Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (09:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 is another example of the steps this government is taking to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation.

It is an unfortunate reality that sexual predators seek to target the most vulnerable members of our society. These practices are vile, and we must constantly review our laws to ensure they are well suited to targeting any emerging forms of child sexual abuse.

This bill will increase the protection of children by:

responding to key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and

addressing operational difficulties the Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions are facing in investigating and prosecuting new trends in child exploitation.

Failing to report and failing to protect

In December 2017, the royal commission released its final report which detailed too many instances of people, who had been entrusted with looking after Australia's children, doing too little to protect those children from unimaginable harm. When vulnerable people were being subjected to sickening abuse, these people knew of the harrowing circumstances and did nothing. Rather than reporting to police and taking protective action, they turned a blind eye or even took actions to conceal the abuse.

In line with the recommendations of the royal commission, this bill will introduce two new offences into the Criminal Code to criminalise Commonwealth officers who exercise care, supervision or authority over children and fail to report child sexual abuse, or negligently fail to reduce or remove the risk of child sexual abuse to those children.

These reforms send a clear message: the safety of our children should always be put first. The Commonwealth has zero tolerance for child sexual abuse and expects all Commonwealth officers who are charged with caring and supervising children to fulfil their obligations to protect those children.

Persistent child sexual abuse overseas

This zero tolerance extends to the actions of Australians while they are overseas.

It is common for sexual deviants to travel to foreign jurisdictions where criminal laws and child protection frameworks are weak, and opportunities to exploit vulnerable children are abundant.

In response to other recommendations of the royal commission, the bill strengthens the laws in the Criminal Code for persistent child sexual abuse committed overseas by removing difficulties associated with prosecuting repeated instances of abuse.

The royal commission highlighted that it is often the worst forms of offending—the repeated, regular and ongoing sexual abuse of children—that are the most difficult to prove. This is because child victims of this kind of sustained exploitation commonly have difficulties distinguishing between particular occasions of abuse.

The amendments address these difficulties by reducing the number of occasions required to prove the offence. This helps to ensure perpetrators of persistent sexual abuse against vulnerable children overseas are not evading justice.

Defence for overseas child sex offences and forced marriage

In another effort to hold Australians who are predators more accountable for the sexual crimes that they commit against children overseas, the bill restricts the ability of offenders to escape culpability by claiming they were legally married to the child. Closing this loophole is crucial, as some countries permit girls as young as 10 to marry.

The bill will also strengthen the existing forced marriage offences to ensure they explicitly capture all marriages involving children under 16. Child marriage is a pernicious practice that seriously harms the development and wellbeing of victims, with disproportionate impacts on girls and young women. Children trapped in early marriages are often subject to physical and mental abuse, rape and forced pregnancy. The bill sends a very clear message that this morally reprehensible practice will not be tolerated.

Child abuse material, child pornography material and child l ike sex dolls

The bill also strengthens the Commonwealth framework of offences to ensure a comprehensive, technology-neutral and future-focused response to all forms of child pornography material and child abuse material. In particular, the bill will clarify the law to ensure that the abhorrent new trend of childlike sex dolls, used to simulate sexual intercourse with children, is clearly and robustly stamped out in Australia.

The bill will also introduce two new offences for possessing or controlling child pornography or child abuse material in the form of data stored on a computer or data storage device. Every single time child abuse material or child pornography material is viewed, the child portrayed in that material is revictimised and their trauma compounded. And so we must strive to ensure that our laws protect children from the dangers posed by abusers who operate online.

These offences will ensure that sexual abuse against children is appropriately criminalised and penalised at a Commonwealth level, and will help to achieve better, more consistent outcomes for Australian survivors.

By introducing these offences into the Criminal Code, the bill will also give Commonwealth prosecutors the tools they need to bring perpetrators to justice for the full range of their online offending. This can include anything from obtaining child abuse images via the internet, to storing those images locally or remotely, to sending material on to third parties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I urge all colleagues—and I'm sure it won't take much urging—to support the passage of this critical legislation. Together as a civilised society we can demonstrate we are committed to ensuring children can grow up free from the evil of sexual abuse and exploitation.

Debate adjourned.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (09:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The government is committed to combating the illicit tobacco black market. In particular, a range of complementary measures were introduced in the Black Economy Package—Combatting Illicit Tobaccoas part of the 2018-19 budget.

The black economy package seeks to disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny criminal groups access to illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities. As part of this package, it is proposed that from 1 July 2019 tobacco products will be a prohibited import and will only be allowed to enter Australia with a valid import permit, with limited exceptions. Any tobacco that is detected at the border without a valid permit will be seized.

The Customs Act 1901 currently requires seized prohibited imports to be stored for a minimum of 30 days before destruction. This storage requirement, together with legislative and administrative requirements for prohibited imports, will impact upon border operations and limit the ability of the government to regulate and manage illicit tobacco effectively.

This bill will amend the Customs Act to empower the Comptroller-General of Customs to deal with seized tobacco products in a manner he or she considers appropriate, including immediate destruction of the goods. Similar controls already exist for other prohibited imports, including seized psychoactive substances and prohibited serious drug alternatives.

These amendments will improve the handling of seized illicit tobacco, resulting in effective regulation of tobacco permit conditions and enabling greater focus on targeting of illicit tobacco. This bill will improve financial outcomes for the government and it will also enhance the implementation of the new tobacco measures.

Debate adjourned.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (09:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to lower the rate of excise-equivalent customs duty applied to beer imported in certain size containers.

Currently, a lower rate of excise-equivalent customs duty is applied to beer imported in a container that exceeds 48 litres, compared with the same beer imported in a smaller container.

From 1 July 2019, the amendments made by this bill will extend the lower rate to beer in containers of eight litres or more, provided the container is designed to connect to a pressurised gas or pump delivery system.

The amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 correspond with proposed amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921, which apply to the equivalent domestically produced goods. This means that imported goods will continue to be subject to the same tax treatment as the equivalent domestically produced goods.

Extending the lower excise rate for domestically produced beer will allow craft brewers, who typically use these smaller containers, to benefit from the lower rate. Extending the lower rate for imported beer will ensure that Australia is fully compliant with our international commitments, including those in our free trade agreements.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health) (09:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In particular, the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill (the bill) amends the National Health Act 1953 to support the ongoing administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and will ensure ongoing patient access to vital medicines.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has been providing affordable access to medicines for Australians for over sixty years and is rightly respected and valued for the high-quality, cost-effective service it delivers.

The Morrison government is deeply committed to the PBS and the Australian patients that benefit from this scheme. Our government has a commitment to list all medicines on the PBS when recommended to do so by the medical experts. Since 2013 our government has made approximately 2,000 new or amended PBS listings at an investment of over $10½ billion. This, of course, compares with the record of the previous government that deferred the listing of new medicines until such time as fiscal circumstances would permit.

The delivery of medicines to patients once listed on the PBS is a collaborative effort and Australia is well supported by its broad network of community pharmacies and the broader medicines supply chain. This bill will support them to continue to support Australians in need.

This bill proposes amendments which will support the PBS in two ways. Specifically, the changes will provide for application fees to be payable for applications by pharmacists to supply PBS medicines which was announced in the 2018-19 budget; and enable PBS medicines to continue to be supplied at pharmacy premises following bankruptcy.

The first of the amendments provides for an application fee to be charged when pharmacists make an application to supply PBS medicines at pharmacy premises.

There is currently no fee and this amendment will ensure the operations of the pharmacy approval processes are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework.

The fee will apply to all applications to establish a new pharmacy, relocate an existing pharmacy or where the pharmacy changes ownership. Payment of the fee will be required at the time pharmacists submit their application. This has the strong support of the Pharmacy Guild and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.

The amount of the fee will be determined by the Minister for Health in a legislative instrument and will be calculated based on the regulatory activity involved in processing these types of applications.

The fees will be reviewed each year by the Department of Health and adjusted accordingly.

This bill also includes measures that will allow PBS medicines to continue to be supplied to patients following the bankruptcy of an approved pharmacist, to ensure the community can continue to receive much-needed medicines and not be penalised as a consequence of those private operations. This will be of particular benefit in rural and remote areas, where access to alternative pharmacies may be limited. The approximate number of pharmacies affected by bankruptcy or external administration is 20 each year.

For many years, the arrangements following bankruptcy relied on the appointed administrator supplying PBS medicines at the pharmacy until approval was granted to another pharmacist, following the sale of the pharmacy business.

However, during the course of a Federal Court matter involving a bankrupt pharmacist, it was found that an approval of a pharmacist to supply PBS medicines was not proprietary in nature for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act and therefore could not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy. Whilst the matter did not proceed to hearing, the result of an approval not being proprietary means that neither the approved pharmacist, nor the appointed administrator, is able to supply PBS medicines at a pharmacy affected by bankruptcy.

Therefore, if the appointed administrator cannot take over supply, then access to PBS medicines from the pharmacy may be disrupted. Cessation or interruption of access to PBS medicines is, as I have said, of particular concern in regional or rural settings, where there may be no or few other approved pharmacies nearby.

The amendments in the bill address these issues. The bill provides the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to grant permission to an appointed administrator to manage the supply of PBS medicines at pharmacy premises and therefore closes that potential gap.

The new provisions will assist continuity of supply of PBS medicines at an affected pharmacy until such time as the pharmacy can be sold or transferred to another pharmacist.

The changes proposed in this bill will improve the operation of the PBS and I am confident they will be welcomed by PBS users. I would like to acknowledge and thank key stakeholders for their input during consultation on the bill.

I thank the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacies Association, and in particular the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.

The commitment of this government is to ensure that Australians have access through the PBS to affordable and life-changing medicines when and where they need them—medicines such as Orkambi for cystic fibrosis, Kisqali for breast cancer, Spinraza for spinal muscular atrophy, Tagrisso for genetically based lung cancer, and new immunotherapies such as Opdivo and Keytruda for a variety of indications. These are life-changing and life-saving medicines.

The changes proposed will therefore support this commitment and, in particular, will ensure patient access to PBS medicines will no longer be compromised when a pharmacy is affected by bankruptcy or external administration. Therefore, that is about saving lives and protecting lives.

I want to thank, in particular, the department and my office, including Mr Sam Develin, who has done an outstanding job in helping to bring these measures to this House. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health) (09:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Sport plays a significant role in the Australian way of life—each year 14 million Australians participate in some form of sporting activity.

Sport is also a fundamental contributor to the Australian economy. As highlighted by the BCG's Intergenerational review of Australian sport 2017, $35 billion to $47 billion of economic activity is generated by sport each year, equating to approximately two to three per cent of GDP, which is equivalent to the agricultural sector, I'm advised. Recognising the importance of sport to the Australian community, the Australian government invests more than $300 million to support high-performance sport and encourage greater participation.

Australians have no tolerance, however, for corruption and manipulation within sport. In August 2017, on behalf of the government, I announced and commissioned the review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, chaired by the Hon. James Wood AO QC—what is now and has ever since been known as the Wood review—as part of the work being done within the context of developing the National Sport Plan, or Sport 2030, which we announced in 2017.

The Wood review was published on 1 August 2018. It confirms Australia's position as a leader in addressing sports integrity threats but cautioned that Australia's sports integrity response will require ongoing vigilance to ensure Australian sport can be protected. In short, we have some of the cleanest sport in the world but we want to keep it that way. I want to thank and acknowledge personally and on behalf of the Minister for Sport, Senator Bridget McKenzie, the work of all of the organisations and agencies both within government and within the sporting world for making that the case. But this is an eternal task of vigilance for which we must continue to lift the bar.

Indeed, the Wood review found that sports are challenged by a range of mounting external integrity threats, including the increasing sophistication and incidence of doping, the globalisation of sports wagering—particularly through rapidly growing illegal online gambling markets—the infiltration and exploitation of the sports sector by organised crime, corruption in sports administration and growing participant protection issues. Whilst we have some of the cleanest sport and sporting bodies in the world, there are external threats which are real, and we have to acknowledge and address and confront them.

Sports integrity matters are now therefore beyond the control of any single stakeholder.

The nature of sports corruption and manipulation is evolving at the fastest rate ever observed, on the advice of the Wood review, due to the immense commercialisation of sport and sporting organisations and, in particular, accelerating technological advancement.

