The SPEAKER (12:07): I have to report to the House that on 1 March 2019 I received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating Ms Sharkie to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the appointment became effective on that date. I now call the minister to move a motion to resolve the membership of the committee.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:08): I move:

That Ms Sharkie be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019.

Question agreed to.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (12:08): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (12:35): My congratulations go to the outgoing member for Melbourne Ports. I wish him all the best in his future endeavours outside of this place.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the report Fairness in franchisingand the Report on the 2017-18 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act. I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave granted.

Mr VAN MANEN: I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the entire committee for what's been a tremendous piece of work. I would like to thank the former chair of the committee, Steve Irons, and the current chair, Michael Sukkar, who is not here. In particular, I'd like to thank the secretariat, so ably led by Patrick Hodder and his team. Particularly, the franchising report is a tremendous piece of work that creates the opportunity for us to see significant improvements in the sector in the years to come. I commend these reports to the House.

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

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (12:37): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report titled Report 185—Defence Support-France; WTO Government Procurement; Prisoner Transfers-UAE.

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

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (12:37): On behalf of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence, I present the committee's report on the inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence titled Living on the edge, together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr BROADBENT: Today I present the report of the House Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence, titledLiving on the edge: an inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence.

In recent years, Australia has experienced a remarkable period of continuous economic growth. Many people in Australia enjoy a high standard of living, making the most of educational opportunities, employment and pa rticipating in their community.

Despite this success, there are Australians who have not shared in the nation ' s growth. Some Australians have experienced hardship or instability which has extended into a life that is characterised by entrenched disadvantage. In some cases, this involves long-term reliance on welfare payments and programs, extending from one gen eration to the next.

T his inquiry found that the factors contributing to intergenerational welfare dependence, or entrenched disadvantage, are complex. For some Australians the bar riers into employment are multifaceted and they require long -term support.

The c ommittee heard that there is a correlation between parents receiving welfare for significant periods of time and their children also requiring welfare payments. This report identifies a wide range of risk factors that can lead to intergenerational welfare dependence — many of them ' external influences ' , such as geography or health. Other risk factors arise during the course of events in a person ' s life, such as experiencing trauma, growing u p in disadvantage, displacement or simply not having enough suppo rt at key points in their life.

The committee received evidence about the challenges faced by single mothers who don ' t receive adequate child support from their former partner, sometimes for several years. We also heard of people who lose their job due to illness or carer responsibilities. When they are able to return to work, there are many more applicants than available jobs. We heard of many people in the community experiencing financial distress so severe that the amount of time and energy required for daily survival limits their ability to even look for work.

The report focuses on the principles of successful welfare programs, including Australian case studies that inspired the committee by making real progress in tackling entre nched disadvantage.

The committee heard h ow Logan Together in Queensland and the Brotherhood of St Laurence ' s HIPPY program (Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters) are supporting people through ' place based ' programs that are designed specifically to meet local needs, and with the input of local people.

This tailored approach needs to be in conjunction with ' wraparound ' services — a coordinated approach that supports people at known pressure points throughout their life. These programs often work with more than one generation — supporting parents as well as their kids.

The report recommends continued efforts of coordination between departments and other sectors — in terms of program design, funding and delivery. The committee r ecognised the need for long -term funding a rrangements to allow for longer term commitments that are absolutely essential if government is to make inroads in to address ing entrenched disadvantage.

The report presented today describes complex circumstances and the principles that need to be in place to successfully address them. Prompt implementation of this report ' s 16 recommendations will benefit some of our nation ' s most vulnerable people — immediately and in the long term.

I sincerely thank witnesses who shared their difficult personal experience of entrenched disadvantage with the committee . I also thank the organisations and departments who are working closely with this vulnerable group in our community. It is clear that many Australians are really doing it tough. They are oft en in remote and regional areas and , in many instances, they are sin gle mothers and their children.

In conclusion, I thank the staff of the committee very sincerely for their determined approach to this committee. I thank the d eputy c hair , Ged Kearney, and the committee members for their dedication and bipartisan approach to this inquiry and the way they supported me throughout this inquiry.

I co mmend this report to the House, and I attach my name to this report. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (12:42): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:42): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's Progress report on the inquiry into general issues around the implementation and performance of the NDIS.

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

Mr ANDREWS: by leave—Since the committee's inception, the growth of the NDIS has been significant—from approximately 30,000 participants in mid-2016 to more than 250,000 participants today.

This progress report considers progress made in addressing issues identified during previous inquiries undertaken by the committee as well as key issues raised in evidence by participants, families, carers and service providers.

The committee reviewed progress made in relation to the provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities since the release of its report in August 2017. The committee is concerned by the lack of progress in ensuring that people with a psychosocial disability can access appropriate support services under the NDIS or outside the scheme. In essence, the challenges associated with the transition to the NDIS for eligible participants and continuity of support for those outside the scheme remain significant. The committee heard that issues around inconsistencies in eligibility and planning outcomes, as well as issues with the planning process and adequacy of plans, were continuing to jeopardise people's access to appropriate, reasonable and necessary supports. The uncertainty and lack of clarity around how continuity of support arrangements for those outside the scheme will be delivered in the near future requires urgent attention from all governments. The committee welcomes the recent government announcement to extend funding to support transition of people in Commonwealth-funded programs to the NDIS. However, longer-term arrangements for existing program clients not eligible for the NDIS should be put in place before closure of existing programs.

In relation to progress made in the provision of services under the NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention approach, the committee heard that improvements have occurred since the inquiry. However, some key issues remain and include delays in provision of services, significant challenges in addressing the needs of children with autism spectrum disorder and the lack of a clear national strategy around the ECEI approach under the NDIS. Indeed, the committee is gravely concerned by the recent reports of long delays in accessing early intervention support services under the ECEI pathway. The committee also heard on many occasions that best practices deliver early childhood intervention services in natural settings. However, it appears that under the current NDIS pricing structure it has become unviable for service providers to do so. The committee is of the view that early childhood service delivery models under the NDIS should not be determined on the basis of cost drivers but on maximising outcomes for children so that they can reach their full potential.

In relation to progress made since the transitional arrangements inquiry, the committee is concerned by the lack of progress in addressing interfaith issues between the NDIS and mainstream services, the worsening of areas within markets and the absence of clear provider of last resort arrangements. The committee acknowledges that the interface issue between the NDIS and mainstream services is complex. However, there is growing evidence that NDIS participants are being denied services and care because of funding disputes between the NDIA and other government services. In extreme cases, this is resulting in people being unable to leave hospitals for several months. The situation is untenable and requires immediate action, regardless of the state of progress of discussions of state and territory governments and ad hoc arrangements to delineate the roles and responsibilities of the NDIA and mainstream services. The committee is of the view that there should be an immediate introduction of a formal mechanism to ensure that a person-first approach is taken in the delivery of services in the event of funding disputes.

In relation to the provision of hearing services, the committee acknowledges the significant work the NDIA has recently undertaken to develop referral and funding approaches that will appropriately support children with hearing loss, their families and their carers. The committee found the establishment of the referral pathway through Australian Hearing for newly diagnosed children aged nought to six years encouraging. However, the committee is concerned that this referral pathway has an uncertain future and is, in essence, an interim measure as the in-kind arrangements with Australian Hearing are only secured until 30 June 2020.

Other issues discussed in the report include the NDIA's communication with participants and service providers. The committee acknowledges the recent efforts made by the NDIA to increase its engagement with the disability sector. However, based on the evidence received by the committee, the engagement appears to be at times tokenistic. The committee is of the view that the NDIA should more systematically utilise the expertise of the sector to inform the development and review of its operations and guidelines. This would significantly assist the NDIA in developing initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of the scheme.

