld by Centrelink and paid directly to the housing provider. Like the voluntary scheme, this amount could cover both rent and some bills, like power bills. It would be up to each state and territory to decide whether they wanted to be part of the automatic rent reduction scheme and, if so, how it would apply. Victoria and the ACT have said they will not participate in an automatic rent reduction scheme.

When Labor was in government, we introduced a Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013, which would have introduced an automatic rent reduction scheme. We did this to act on a recommendation from the housing and homelessness white paper The road home. The Liberals opposed the bill. At the time, the shadow minister, the member for Menzies, claimed that it would increase housing stress and financial hardship. Yet they have now introduced a scheme that is much harsher than the one that Labor proposed. Let's look at some of the differences.

The changes in the public housing tenants' support bill would have only applied to tenants who were in rental arrears and at risk of homelessness, once other reasonable recovery action had been taken. The changes in this bill could potentially impact all tenants of public housing and community housing, including age pensioners, disability support pensioners and those with carer payments. Responsible people managing their own affairs and paying their rent for years could be caught up in these changes.

The amount deducted in the public housing tenants' support bill was able to be varied in accordance with changes in rental and utility amounts, provided the tenant was notified. This bill does not require that the tenant be notified of these changes. This bill allows for the deduction to include an amount to compensate landlords for property damage, which could be as a result of domestic and family violence. Labor's bill limited deductions to cover only an amount for rent and utilities, to protect people from being forced to pay for damage caused by others.

Labor has always said that most income support recipients are capable of managing their own finances. In fact, the rental collection rate for public and social housing in the five years to 2015-16 was over 99 per cent. Labor will move amendments in the Senate to ensure automatic deductions only occur when people are in arrears and at risk of homelessness. We will move an amendment to cap the maximum deduction to prevent the scheme forcing people into housing stress and to make sure people have money to meet other needs and pay other bills. Labor will move amendments to require that compulsory deductions can only be made for rent and utilities and not for property damage. As I mentioned earlier, this is to protect people from being held unfairly responsible for other people's actions.

The Labor amendments will also prevent deductions being taken from the discretionary portion of an income managed payment. Labor amendments would require social housing landlords to inform the tenant of any changes in the amount to be deducted from their payment. The amendments will also ensure that, if a tenant's payment is suspended, the accrued rent cannot be deducted when the payment resumes, potentially leaving people with nothing to live on.

Without significant changes to the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme, Labor will not be able to support this part of the bill in the Senate. Labor has concerns about the interactions of the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme with deductions being made from income support payments through Centrepay, particularly payments for household goods under consumer leases with businesses such as Radio Rentals. Consumer leases cost low-income earners up to eight times the retail price of consumer goods. The Senate passed a Labor private senator's bill in the 44th parliament to exclude consumer leases as an eligible service reason for the purposes of Centrepay third-party payment system. While Centrepay is closed to payday lenders, it remains open to consumer leasing businesses which continue to inflict financial hardship on low-income earners. Consumer leases are just as damaging to vulnerable low-income earners as payday loans. Labor therefore remains committed to excluding consumer leasing as an eligible service reason for Centrepay.

Before touching on the National Rental Affordability Scheme, I want to refer back to my community. In this recent report, regional New South Wales remains the least affordable regional area studied in Australia in terms of the rental affordability index, with households facing rents of sometimes upwards of 27 per cent of income. Let me reiterate that rental arrears are not the main cause of social housing evictions and that homelessness in Australia cannot be addressed without addressing issues of mental health, domestic and family violence and lack of affordable housing. A Shorten Labor government will take a whole-of-government approach to the issue of homelessness, to ensure that all causes of homelessness, housing insecurity and housing stress are addressed, not just the rental arrears of a small number of social housing tenants.

The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a Labor program, and Labor will not oppose changes to the scheme that help the achievement of the scheme's objective of increasing and maintaining the supply of affordable rental dwellings and reduced rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. What is of concern is the capping of this scheme by this government.

Labor's original scheme provided for 50,000 new, affordable rental dwellings to be built. Given the strong interest in the scheme, Labor undertook to extend the scheme by a further 35,000 dwellings, to provide a total of 85,000 dwellings. But in the 2014-15 budget the Abbott government announced that the NRAS would be capped at 38,000 dwellings. That decision has been widely criticised by housing sector stakeholders, including the Property Council of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute, Homelessness Australia, National Shelter, Mission Australia, ACOSS, the Federation of Community Housing Associations, Anglicare, the St Vincent de Paul Society and many others. This short-sighted decision, along with the government's failure to bridge the funding gap, has severely curtailed the supply of affordable rental housing. As I mentioned earlier, in regional New South Wales, where my electorate of Dobell is situated, upwards of a third of households are in extreme housing stress, according to the Rental Affordability Index.