These threats are complex, globalised, connected and form a complicated environment, so to respond effectively Australia must have a robust, comprehensive and nationally coordinated approach across sports, governments, regulators, the wagering industry, law enforcement and other stakeholders.

A key recommendation of the Wood review is that a National Sports Tribunal be established to address antidoping and general sports disputes fairly, quickly and cost-effectively to ensure accessible natural justice for all parties.

The Wood review examined similar models overseas, including in the UK, New Zealand, Canada and Japan, and found that Australia's sports dispute resolution mechanisms lag behind, which is exactly why we called the Wood review and established the process of outlining a 2030 plan. The review underlined the need for such an entity in Australia.

Accordingly, the government will fund a two-year pilot of the National Sports Tribunal, which will allow refinement of its jurisdiction and operation according to demand.

By establishing the tribunal, we will ensure that the Australian sporting community has access to a dispute resolution mechanism providing:

cost-effective processes for sports and participants;

timely, reliable and efficient procedures;

transparency; and

preservation of actual and perceived independence.

Currently in Australia, some sports disputes are arbitrated in the first instance by tribunals run internally by individual sports.

However, most sports have acknowledged they find it difficult to maintain internal tribunals. Their only available forum for antidoping rule violation disputes is the Swiss Court of Arbitration for Sport, which can be an expensive and time-consuming process.

We have heard from a number of sports about the challenges they face in dealing with disputes. Managing such disputes detracts from the core business of our sports—building a more active Australia and achieving sporting excellence. Integrity compromises detract from these goals and cause major reputational and other damage, especially when they occur during major sporting events. The nation clearly knows this.

Establishing the National Sports Tribunal will provide an effective mechanism to manage such issues.

It is proposed that the tribunal will deal with two types of disputes—antidoping rule violations and general disputes.

Accordingly, the National Sports Tribunal will be comprised of three divisions:

an Anti-Doping Division;

a General Division; and

an Appeals Division.

The Anti-Doping Division will hear antidoping rule violation disputes.

The General Division will hear other types of disputes which arise under the rules or policies of a sport, including in relation to code-of-conduct breaches and disciplinary matters, selection disputes, member protection issues and the like.

The Appeals Division will deal with appeals from the Anti-Doping Division and the General Division, and appeals from internal sports-run tribunals in relation to antidoping rule violation disputes and general disputes.

The National Sports Tribunal will be established by statute, rather than privately, to enable the tribunal to be given powers to inform itself, including by requiring the attendance of witnesses and the provision of documents.

The tribunal will be one of the few, if not the only, sports dispute resolution bodies worldwide that will have these powers, reaffirming the government's commitment to—and Australia's position as a leader globally in—protecting the integrity of sport.

Further, with the agreement of both parties to a dispute, the tribunal will be empowered to provide dispute resolution services in addition to arbitration, including conciliation, mediation and case assessment.

This government is intent on providing participants in sport with a fair, efficient and cost-effective forum for the resolution of sports disputes. We are also focused on relieving the burden of managing complex and serious dispute resolution from sporting organisations, so they can focus their time and their resources on doing what they do best, which is supporting our high-performance athletes as they seek to excel, and providing more opportunities for Australians to be active.

I particularly want to commend the minister, Senator McKenzie, for her work in bringing the sports organisations together. It's a process that I'm proud to say we started in 2017. It is now reaching fruition, and it will mean that over the coming years and decades Australian sport will be even stronger in its protections against any form of malfeasance.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health) (09:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce this supporting bill, the National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019.

This bill is a companion bill to the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019, and will deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019, as well as for related purposes.

In addition, this bill provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of existing sports dispute resolution processes to the National Sports Tribunal.

The scope of this bill allows a degree of flexibility to make adjustments to the new arrangements or prescribe others matters of a transitional nature in the rules.

This bill will make consequential amendments to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 to encompass the use of the National Sports Tribunal.

These amendments will take effect prior to the establishment of the National Sports Tribunal on 1 July 2019.

I wholeheartedly commend this bill and its companion bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (09:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. This bill will acknowledge and give thanks to veterans and their families for making the sacrifices they have made while serving in the Australian Defence Force.

As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I recognise that the Australian people value our military and those who have committed to defending our nation, and of course, as a government we are absolutely committed to putting veterans first and, indeed, putting veterans' families first.

The introduction of this bill sees the realisation of an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant where everyone can acknowledge, support and pay respect to all who have served in the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. Australia has a proud military history and the covenant will enable Australians from all walks of life to pay homage to this.

The Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant will be enshrined into legislation, providing an opportunity for the nation to recognise the service and the sacrifice of all who have committed to defend the nation, and pledge their commitment to support veterans and their families.

The bill also provides for acknowledgement of the demands and challenges that a veteran or their family may experience during and after military service. For these sacrifices, we acknowledge that additional support may be required and where support is required it will be provided in a way that is appropriate and sensitive to their individual circumstances and in a way that elevates their self-esteem.

Along with the covenant a veteran card and lapel pin will be released—those who have an eligibility for a DVA medical treatment card will receive a veteran card. The lapel pin for veterans will provide a way for the Australian community and businesses to recognise a veteran and for veterans to reconnect with one another.

The bill also includes a statement requiring the Department of Veterans' Affairs to adopt a beneficial approach when interpreting legislation and applying a fair, just and consistent approach to veterans' claims so that the public may trust and have confidence in the determinations made. I thank the Prime Minister for his assistance in preparing this bill and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (10:55): by leave—I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (10:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019. The bill is designed to provide veterans with a more timely, convenient and user-friendly method of accessing their medical treatment.

On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, it's recognised that the Australian community has a clear expectation that veterans will be well looked after and, of course, as a government we are committed to this and to putting veterans first and to putting veterans' families first.

This bill will simplify access to medical treatment for veterans without the need for claim forms or up-front costs via a Department of Veterans' Affairs, DVA, health card.

The amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004would remove and replace the dual treatment pathway model with a single treatment pathway model. The amendments would mean that all DVA clients would have access to health care via a DVA health card.

Since the introduction of DVA health cards, uptake in treatment among veterans has improved, indicating that, where they do not face any up-front costs, veterans are more likely to access treatment for service-related injury or disease.

DVA health cards provide veterans with an easier way to access treatment which is not compromised by their inability to afford treatment.

Once this bill is passed, veterans will only need to present their DVA health card at the time of receiving medical treatment and payments will be made directly to health providers via the Medicare system. Around 4,000 clients will no longer have to pay up-front and then seek reimbursement from DVA. Importantly, this bill retains discretionary power for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to reimburse a person the cost of treatment in special circumstances.

These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans as they will have easier access to treatment as and when they need it.

I commend this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019. The bill will provide medical treatment to eligible members of Australian civilian surgical and medical teams who worked in South Vietnam from October 1964 to December 1972 under the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program.

During the Vietnam War, Australian civilian surgical and medical teams were engaged by the then Department of External Affairs to provide medical aid, training and treatment to local Vietnamese people in South Vietnam as part of Australia's contribution to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program.

This measure was to be introduced in 2020; however, Australian civilian surgical and medical team members raised concerns that waiting another 18 months was not ideal for an ageing group, some of whom have serious health issues.

This government has listened to these concerns. We are committed to ensuring this small group can access medical treatment as and when they need it, and so we have decided to bring forward this measure to 1 July 2019.

The bill recognises the fact that civilian surgical and medical teams working in South Vietnam had a unique role in working for the Australian government in a conflict zone where they were exposed to hazards and dangers.

The bill also recognises that the teams provided invaluable aid to Vietnamese citizens, often in difficult and traumatic circumstances.

This bill will provide eligible civilian surgical and medical team members with access to medical treatment through a DVA gold card.

DVA is aware of approximately 200 surviving members of civilian surgical and medical teams who will benefit from this bill.

Civilian surgical and medical team members can already receive compensation and treatment for medical conditions related to their employment in South Vietnam under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988administered by Comcare.

The bill would increase the level of medical assistance available to civilian surgical and medical team members by extending medical treatment to any injury or disease including those unrelated to their work performed in South Vietnam.

Civilian surgical and medical team members will also be eligible to receive a pharmaceutical supplement and payment for travel costs related to receiving medical treatment.

This bill will mean improved range and access to medical treatment for civilian surgical and medical team members as and when they need it.

I commend this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (11:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019.

The bill will make necessary amendments to related acts, to ensure that civilian surgical and medical team members will be able to receive medical treatment and pharmaceutical supplement resulting from their eligibility under the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Act 2019.

The bill will ensure that civilian surgical and medical team members eligible for medical treatment under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 will transition to arrangements under this bill easily and are exempt from paying income tax on travel expenses and the pharmaceutical benefits.

I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (11:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, the government introduces the additional estimates appropriation bills. These bills are:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018‑2019;

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018‑2019; and

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018‑2019.

These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018‑2019 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $2.5 billion. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs, for instance changes in costs for demand-driven programs.

I now outline the more significant amounts provided for in this bill.

First, this bill will provide the Department of Health with more than $626 million, including support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought.

Second, this bill will provide the Department of Home Affairs with almost $600 million, including funding for national security, provision of refugee and humanitarian assistance, and investment in critical national capabilities to enhance Australia's natural disaster preparedness.

Third, this bill will provide $100.5 million to the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, including assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought.

Fourth, this bill will provide $89.8 million to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, including assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought.

Further, this bill will also provide the Attorney-General's Department with $60 million, including support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The royal commission will primarily look at the quality and safety of care provided in residential and home aged care to senior Australians and young Australians with disabilities living in residential aged-care settings.

The bill would also provide the Australian Sports Commission with just over $60 million, which includes $30 million to expand the Community Sport Infrastructure Program to provide a greater number of grants for the community sporting facilities, $2 million to fund the development of a detailed business case on options for the future of the Australian Institute of Sport site and $25 million to support athletes preparing for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics.

The bill will also provide, the National Gallery of Australia with over $14 million to continue to safeguard and exhibit its collection of artworks.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (11:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018‑2019, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018‑2019, which was introduced earlier, andAppropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018‑2019 are the additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $752.9 million. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs.

I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill.

First, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive $82 million, mainly for critical enhancements to the security infrastructure of Australia's overseas diplomatic network.

Second, this bill will provide the Department of Human Services with just over $40.6 million to bring forward investment in capital infrastructure from tranche four of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program, which is progressively replacing Centrelink's ageing technology platform.

Third, the Department of Home Affairs will receive approximately $28 million, mainly for the design and initial procurement of next generation visa processing systems.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule 1 to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (11:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 is to provide additional funding for the operations of the parliamentary departments.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of just over $4.3 million. Of this amount, $3.25 million is available for the implementation of electronic voting for divisions in the House of Representatives, should the parliament decide to support that initiative. If this progresses, this will increase the efficiency, transparency and accuracy of the voting process. Another $1 million will be received to maintain the electronic security infrastructure of the Australian Parliament House.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the Department of Parliamentary Services additional estimates statements tabled in parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (11:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will set the salary of the next Governor-General.

The Governor-General is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister and under the provisions of the letters patent relating to the office. On 16 December 2018, the Prime Minister announced that the Queen had approved his recommendation to appoint His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) as our next Governor-General following the retirement of His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd).

General Hurley will be sworn in as Governor-General in June 2019. Section 3 of the Constitution prevents the Governor-General's salary from being altered during their term of office. As such, the salary must be set prior to the appointment of General Hurley as Governor-General in June 2019.

Although the Governor-General serves at the Queen's pleasure, it is usual to serve for approximately five years. As such, it is necessary to set the next Governor-General's salary at a level appropriate for the duration of this term.

It has been longstanding practice to set the Governor-General's salary by reference to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The proposed salary is based on a forecast of the Chief Justice's salary over the next five years using wages growth projections. I note that the Chief Justice's salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal, a body that is independent of government.

In setting an appropriate salary, the Governor-General Designate requested that regard be given to the Commonwealth funded military pension he will be entitled to receive during his term in office. This is consistent with precedent established by Sir William Deane in 1995 and continued most recently by General Cosgrove.