The committee received a wealth of information and evidence through the inquiry and thanks all who participated. As a result, the committee has made 18 recommendations which aim to ensure that improved and appropriate arrangements can be put in place to provide necessary and reasonable supports for all NDIS participants and fully realise the objectives of the scheme. This is the ninth and final report in this parliament of the standing committee. I thank all those members of the committee who have worked assiduously throughout the parliament. I'd like to particularly thank the deputy chair, Senator Alex Gallacher, and I'd also like to acknowledge the work for this committee not just in this parliament but in previous parliaments of the retiring member for Jagajaga, Ms Jenny Macklin, who has brought a wealth of experience and thought to the process. Finally, I thank the members of the secretariat for all their wonderful efforts during the course of these inquiries in this parliament.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:49): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the following reports: the Advisory report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018, incorporating dissenting reports, and the Status report, together with minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

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

Mr GILES: by leave—These two reports conclude the business of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for this parliament, and they mean that nine reports have been presented to this parliament through the work of this committee. That has involved an enormous amount of work, and I acknowledge the contribution of the secretariat and those staff seconded from the Australian Electoral Commission, who have provided invaluable work to this committee, which has a particular set of responsibilities which go to safeguarding the quality of our democracy.

The first report I want to turn to briefly is described as a survey report, and it reflects some ongoing work which will have to be attended to by, perhaps, the minister at the table, but more particularly the committee in the next parliament if we are to safeguard the quality of our democracy, particularly in an age which is characterised by an increasing capacity and preparedness to engage in disinformation—practices which go to the heart of our capacity to have meaningful democratic conversations about the issues that matter to Australians. This is one of many significant matters that the successor committee to this committee will have to have regard to.

This committee is also presenting to the House now a report on a bill which was introduced to the Senate and which would have the effect, in part, of lowering the voting age. On behalf of the Labor members, I just want to make two brief observations in respect of this. Firstly, I draw the attention of the House to the Labor recommendation, which is that in the next parliament we give proper consideration to this question of enabling 16- and 17-year-old Australians to vote but on the basis that we do not interfere with compulsory voting, which is another cornerstone of our democracy and a great guarantor not only of equal participation in our democratic processes but of its legitimacy across the community. This is of particular importance at times like this.

I also want to acknowledge the people, particularly the young people and their representative organisations, who gave evidence to this committee and demonstrated to me and my colleagues on the committee that in young Australians, those below the present voting age, we have some incredible, articulate, visionary people, great activists, with a diverse range of interests and a passion for the future. And I have absolutely no doubt that our committee reaching out to young people in settings like schools has offered the opportunity for us all to think harder about how we can improve our democracy.

With that, I commend both of these reports, but particularly the dissenting report of the Labor members in the voting bill report, to the House. And I move:

That the House take note of each report.

Debate adjourned.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:53): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (12:53): On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, I present the committee's report entitled Cane toads on the march: inquiry into controlling the spread of cane toads, together with the minutes of proceedings.

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

Dr GILLESPIE: by leave—I am pleased to present Cane toads on the march, the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy's inquiry into controlling the spread of cane toads. Cane toads are a scourge on our land and native wildlife, and unfortunately there is no easy solution to get rid of them. But the federal, state and territory governments can work better to limit their numbers where they exist and, most importantly, to prevent them from invading the parts of Australia that remain untouched.

At one major frontline of the cane toad invasion, the committee has recommended funding for the modification of artificial water sources such as troughs and dams to prevent cane toads spreading from the Kimberley into the Pilbara and further into Western Australia. And I note this occasion of luck: there is a short 70-kilometre strip of land whose only available water source is man-made troughs and dams. That lends itself to constructing a physical waterless barrier which would prevent the march of the cane toads further south.

The committee has also recommended a suite of other measures for the Australian government, the states and the territories to pursue together to combat this pest. These include: funding projects for cane toad tadpole trapping and for suppressing cane toad eggs from hatching by using chemicals extracted from the dying cane toads themselves; funding further research from CSIRO, universities and other bodies in new biological control methods and including trials of those identified methods; improved measures to protect coastal islands from cane toads, just as we want to prevent them from spreading into the larger reaches of Western Australia—and isolating and maintaining a barrier from cane toads getting onto our islands is equally important; and, most importantly, better cooperation with landholders, traditional owners and volunteer groups, new cooperative planning and monitoring efforts, and an expedited review of the National Cane Toad Threat Abatement Plan.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the scientists in the community and the environmental groups, who have done so much already, and everyone who has contributed their knowledge and work to an extensive compendium of knowledge about this terrible pest in our nation. In particular, I thank the secretariat, for their wonderful help to the committee members, and those who made a submission. I commend the report to the House.

Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:57): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I present the committee's report entitled Innovating transport across Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings.

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

Mr ALEXANDER: by leave—The automation and electrification of mass transit is a potentially revolutionary development in transport. Done well, it could make our cities and regions more accessible, livable, productive and sustainable. Achieving this outcome will demand vision and leadership from government. The committee's previous report, Building up and moving out, set out a blueprint for the planning of our cities and regions. It identified opportunities for transforming connectivity through integrated multimodal transport networks. This current report is an extension of that work.

Mass transit is the key to creating better mobility. Automation and electrification will make mass transit safer, more efficient, cleaner and quieter. But they will also demand changes in the regulatory environment and transport infrastructure. This will require planning and investment, with policy responses framed around the different requirements of cities and regions—greenfield sites and brownfield sites. Ideally, our transport networks will consist of seamless systems operating across a variety of transport modes. These networks will serve cities and regions that are characterised by densification and decentralisation. Mass transit will provide high-volume trunk routes as the arteries of the transport network, with shared mobility and active transport providing the capillaries of the system. The goal should be the creation of a new transport ecosystem.

The electrification of transport has the potential to lower costs, reduce the environmental impacts of land transport and enhance fuel security. Hydrogen fuel cell technology in particular has the capacity to power mass transit options. It is well suited to buses, trucks, long-haul vehicles and even trains. The key to electrification is ensuring that the relevant infrastructure, especially refuelling stations, is put in place. The synergies between automation and electrification mean that convergent development should be encouraged and that electrification and automation should be implemented and managed together.

The most important thing the Australian government can provide to the future development of automated transport and new energy sources is vision. Within this vision, the Australian government should provide leadership and coordination of policy that focuses on consistency and interoperability between jurisdictions. It should also facilitate the development of national standards based on relevant international standards and coordinate the development of relevant energy and communications infrastructure. Governments need to commit to automation and alternative fuels by designing and building infrastructure around their requirements. It is also important that governments engage in the art of transition in managing the introduction of automated and electric vehicles. Not least of the government's responsibilities in this regard will be ensuring compatibility and interoperability of charging infrastructure, making sure that there is standard charging mechanisms for all vehicles.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this inquiry. This was a short inquiry. Nonetheless, the committee received high-quality evidence from a range of people and organisations dedicated to the improvement of our urban environment and transport networks. They provided clear evidence on the benefits of transport automation, mass transit and electrification and the need to clearly define a pathway to an automated and electrified future. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues for their considered and bipartisan work on this inquiry and throughout the 45th Parliament. It has been a pleasure to work with them, and I think we have shown what can be achieved when members of all parties work together in a constructive way. Last but not least, I would like to thank the secretariat for their dedicated and highly professional support of the committee throughout the parliament. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House.

Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:02): by leave—I just want to take this opportunity, recognising, as the chair has just outlined, that this may be the last opportunity in this parliament for us to talk about the fabulous work of the committee that we've been chairing and that I've been deputy chair of over this parliament. I would encourage people to look at this report. It's a significant body of work which was turned around in a reasonably short period of time, I have to say.

Transport in our cities, between our cities and between our cities and our regions is something that's such a significant and important issue, and this was an opportunity for us as a committee to look at innovation in that space and the challenges and opportunities it presents. A range of really solid recommendations have been put forward by the committee to look at ways in which, if I can use the analogy of the transport committee, instead of having the future come down the track at us, we as a nation can actually apply some foresight and anticipate where those challenges and opportunities are and respond effectively.