Housing policy experts are unanimous that bridging the funding gap is essential to improving housing affordability and securing better housing options for all Australians. Labor will support changes to the NRAS that will encourage approved participants to retain their dwelling in the scheme, which will minimise the loss of dwellings to the scheme. While we support changes contained in the bill to ensure rents for NRAS dwellings are at all times at least 20 per cent below the market rent valuation for the dwellings, Labor believe there needs to be additional flexibility to allow unintentional rent overcharges to be refunded or credited to a tenant in a timely manner. The alternative is for approved participants and investors to face penalties in the form of reduced incentive payments for unintended minor technical breaches of the rental charge provisions which could easily be remedied by a timely refund or credit to the tenant.

Labor therefore welcomes the proposed amendments by the government following the Senate inquiry. The amendments are consistent with recommendations in Labor senators' dissenting report. They include an amendment that will permit the National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008 to include a power for the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to grant dispensation from the 20-per-cent-at-all-times rule to approved participants where there has been an unintentional overcharging of rent and the tenant has been compensated for the error.

In concluding, I would like to turn once again to my community on the New South Wales Central Coast, which is like many other communities in regional Australia. In my community there is acute housing stress, which is exacerbated by other pressures, including increased healthcare costs and transport. It is of extreme concern to me for communities like mine across Australia. I refer to my time working in mental health units at Wyong Hospital, the public hospital in the community in my electorate of Dobell. I worked in those mental health units for almost 10 years. It was particularly distressing when someone was well and ready to make the transition back into the community. Sometimes the decision of multidisciplinary teams would be that, yes, they would be accepted into a community mental health team, but those community teams were stretched. There wasn't capacity within the teams to be able to meet properly the needs of these people who had faced mental health problems and a mental health crisis and were now moving back into the community.

One of those particular stressors was housing. I recall coming out of a team meeting and a patient review. The social worker gave a phone book to a patient who was about to be discharged and said, 'You now have to find yourself a place to live.' In a competitive rental market in a regional community, how is somebody who is being discharged from a mental health unit in a public hospital meant to secure themselves a place to live, with a phone book and a public phone? This bill is not addressing the cause. It is not looking at how people find themselves homeless and at the things that government can and should do, and this should be done urgently.

There shouldn't be a situation in a wealthy country like Australia where one in four single women over 60 are finding themselves in poverty and at risk of homelessness. There shouldn't be the situation in Australia today where a person being discharged from a mental health unit is given a phone book and told to use a phone on the ward to try to find themselves a place to live. In a wealthy country like Australia, there should be provisions, safety nets and safeguards such that no vulnerable person finds themselves in this extreme housing stress or at risk of homelessness.

I call on the government to urgently act on this and to look at the cause, to look at where housing and homelessness problems stem from and the crisis that exists in Australia today, particularly in regional and remote Australia. The government must act. The government needs to act urgently to properly address this housing and homelessness crisis in Australia today.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (19:10): Housing in Australia is cooked. It is seriously messed up. If you go back to the 1990s, the average house price was six times an average young person's income. Fast forward about 20 years and the average house price is 12 times the average young person's income. There are over a million households in Australia that are paying more for housing than they can afford. That is why our personal debt and household debt in Australia is going up and up. People just can't afford to buy a house; they are going into huge debt just to make ends meet.

Two hundred and sixty-one people are turned away from homelessness services every day. In my home state of Victoria, where we've got public housing that is in many instances poorly maintained and people are living in conditions that are really substandard, there are 82,000 people on the waiting list for public housing. Why? It's because, over time, governments have lost sight of one basic fact: housing is a human right. Everyone, especially in a wealthy country like Australia, should be able to have a roof over their head and a stable home at a price they can afford. But, instead, what we've done in this country is treat housing like a stock market. We've set up rules, including rules that this parliament has passed, that say that, if you've already got a house and you want to get some additional houses, the government will actually give you a tax break for it. So what that means is we've got people who have already got a house fronting up to auctions to buy another house as an investment property. They can bid and bid the price up and out of reach of a first home buyer because they know that, when they rent it out, if they make a loss they can write it off as a tax loss and then, when they sell the property in a few years time, they can claim a tax break on that. It costs the Australian government and the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars to do this. What is the effect of it? It just keeps putting up prices more and more.

Meanwhile, if you decide, 'I'm just going to give up on the idea of owning my own home; I am just going to rent,' you have the situation at the moment where 97 per cent of rental properties are too expensive for a minimum wage earner. So, if you are working full-time and doing the right thing but you are on the minimum wage, you can almost forget being able to rent a property that might suit you in Australia at the moment.