The proposed salary of $495,000 per annum reflects a reduction by the amount of General Hurley's military pension.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr VASTA (Bonner) (11:20): I present the following reports: a report concerning a proposal by a member to amend the resolution of the House relating to the registration of members interests; and a report concerning the registration and declaration of members interests during 2018.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (11:21): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Takeovers Panel and the corporations legislation: report No. 1 of the 45th Parliament.

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

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:21): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018.

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

Mr HASTIE: by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's advisory report on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018. The bill proposes to amend section 35A—conviction for terrorism offences and certain other offences—of the act. Clause 1 of the bill proposes repealing existing subsection 35A(1) of the act and replacing it with a new subsection 35A(1).

While the proposed provisions largely mirror those in the current subsection 35A(1), the bill makes three major changes. First, the person's citizenship may be revoked if they are convicted of associating with a terrorist organisation under section 102.8 of the Criminal Code and other conditions are satisfied. Second, a person's citizenship may be revoked if the minister is satisfied that the person would not, if the minister were to determine that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen, become a person who is not a national or a citizen of any country. Third, a person convicted of a specified terrorism offence need no longer to have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least six years or to periods of imprisonments that total at least six years, as required under current section 35A(1). No minimum sentence is required in the legislation in order for someone convicted of a relevant offence to have their citizenship revoked. This provision would apply retrospectively to all individuals who have been convicted of a specified terrorism offence from 12 December 2005.

In its submission to the committee, the Department of Home Affairs noted the changes in the threat environment that necessitates the passing of this bill. The department stated:

At the time section 35A (along with sections 33AA and 35) was inserted into the Citizenship Act, the threat environment was largely characterised by the danger posed to Australia and its interests by foreign fighters, including those who sought to return to Australia after travelling to the conflict zone …

The number of Australians (and other foreign terrorist fighters) attempting to travel to the conflict zone has reduced considerably with the collapse of the self-declared caliphate of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, the violent ideology of Sunni Islamist terrorist groups, such as ISIL and al-Qa'ida, continues to appeal to a small number of people in Australia, and security and law enforcement agencies remain focused on stopping a terrorist attack in Australia.

   …   …   …

As at 3 January 2019, 58 individuals have been convicted and sentenced for Commonwealth terrorism offences in Australia since 2001. Forty-six of these individuals (just over 80% of the cohort) were sentenced in the last three years, after the commencement of the provisions in the Allegiance to Australia Bill from 12 December 2015.

   …   …   …

As at 3 January 2019, while 12 individuals offshore have ceased to be Australian citizens as a result of terrorism-related conduct, no individuals have had their Australian citizenship ceased under section 35A of the Citizenship Act.

To ensure that this committee will have the opportunity to review the effect of these changes, it has recommended:

… section 29(1)(ca) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, be amended so to require that the Committee review the operation, effectiveness and implications of sections 33AA, 35, 35AA and 35A of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and any other provision of that Act as far as it relates to those sections, by 1 December 2020.

The act currently requires the committee to report by 1 December 2019. Increasing the time frame in which the committee will report this amendment to the Intelligence Services Act will allow time for the new citizenship loss provisions to take effect. The committee is satisfied with the provisions contained in the bill and recommends that the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018 be passed.

In closing, I want to make a note on bipartisanship. This committee over the past few years, particularly the last two years while I have been chair, has approached the task of legislative review in a spirit of bipartisanship. This iterative process leads to stronger legislation. However, this parliament is democratic. It's where we fight over ideas and our principles, and we won't always agree. In this case, we don't agree. That's okay. This is Australian democracy. I want to particularly thank the deputy chair, the member for Holt, for his support in this process, as well as the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Isaacs, who's been a good sparring partner!

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:27): by leave—This is a sad day. In the last five years, government and opposition members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security have worked together to make well over 300 bipartisan recommendations to improve and strengthen some 19 national security bills. On each occasion, Labor members of the committee have joined with our Liberal colleagues in issuing a unanimous report—but not today.

In his valedictory speech, the former Attorney-General, George Brandis, listed three reasons why our domestic national security policy has been successful over the past four, now five, years. The second reason he listed was bipartisanship. Referring to eight national security bills introduced by the Abbott and Turnbull governments and supported by Labor, he said:

All eight tranches of legislation were passed with the opposition's support after scrutiny by the PJCIS. It was a fine example of government and parliament working hand in hand to protect the national interest. I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly. One of the main reasons why the government has earned the confidence of the public on national security policy is there has never been a credible suggestion that political motives have intruded. Were they to do so, confidence not just in the government's handling of national security but in the agencies themselves would be damaged and their capacity to do their work compromised. Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage. To his credit, the Prime Minister has always resisted such entreaties.

Of course, the Prime Minister he was talking about was not the current Prime Minister but Mr Malcolm Turnbull. As was widely reported, and even more widely understood, the 'powerful voices' that Mr Brandis was referring to included the current Minister for Home Affairs.

While I disagreed with Mr Brandis on many matters, I think when he was leaving parliament he finally found the courage to describe, in his valedictory speech, what he'd been observing in his own party's shift to the right, when he said:

…increasingly, in recent years, powerful elements of right-wing politics have abandoned both liberalism's concern for the rights of the individual and conservatism's respect for institutions, in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism which shows no respect for either the rights of individual citizens or the traditional institutions which protect them … This presents a threat to both liberalism and conservatism and a profound challenge to the Liberal Party …

Mr Brandis is now gone, replaced by an Attorney-General who appears to hold none of the same concerns as his predecessor when it comes to his colleagues trashing their party's core values and undermining bipartisanship on national security matters by devising disputes over national security issues for cynical and entirely partisan political reasons. Malcolm Turnbull is also gone, replaced by a Prime Minister who has eagerly teamed up with the Minister for Home Affairs to, in the words George Brandis, 'open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security'. That's all he has to offer the Australian people. They've run out of policies, so all they have left is fear.

Also gone are the spines of many of the government's frontbench and, apparently, of the former frontbench. The coalition has been here before. In 2015, the now Minister for Home Affairs's proposal to give a minister the power to strip an Australian of their sole citizenship divided the cabinet, resulting in cabinet leaks detailing the clash and a decision by that government to back down on that unprecedented proposal. As one political journalist memorably described it at the time: 'The Liberal Party were so busy trying to wedge Labor, they wedged themselves.' Yet, under this new law, the Minister for Home Affairs could do precisely what even Mr Abbott's cabinet could not countenance. What has happened to those voices who stood firm against the Minister for Home Affairs in 2015? What did the member for Sturt say when the Minister for Home Affairs brought this proposal to cabinet? And what does the member for New England have to say about this bill? How about the member for Menzies or the member for Curtin? What happened to their principles? This government has run out of policies, so all it has is fear and the politics of fear. Make no mistake: this bill is all about politics for this government.

There is no higher priority for Labor than keeping Australians safe. We support cancelling the citizenship of Australians who are dual nationals and who have demonstrated that they no longer owe allegiance to Australia. That is why Labor members joined with our colleagues to recommend the passage of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, which first introduced section 35A into the Australian Citizenship Act, the provision this current bill is seeking to amend. It is, in part, because we support the current laws that Labor members of the intelligence committee cannot support the majority report and why Labor cannot support this bill in its current form. Under the current section 35A of the Australian Citizenship Act, a person may have their Australian citizenship cancelled if they are convicted of a prescribed terrorism offence, they are given a prison sentence of at least six years and they hold the citizenship of another country. The citizenship revocation provisions introduced in 2015 have been used to cancel the citizenship of 12 people. Labor supports the current law. This bill would amend section 35A by significantly expanding the Minister for Home Affairs's existing power to revoke a person's Australian citizenship to people who have committed a broader range of offences and who have never been given a prison sentence, and amend the requirement that a person must, as a matter of fact, be a citizen of another country to a requirement that the minister merely has to be satisfied that the person would not become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country if the person has their Australian citizenship revoked.

If the changes in this bill are implemented, it would be for the Minister for Home Affairs to personally decide whether a person who is convicted of a prescribed offence has repudiated their allegiance to Australia, even if that person has not been given a prison sentence by a court. And it would be for the minister to personally decide whether a person is a citizen of another country, based not on the objective facts relevant to the subject's citizenship status but rather on the minister's opinion. We would all have to put our trust in the Minister for Home Affairs. We do not trust the Minister for Home Affairs to exercise such a broad and subjective power consistently, responsibly and in Australia's national interest. But our lack of confidence in the Minister for Home Affairs is something I'll return to later.

Our primary concern is that this bill is likely to be found unconstitutional by the High Court of Australia. Unlike the Liberal members of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the entire government of Australia, my colleagues and I are not prepared to ignore the evidence presented by eminent constitutional lawyers and scholars who told the committee that the bill is likely to be struck down by the High Court. For example, Professors George Williams and Kim Rubenstein said it was 'more likely than not' that the High Court would find section 35A, as amended by this bill, unconstitutional. Peter Hanks QC, in a formal legal opinion that I obtained after the government refused to provide my colleagues and me with any advice or assurances on the issue of constitutionality, concluded that had there would be a 'substantial risk' of this happening. It should go without saying that Australians are not made safer by laws that are struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional. We're not interested in giving convicted terrorists a free kick in the High Court—yet this government does not seem to care.

Of course, this government is more than happy to play politics with the Constitution. In this House on Tuesday, we heard a desperate, self-righteous and utterly misleading sermon on the subject by the Attorney-General. In an attempt to intimidate our colleagues on the crossbench into voting in favour of a motion that would have saved the government from an historic loss on the floor of the House, the Attorney-General bellowed:

If you vote against this motion, you would be putting us as a parliament and every one of us as parliamentarians in contempt of the Australian Constitution, and you'd be doing it because it's convenient for you to do it.

I could scarcely believe what I was hearing because, after trying and failing to obtain assurances from representatives of the Department of Home Affairs that this bill was constitutional, I had written to the Attorney-General on 1 February 2019, seeking assurances directly from him. What did this supposed champion of the Australian Constitution do? Nothing. While he was busy cooking up a phony constitutional crisis, for base political reasons, on a matter which can never be taken to the High Court, he was ignoring a very real issue, the constitutionality of this bill, which could very well end up in the High Court.

Despite the considered legal concerns that had been cogently presented to the committee in public evidence by eminent constitutional experts, the explanatory memorandum does not mention the Constitution of Australia at all. The Department of Home Affairs' submission to the committee did not refer to the Constitution of Australia at all. During the public hearing on 30 January 2019, the Department of Home Affairs admitted to the committee that the government had never sought the advice of the Solicitor-General, whose advice is routinely sought in relation to complex constitutional questions, about the prospects of this bill surviving a constitutional challenge or how the citizenship bill could be amended to put it on a stronger constitutional footing. Representatives of the Department of Home Affairs refused, in response to questions from my colleagues and me, to reveal anything about the advice that the government apparently has received regarding the prospects of the citizenship bill surviving a constitutional challenge; and the Attorney-General of Australia, who is tasked with upholding the rule of law, refused to deal with legitimate public concerns about the constitutional risk of this bill.

Make no mistake, the constitutionality of this bill is not an academic point. The government is not proposing to add a power to the Australian Citizenship Act. Rather, the government is proposing to amend the existing power under section 35A to cancel the Australian citizenship of citizens with dual nationalities who've been convicted of a terrorism offence for which they have been sentenced to six or more years in prison. If the citizenship bill proceeds and section 35A is struck down by the High Court, there will be no section 35A at all. This would mean that the existing regime, which Labor supports, would be removed, with the effect that serious terrorists with dual nationalities could no longer be deprived of their Australian citizenship under the Australian Citizenship Act. Why would the government try to push through a bill that is likely to be struck down by the High Court, without asking the Solicitor-General for advice? In the words of George Brandis, it is to 'open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security'.

In addition to constitutional concerns, submitters to the committee's inquiry expressed a number of other concerns, including that, despite recent comments by the current Attorney-General that 'retrospective criminal law is probably the most serious and unwarranted thing that any government anywhere in any democracy can do', this bill would apply retrospectively to 12 December 2005 without qualification. There would be no merits review available to anyone whose citizenship is revoked under section 35A, so, despite the enormous impact of stripping an Australian of their citizenship, they have no right to even question the minister's decision. As a matter of law, the amendments to section 35A would make it possible for the Minister for Home Affairs to render a person stateless in contravention of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961, to which Australia is a party—a scenario previously ruled out by the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The removal of the current requirement that a person has been sentenced to a period of at least six years in prison, or to periods of imprisonment that total at least six years, may result in arbitrary decision-making and the personal, subjective ministerial power under section 35A being used in a disproportionate manner. Each of these concerns warrants careful attention. The government paid them no consideration at all.