I think the committee's report provides some very good signposts around alternative fuels, infrastructure and communications infrastructure which are so much more closely knitted with transport infrastructure in this modern space. If we get all of those aspects right, we can really improve the connectivity across the nation that the chair talked about. So I would encourage people to have a look at the report. Have a look at the recommendations in particular, but also have a look at the significant discussion, because we had such fantastic contributions by many, many members of the community about the opportunities for automated mass transport and alternative fuel technology availability.

The main reason I wanted to speak today was to have the opportunity to thank very much the member for Bennelong, who chaired the committee. He has been a really inspiring chair. He has been really determined to work through the evidence and get a bipartisan position. Some of the best work that happens in this place happens in that frame and doesn't get enough attention. Sometimes chairs can be quite the opposite, so I wanted to acknowledge that the member for Bennelong wasn't like that. He took a very determined view that we should try to reach a bipartisan outcome.

I thank all the other committee members, who worked really hard. Most importantly, I specifically want to say thank you to the committee secretariat: Lynley Ducker, the committee secretary; Bill Pender, the inquiry secretary; Tegan Scott, the researcher; and Kelly Burt, the office manager. The work we do in this place is world class, and it's world class because of the outstanding calibre of the people who work in the parliament with us. They are too often the unsung heroes of this place. This committee secretariat did a professional and really outstanding job in putting together in this parliament two major reports, which I think have contributed very significantly to the national discussion. I want to put on record my appreciation for their work. Hopefully, we will see this committee, which has a long and very proud history across many parliaments, continue to do that in the next parliament as well.

Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:06): I thank the member for Cunningham. I recognise how pleasant it was to work with her and I look forward to that continuing. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:06): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (13:07): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I present the committee's report of the inquiry into the Australian music industry, together with the minutes of proceedings.

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

Mr HOWARTH: by leave—The Australian music industry is a challenging and highly competitive industry in which to pursue a career. Many Australians dream of a career in the music industry and being able to make a living out of their passion and talent for music.

It is vital that the Australian music industry works to ensure that artists and other industry careers are supported and sustainable, and that a diverse range of Australian artists are able to thrive. Investment in the support and promotion of Australian artists is essential to the retention of talent and, ultimately, the sustainability and growth of the Australian music industry.

The Australian recorded music industry has experienced significant disruption as a result of technological advances and the rapid digitisation of the distribution of music, forcing the industry to adapt and evolve. It is no small challenge to successfully provide a competitive and attractive alternative to 'free' music. However, the recorded music industry's recent return to growth and decrease in the number of consumers downloading music illegally is evidence of the industry's successful adaptation to the digital disruption.

In its report, the committee encourages streaming services to publish clear, consistent and transparent information regarding how payments for artists are calculated. Furthermore, the committee found that the pricing cap on licence fees for the radio broadcast of sound recordings distorts the market in a way that disadvantages Australian artists and has recommended that the cap be removed.

A thriving live music scene is essential to the development of Australian artists. Throughout the inquiry, it became clear that the regulatory environment at the state and territory and local levels is a significant factor in the success of a city's live music venues and its music scene more broadly.

The committee recommends that the Australian government invest in the Live Music Office to continue its work advising and supporting state and local governments to develop regulation that encourages and celebrates live music, rather than hindering it. It also recommends that the Australian government invest in supporting Australian artists to tour in Australia, both in major cities and in regional areas. I note that the government has announced a new $22½ million grant program to bring more live music to Australian communities and an additional $2 million to the Australia Council to increase performance opportunities for musicians, including in regional venues, through the Contemporary Music Touring Program.

For Australian music to flourish, it must be heard. It is essential that Australians can easily access and encounter Australian music—hear it on the radio, find it on streaming playlists and hear it in our favourite television programs and in the films we see. The committee encourages music streaming services to work with the Australian music industry to establish benchmarks for Australian content on locally curated playlists and makes recommendations regarding the application and monitoring of Australian music content quotas for commercial radio.

The digitisation of the distribution of music has provided unprecedented opportunity for Australian music to reach a global audience. The scale of Australian music exports is rapidly increasing, and the committee supports the Australian music industry's ambitious goal of Australian music gaining a five per cent market share of the global music market by 2030. The committee recommends that the Australian government invest in Sounds Australia's music exports program and that it prioritise and support Australian music at government activities and events. It also recommends that the Australian government work to develop mutually beneficial visa arrangements with the United States of America to allow artists from both countries to more easily showcase and tour. I note that the government has announced an additional $1.6 million for Sounds Australia to expand the reach of the program into new markets, including in Asia.

Australian artists and the music they create are the product that every other part of the music industry exists to promote, sell or develop. Making music takes a significant investment from artists—not only the cost of recording or staging music but also the time involved in learning their craft and applying their knowledge and skills to create great music. It is essential that Australia support and safeguard its talent pipeline, ensuring that Australian artists are able to create great music now and into the future to this end. The committee makes recommendations including: encouraging states and territories to improve access to music education for public primary and secondary school students; investing in initiatives aimed at training and supporting Australian artists and industry professionals to grow and develop their businesses; investing in grants and industry partnerships that support artists in the creation of new music and new recordings; and investing in Support Act to enable it to expand its services and deliver crisis support for Australian artists that are experiencing financial hardship, ill health, injury or mental health issues, preserving Australian talent and ensuring that artists are able to thrive during the good times and the bad.

I note that, in addition to the measures mentioned already, the government has announced new programs funded in this year's budget that focus on women in music and Indigenous musicians. These national development programs will provide professional training in contract negotiation, marketing and finance as well as support for touring and recording and for planning effective touring circuits.

I would like to thank everyone who appeared before our committee to give evidence. I would like to especially thank the secretariat staff involved, who have been of great assistance to me and the committee—Casey Mazzarella, Jazmine Rakic and Stephen Boyd. And I want to thank all the committee members, especially the deputy chair, the member for Gellibrand, and everyone who was involved in tabling this report. Thank you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (13:16): Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the House it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-19 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-19. The question is that the bills be now read a second time.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:17): Last week, I finished the last of 21 community forums across my electorate, from Kingscote in Kangaroo Island to Victor Harbor on the southern Fleurieu Peninsula and right up to Houghton and the Lobethal communities at the other end of my electorate. Over the course of March, I heard from over 500 people at the forums. They were from all ages and backgrounds, from school-age environmental campaigners to self-funded retirees. Despite their differences, they all wanted the same things: action on climate change, access to quality education and affordable health care, and a focus on regional infrastructure. We have many of South Australia's fastest growing communities in Mayo—Mount Barker, Aldinga and the south coast—and we need to ensure that our roads, schools and hospitals will meet the growing need of our regional communities.

For the Kangaroo Island community, access to health care is indeed an urgent matter. The island's sole medical practice is based in Kingscote. It is difficult to secure an appointment with the GP due to the demand for services. The residents must also contend with travel costs and time spent travelling to and from Kingscote. I'd just like to say that Kingscote and Kangaroo Island, as a community, now no longer have any form of public transport across the very large island, which is deeply concerning. That's why I'm calling on the federal government to provide seed funding for a trial of a GP outreach service based in Kingscote that could also travel to Pandana, Penneshaw and, indeed, American River. Affordable access to high-quality health care is an issue felt keenly across my electorate, with the shortage of GPs resulting in the downgrading of emergency and after-hours services in a number of community hospitals. And that's why I'm calling on the government to make a significant investment in the Mount Barker hospital emergency department.

I do welcome the announcement of $8.6 million that was provided for the expansion of the emergency department, but many experts in the community believe that this is not enough. This is really just a bandaid solution. Based on the seven per cent population share of the nation, SA alone should have received $93 million of the government's proposed $1.3 billion community hospital program. So $15 million for a hospital infrastructure project that serves a local population catchment of well in excess of 80,000 people—and particularly as Mount Barker itself is set to grow to 55,000 people—is not only fair and reasonable but means that our community will receive the level of health care that it needs and deserves. With respect to health care, there is such a difference between whether you live in metropolitan South Australia or in regional South Australia. We really are treated as second-class citizens.