We are the third least affordable housing market in the world. That should shame us all. We've lost sight of the fact that housing is a human right. If we turned 261 people away from public schools every day because there weren't enough schools, there would be a national outcry. If there were a million households that couldn't afford to go and get health care because the public healthcare system was too expensive, there would be an outcry. It's time that we started thinking about housing the same way that we think about schools and education—namely, that it's a right that everyone has and it's what government is there for. If people, especially young people, can't find an affordable place to rent or buy then that is because we, as government, are failing in exactly the same way we'd be failing if we didn't build enough public schools or public hospitals for everyone. That's the situation we've got at the moment. A big part of the reason we're in that situation is that we just haven't built enough affordable houses for people to either rent or buy.

My electorate, last time I looked at the statistics, has got more public housing dwellings than any other electorate in the country. But most of those were built in the sixties. They're the big tower blocks that you see as you come into Melbourne on CityLink—you can see them when you hit the CityLink sticks. We haven't had a large-scale build of that equivalent size since then, and that is part of the reason that the public housing waiting list keeps blowing out. But it does another thing too. When you don't have a lot of affordable public housing rental at the bottom end of the market, that means more people are competing in the private market, and it helps push prices up.

One thing we could do is invest in a 1960s-scale build of new public housing, which would help drive rents down, put more roofs over people's heads and go some way towards making Australia a place where housing is treated as a human right. We could build rent-controlled homes. We could introduce a system of rent control and rent capping. We have a situation at the moment where you're in a rental property, and you think, 'This is good; at least I can afford this,' and then you come to the end of the lease and up goes the rent for pretty much no reason at all. We could pass laws to cap it so that landlords could only increase rent to, say, CPI. That's something we could do that would go a long way to making housing more affordable. We could enshrine the ability for renters to have long-term leases. But, especially if we get rid of those unfair tax breaks I was talking about before, we'll actually save money for the Commonwealth budget to spend on other services and we will help make housing more affordable.

We have got to do other things too, of course, like stop the pit of insecure work that so many young people are falling into, where a bank manager won't even consider writing you a mortgage because your work has been casual or short-term contracts, through no fault of your own—it's potentially been like that for several years. We can lift the minimum wage, because we have the appalling situation in Australia at the moment, where one in four people who are living in poverty are actually working full-time. Australia has become a place where doing the right thing is no longer enough. It should shame us that you can work full-time in Australia and still be in poverty. That is the case for one in four people who are in poverty.

If we embarked on a large-scale build of public housing, if we got rid of the unfair tax breaks that favour people who have already got a home to the detriment of people who don't and if we passed laws that capped rent and gave people more security, we might start making housing a human right again. We would also need to give more money back to those housing services that are looking after those people and that are, at the moment, turning 261 people away every day. They wouldn't have to any more if we took some of the money that's currently going to the very wealthy in negative gearing tax breaks and instead put it into those services. The money is there. If we had the courage to stand up and say, 'Let's get rid of those unfair tax breaks for the very wealthy that favour people who have got two, three or four houses and that lock out young people,' then we could fund all of these things. We don't have to go around looking for extra money; let's just take the money that we're currently throwing away on lining the pockets of the wealthy and use that to make sure that housing is a human right. Those things, sadly, aren't included in this bill. This government is taking a very narrow focus to what counts as housing affordability.

I want to place on the record here an indication of the position that we're going to take when this bill comes to the Senate, where Senator Rachel Siewert will tackle this issue more broadly. We do have concerns—opposition, in fact—with respect to schedules 1 and 2 of the bill. The government's proposed amendments go some way to ameliorating that, but, even then, we have concerns with the amendment that provides that a tenant's agreement with the lessor that authorises the lessor to make a request under the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme is not required to be in written form, for example. There are a number of other detailed concerns that we have with the bill, as well as some principal concerns with schedules 1 and 2. That won't stop us seeing this bill progress through this place, but those certainly are amendments that we will be pressing when the matter comes to the Senate.

At the end of the day, we need a bit of a mind shift in this country. I hope, going into the next federal election, we can start to make housing a human rights issue. In our election campaigns, I hope we can start expecting our political parties to talk about housing the way we talk about public schools, the way that we talk about public hospitals. There's not a person in this country that either isn't locked out of the housing market themselves or has kids who are now only able to get into housing if they have significant help. And many parents just can't provide that, because they're not in a position to be able to do it. It is reaching crisis point. And the solution cannot be for Australians to keep getting further and further into debt, because our debt-to-income ratio is now getting to the two-to-one point, and it is at crisis point. People are just borrowing and borrowing and borrowing to try to stay alive because wages are flatlining, if not going backwards.