Even if we joined with the government in ignoring all of the legal and constitutional issues with this bill, we would still hold serious doubts about the ability of the current Minister for Home Affairs to exercise such a broad, subjective decision-making power responsibly or in Australia's national interest, especially in the light of the recent fiasco concerning Neil Prakash. On 29 December 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs announced that Neil Prakash had lost his Australian citizenship under section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act. Mr Prakash, by the way, was born in Melbourne. On the same day, it was reported that the minister and the Department of Home Affairs believed that Mr Prakash is a citizen of Fiji. The minister has also said that the government had legal advice which concluded that Mr Prakash is a citizen of Fiji. The problem with all of that is that Mr Prakash is almost certainly not a citizen of Fiji, and so, unless he is a citizen of a country other than Fiji or Australia, which the government does not claim, he is almost certainly still an Australian citizen. The reason I say Mr Prakash is almost certainly not a citizen of Fiji is that Fiji tell us he isn't, and they should know. It's also that representatives of the Department of Home Affairs told the intelligence committee in a public hearing on 30 January 2019 that the department never bothered to consult with an expert on Fijian citizenship law or hold any discussions with the Fijian government about Mr Prakash's citizenship status before the minister jumped in front of the cameras to deliver his press conference.

The Minister for Home Affairs' blundering announcement about Mr Prakash achieved the following: it got him a few headlines in the media, it damaged Australia's relationship with an important security partner in Fiji, and it undermined the Australian public's trust in this government's capacity to competently implement our national security laws. Clearly, the damage that the current Minister for Home Affairs did to Australia's relationship with Fiji resulted directly from his inept administration of section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act. That damage was both entirely avoidable and completely pointless. Now the minister is seeking to further expand his power under section 35A to make uninformed, subjective determinations with the potential to impact Australia's foreign relations. Why would any Prime Minister or any government risk further embarrassment to Australia and damage to our regional security relationships by trying to hand such an incompetent minister additional powers of this nature? In the words of George Brandis, it is to 'open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security'.

If the parliament is still not convinced that this last-minute attempt to rush this law into the parliament is all about the current political desperation of the Morrison government rather than the nation's security, I draw the attention of the House to the committee's 2015 Advisory report on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act proposed in this bill are directly contrary to three of the bipartisan and unanimous recommendations made by the committee in that 2015 report. Recommendation 7 said that an individual's citizenship should not be revoked under section 35A of the act unless they had been convicted of a relevant offence with a sentence applied of at least six years imprisonment, or multiple sentences totalling at least six years imprisonment. Recommendation 9 said that an individual's citizenship should not be revoked under section 35A of the act unless they had been convicted of an offence that carries a minimum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Recommendation 10 said that section 35A may be applied retrospectively to convictions for relevant offences where sentences—that's actual sentences—of 10 years or more had been given. However, retrospectivity must not apply to convictions handed down more than 10 years prior to the bill receiving royal assent.

That same 2015 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was unanimously re-endorsed by the committee as recently as eight months ago, in June 2018, in the advisory report of the committee on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017. The same Liberal members of the committee who co-authored that report are signatories to the majority report with respect to this bill. They provide no explanation for their about-face today on these key recommendations—none.

Moreover, when Labor and the government passed the allegiance to Australia bill in 2015, the government established a clear and deliberative process for reviewing and, if necessary, amending the citizenship revocation provisions introduced by that bill, including section 35A. That process was established in response to two of the intelligence committee's other recommendations from its 2015 report. First, the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, now the Minister for Home Affairs, promised in the explanatory memorandum to the allegiance bill that the Prime Minister would refer the citizenship revocation provisions, including section 35A, to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, who would report by 1 December 2018. Second, the intelligence committee would, with the benefit of the monitor's report, review the same provisions and report by 1 December 2019. That process, which was recommended by a Liberal-majority committee chaired by the now Minister for Education and endorsed by the current Minister for Home Affairs as the then minister responsible, has not been observed. The promised referral to the monitor was never made and the review by the intelligence committee has not yet taken place. To date, the government has offered no explanation for this failure.

The government's failure to honour and act upon commitments made to this bipartisan and statutory committee shows a disregard for parliament and convention. And it serves as yet further evidence that this bill is not about improving national security laws—there was a process in place for doing that, and this government didn't bother to do it.

I will say it again: this bill is about nothing more than opening 'a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security' by a desperate and irresponsible government.

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:49): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled From little things big things grow: Supporting Australian SMEs go global.

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

Mr TED O'BRIEN: by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I'm delighted to present the report entitled From little things big things grow: supporting Australian SMEs go global. Australian SMEs are Australian small- and medium-sized enterprises. Most people in this chamber would agree that Australia is most likely the most successful liberal democracy in the world. A feature of our liberal democracy is our embrace of free trade. We are an enormously successful free trading nation, and we have been over successive governments of all political stripes. Indeed, in recent years we have had an extraordinary run of success in concluding free trade agreements. If you look at some of our larger Asian partners, in recent years we have concluded free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan. Of course, just recently the TPP-11 has been ratified and, indeed, begun. As part of the TPP-11 we have also engaged in new partnerships with the likes of Mexico, Canada and Peru.

But here's the thing: while our export growth has been quite spectacular—exponential, in fact—unfortunately, the facts bear out that small- and medium-sized businesses in Australia have not been growing their exports anything like larger companies. Why is that? Why have small- and medium-sized businesses not enjoyed the same growth as a result of free trade agreements as larger companies? How can we ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses in the future leverage free trade agreements better? These are the questions that have concerned the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and in particular the Trade Subcommittee, of which I am the chair and the member for Moreton, Graham Perrett, is the deputy chair. Those questions led to the inquiry for which this report today is tabled.

The inquiry involved 153 different submissions and 16 public hearings across metro and regional Australia. We heard from small- and medium-sized business owners and operators. This inquiry was done differently, and for a good reason. A hypothesis, if you like, of the committee going into the inquiry was that small- and medium-sized businesses by virtue of their size are often too busy and too strapped to be looking at the detail of free trade agreements and thus often too busy to be writing submissions to parliamentary inquiries. That is why this subcommittee decided to do things differently. Of course, we accepted written submissions, but we also went directly to regional and metro areas and held open roundtables. Small- and medium-sized business owners and operators turned up on the day and gave evidence without any particular preparation. This was enormously rewarding for the committee because it meant that we heard from those people who are in the trenches, those people who are fighting for their businesses and those people who are our business ambassadors abroad—small- and medium-sized business owners and operators who not only are trying to make a buck domestically but have the vision and courage to take their businesses offshore. That gives me great confidence that the report tabled today answers some of those questions about why small- and medium-sized businesses have not leveraged free trade agreements as much as they could and, indeed, has helped us formulate 10 recommendations for how the government can help make free trade agreements more easily accessible and better used by small- and medium-sized businesses.

Before I cover those recommendations off, I particularly want to acknowledge the guidance and support of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Ian Macdonald—who, incidentally, attended I believe a majority of those roundtables. I also want to pay tribute to the deputy chair and member for Moreton, Graham Perrett, who has been with me, side by side, at each of those hearings and has been an absolute pleasure and delight to work with. I would like to thank the secretariat, also—James Rees and Andrew Dawson, in particular—and, more than anybody else, the small and medium business owners.

Let me quickly cover the recommendations off. First is an in-principle statement of embrace of free trade, of which free trade agreements are only a part. Second is a recommendation about the need for us to identify and proactively address non-trade barriers. Third, we need to do a better job of ensuring that small and medium businesses are accounted for in our free trade agreements and indeed in how they are executed from there, particularly looking at strengthening the certificates of origin regime, SME chapters within FTAs and the like.

Fourth is suggesting a trial, particularly in regional areas, where we have clusters of organisations of businesses that cluster together by virtue of industry, geography or provenance and collectively agree to collaborate and target international markets. We believe there is scope for the government to consider piloting a grants scheme to see whether we can help particularly some of those regional areas in Australia. Fifth, there is a need for us to review the resourcing of key agencies, such as Austrade and others, and key programs, including the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, with which most people with whom we spoke had been very pleased, but I believe there is room for review of how it can be improved.

Sixth, we need to make free trade agreements more user friendly for those small and medium businesses. In particular, we are suggesting a single trade window for small and medium businesses so that it is easier for those companies to access and navigate through the process. Seventh, we believe there is scope for a far better 'team Australia' approach, whereby we look at better using the power of economic diplomacy, with non-ministerial delegations. I know from firsthand experience, working particularly in Asian markets, that more can be done with our parliamentarians who do not sit in the executive, who can accompany and assist our businesses but also have that 'team Australia' approach across different tiers of government as they promote offshore our country, our economy and our industry and businesses.

Eighth is to adopt a more holistic approach to information sharing and capacity building. Small and medium businesses of course have to go through a long journey to build up capacity so that they are export ready. A more holistic approach to information sharing, to awareness and to training is something we believe the government should consider. Ninth is better use of data and technology. In particular, the potential for ecommerce is already on the agenda of government, but the room for small and medium businesses to leverage ecommerce to break into new markets is something that traditionally has not been seen before. Lastly, we're recommending an audit be commissioned into the untapped human capacity of Australians offshore and here at home, especially here at home domestically. We have such large multiethnic communities, about which we are very proud, but there is more that can be done to tap into that human capacity to help small and medium businesses go offshore.

To make some final comments, can I say that, as somebody who lived and worked overseas for much of my 20-plus years in business before coming into this place, I believe Australians are different. I believe Australians are unique, and you find that out more the more time you spend overseas. It's a cultural thing. There's something about Australians. I think there's a degree of humility in the average Australian which means we adapt. We know how to crack a joke. We're a self-deprecating lot, which means that we have an ability to engage with people. It's no coincidence that Australia, despite being a relatively small country, sees its nationals running major corporations right across the world. There is something truly unique about the Australian people and our DNA. If we want to see little things get bigger, if we want to see smaller businesses really smash the international marketplace, we have to find a way of unleashing that innate human capacity of Australians. That is why reports such as this, we believe, contain recommendations that will play their role in helping small and medium businesses go from little things. As that song from a great Australian says: from little things big things grow. I commend the report From little things big things grow: supporting Australian SMEs go global to the House.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (12:01): by leave—I rise to second and support the member for Fairfax, the chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, in tabling the report From little things big things grow, and I wholeheartedly endorse all of the comments made by the member for Fairfax. It's been a wonderful subcommittee to work with. As stated, there were 16 public hearings all around Australia. Several of the subcommittee were Queenslanders: Senator Macdonald; the subcommittee chair; and me, the deputy subcommittee chair. Obviously we had a national focus, but there was a strong Queensland flavour throughout. The 16 public hearings brought in a range of evidence. As noted by the member for Fairfax, there was a particular focus on individual companies that don't have time to write submissions but had time to attend a hearing and provide evidence. I will give a shout-out to one of those. My brother-in-law, Peter Shearer, would never have time to write a submission—he is too busy doing the work of exporting—but came along and provided good evidence, like the evidence in the 153 submissions that we received and the other evidence we garnered in the public hearings. We focused on turning thriving local businesses and the opportunities that come with them into being our business ambassadors.

I thank Andrew Dawson and the secretariat for the great work that they did all around Australia, and I endorse what the member for Fairfax said—that we would be turning these small businesses into a part of Team Australia where we will be able to make sure we trade everywhere we can throughout this nation in all sorts of businesses. I thank the member for Fairfax for his leadership of this subcommittee and look forward to working with him in the future.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:04): Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Most taxpayers comply with Australia's tax rules and pay their fair share of tax. However, some foreign investors have been using complex arrangements known as stapled structures and other broader tax concessions to extract profits from Australian businesses almost tax free. Australia has some of the strongest taxation integrity rules in the world. The government has already introduced a raft of key initiatives such as multinational anti-avoidance law, the diverted profits tax and country-by-country reporting. The measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018 build on the government's work in protecting the integrity of Australia's corporate tax system. The package of bills neutralises the tax benefits of stapled structures and similar arrangements, limits broader concessions without requiring restructuring and provides certainty around choice of stapled structures going forward.