Dental care is often overlooked, but it is a fundamental aspect of health care. Unlike when you visit your GP, or even for a trip to the hospital, the majority of the costs for a visit to the dentist are funded by the patient, with Australians paying 58 per cent of out-of-pocket costs of dental care, compared to around 12 per cent for a GP visit. Because of the cost, over two million people avoided or delayed going to the dentist, and the situation is particularly challenging for those on low incomes, like our aged pensioners. That is why I'm committed to seeing the federal government fund a voucher system that enables people on the age pension to claim up to $1,000 for dental care in any two-year period. That must be able to be delivered in their own local community and that's why the voucher system that exists for those up to 18 years of age should, I believe, also be there for age pensioners. This should be the first of many steps in creating affordable access to dental care for all Australians.

The greatest policy failure of our current generation and of this parliament is our inability to move on climate change. No other policy issue has been plagued by such partisan attacks and no other policy issue has heralded the repeated fall of Australian prime ministers. Mayo is already feeling the effects of more volatile rainfall, with flash-flooding becoming a regular occurrence. Our communities on the Lower Lakes and beyond know only too well the devastation caused by drought. However, the lack of large-scale government support for long-term environmental rehabilitation and futureproofing means we are doomed to see the same story of agricultural and environmental distress repeat itself. My coastal communities are increasingly concerned and affected by king tides, severe storms, coastal erosion and sea level rise. My coastal councils are desperate for assistance because this is a problem that local governments simply do not have the financial capacity or expertise to address.

But, as is often the case, the community has provided the leadership that is so sorely lacking from government. Community environmental NGOs provide hundreds of thousands of hours of dedicated volunteer labour and a very cost-effective way of leveraging funding for maximum environmental benefit and effect. However, federal government funding for these organisations has been irregular—it has been scattergun. It has been diminishing the ability of our community environmental NGOs to maintain their capacity and provide consistent environmental assistance. A funding floor will guarantee that capacity will be sustained and long-term community and environmental projects can be started and finished.

It is an important truism to state that education is critical to the future prosperity of our community. Education creates so many social benefits, including better employment outcomes, lower crime rates, improved civic engagement, reduced rates of drug addiction and healthier families. Transitioning young people from schooling to further education, whether that be vocational education and apprenticeships, on-the-job training or indeed tertiary education, is a major predictor of their future success. I know from my previous work in the youth sector and my regular meetings with local educators that we need urgent capital upgrades to Mount Barker and Victor Harbor TAFE SA campuses. If we don't act now, the ageing TAFE facilities will significantly restrict the quantity and quality of courses they can offer our young people, impacting severely on their future. It is utterly ridiculous that in my community, where we have one of the fastest growing regions, being Mount Barker, young people cannot do any construction courses at the local TAFE. It just beggars belief. If we want our young people to stay in our regions and in South Australia, we need the major parties to invest in quality training. That's why I'm calling on the government and the opposition to make an investment of more than $500,000 in Mayo's TAFEs. It's not a huge amount of money, but it will mean the world of difference.

We must ensure that our public schools have the resources they need to meet the increase in demand, and that is why, as the education spokesperson for Centre Alliance, I negotiated an extra $424 million for South Australian schools through the Gonski 2.0 education reforms, with an extra $66 million for Mayo schools. But we need more. Schools across my electorate, from Eastern Fleurieu School in Strathalbyn to Mount Barker South Primary School, are at capacity. Multiple classes are being jammed into busy libraries or forced outside even during heatwave conditions. This simply should not be happening in a modern country like Australia. I am committed to improving education outcomes for Mayo and I will work with all levels of government to deliver fairer and stronger funding for our schools.

Finally, as a regional and rural electorate and with limited public transport options, it's imperative that our local roads are maintained. It is unacceptable that I have constituents saying that their cars are actually being damaged as a result of our local roads falling into disrepair or that their friends won't come and visit them because they need a four-wheel drive to do so, and that's in places that are 50 kilometre or less, as the crow flies, to the city. To account for this inequity, South Australia for many years received supplementary road funding from the federal government. This funding recognised that South Australia had more than 11 per cent of the nation's local road network but received less than five per cent of national road funding. The previous Liberal government cut this funding in 2014. Centre Alliance successfully fought for the reinstatement of the supplementary road funding in South Australia in 2017, but that funding is coming to an end. Once that funding was reinstated, South Australia's regional councils received an extra $40 million over two years to assist with maintaining our extensive local road network. This funding is due to expire at the end of this financial year, on 30 June 2019. It is imperative that the government commit to extending this funding. It is fundamentally unfair that South Australia is left behind with respect to regional road infrastructure. I will continue to work hard for a better deal for our regional and rural communities right across Mayo.

Dr PHELPS (Wentworth) (13:27): Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental, social, economic and political challenges of our time. If we don't get it right our children and grandchildren will be paying the price and we will be counting the costs for generations to come. Climate change and the environment are top-of-mind issues for the people in my electorate of Wentworth. They're also of great concern to Australians everywhere. This will be a climate change and environment election, and the time to act is now.

Just this morning, I met with Cassy Faux and Lauren McGrow, who were victims of the recent Tasmanian bushfires. When you consider there have been disastrous floods in Queensland, prolonged drought and storms, as well as a million dead fish in Menindee on the Darling River and a dramatic drop in temperature following a very long period of hot weather, it is clear we are seeing a rise in the prevalence of extreme weather events. I've spoken a number of times in this House about the need for urgent climate action. The cost of inaction will be significant.

Another important part of the climate argument is the impact on our environment, and today I would like to speak about the growing problem of ocean plastics. In the past fortnight, we saw a whale in the Philippines that starved to death after it ingested 40 kilograms of plastics. Forty kilograms is an enormous amount, and this was a wake-up call to all of us that we need to take action to limit the amount of plastic that is dumped into oceans and rivers worldwide. The global population is living, working and vacationing along the coasts, and coastal populations are in the front row for the greatest, most unprecedented plastic-waste tide ever faced. According to Boomerang Alliance, 275 million tonnes of plastic waste is generated globally each year. In 2016, over nine million tonnes of plastic entered the world's oceans. Ocean currents have formed five gigantic slow-moving whirlpools called gyres, where the plastic collects. Most of the plastic debris sinks or remains in the gyres, but a significant percentage of it is suspended in ocean water where it endangers sea life or washes onto our coastlines daily.

The CSIRO recently completed a survey which found that that three-quarters of the rubbish along Australia's coast is plastic. Most of it comes from Australian sources, not the high seas, with the debris concentrated near cities. I was a volunteer this year in Clean Up Australia, and you couldn't miss the plastic debris.

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

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:25): by leave—I move:

That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the Christchurch attack be referred to the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:34): I move:

That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence relating to the death of the Hon. Dr John Joseph Herron AO be referred to the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER (15:11): I present the report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under section 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 for the period 1 October to 31 December 2017.

The SPEAKER (15:11): In accordance with the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the report of the Independent Auditor, dated 18 February 2019, on a performance audit of the review of the performance-statement audit methodology of the Australian National Audit Office.

Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.

Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:13): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 2 of 2019.

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

Mr GOODENOUGH: by leave—Of the bills examined in chapter 1 of this report, 37 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit or do not engage human rights. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to 16 pieces of legislation and has considered 13 pieces of legislation on an 'advice only' basis. Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of a number of pieces of legislation.

The report contains a credible technical examination of the legislation within Australia's obligations under international human rights law. A number of the bills scheduled for debate this week have been considered by this committee in the current report, including in relation to:

the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority;

appropriations;

the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme;

counter-terrorism (temporary exclusion orders); and

the NDIS worker screening database.