If we want to avoid the calamity in this country of locking young people out of ever having a stable and affordable home, we've got to start treating housing as a human right. We've got to stand up and wind in some of those tax breaks. We've got to invest in public housing at a scale that we haven't done since the 1960s. If we did all of that, Australia wouldn't just be a wealthy country; it would be a country where we looked after everyone, no matter how much money they earned. It would be a country where we say that having an affordable roof over your head is something that we take seriously. At the moment the government's not doing that.

We'll try to fix up this bill, but I fear that what we are really going to need is a change of government. We need a new government that will put affordable housing on a pedestal—not just tinker at the edges, but put it on a pedestal. If we can play some role in that, either here in the House or in the Senate, to make sure the next government treats housing as a human right, then we will go some way to making sure Australia remains an equal society and that egalitarianism in Australia is not put at risk.

Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (19:22): In the time that remains, I want to say some pretty clear and simple things about the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017. It's not impressive in itself. I don't think there's much evidence that it's going to do anything to address homelessness or help people at risk of homelessness in this country. It points to the glaring absence of policy and program action by the government in this space. We know that homelessness is a pressing issue in Australia. Despite the government spending a lot of time talking about how great the economy is, there are a lot of people who are not experiencing that, and that has got worse for people who are experiencing homelessness or facing circumstances of insecure housing.

Earlier this year, Homelessness Australia pointed out that there are 195,000 Australian households waiting for social housing, there's a shortfall of nearly half a million affordable homes across Australia, and each year 300,000 Australians attend homelessness services for help. So there is a desperate need for action on this front, and yet the government bowls up with this bill that really is fundamentally punitive. It will make the ability to apply mandatory rental deductions available to state and territory jurisdictions, even though there's no real evidence that that will achieve anything.

In material from the Parliamentary Library, which the Senate inquiry considered, it said that for the five years from 2011-12 to 2015-16 national rent collection rates averaged over 99 per cent across public housing, community housing, and state owned and managed Indigenous housing. Eighty-six per cent of all households that currently live in public and social housing are already making use of voluntary rent deductions. There's no great gap to be addressed in terms of the use of rent deductions where it's appropriate; there's no revenue problem as far as the return of rents from public, community and social housing; and rental arrears in themselves are not a significant cause of homelessness. All the evidence to the Senate inquiry and all the evidence that we've seen from sectoral stakeholders in recent times shows that the causes of homelessness are things like mental illness, substance abuse, family violence and so on. So, there's already a mechanism in place for people to opt in to rental deductions if that's going to help them stay in housing, and there's no evidence to suggest that mandatorily making that the case is really going to deliver any significant change.

What would, of course, deliver some significant change is increased funding to address all of those things I mentioned before. I mean, 300,000 Australians attend homelessness services each year. Last year, 66,000 people were turned away from homelessness support services, and yet earlier this year, when the government came along with what I termed at the time the 'N-HAHA', the national housing and homelessness agreement bill, it really just maintained the status quo as far as the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness are concerned. There was no growth funding to support social housing growth, nor was there any growth funding when it comes to the services that actually support people facing homelessness. More than that, in terms of its wreckage and relentlessly negative agenda, the government that will come to be known for the things that it damaged and got rid of, will be known in this space for getting rid of the Housing Help for Seniors pilot, for defunding homelessness and community housing peak bodies and for abolishing the National Housing Supply Council. That's the record of this government. And it turns up here, late in 2018, in the face of that aching need and the gross inadequacy of the Commonwealth when it comes to meaningful action to deal with homelessness and provide better services and more affordable housing, and instead proposes something that's more punitive: to mandatorily extract rent from people when they have the opportunity to opt in to that if they like. There's no evidence to suggest that, if it's imposed upon them, it's going to do anything meaningful to help them in their circumstances.

That's why Labor has flagged a series of amendments that would mean that you would only even contemplate the mandatory application of rent deductions when you had already ensured there were proper counselling and financial services considerations. You'd only do it after there was a substantial period of rental appears; you would cap the amount that could be deducted; and you would ensure that it would only apply to rental arrears and arrears in relation to utilities, and not to property damage, because there is evidence that, if you go down that path, you will cause harm and damage to people who are already disadvantaged. I make the point—and my colleagues would know—that it's passing strange that you'd even look at something like this when you've got no appetite for dealing with consumer leasers and no appetite for dealing with payday lending. If you really wanted to look at people who are in difficult financial circumstances, the last thing you'd go and do is just whack on this additional punitive measure when you're doing nothing to address the causes of homelessness, you're doing nothing to address an increase in social housing stock and you're not looking to get out the shonks and the predators in payday lending and commercial leases.

I finish by saying that, on the day that the Minister for Women was trumpeting the statement that's supposed to look to provide financial security for women, they have withdrawn funding under the Women's Safety Package, which supports family and domestic violence programs in Western Australia. They might start by focusing on those practical things rather than the production of glossy pamphlets.