It's important that everyone pays their fair share of tax to ensure the government is able to fund the vital infrastructure and services that Australians deserve. The bill is estimated to have a gain to revenue of $400 million over the forward estimates period. Moreover, the package protects the revenue base going forward. Together, the measures being implemented by this bill strengthen and protect the integrity of Australia's corporate tax base. I commend the bills to the House.

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

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:08): by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 28 (lines 2 to 10), omit subsection 12‑451(7), substitute:

(7) The time is 4.30 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 14 September 2017.

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 28 (lines 15 to 20), omit paragraph 12‑452(1) (c), substitute:

(c) is *residential premises (other than *commercial residential premises); and

(d) is not a dwelling that:

   (i) is used primarily to provide specialist disability accommodation (within the meaning of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation Conditions) Rule2018); and

   (ii) is enrolled in accordance with section 6 of that Rule; and

(e) is not a dwelling that:

   (i) is used primarily to provide disability accommodation; and

   (ii) is a dwelling of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:11): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:12): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:13): I present a revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 creates a new tower access regime for towers owned or operated by NBN corporations such as NBN Co Limited, and would also allow the Minister for Communications and the Arts to specify certain temporary telecommunications towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. Following amendment in the Senate, the bill also contains minor technical amendments to transmitter licence refund arrangements and broadcasting licensee support payments, as agreed in the media reform package of 2018.

Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to permit NBN corporations to provide emergency service organisations, like police, fire or ambulance services, with access to towers and associated sites and facilities.

Currently, NBN Co cannot provide access to its towers to these organisations because of statutory line of business restrictions. These line of business restrictions limit it to supplying eligible services—such as access to towers—to persons who are carriers or service providers. Emergency service organisations are usually not engaged in the telecommunications business, so are not carriers or service providers. However, they do access towers owned by carriers to deploy equipment that allows them to operate more efficiently, and there is a clear public interest in them being able to access NBN Co's towers.

Schedule 1 to the bill therefore amends the line of business restrictions. The restrictions are only suspended when NBN Co supplies access to towers and associated sites, and only when it supplies this access to eligible persons. Eligible persons are defined to include police, fire and ambulance services, and state or territory emergency services.

NBN Co will not have to provide access if this is not technically feasible or if it does not have sufficient capacity on a tower for its own reasonable requirements or existing contractual requirements. It also will not have to supply access if it is reasonable for an eligible person to obtain access from another tower in the vicinity. This latter clause reflects the fact that other organisations provide tower access and therefore NBN Co should meet competitive neutrality requirements.

NBN Co will be required to publish a standard offer for tower access and must provide the access on a non-discriminatory basis. These obligations are consistent with its general obligations when it supplies services to telecommunications companies.

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow the more efficient installation of temporary telecommunications towers when used during emergencies, maintenance, peak holiday periods, and major sporting, cultural or other events.

Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 sets out telecommunications carrier powers and immunities, which allow some types of facilities, such as low-impact of facilities, to be installed and upgraded in a nationally uniform way without the delays imposed by lengthy development approval processes.

The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill would allow the Minister for Communications and the Arts to specify temporary towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. These changes will allow telecommunications carriers to quickly provide services to the community, businesses and emergency services organisations. The changes were outlined in a June 2017 public consultation paper, titled 'Consultation on possible amendments to telecommunications carrier powers and immunities'.

Except during an emergency and natural disaster, there will be strict height restrictions imposed on temporary towers. The changes also include conditions to ensure that a temporary tower is removed within a set time frame and that carriers restore the land.

Schedule 3 of the bill was inserted via amendment in the Senate. The schedule contains minor technical amendments to transmitter licence refund arrangements and broadcasting licensee support payments. The changes are to:

amend a provision in the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983 so that it operates as intended, such that pro-rata refunds would only apply to taxes imposed on transmitter licences paid in the financial year ending on 30 June 2017;

to make amendments to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 to omit Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd from the list of specified companies eligible for a transitional support payment, and replace it with Network Investments Pty Ltd; and

modify the operation of the transitional support payments provisions to reflect that the 'designated day' will now be a day in a later financial year.

I commend the bill to the house.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:19): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. This bill proposes to amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to require the National Broadband Network Company to provide emergency service organisations with access in certain circumstances to towers and associated sites and facilities. It also proposes to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to enable the Minister for Communications to specify temporary towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. This bill also incorporates a Labor amendment passed by the Senate on a broadcasting-related matter, which I will come to later.

Turning first to schedule 2, which deals with temporary mobile towers: this schedule deals with the deployment of temporary mobile towers and infrastructure. The carrier powers and immunities regime is a longstanding provision under the Telecommunications Act which allows companies to deploy infrastructure under a range of circumstances. When a particular type of infrastructure is deemed to be of low impact, the usual planning process may no longer apply and the approvals process is streamlined. Low-impact facilities include some radio communications facilities, underground and above-ground housing, cables and the like. The longstanding arrangements help to minimise the cost and time to deploy networks and other related infrastructure. The explanatory memorandum notes schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act does not currently permit towers, other than replacement towers of a particular height, to be installed using such carrier powers and immunities.

As you would well know, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, mobile towers can be a sensitive issue for local communities for a variety of reasons, which I recognise as a local member but also in my previous role as a local councillor. Naturally, a balance must be struck between the need to deploy infrastructure efficiently and in a timely manner, to the benefit of consumers, and the processes and risk management that underpin their deployment.

Temporary towers require local government approval in many places. Mobile operators are often required to obtain approvals from local government authorities to temporarily install these facilities. The amendments proposed by schedule 2 of the bill would allow towers to be installed temporarily, under the certain conditions specified, without the requirement for all of the approvals that are currently required. This includes situations such as providing services to emergency services organisations to respond to a natural disaster or emergency. It also includes periods of peak demand or additional capacity to support specific events. These are all legitimate circumstances in which temporary mobile infrastructure is deployed. The question raised by this bill is whether there should be more flexibility in certain types of deployment scenarios.

Labor is, in principle, supportive of the steps to streamline processes for the deployment of temporary mobile infrastructure, provided it is safe for the community and the environment and that the benefits outweigh the risks. We strongly support the ability of temporary mobile infrastructure to be deployed expeditiously during natural disasters or emergency situations, as I'm sure all members do in this place. We have adopted a more cautious approach towards events and deployment in local areas of peak seasonal demand. Any proposal which seeks to provide mobile carriers with the ability to bypass local approvals must be developed with care and sensitivity, and in consultation with relevant community, council and local government stakeholders.

Labor instigated an inquiry into schedule 2 of this bill primarily due to a concern that temporary towers could be deployed in some scenarios, such as events, under the streamlined arrangements proposed in this bill, but then become permanent through a process of minor relocation or gaming of the time limits. This situation, if permitted, would clearly be contrary to the intent and spirit of this bill. These concerns were reflected in the two primary recommendations of the Senate inquiry into schedule 2. I acknowledge the government has, in good faith, taken the committee's concerns into account, and has subsequently provided and issued a replacement explanatory memorandum to respond to the matters raised by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report from its inquiry into the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, which was released on 10 September 2018. The amended explanatory memorandum makes clear that what could be described as a 'trivial relocation' of a temporary facility does not reset the clock, as it were, for the time period linked to the event and not the specific location.

Another issue identified in the Senate inquiry was whereby an annual time limit could, perhaps opportunistically, be breached by a mobile carrier across two calendar years in a manner that permitted a temporary facility to operate for nearly 12 months, rather than the six-month intent described in the bill. The backstop safeguard in this situation appears to be the requirement to issue a land notice to the land owner, who then has the option of raising an objection with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. While this mechanism is imperfect, we are prepared to be flexible and see how it operates in practice. If the TIO observes unintended outcomes, there is nothing that would prevent a future parliament from taking reasonable steps to strengthen those safeguards as judged appropriate.

For these reasons and given the issue of a replacement explanatory memorandum, Labor is satisfied that, on balance, there are adequate safeguards to address the concerns that have been identified. We are also satisfied about the existing environmental safeguards that exist. For this reason, it is our intention to support schedule 2 of the bill as it stands. Should evidence emerge of unintended consequences as a result of the changes, as I said, there will always be scope to revisit these issues on their merits.

Turning to schedule 1 of the bill, access to NBN towers by emergency service organisations: schedule 1 of the bill proposes to amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to require NBN to provide emergency service organisations with access to its towers in certain circumstances. These emergency service organisations can include fire, ambulance and police, as well as other state and territory services. These organisations have been unable to provide this access because of line-of-business restrictions in the originating NBN legislation. These restrictions prevent NBN Co from providing access to entities that are not supplying telecommunications services. Clearly, these restrictions are impractical and unnecessary when it comes to emergency service organisations, so the changes are welcome. Schedule 1 of this bill proposes to amend the existing restrictions applying to the NBN so that such access can be supplied to eligible emergency service organisations without breaching those restrictions. Labor is supportive of this proposal as it seems to be a sensible step.

The Australian public has made a significant investment in telecommunications infrastructure because of the NBN rollout. It is important that these investments are leveraged for the public interest. Supporting the efficient deployment of communications infrastructure for emergency service organisations is certainly in the public interest. To progress this outcome, the bill proposes to establish a tower access regime to facilitate that access. Under the proposed tower access regime, NBN Co would be required to give access to the tower and related sites. If there is another tower in the vicinity of the tower owned or operated by NBN Co, NBN Co would need to be satisfied that it would not be reasonable for that entity to access that other tower before providing access to its own. We are satisfied that schedule 1 offers adequate safeguards and that NBN Co is not required to provide access where it is not technically feasible. Imposing such a requirement would create a range of operational and technical challenges that would be both costly and impractical unless a fair mechanism for cost recovery was in place.

Finally, I also note Labor introduced an amendment to this bill in the Senate to correct a legislative issue that is preventing the payment of assistance payments to a regional broadcaster. The amendment proposes to omit Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd as a specified company that is eligible to receive a transitional support payment under part 3 of schedule 6 of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 and to specify Network Investments Pty Ltd in its place. I am pleased that the government supported the amendment in the Senate, and I look forward to their support in this chamber.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 established a transitional support payment scheme for specified companies. This entitles a company to a transitional support payment if it meets certain criteria, including being the holder of a commercial television or radio broadcasting licence. Northern Rivers Television is specified as a company that can receive an annual transition support payment if they meet the criteria for that payment. However, on 1 June 2017, Northern Rivers Television transferred the commercial television broadcasting licence and assets it held to Network Investments. Under the policy, Network Investments, as the current holder of the commercial television broadcasting licence, would have been eligible for the annual payment of financial assistance. However, it is not currently specified in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017. The Labor amendment will specify Network Investments as being eligible for the payment. This will ensure that Network Investments receives the transitional support payment for each of the relevant financial years.

This amendment was first introduced by the government in the House of Representatives to a separate bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018. However, that bill appears to have since stalled under this minister, as has a lot else in the communications portfolio. The minister has been sitting on the government's communication deregulation bill for quite some time. Labor was tired of waiting for the minister to get his act together because all we saw was delay, delay and delay. We are pleased that the Labor amendment has been incorporated into the bill.

In seeking to explain himself on this matter, the minister made the very bizarre claim that his deregulation bill, which the minister has not brought on for debate in the Senate, has somehow stalled because of Labor—yet more excuses from this minister. It is no wonder the communications sector is tired of having a distracted minister more focused on his backroom numbers than his portfolio. But we are glad that at least today, in the context of this bill, this amendment from Labor will have a useful outcome.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (12:30): Labor's response to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 has had the benefit of consultations with the Australian Local Government Association, representatives of the telecommunications industry and the capacity to consider the inquiry and report that was done by our members in the other place. On the basis of that information and those consultations we are able to inform the House that Labor will be supporting both schedules 1 and 2 to the bill, which concern amendments to the telecommunications regulatory legislation.

Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to amend the 1997 act to extend immunities from state and local government planning laws to mobile carriers in specified circumstances where they are deploying temporary towers without needing all the local government approvals in certain circumstances—those certain circumstances being natural disaster emergencies, amongst others. We strongly support the ability of temporary mobile infrastructure to be deployed expeditiously during a natural disaster or an emergency. That just makes sense. It's a clear case in which the benefits of the measures will outweigh any incumbent risk.

I will talk a little bit about telecommunications and communications signals during an emergency situation. We're almost at the anniversary of the terrible Tathra bushfires. I had some discussions this morning with council representatives who were reflecting on the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria 10 years ago. There is example after example where people are relying on their mobile telecommunications during a natural disaster. I could point also to all the Pinery bushfires on the outskirts of Adelaide. I see the member for Grey in the chamber. He would be very familiar, as his electorate borders that region as well.

This is critical infrastructure at any time and critical during a natural disaster. Close to 70 per cent of triple-O calls, emergency service calls, during a natural disaster—in fact, nearly 70 per cent of emergency calls, full stop—are made from a mobile phone. So it's all the more important that we have extensive coverage, particularly in those areas that are prone to natural disasters, floods or bushfires. The ideal situation would be to have extensive mobile phone coverage right throughout the country. It's a damn big place. We know that we're not going to be able to have a mobile signal absolutely everywhere, but along our main highway routes, along areas that are prone to natural disasters and in areas where there is a strong and large influx of tourists—perhaps visitors during a tourism season and perhaps visitors during a music festival, for example—there is a strong case, a need indeed, for us to be looking at either permanent structures or facilitating amendments such as this.

Ideally, we would have permanent coverage. That is why when Labor were in government we spent $250 million on a regional backbone black spots program. This is the program which, I have to say, enabled the current government to leverage off it to ensure that they could provide subsidised mobile phone towers in many regional areas. Of course, they've mismanaged the program. They've wasted resources putting towers and base stations in areas that didn't improve the coverage. In fact in round 1 of the program, nearly one in five of those stations, according to the Australian National Audit Office, didn't extend coverage. They failed to facilitate competition and wasted a lot of money in round 1 of that program. Round 2 of that program was riddled with politicisation. Some lessons were learned in round 3. Hopefully they don't repeat those same mistakes in round 4 of the program. But, without the back haul in place, the $250 million invested by a Labor government, a lot of these mobile phone base stations simply could not operate. They'd just be poles in a paddock. Labor has a good track record in this area, and we will continue to invest in ensuring that we can extend coverage for mobile services throughout areas prone to natural disasters. Where it's simply not feasible or possible, legislation such as this, which provides and facilitates the erection of temporary facilities, is absolutely critical.

I also need to make note of and give a shout-out to the telecommunications carriers in North Queensland at the moment. Townsville and surrounds has been devastated by flood, and I'm pleased to see that emergency service operators, our telecommunications carriers and our Defence Force personnel are working hand in hand, very closely together, to ensure that we get a temporary and then a permanent service up again. The recent floods up there have knocked out mobile phone towers in a number of locations. I know that our carriers are busy deploying cells on wheels as an interim measure to help get affected residents connected. Locals do appreciate the efforts of the carriers to assist them in these emergency situations. It would be remiss of me not to use an opportunity with a bill such as this to pay credit to the work that is being done up there and to all the services. Both Optus and Telstra have assistance packages to help customers in the region, including giving customers access to free and interim services during the recovery period, and we all understand how much and how important it is to connect and reach out to friends and families during these emergency situations.

The schedule proposes to streamline processes which relate to deployment of temporary mobile towers and to provide more flexibility in certain types of deployment situations. I've described one. There may be others. Labor is, in principle, very strongly supporting these steps to streamline the processes for deployment of temporary infrastructure, provided it is safe to the community and for the environment and that the benefits do outweigh the risks. We believe in these circumstances they do.

I see that the member for Mayo is in the chamber. I'll be surprised if she doesn't make mention of the need for battery backup of our mobile phone towers in emergency situations as well. I've had a number of conversations with the member for Mayo on this issue. We are keenly aware that communities being served by new mobile phone base stations in bushfire-prone areas want to have the peace of mind that there is a sufficient level of battery backup to ensure that, in the most critical phase of an emergency, their mobile towers are able to continue to operate. We do need to understand that, for the most part, when bushfires come through the area, it's quick—devastatingly quick, deadly quick—but it may also be a long period of time before a crew can come through the area and repair any damage that is done to the power and facilities. So having sufficient levels of battery backup in these bushfire-prone areas just makes good sense. If the member for Mayo is returned—and I'm confident that she will be—and if Labor is lucky enough to win the support of the Australian people at the next election, we'd like to engage in a sensible conversation with the carriers, with the emergency service providers and with interested members of this place to ensure that we have the sufficient level of standards in place to provide sufficient battery backup powering arrangements for these towers in these areas. I thank the member for Mayo for her ongoing interest in this area. I know it means a lot to her in her electorate.

Labor believes that any proposal to provide mobile carriers with the ability to bypass local approvals must be developed in consultation with the relevant community council and local government stakeholders. That's why Labor instigated an inquiry in the other place to specifically look more closely at the consequences of the measures in schedule 2, and I personally reached out to the president of the Australian Local Government Association on this issue. I had productive discussions with David O'Loughlin, a mayor and the president of the association. The association outlined some concerns, and these concerns were reflected in the primary recommendations of the Senate inquiry into schedule 2 of the bill. So, Labor acknowledges that the government has in good faith taken the committee's concerns into account, and on this basis we're able to accept these recommendations to this schedule of the bill.

I just want to finish by raising one point, and I thank the member for Greenway, the shadow minister, for drawing attention to this point in her contributions. This bill has had an attachment to it, an amendment that was moved by Labor in the Senate—a long overdue amendment. I thank the government members for agreeing to it finally. There was much delay in this, and it has a big impact for viewers of regional television in regional Australia. I'm talking, of course, about the amendment that proposes to permit Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd as a specified company eligible to receive a transitional support payment under part 3 of schedule 6 of the broadcasting legislation.

This will probably be all very puzzling for most members of this place. Let me put it simply: under the broadcasting reform legislation moved by the minister, which was passed through last year, certain transition and other refund payments were available to broadcasters because of the change in ownership between Norther Rivers Television Pty Ltd, subsequently purchased by WIN TV, headquartered in my electorate and the electorate of the member for Cunningham. The new owners became ineligible for those payments. That was never intended. The amendments moved by Labor in the Senate will ensure that the new owners, WIN TV, will get the payments that were always intended to go to them.

We thank the minister for finally getting onto this important work. It wouldn't have happened had it not been for the work of the member for Greenway in ensuring that those amendments were moved in the Senate. With those comments, with those contributions, we commend the legislation to the House.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:43): I would like to thank the members of the House of Representatives who have contributed to this debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The bill creates a new tower access regime for towers owned or operated by NBN limited corporations, such as NBN Co Limited, and would also allow the Minister for Communications and the Arts to specify temporary telecommunications towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the NBN Companies Act 2011 to permit NBN corporations to provide emergency service organisations like police, fire and ambulance with access to towers and associated sites and facilities.

The bill requires NBN Co to meet competitive neutrality obligations. NBN Co will not have to provide access if this is not technically feasible or if it does not have sufficient capacity on a tower for its own reasonable requirements or existing contractual obligations. NBN Co will be required to publish a standard offer for tower access and must provide the access on a non-discriminatory basis. These obligations are consistent with its general obligations when it supplies services to telecommunications companies.

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow more efficient installation of temporary communications towers when used during emergencies, maintenance, high-demand holiday periods and major sporting, cultural and other events. Schedule 3 to the bill sets out telecommunications carriers' powers and immunities, which allow some types of facilities, such as low-impact facilities, to be installed and upgraded in a nationally uniform way without the delays imposed by lengthy development approval processes. The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill will allow the minister to specify temporary towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances, and those changes will allow carriers to quickly provide services to the community, businesses and those emergency service organisations. The proposed changes were outlined in a June 2017 public consultation paper which was titled 'Possible amendments to telecommunications carrier powers and immunity: consultation paper'.

As the chamber may recall, this bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for consideration. The committee published its report on 10 September last year and focused on schedule 2 of the bill. I want to thank the committee for its hard work and considered report. It recommended that the bill be passed and also made recommendations about strengthening protections in schedule 2 to the bill to ensure that carriers would not be able to relocate temporary facilities as a means of avoiding the time limitations in the bill and to ensure that the protections will apply to heritage areas. I think the committee's additional recommendations were very sensible, although I note that they can largely be dealt with through additional clarification of the safeguards present in the current law and the bill itself. As such, the Minister for Communications and the Arts tabled a replacement explanatory memorandum for the bill in the Senate which addressed these recommendations and also addressed concerns raised in submissions made by stakeholders, including the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the Communications Alliance and the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association.

Members will be aware that schedule 3 to the bill was inserted by the Senate during its debate on the bill. The schedule contains a measure that the government proposed in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018, which was supported by those opposite. The schedule contains minor technical amendments to transmitter licence refund arrangements and broadcasting licensee support payments, as agreed in the media reform package of 2018. The government supported the amendment to the bill in the Senate because it will allow, amongst other things, payments to be made to Network Investments Pty Ltd as part of the transitional support payments under the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017. I call on all members to support the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:47): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (line 15), omit "annual limit", substitute "time limits".

(2) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (lines 20 to 22), omit all the words from and including "ensure that" to the end of subclause 8B(1) of Schedule 3, substitute:

ensure that:

   (c) the total number of days in a calendar year on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 183; and

   (d) the number of consecutive days on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 183.

(3) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (line 26), omit "annual limit", substitute "time limits".

(4) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (lines 31 to 33), omit all the words from and including "ensure that" to the end of subclause 8C(1) of Schedule 3, substitute:

ensure that:

   (c) the total number of days in a calendar year on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 90; and

   (d) the number of consecutive days on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 90.

(5) Schedule 2, page 21 (after line 5), after item 6, insert:

6A Subclause 9 ( 1 ) of Schedule 3

   Omit "similar", substitute "equivalent".

(6) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 16), omit "similar", substitute "equivalent".

(7) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 25), omit "similar", substitute "equivalent".

I will not take long in this House with these amendments. I move these amendments because I share the concerns of my colleague Senator Griff when it comes to this bill. We understand the importance of flexibility when it comes to the installation of temporary low-impact telecommunication towers in certain circumstances—for example, emergency situations and congested peak times, such as holidays and events. Telecommunications companies do need flexibility, and we believe that's important, and that's something that Centre Alliance supports. However, these provisions cannot be used as loopholes to avoid due process when it comes to community consultation. Telecommunication black spots are a big problem in our area. Goodness knows I've advocated long and hard for more reliable telecommunications in high-risk bushfire areas in my electorate. But towers are a source of considerable angst in my community when they are placed in sites that destroy amenity because telecommunication companies do not collaborate with commercial rivals and do not consult with locals.

My amendments mirror the amendments put forward by Senator Griff to seek to ensure that, when carriers install a temporary tower, it is temporary. We want to refine the words to make sure carriers do not install a temporary tower and leave it installed for back-to-back periods of 183 days in two separate calendar years and, therefore, essentially allow the tower to remain there for a year. A year is not temporary if you're looking at the structure from your home every day. My amendments introduce a limit so that carriers cannot leave a temporary facility installed for more than 183 consecutive days if installed at or near a venue, or for 90 consecutive days if installed during a high-demand holiday period. If the facility is required to remain installed at a venue for longer than 183 days—or 90 days—the carrier should then follow the appropriate approval process to have the facility installed permanently.

My amendments also require carriers to adhere to a fair and reasonable requirement to remove the temporary facility within 28 days of the completed maintenance, repairs or replacement of the existing facility, or 28 days after the end of that date. The site needs to be left in the way the carrier found it, if not better. If it's good enough to require campers and bushwalkers to take their rubbish with them when they go, then I can't see why telecommunications companies should not be required to do the same.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:52): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (12:53): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001(Corporations Act) and the Taxation Administration Act 1953(taxation act) to strengthen Australia's corporate and tax whistleblower protections.

Firstly, it will extend the corporate whistleblower protection regime in the Corporations Act.