I thank my fellow committee members for their continued service to the committee and engagement with this report. I also wish to thank the secretariat and the committee's external legal adviser, Dr Jacqueline Mowbray, for their invaluable assistance and support over the course of the parliament.

With these comments, I commend report No. 2 of 2019 to the House.

Dr PHELPS (Wentworth) (16:15): Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. If we don't get it right, our children will pay the price. We may already be paying the costs. Climate change and the environment are top-of-mind issues for the people in my electorate of Wentworth and also of great concern to Australians everywhere. This will be a climate change and environment election, and the time to act is now.

Just this morning I met with Cassy Faux and Lauren McGrow, who were victims of the recent Tasmanian bushfires. When you also consider that there were floods in Queensland, prolonged drought, storms and a million dead fish at Menindee on the Darling River, with a dramatic drop in temperature following a period of very hot weather, it seems fair to say that we are seeing a rise in the prevalence of extreme weather events. I have spoken a number of times in this House about the need for urgent climate change action. The cost of inaction will be significant.

An integral part of the climate argument is the impact on our environment. Today I would like to speak about the growing problem of ocean plastics. In the past fortnight we heard about a whale in the Philippines that starved to death, having ingested 40 kilograms of plastics. Forty kilograms is an enormous amount. This was a wake-up call to all of us that we need to take action to limit the amount of plastic that is dumped into rivers and oceans worldwide.

The global population is living, working and vacationing along the coast. Coastal populations stand in the front row of the greatest plastic waste tide we have ever faced. According to Boomerang Alliance, globally 275 million tonnes of plastic waste is generated each year and in 2016 over nine million tonnes of plastic entered the world's oceans. Ocean currents have formed five gigantic, slow-moving whirlpools, where the plastic collects, called gyres. Most of the plastic debris sinks or remains in the gyres, but a significant percentage remains in oceans, where it is a threat to sea life, or washes onto our coastlines daily.

I volunteered with Clean Up Australia this year. You could not miss the presence of plastic on our shoreline. CSIRO recently completed a survey that found that three-quarters of the rubbish along Australia's coast is plastic. Most of it comes from Australian sources, not the high seas. Debris is concentrated near our cities. CSIRO also commented that Australia is probably a net exporter of debris to some neighbouring marine regions and surrounding countries. That is not the sort of export reputation that we should have.

Australians consume over three million tonnes of plastic products and packaging each year but recycle less than 10 per cent of the plastics we use in Australia. Litter comprises 60 per cent of all marine plastic pollution, including around 420 million plastic bottles, another 200 million of other pieces of plastic packaging, 180 million plastic bags, 10 million plastic products and over 11 billion synthetic cigarette butts. After sunlight photodegrades the plastic into small pieces, aquatic life and seabirds mistake these fragments for food and ingest them. It's estimated that globally over one million seabirds and over 100,000 mammals die every year as a result of plastic. These creatures die through ingestion, mistaking it as food, or from entanglement in plastic items. It's difficult to know the exact figures, but a 2012 report from the Worldwide Society for the Protection of Animals indicated that between 57,000 and 135,000 whales are entangled in plastic marine debris.

Over 200 species are directly affected by marine plastic pollution, with 96 per cent of all marine biodiversity being vulnerable to the ingestion of these microplastics. While all plastic debris is dangerous to the environment, the threats escalate as plastic fragments into increasingly small pieces and enters the marine food chain and, in turn, our diet. These tiny microplastic particles are often mistaken as food, and, as latest research suggests, they are being ingested at very high levels. The CSIRO, for example, has found that 90 per cent of seabirds around the world have ingested plastic, and even plankton—the basic element of the marine food chain—has been observed ingesting microplastic. The prevalence of microplastic being ingested by our sea life is a major concern which has rapidly become one of the major threats to marine biodiversity. Humans are not immune from these effects. It is estimated that people who consume average amounts of seafood are ingesting approximately 11,000 particles of plastics each year.

The Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2014 identified marine debris and plastics as major threats to the health of the reef. It was found that 683,000 items of marine debris were recovered within the marine park between 2008 and 2014. It's well known that plastics entering the world's oceans are having a huge impact on our marine life. But they also have far-reaching impacts on human health and on our economy. A UNEP 2014 report identifies that plastics finding their way into the world's oceans cost approximately $17.3 billion per year in environmental damage to marine ecosystems, and the total natural capital cost of plastics used in the consumer goods industry estimates at more than $99 billion per year. When the life span of products and packaging is taken into account, the annualised overall natural capital cost to the consumer goods sector is $35 billion, with the largest contributors being food, nondurable household goods, soft drinks and retail. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, estimates that the cost to the tourism, fishing and shipping industries was $1.6 billion in our region alone. Local authorities have to bear the cost of cleaning up plastic litter from beaches, maintaining litter traps and bins and managing landfill. Managing waste is an enormous cost burden on local councils, who have diminishing options for recycling and eliminating plastic waste. The European Union is taking the initiative. Single-use plastic items such as straws, forks and knives, as well as cotton buds, will be banned in the European Union by 2021. In Germany, a new packaging law will come into effect on 1 January, which aims to improve recycling and reduce packaging waste.

If we fail to clean up the plastic and don't stop the continued pollution of the oceans, we are facing the potential extinction of many sea life species and the interruption of the entire marine ecosystem, as well as a depletion of our precious food stocks. The establishment of a national environment protection agency would be a positive start. It is time to act now. I will be speaking about this subject at the upcoming Bondi Ocean Lovers Festival in April, and I encourage anyone who cares about our marine environment to attend. I urge the Australian government to take decisive action by developing policy and dedicating funding to combat this environmental threat.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:22): As we head towards an election, it is worth remembering that we have seen six years of attacks from this government on Centrelink, on our social payment system and on people who are doing it the toughest. For six years, the government has punished people through Centrelink instead of supporting them. We've seen the disastrous robo-debt recovery program, the expansion of the cashless welfare card, outsourcing of staff to private companies like Serco, demerit points, Work for the Dole and, of course, the Community Development Program. And the rates of Newstart, youth allowance and other payments remain outrageously low. They lock people into poverty.

In a country like Australia, we should have a fair and accessible system that provides people with a safety net when they need it. There's sometimes talk from those on the right that poverty is a choice. Poverty's not a choice; no-one would ever choose it. But I'll tell you what is a choice: punishing people and keeping people in poverty. That is a choice that this government repeatedly makes and needs to be held accountable for.

As we debate the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019 and await tonight's budget, I want to share with the House the stories of people in my electorate who, as a result of this government's decision to raise money not by going after the top end of town but instead by attacking those who are least in a position to be able to afford it, have faced the consequences of this government's failure. We've been contacted by almost 350 Melbourne constituents who've needed help with Centrelink recently. When my office receives calls from university educated constituents—let alone people whose first language isn't English—who want to raise their concerns because they can't understand or navigate the system, the situation is clear: Centrelink is breaking under this government.

Melbourne constituent Bridget contacted my office after her claim for youth allowance, which she had made four months earlier, still hadn't been processed. She made the claim well before her university semester and was still waiting after the semester had finished. Bridget's a full-time student, but she was forced to work up to four days a week to cover her basic costs. She told my office that this had a huge impact on her studies and her health. She was forced to work when she wanted to focus on her studies. After my office contacted Centrelink, her claim progressed, but she was told by them that she was no longer eligible for youth allowance because she was earning too much. You don't process their claims, you force them to go to work and then you say, 'We're not going to give you any of your payments because you are earning too much.' My constituent was forced to work because her claim took more than four months to be processed, only to be told that the situation the government forced her into then excluded her from receiving the support that she needed.

One constituent contacted my office after making a claim for Austudy that still hadn't been finalised more than three months later. She went without any income support from the government for more than three months, struggling to pay bills and rent, and couldn't work because her degree required her to do two 14-week full-time placements. So she wasn't in a position to be able to go and work. Another Melbourne constituent contacted my office after her disability support pension was cancelled in July last year without notice. She wasn't able to go to a service centre due to her disability and didn't have a phone. She spent 45 minutes standing in the freezing cold at a phone booth waiting on hold to speak to Centrelink, who then gave her the wrong information and didn't reinstate her payment. She was told her payment was cancelled because Centrelink wanted to transition her to the age pension, when, in fact, it was cancelled because Centrelink had sent a letter to the wrong address. She told my office she'd been living off bread and tea for two months and that she'd just run out of tea. She had been sent threatening letters to vacate her residence because she was so behind on rent and she was at risk of having all her belongings sold because she couldn't continue paying for storage. This should not be happening in Australia.

Another constituent, Alex, contacted my office after his claim for the disability support pension was refused. His appeal had been going on for more than one year. In the meantime, his disability meant that he couldn't get work, and the government's payment for Newstart allowance is so low that, after he pays his monthly rent of $1,250, he has less than $200 per month to pay for his bills and food. That's more than 90 per cent of his income that goes on rent, but he doesn't have any options because he can't access affordable housing. Alex told my office that he uses the torchlight on his phone instead of turning on the lights in his house, because that is what this government is putting him through. He tells my office that he is only one step away from being homeless. With the government's new demerit points system, all it would take is one system error to see him miss a rental payment and be out on the street.

These are just some of the stories from the people who live in Melbourne. Right around Melbourne and right around the whole country, people are getting screwed by this government. The truth is that people accessing Centrelink will never match the big donations to the big parties of the big banks and developers and coal companies, so they're seen as easy targets for budget cuts and punitive attacks. It is shameful that governments are failing people like this. We need to make governments serve the many, not just the powerful few donors.

Whilst sharing these stories, I also want to acknowledge here in parliament the work being done by the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, who are taking a stand for the right to social support and secure payments when we need them. Social support and secure payments when we need them are, of course, and should be, the right of all people in this country. They are informing Centrelink recipients about their rights and organising to change the system.

This government might think that the system is working fine when we punish people rather than help them, but it is not. That is a broken system. The Greens will continue to fight for people's rights to gain proper support and to increase the single rate of Newstart and youth allowance by $75 a week—not put it under review but to increase it. We don't need more reviews. We know—the facts are in—that people are living so far below the poverty line that it is a barrier to their finding work and to their staying healthy and well. We must lift Newstart and youth allowance by $75 a week. Newstart hasn't increased in real term in decades. It is locking people into poverty. We need to change that and we will keep fighting until we do.

The NDIS needs to be there for people who need it. The NDIS is the beginning of work that needs to be done so that people with disabilities can live a good life. But the NDIS needs to be properly resourced and its flaws need to be addressed so that it can provide people with the support they need. I want to share some of the stories of people who live in Melbourne who face difficulties accessing disability support through the NDIS. My office is receiving an increasing number of inquiries about the NDIS as it continues to roll out across Melbourne. We've heard from many constituents facing extremely long delays in accessing NDIS and from even more people who have been waiting months and months for a review of their plan to be completed. Melbourne constituent Lorraine contacted me when her NDIS package had been cut from over $40,000 for the year to just $9,000, placing her at serious risk of having to go into care without access to adequate supports. Lorraine requested an urgent review of her package and some five months later, and only after intervention from my office, Lorraine's review was finalised. Lorraine told my office that once her review was completed, with the same information the NDIS had the entire time, her package was increased from $9,000 for the year to up to $46,000 for just the six months remaining of her plan. She told my office that this process aged her significantly and caused her tremendous undue stress for almost half a year. We're happy to help Lorraine, but you shouldn't have to go to your MP to get your NDIS plan increased from $9,000 to $46,000 on the basis of information that the authority had for the whole time.

We've also heard from parents of young children with autism who waited six months or more for their children's NDIS plans to be finalised, missing out on integral early childhood support. Six months is a long time in a child's life. If you have to wait that long you can miss out on integral early childhood support and that can push families to the breaking point. People can't see their draft plans before they're signed off, giving no opportunity for participants to argue for a better plan. Given this, together with a cap on staffing of 3,700 people, well under the Productivity Commission's recommended 10,000 staff, it is no wonder that people in Melbourne have to wait six months or more without access to vital support while their plans are inevitably reviewed. The NDIS needs as many staff as it needs to deliver that service. It is so important that the NDIS works for everyone. We'll keep working to make sure it's properly resourced. I want to acknowledge the important advocacy of my Greens colleagues Senator Jordon Steele-John and Senator Rachel Siewert, who have worked so hard for this.

We've just had news this week of the success of the campaign for a royal commission into violence towards and abuse, exploitation and neglect of people with a disability. Congratulations to everyone who worked for this. Change can happen.

Melbourne is a great place to live, but the things that make it liveable are under pressure, and that includes the cost of renting. Yesterday, a report from NATSEM showed that more than one in five renters in Melbourne were under significant rental stress, the highest rate for any electorate in the country. If you want an illustration as to why this is the case you need look no further than the real estate pages online during the course of last week. A rental listing was posted for a tiny apartment in Richmond in my electorate. Not only was it tiny—a one-bedroom apartment—but on the plan the kitchen was in the garage. To get into the house you had to walk through a hallway and through two adjoining doors, one either side of that hallway, and in that hallway was the bathroom. You had to walk through the bathroom in order to get to the other rooms. A kitchen in the garage, a bathroom in your hallway: how much was being asked for for that? $450 per week. It is unacceptable that in 2019 people are being forced to cook in a car parking space and pay $450 a week. Everyone who rents has a horror story about inspecting dodgy places like this, yet prices are sky-high and out of reach for too many. This week, one man came into my office after applying for 50 rental properties and being refused for each one. That is what is happening. People are applying for 50 rental properties and being refused.

Over the last decade, rents in Melbourne have risen by, on average, about 4.9 per cent—over twice the rate of wage growth. According to last year's Anglicare rental survey, not one property in all of Melbourne is affordable for a single person on youth allowance or Newstart. If you're on the minimum wage, only 38 out of the 11,536 homes up for rent across the whole of metropolitan Melbourne are affordable. That is not just in my electorate but across the whole of metropolitan Melbourne. Out of over 11,000 places up for rent, only 38 are affordable if you are on the minimum wage. Even as the decades-long explosion in housing sales prices is coming to an end, reports indicate that rental prices are not falling and that renters are still facing the pressure. The rules are rigged. Government give tax breaks to investors to buy their fourth, fifth or sixth home, while renters are left paying for it. Young people are saddled with debt and living in the precarious world of short-term contracts and the gig economy. They are being sold out.

The government will announce its budget and all its election plans, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it will do nothing to fix the rental crisis, just like it will do nothing to fix education or tackle the climate crisis or do anything to stand up to Senator Pauline Hanson and the right-wingers inside the government. It is absolutely time that we turf this mob out, but we need to have the guts to stand up and say, 'We need rent control in this country, like they have in other countries.' It is time for rent control and to cap rents. We tried to get action on this in Victoria, but the Victorian Labor government has said no. The Greens will keep fighting for rent control to tackle this crazy, out-of-control situation. Hopefully we can get the next government to change its mind, because young people are being sold out.

There's a reason 50,000 students in Melbourne took to the streets to march to demand climate action. There's a reason. People are seeing this government and other governments around the world selling out their future. It comes in the form of the climate crisis, in the form of high household debt, in the form of graduating from university with a huge debt hanging around your neck and in the form of high rent. The Greens will stand up for young people and demand a better deal. The start of that is turfing this current mob out, and the next step is holding the next lot to account.

Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:37): Climate change inaction has been the hallmark of both major political parties. It has underpinned chaos and political power plays for too long. For too long, words by both major parties have been just that: empty words, words they have used to pretend they care about climate action and policy, words which suddenly come to the fore with a pending election, words which find their way onto surveys, flyers and town hall robocalls, which are made at the taxpayer's expense.