Secondly, the bill introduces new protections for tax whistleblowers not available under existing laws.

The importance of protecting corporate sector whistleblowers has been recognised for many years. However, legislative protections under the Corporations Act in place since 2004 have been sparingly used and are increasingly perceived as being inadequate, having regard to advances in whistleblower protections in the public sector, the registered organisations act and internationally.

As part of the government's tax integrity package, new arrangements to better protect those who blow the whistle on noncompliance with taxation laws were announced in the 2016-17 budget.

Together these reforms will help protect whistleblowers who often expose themselves to significant personal and financial risk, in order to help play a critical role in the early detection and prosecution of corporate or tax misconduct.

The secondary beneficiaries of these new laws will be Australian businesses, as corporate governance and integrity practices increase, with officers, employees and taxpayers aware that there is now a higher likelihood misconduct will be reported.

The amendments in part 1 of the bill extend protection to a broader class of people who interact with the corporate sector and expand the type of disclosures eligible for protection.

To protect whistleblowers coming forward, the bill strengthens the whistleblower regime in a number of ways including preventing companies from using the protections as a defence for failure to take action on a disclosure or not commencing an internal investigation. The bill makes it easier for a whistleblower to seek redress for detriment or damage and permits anonymous disclosures not protected under the existing law. In addition, the bill mandates that all large companies have a whistleblower policy. The reforms encourage the Australian business community to assess their corporate governance as well as offer an opportunity to all Australian businesses, particularly public and large companies to take stock of their current practices for dealing with whistleblowers and develop and improve their whistleblower policies.

Part 2 of the bill amends the taxation act to introduce tax whistleblower protections that are broadly consistent with the Corporations Act amendments.

This reform is aimed at introducing arrangements that protect individuals who report breaches or suspected breaches of taxation law or misconduct in relation to an entity's tax affairs. Importantly, the new protections provide clarity for whistleblowers with regard to who they can make protected disclosures to. Eligible recipients include the Australian Taxation Office or an eligible recipient who is able to take action or investigate the alleged misconduct, such as an entity's tax agent or auditor, or an authorised person within the entity whose tax affairs are the subject of disclosure.

The new tax whistleblower regime protects the identity of eligible whistleblowers through strict protocols on the sharing of a whistleblower's identity. The regime also allows for anonymous disclosures to be made.

The regime also protects whistleblowers from victimisation and provides them with access to remedies including compensation should they suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure or if their identity is revealed.

The tax whistleblower regime is intended to encourage whistleblowers to disclose information relating to actual or suspected noncompliance with taxation laws to the ATO and eligible recipients who are able to take action or investigate the alleged misconduct.

Following introduction into the Senate, the bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which tabled its report on 22 March last year. The government amendments will address many of the recommendations within the Senate committee report.

At this point I would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Patrick for his commitment to strengthen protections afforded to whistleblowers. He's worked closely with the government to bring about several of the amendments to this bill, and in doing so, will ensure that whistleblowers are encouraged to come forward and are protected when doing so.

The government amendments will improve access to compensation for whistleblowers who suffer victimisation. For example, whistleblowers will be able to make a claim for compensation when a body corporate breaches a duty it owes to the whistleblower to prevent a third person engaging in detrimental conduct towards them. Duties may include, for example, duties that arise under employment law or state and territory laws. Also, the amendments require a court to consider the period a person is likely to be without employment in circumstances where the detrimental conduct involved termination of employment.

To ensure the corporate regime operates as intended, disclosures solely about personal employment related matters will be excluded from protection.

The emergency disclosure provisions that allow for disclosures to parliamentarians and journalists have been amended to better align with those equivalent provisions in the public sector, as appropriate for the corporate context. For example, emergency disclosures can now be made for misconduct that represents a substantial and imminent danger to a person's health and safety, or the environment. A new limb has been introduced that allows for disclosures of misconduct based on a broad public interest test.

Furthermore, the definition of journalist is revised to ensure eligible disclosures made to journalists employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service are protected.

To reduce the compliance burden on companies an amendment is made to narrow the cohort of staff who are eligible to receive a whistleblower disclosure.

Amendments are made to revise the commencement date of the bill and the commencement date of the whistleblower policy requirement to ensure regulator effectiveness is not compromised and to provide certainty for businesses.

The bill also requires a statutory review is undertaken of the operation of the protections within both the Corporations Act and the taxation act, five years after the commencement date of the amendments.

Amendments will also be made to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 and have the effect of increasing financial penalties for offences under the whistleblower regime in the Corporations Act and the taxation act.

The amendments seek to increase consistency where practicable with other Commonwealth whistleblower legislation, namely the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and subsequent amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

Full details on the government amendments can be viewed in the government response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report into the bill, to be tabled at this time.

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

I commend this bill to the House.

Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:01): It is a great pleasure to make a contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 debate in the House. I speak on behalf of my colleagues, who I know share a strong interest and a passion in fighting corruption in Australia—in business, in government and everywhere we might find it. We deal with a lot of bills in this House that feel esoteric and far from the lives of ordinary people, but this bill is actually crucial to things that we see on the front pages of our newspapers every day at the moment—in particular, uncovering businesses who are doing the wrong thing and are hurting people in our society. The bill before us provides some additional protections for people who are working in those organisations, or who are exposed to that kind of misconduct, and want to blow the whistle. It provides a better framework around how they can make a disclosure about something that's going on and make it in a way that's protected.

I note the minister's speech on the bill. He didn't mention a few pertinent facts. One of them is the long journey that the government has had to go on to get the bill to the state that it's in today. Those who are paying attention to the detail will note that the bill originated in 2017, so we've spent a bit less than two years, actually, sitting on this bill in the parliament and trying to force the government to make significant change in this area, because that's actually what's required. The truth is that the law as it stands today doesn't provide proper protection for whistleblowers. I'll speak about some of the stories of whistleblowers who have gone through the current regime. The lives of some of these people have been destroyed by what's happened to them since they made a disclosure, when all they were doing was trying to act in the public interest. We've got a system in place today where they saw a wrong being done, for the benefit of the public they tried to come forward and the law didn't protect them. They lost significant things; they had mental health issues; they faced financial implications that have been severe and long-lasting for their families—and we just don't want that. Of course it's in all of our interests that we actually have a protective system for those people. We need them to come forward, we want them to come forward and we need to provide them proper supports to come forward.

I will explain also in my comments about the bill some of the deficiencies that we continue to see in the whistleblowing system that have been left in place by the government. There are really big ones. People who watch this area of policy will know that Labor not so long ago announced a big reform package of things that we would like to change that relate to whistleblower protection, and those are things that a Shorten Labor government would do if we were elected to office. Those things are really important to us as Labor people. Everywhere we turn in our society today we see organisations and corporations who are sometimes doing the wrong thing and not properly being held to account. If we want to stop that kind of conduct, we have to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and we have to be able to look them in the eye and tell them that we, as lawmakers, as people who have a role in the legal system, have provided a way for them to do that without threatening everything they care about.

Before I get into the detail of the bill before us, I want to acknowledge some of the incredible stakeholders who work in this area, who have contributed to pushing the government to the point they've got to and also helping Labor understand what the big issues that remain unsolved in this area are. I want to note the incredible Jeff Morris, who's become something of a celebrity recently. Those watching at home will remember Jeff Morris as one of the first people that blew the whistle on some really problematic behaviour in the Commonwealth Bank. I think most of us in this House would acknowledge that, were it not for people like Jeff Morris, who risked everything they had to call out behaviour that they knew was wrong, we wouldn't have had a banking royal commission. It's actually those incredibly brave people who risked everything, who don't stand in a chamber like this—where it's our job to get up and talk about issues that are problematic in society—but are just normal people going about their business. That man took an incredible risk and he paid an extraordinary toll. If you haven't met Jeff Morris before, google him and read some of the interviews and articles, because he is the case study for why we need to encourage more people to come forward, but we need to be able to provide a system that protects them. I think we'd all acknowledge that the law was not where it needed to be when Jeff Morris made his disclosures and that some of the things that have happened to him should never have happened to him.

I want to acknowledge a couple of other groups and individuals who are really active in the policy discussion about this area of law. Professor AJ Brown is one of those individuals and is known to many legislators in this parliament. The Law Council of Australia engaged very strongly in all of these debates and discussions. Transparency International have been very active. Also, the Australian Council of Trade Unions have worked very hard to push whistleblowing regulation further in Australia.

Labor has a really longstanding commitment to enhancing whistleblower protections. In fact, I think in this area of whistleblowing you see on both sides of politics essentially a continuation of our fundamental beliefs about this kind of law. In government, we introduced the landmark Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which provided a whole new suite of measures to protect public sector whistleblowers. As I mentioned just a few weeks ago, we announced that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, would completely overhaul whistleblowing laws in Australia and introduce a range of really substantial, positive law reform. We are committed to strengthening protections for whistleblowers and we're going to continue to push the government to up its game in this area.

I mentioned that this bill was introduced into the parliament in 2017. The bill, which was first proposed by the government, was nowhere near where it is today. It was quite a weak and ineffective bill. Indeed, it failed to match the substance and detail of the whistleblower protections included in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and it fell short of providing the protections that whistleblowers need and deserve. I mentioned Professor AJ Brown earlier in my remarks; he is a world expert in whistleblowing laws. His commentary on the government's original proposal was to describe the original bill as 'a limited step, more a sideways rather than a forward step on key issues'—not exactly a glowing endorsement.

The member for Mayo is in the chamber at the moment. Centre Alliance were quite critical of the initial bill and worked with a lot of stakeholders to successfully drag the government to where it's arrived at today in the chamber. So it's a bit frustrating that we didn't start there, but, of course, as Labor people, we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and we're glad that we're at a spot where we've got some good reforms that we can support. They don't go nearly far enough, but we are seeing improvements.

The way in which this debate has transpired and the slow and plodding manner with which the government has marched to the position they've finally reached here unfortunately does replicate a range of instances where the government has been slow or unwilling to react to corporate misconduct. One of the best examples, for sure, of that at the moment is the way that the government reacted to calls for the banking royal commission. In the chamber, we saw them vote against the banking royal commission 26 times. For 600 days, not only did the government say it didn't want a banking royal commission, but it really pulled out every trick in the book to stop it from happening. The number of ancillary inquiries and little bits and pieces of law reform that were put in place just to stop the actual probity of a royal commission is really embarrassing. If only they fought as hard for Australians to access health care and education as they do to protect the big banks from proper accountability.

They were wrong on the banking royal commission and they were wrong about whistleblowers, and both times they had to be dragged into action. I want to quote Jeff Morris here, whom I mentioned before, who stated:

I guess I see this as a bit of a parallel thing to the banking royal commission, where the government's finally, kicking and screaming, bowed to the inevitable and had a banking royal commission …

One of the best ways we can ensure that misconduct in corporations is prevented, detected and punished is to have strong, effective whistleblowing practices. I said before that we probably wouldn't have a banking royal commission if we didn't have whistleblowers like Jeff Morris who were willing to make disclosures under a regime that didn't provide proper protections. And there are lots of instances where corporate misconduct that's probably occurring right now wouldn't be occurring if we had a better regime in place.

For too long, whistleblowers have been silenced. They've been subject to reprisals, to harassment, to absolutely appalling treatment, often by the employer who is doing the wrongdoing and trying to shut them down in some way or another. The current system operates as an enormous disincentive for whistleblowers to come forward. I have sat down with people who have blown the whistle before and who act as a support network for other people who see the type of wrongdoing that we're discussing today. They've said to me that when a whistleblower comes to them and says, 'I've got a disclosure: I can see that some illegal conduct is occurring in my workplace; what do I do?' the experienced whistleblower will say to them, 'Are you willing to lose everything?' That's actually the threshold test: are your values going to drive you so far that you're actually willing to sacrifice everything that's important to you to blow the whistle?' And I have to say, I think there are a lot of us who wouldn't go ahead because we care too much about those things. That's not just bad for whistleblowers, of course, who have to sit there and know that misconduct is occurring and aren't really able to do anything about it; it's absolutely terrible for all of us as Australians, because it means that the kind of mistreatment, law-breaking and misconduct that's been going on in those big organisations and big companies is allowed to proliferate and continue.