In the seat of Flinders, there is a proposed project by AGL. The project is this: a floating gas import facility on Western Port Bay at Crib Point, a beautiful part of the world. Concerned locals formed the Save Westernport group. They have worked tirelessly, including consulting both the major parties, to stop this project to build a floating gas import terminal on Western Port Bay. This floating terminal will be capable of importing liquefied natural gas from ships in Western Port Bay. Every time a shipment is delivered, the process would mean taking in sea water from the bay. The water, equivalent to 180 Olympic swimming pools a day, would be chlorinated, chilled and discharged back into the sea seven degrees cooler.

An extension of this project is a 55-kilometre pipeline proposed from Crib Point Jetty. This pipeline would cut through internationally significant wetlands, private properties and Melbourne's food bowl. The Labor Party are supporting this and whilst their local candidate in the seat of Flinders sought permission from his party to say he doesn't like it, and he said this on a Facebook post, this is just that: words on a social media post that will probably find their way onto a few flyers. No way can he fight the major-party machine. He's just saying he doesn't like it. Nice try.

Worse than that is the local member for Flinders, also known as the Minister for Health—also, remarkably and staggeringly, previously known as the Minister for the Environment. He has suddenly also done some Facebook posts and handed out flyers saying he's done robocalls—and he's blaming Labor. 'Stop AGL's project,' he says. There have been town hall telephone calls and he's issued incredible numbers of documents, again, at taxpayers' expense. On the side, he has said quietly to the Save Westernport group—that care passionately about this issue—that there's no way the Save Westernport group are going to succeed here. Countless locals have said to me: 'We just don't believe anything the member for Flinders says any more. It doesn't matter if it's in a brochure or on a robocall.' Having worked with the Save Westernport group, I am so proud to support decisive action in the form of a formal petition that requests the federal government of the day to stop this development and to protect the Western Port site.

The Australian government of the day's specific role in wetland management and protection is established under the international Ramsar convention. The proposed AGL floating gas terminal in Crib Point is subject to federal government assessment and approval, which the state Labor Party have given support to, and processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The government of the day has the avenue to review this project and stop it under our international obligations of the Ramsar convention.

This formal petition was brought to Canberra this week and we will continue to accumulate signatures. This is effective, constructive action. The train has left the station, in many ways, because of the support of the Labor Party and the implicit support of the member for Flinders, and the government, by turning a blind eye. They ignored their obligations under the Ramsar convention in relation to Toondah Harbour in Queensland. This is an avenue. This Ramsar convention says we can take this real action to protect our environment.

As an Independent I believe in the power of the people, the local people, and this Save Westernport group have done an amazing job. They have done an amazing job. They don't want to see this floating gas facility destroy this beautiful part of the world where the sea is, where people swim, where people walk their dogs and where the flora and fauna of Australia are at their best. It would be a brutal blow to put a pipeline through marine wetlands of our beautiful country.

The people in the seat of Flinders tell me they've been taken for granted for too long and their concerns about local issues are being ignored. They are tired of the combative politics and game playing purely for self-promotion and getting votes for the major parties. They want change. They want a representative with experience and commitment who genuinely wants to get things done for their local community. This AGL project has the potential to cause serious air, light, noise and water pollution, present fire hazards, negatively impact on property values and risk marine life and aquaculture.

No-one I have spoken to in the local community across Flinders, particularly about this project, believes their local member anymore. Why should they? The member for Flinders, when he was the Minister for the Environment, is the man who approved Adani. The member for Flinders is the man who was a prime mover in ousting former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and deputy leader Julie Bishop. He's the man who felt that with the member for Dickson they would make a great duo of leadership. In fact, his role in destroying our environment, in not protecting our environment, as the minister for our environment has been incredible. He is the man who lied to the leaders of our country, who lied to his local community, and he's living a lie in relation to this issue.

The people of Flinders feel their voice has not been heard and they are sceptical about the meetings which have gone nowhere and the sudden flurry of costly, meaningless pre-election flyers and forms designed purely to data-harvest and obtain contact details. That is not a real petition. That is to do data harvesting and write and send more flyers to people. The government of the day cannot shirk this responsibility, nor can it deny that it has the power to put a stop to the AGL development which the petition calls for.

The Australian government's specific role in wetland management and protection is established under the Ramsar convention, and the proposed facility is subject to this assessment process. The petition gives the local community a voice in Canberra, a powerful voice to tell the government that they want effective action to stop this development.

As an independent I believe in the power of the people. Climate change action must happen. Climate change is not only real; it is happening. We've seen it in Flinders. We've seen it across our country. A strong independent will bring back the balance, stop the lies and stop the empty words.

Speaking of stop, we have to stop Adani. Australia does not have a social licence to go ahead with Adani, but both the major parties will pay lip service to that and say in one state they can't and in another state, yes, they will, depending on where the votes are. We have to support our children, the strike-for-climate leaders. They did an amazing job. These are the future generation. These are the people who we have to make sure we engage in climate change action now so we do not leave intergenerational debt in relation to our beautiful country and in relation to our climate and our planet. We need genuine action—no more words. I am so proud to support the local community and the broader Australian community on this critical issue of climate change action. The major parties have got to stop using it for sound bites in the press and to create their flyers come election time. We have to do real and serious action. We have to listen to the people. We have to listen to the stop Adani people. We have to listen to the strike-for-climate leaders. We have to listen to the students, to the younger generation. We have to listen to the save Western Port group. We have to save Western Port Bay. We have to stop AGL and companies such as this that are doing nothing more than wrecking our environment and absolutely fruitlessly destroying our environment for the sake of profits.

Save Western Port group, I thank you and I stand with you in relation to this issue. I say the same to any person in this country who is saying that they want to protect our climate for future generations and to meet our international obligations: renewables are the future and we need business certainty in relation to reducing our emissions. We cannot invest in new coal-fired power stations and we must take climate change action now and critically. Thank you.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:49): I'd like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019. These additional estimates appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this financial year. Passage of the bills will ensure continuity of government programs, commencement of new activities agreed by the government since the 2018-19 budget and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the 2018-19 year as they fall due.

Details of the bills are contained in the additional estimates process, but in summing up I'd like to highlight three particularly important areas related to the delivery of the government's commitments that are supported by these bills. First: the bills include support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Second: they provide assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought. Third: they deliver critical enhancements to the security infrastructure of Australia's overseas diplomatic network.

Once again, I'd like to thank all members for their contributions. I commend the bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:51): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:52): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:53): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $40.8 billion.

The appropriations proposed in this bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 additional estimates appropriation bills.

Although supply bills can sometimes include front loading for agencies that have uneven spending needs over the year, this is not the case in 2019. The five-twelfths apportionment has therefore been applied strictly to all agencies.

The supply bills also take into account terminating programs.

The remainder of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations are contained in the budget appropriations bills, which will be introduced separately. To support parliamentary scrutiny, the effect of both the supply bills and budget appropriation bills is incorporated in the 2019-20 portfolio budget statements, as was the case for the 2016-17 supply bills.

The bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.

I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks provision only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until budget appropriation bills have passed. Consistent with convention, the supply bills do not include funding for budget measures.

This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, or a similar bill, to be passed by the next parliament, if necessary.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in relation to the budget appropriation bills. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (16:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $4.8 billion.

The appropriations proposed in this bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters. Obviously, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 provides for appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of the government, such as for capital works, for services and payments to states, territories and local governments, for the first five months of 2019-20.

The supply bills also take into account terminating programs.

The bill also establishes the debit limits for 2019-20 for general purpose financial assistance payments and national partnership payments. The debit limits in the bill reflect five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 debit limit, with the remaining seven-twelfths to be included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020. The bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.

As with Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, this bill seeks provision only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until budget appropriation bills have passed.