So, we need whistleblowers to come forward to help our regulators and law enforcement agencies to detect and punish this conduct. Jeff Morris has argued that whistleblowers are 'the last line of defence in corporate governance'. That's why Labor believes so passionately that we need to be doing a lot more—this bill, but a lot more—to protect those people and encourage them to come forward.

I will turn now to some of the elements of the bill that I want to draw to the attention of the House. The government amendments that were moved in the Senate significantly improve that original bill that was put forward in 2017. I want to acknowledge the work of Centre Alliance in improving that bill. There's no way the government would have come to this position on their own. They had to get the votes of Centre Alliance in the Senate, and they were able to make a deal, and that involved improving whistleblower protections. The political process isn't always pretty. It doesn't always look how we want it to look. But the reality is that we've arrived here with a better bill than we had in 2017.

The most important amendment that the government made to this bill in the Senate was the amendment to allow whistleblowers to make a claim for compensation when a body corporate breaches a duty it owes to the whistleblower to present a third person engaging in detrimental conduct towards them. This is really expanding the scope of protection and compensation where bad things are done. The law can't always undo them, but we can provide some type of recompense to the person who has been hurt. Again, in the conversations that I have had with whistleblowers, every time I speak to a whistleblower I hear over and over again how they suffered from reprisals and victimisation from colleagues and how their workplaces failed to protect them. The duty that I've described here, which is now contained in the bill before us, will make it really clear to companies that they need to protect whistleblowers—that that's actually their duty.

The amended bill will also ensure that a court making a compensation order considers the period a person is likely to be without employment when they lose their job for whistleblowing. This is really important, because we know that some people can suffer such severe reprisals when they try to blow the whistle on the corporation they're employed by that they might never work again. There are multiple instances where companies that are upset because an employee has blown the whistle on them have created a situation where that person can never work in that industry again. If it's a bank, for example, they might go to every other bank CEO in the country and say, 'Don't employ this person.' They might make things up. These are the sorts of instances that were the subject of the committee inquiry that was done on this bill. This bill allows us to properly compensate that person. If they are literally never going to work again as a consequence of the decision they made to blow the whistle, then it's possible that under this new law they might be compensated for that time.

The bill only goes some way towards protecting whistleblowers, so Labor welcomes the requirement for a post-implementation review of the amended whistleblower laws five years after the amendments commence. That will be a really important opportunity for all of us in this parliament to step back, five years on from the royal commission, and ask ourselves whether we have actually created a system where corporate wrongdoing is properly held to account.

The fact is that this bill is probably the last thing we will hear from the Morrison government on whistleblowers, for various reasons—one of them being the part-time parliament, which is unfortunately preventing us from dealing with a lot of laws that are quite similar to this one. Unfortunately, we've not even seen the government respond to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report on whistleblower protections which was released about a year ago. The original bill was lodged in the parliament in 2017, and then we had the PJC report the following year. Instead of responding to the critical recommendations that were made in that report, over and above what we have here, to provide a better system for whistleblowers, the government has instead focused on things like running a protection racket for the big banks, and voting against Labor's amendments to crack down on corporate crime, including higher jail sentences for the most serious corporate crimes and higher fines for misconduct.

We in the Labor Party have taken a very different approach. I'm sure you as a local member, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, agree that, when you go out into your community, the Australian people right now are screaming for a fairer system and a fairer society. That means that, when people in big organisations break the law, if they're the CEO or they sit in the senior executive suite, they should be subject to accountability, just like any individual would when they break the law. And whistleblowers are an extremely important part of that, because one of the differences between robbing a bank and the bank robbing you is that, when a bank robs you, it's usually quite easy for them to hide their crime. It's hard for those of us outside those big organisations to know that a crime has occurred, especially very quickly after it has happened. So we rely on whistleblowers, to some degree, to help us find wrongdoing.

That's why Labor, in the debate on these limited additional protections for whistleblowers, has said that a future Shorten Labor government is going to change very significantly the protection regime around whistleblowers at the moment. I want to talk through just briefly some of the key elements of the scheme that Labor would set up if we were elected to government. Absolutely the most important aspect of it is that a future Shorten Labor government would set up a whistleblowing rewards scheme. This would be a way for us to incentivise whistleblowers to come forward. Instead of just telling whistleblowers, 'We might be able to protect you from reprisals; we might be able to compensate you for some of the harm done,' we'd be saying to them, 'You are our partner in fighting corporate crime, and, if you are able to provide disclosures and information that will lead to very significant penalties, then you will get a share of some of those penalties.'

This is a really important step forward. It's not one I expect those on the other side of the parliament to support, but I do believe that every Australian who accepts that there is too much crime happening in corporate Australia, that the level of white-collar crime in our country is just too high, thinks we need to do something significant about it, and this is the sort of thing that is going to provide additional protections for us.

We're also, if elected, going to establish a whistleblower protection authority. That might sound a little bit bureaucratic, but imagine that you're a whistleblower—that you know something, you know that some wrong has been done. At the moment there's not really anyone, anywhere, who is there just to help you, working for government. There are different whistleblower schemes for different types of workplaces, and there's no-one who is just there to protect your interests. This proposal would establish such a body so that if you have a disclosure to make—you know that some wrongdoing's occurred—there's actually one organisation that you can call. They can provide you with advice about where you might go to make a disclosure. They can explain to you how to make a protected disclosure—that is, one that is going to sit you within the confines of the protections that exist. They can explain a reward scheme, if a reward scheme exists at the time, and they can help you tackle the reprisals that might come within your workplace. So, if your boss tries to sack you, they'll be able to give you some advice about what your rights might be. If your colleagues start to harass you, to ostracise you—as so often happens in the case of whistleblowers—then you've got someone on the end of the phone whose only obligation, really, while abiding by the law, is to support you and help you understand what is inevitably a very complicated system.

In the same vein as trying to simplify and make that whistleblowing system really easy to use, we're going to bring the relevant whistleblowing laws together into one federal act. That means that for people who are trying to find information about what their rights are—because they will probably differ between public and private systems; that's appropriate, given the various contexts—they'll be able to much more easily find the relevant system that applies to them and the laws that are going to govern their disclosure.

Finally, we are going to fund a special prosecutor to bring corporate criminals to justice. In all these fancy policy law reform discussions we have in this parliament, there's a very basic fact: if there's not enough money to do things, then nothing happens; it doesn't matter what the law looks like. In fact, there are vast swathes of federal criminal law that we pass in this parliament and make great speeches about that are never enforced because the dollars aren't there to do it. What we're talking about here is making sure that we get those additional disclosures by providing additional support to whistleblowers as well as making sure that there's additional funding there for the crimes that come to various agencies and that those can properly be enforced.

This of course relates very directly to Labor's call for a banking royal commission. That highlighted an appalling extent of misconduct, even criminal misconduct, in the banking sector. It's all well and good for politicians to now rage on about how outrageous it is, but what we really need is dollars in the right places to make sure that those crimes are properly acknowledged and that people are held accountable. From talking to Australians in the days that have followed the banking royal commission's final report, I think they're happy. They're pleased that there's a program of law reform there. But people are saying to me: 'Where's the accountability? We've got a former High Court judge who's told us that a whole lot of wrongdoing has occurred, but we haven't seen anyone actually being held to account.' This is the sort of reform that's needed to make sure that does occur.

I've noted some of the concerns and some of the difficulties that whistleblowers face, and the truth is that today there are a lot of Australians who see wrongdoing and want to stop it but, for them, blowing the whistle isn't worth the risk—and it's only not worth the risk because the cost of doing so is enormous; it is so high. That shouldn't be the case. Labor doesn't want to see good people getting punished when they're just trying to do the right thing and help other Australians. That's why we are supporting the bill before the House, but, as I've noted, we are also going quite significantly further. I've said that, if elected, Labor will establish a rewards scheme to make it easier for people to come forward in instances of crime and misconduct. That scheme will allow whistleblowers to receive a percentage of the penalties arising out of the wrongdoing that they reveal. When a company or individual faces financial penalties for their crimes or misconduct as a result of whistleblowing, the whistleblowing reward scheme will allow a portion of the penalty to be given as a reward to the whistleblower. I think that is a very significant step forward for our whistleblowing protection supports here in Australia.

Before we move off that subject, I want to address one of the principal criticisms that's come from the government on this, because of course we come out with a proposal to strengthen the action against white-collar crime and the government has to say it's a bad idea. One of the issues has been around whether the whistleblower has, in fact, played some part in the wrongdoing. There is a lot of flexibility that needs to be given to regulators to help determine how much of a reward would be given to a whistleblower. Of course, if a whistleblower has been there right from the beginning and they've benefited from a whole lot of misconduct and then at the last minute, perhaps feeling that they were going to get caught out, comes forward and says that they were part of this and they expect to get a reward, of course that person is not going to get a reward.

But what we are really focused on are the people who haven't done the wrong thing—and there are a lot of them—but see wrongdoing done in their workplaces. We all acknowledge on this side of the House that the current system is not providing enough support for those people today. So we are really trying to think about how we can make a big step change in how we approach this overall issue of corporate misconduct and white-collar crime in our country.

I've talked about the notion of a whistleblower protection authority—sort of like a one-stop-shop for people who need the protection of whistleblowing schemes. This was a recommendation of the PJC report that I referred to before. We have had one of the highest-performing committees in this parliament conduct a really thorough review of whistleblowing protection laws. It made a whole range of recommendations. I don't know if any of them were picked up in the bill that's before us, but certainly not the really significant structural ones. That's been a little bit disappointing. We have leaned very heavily on that work and that report in constructing our own response to whistleblowing protections.

Labor's proposed whistleblowing protection authority would have dedicated staff to advise whistleblowers on their rights, to assist them through the disclosure process and to help them access compensation if they face reprisals. We call on the government to come up with us on this. I know in recent days, listening to the government, you might feel that there has been something of an evangelical change of heart about what's going on in banking. I don't buy that for a second, because I don't think you can change the DNA of a political party overnight even if you have had a royal commission. But here is an opportunity for the government to show that they are serious about tackling these embedded corporate culture issues in some of our industries here in Australia. Come with us on these whistleblowing protections. We think they're really important and are going to make a big difference to tackling this area of crime.

More broadly, Labor believes that whistleblowers need to be treated the same, that it's not really appropriate for us, without real justification, to have wildly different protections in place in different types of our economy, industries and workplaces. The legislation as it stands improves the private sector regime but it just lets these kind of opaque patchwork protections for whistleblowers which exist to continue. That means that it's really hard for whistleblowers to work out what protections are available to them before the law. That's just not appropriate. Whistleblowers are not always legal experts, nor should they be. They're ordinary Australians. The law should work better for them than it does today.

What we need beyond this bill—far beyond this bill—is comprehensive law reform in the area of whistleblowing protections. That's why Labor have announced that we will go much further than this bill. If elected, we will create an Australian whistleblowing act, consolidating all mainstream whistleblowing legislation into one location so that whistleblowers can readily understand how they are protected. This is the major shake-up that Australia's whistleblowing regime needs, because the status quo isn't working. It isn't working for whistleblowers. It isn't working for lawmakers. It isn't working for regulators. It isn't working for ordinary Australians and consumers. The rip-offs that we have heard about in the royal commission are the tip of the iceberg.

Labor is committed to cracking down on misconduct, on crime and on corruption. We want to support the wonderful Australians who blow the whistle when they see the wrong thing, because they do make Australia a better and fairer place. We will be supporting this bill. We call on the government to match our commitment to whistleblowers. We've seen some of minor improvements to the regime here. Mainly, they were brought into this bill because of the hard work of Centre Alliance in pushing the government to actually doing something that's going to make a difference here, and I commend the work of the member for Mayo and the Centre Alliance senators in the other place for what they were able to get out of this. It's good to see some improvements but, for a system which is fundamentally struggling, I think we need to do significantly better.

That's why I'm really proud that Labor's taken this really strong stance and said that, instead of making piecemeal changes and fixing this little bit and that little bit, let's step back and say that there are some huge aspects of our regime today that are not protecting Australians from corporate crime, they're not protecting Australians from white-collar criminals, and there's absolutely no reason why people, just because they put on a suit and tie every day—

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