This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, or a similar bill, to be passed by the next parliament, if necessary.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in parliament with budget appropriation bills.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (17:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 provides appropriations for 2019-20 for the operations of:

the Department of the Senate;

the Department of the House of Representatives;

the Department of Parliamentary Services; and

the Parliamentary Budget Office.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of just over $101 million for parliamentary expenditure for the first part of 2019-20, broadly until the end of November.

The appropriations proposed in this bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 additional estimates appropriation bills.

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to parliamentary departments from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of parliament's operations.

As with the other supply bills, I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks provision only to appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until budget appropriation bills have passed. And consistent with convention, supply bills do not include budget measure funding.

This arrangement allows for Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020,or a similar bill, to be passed in 2019-20 by the next parliament if necessary.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in parliament with the budget appropriation bills.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (17:17): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (17:18): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (17:20): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (17:21): The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 makes amendments to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, commonly referred to as the FITS Act. The FITS Act created a registration scheme for persons undertaking certain activities on behalf of foreign government related entities, foreign political organisations and foreign government related individuals. This bill makes a number of changes to the existing law to close what are, in effect, loopholes in the existing Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme.

First, the bill amends the definition of 'communications activity' in section 13 of the FITS Act to include people and companies who produce material on behalf of a foreign principal for the purpose of that information being communicated or distributed to the public. This addresses a gap in the current scheme. Under the existing definition, a foreign principal could pay an advertising agency to produce content and those ads could potentially run on national television without triggering registration or disclosure obligations under the FITS Act. The amendment to the definition of 'communications activity' addresses that gap. In the example I just gave, the advertising agency would be subject to registration and disclosure obligations under the FITS Act.

Second, the bill would make a minor drafting clarification to section 14 of the FITS Act. Currently, section 14 provides that the purpose of the activity must be determined having regard to, among other things, 'the intention or belief of the person undertaking the activity'. The amendment would make it clear that the relevant belief is the person's belief about the intention of any foreign principal on whose behalf an activity is undertaken. This will ensure that, even if a foreign principal does not explicitly state that a particular activity is intended to influence a political decision, it will be relevant if the person undertaking the activity believes that to be the foreign principal's intention.

Third, the bill amends sections 35, 37 and 38 of the FITS Act to address a number of gaps in the reporting obligations under the act. Currently, disclosure obligations only apply where a person is already registered under the scheme. These amendments will, among other things, align the act's registration and reporting time frames to capture people who are liable to register but who have not yet registered and ensure that the obligation to make disclosures in respect of relevant activities extends to all people who undertake such activities on behalf of a foreign principal and not just to people who are already registered.

Finally, the bill would amend the offence provision in section 57 of the FITS Act to align it with normal Commonwealth drafting practices for criminal offence provisions.

We will be supporting the changes in this bill to address the various drafting problems with the FITS Act that have come to light, despite the fact that the government worked on that piece of legislation for well over a year. This bill highlights, once again, the need to ensure all legislation—but especially national security legislation—is the subject of proper consultation, considered drafting and thorough preparation before it is brought to the parliament. It makes the job of all of us in this place easier and it makes our laws better. If we had spent less time during the 45th Parliament fixing the government's avoidable mistakes, we could have spent more time working on the solutions to the very real problems that continue to exist in the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (17:24): Australians expect their democracy to be robust, open and transparent. They expect to know, or to be able to easily find out, when a foreign government or other foreign actor is undertaking activities which are intended to influence our political systems or processes. The commencement of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme on 10 December last year was a major step forward in ensuring this is the case. For the very first time in Australia, the public and decision-makers in government have a mechanism for being made aware of the forms and sources of foreign influence in our democratic processes and institutions.

This bill makes a number of minor amendments to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018. The amendments will clarify the operation of a number of key provisions and improve the workability of the scheme. These amendments will give better effect to the important transparency intention of the act and continue to enhance the Australian public's knowledge of the level and extent to which foreign sources may influence the conduct of Australia's elections, government and parliamentary decision-making, and the creation and implementation of laws and policy. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (17:26): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (17:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The government stands by those in Queensland as they work to rebuild their properties and communities following the devastating effects of the monsoonal trough earlier this year.

The speed at which the floods hit and spread through north and western parts of Queensland was terrifying, coupled with low temperatures, high winds and extended periods of rainfall. The scale of the damage is immense. We know the number of livestock lost in the floods or through illness is in the hundreds of thousands, with some properties reportedly losing their entire herd. At the same time, crucial and costly farm and business infrastructure has simply been washed away.

The impact socially, economically and otherwise on these communities is devastating. While the government cannot undo the damage that has been done, we can ensure that farming families and affected communities are well supported as they rebuild.

To this end, the government has set up the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency, headed by the Hon. Shane Stone AC QC. The agency will not only assist with the delivery of the immediate response, it will work with flood-affected farmers and communities to develop and coordinate a long-term plan for recovery and reconstruction.

We also recognise it's important to make sure that these communities have access to support immediately so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible.

In addition, we have seen severe storms inflict significant damage on primary producers in the Fassifern Valley, Queensland.

This bill includes three measures all aimed at providing support to those affected by these events.

Schedule 1 to the bill will make flood recovery grants exempt from income tax.

We have worked closely with the Queensland government to provide more than $500 million to support flood-affected communities with the cost of recovery, such as clean-up, restocking and replanting and replacing on-farm infrastructure. This support includes:

grants of up to $50,000 for eligible small businesses and non-profit organisations under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements;

grants of up to $75,000 for eligible primary producers under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements; and

additional grants of up to $400,000 to assist eligible primary producers with half of the cost of restocking, replanting and replacing on-farm infrastructure.

Government grants are typically counted as assessable income for the recipient, meaning that taxpayers must pay income tax on the grant amount. However, given the exceptional circumstances, these grants are being made non-assessable, non-exempt income which means that:

the grants will not be counted as assessable income; and

the grants will not reduce any tax losses that can be carried forward to future years by the taxpayer.

No taxpayer will be left with an income tax bill as a result of receiving a qualifying disaster recovery grant. Every dollar received will go towards rebuilding and re-establishing operations following the floods.

Schedule 2 to the bill will make storm assistance grants to eligible primary producers in the Fassifern Valley, Queensland, exempt income for tax purposes.

The government is providing $1 million to the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, which will work with the Salvation Army and a local community panel to give grants to primary producers that sustained damage as a result of the severe storms of October 2018.

The bill will make these grants exempt income for tax purposes, meaning that the grants are not counted as assessable income, but will reduce any tax losses that can be carried forward to future years.

This will ensure that no primary producer is left with an up-front income tax bill as a result of receiving these grants, supporting them in their recovery from the storms.

Schedule 3 to the bill provides a special appropriation of $1.75 billion so that the government is able to establish and administer a loan scheme that will enable banks to offer reduced interest rate loans to eligible flood-affected primary producers.

The loan scheme, to be administered by the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency, will provide participating banks with a reduced cost of funding to be passed through to eligible primary producers in the form of reduced interest loans to help stabilise their financial position.

Together, these measures will provide further support to those affected by the Queensland floods and storms, helping them to recover and rebuild.

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

I commend the bill to the House.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (17:32): I was born and raised in Townsville. I have been through Cyclone Althea, the flood of the late seventies and 'The Night of Noah' flood of 1998. But nothing in my life memory can compare with the disaster and the devastation of the flood that we experienced on 3 February 2019. Townsville experienced the worst flood in its recorded history. We had a year's rainfall in nine days, with 1,134 millimetres recorded up to 9 am on Monday, 4 February 2019, reaching over 1.65 metres. The Ross River Dam reached a record-breaking 244 per cent. More than 22,000 homes and 110 roads in Townsville were affected by this extreme weather event. Every day after the flood, my team and I visited families in affected areas, helping them clean up their homes. We delivered burritos and water donated by GYG and Morco Fresh Foods. We have been helping Townsville residents with their federal government disaster recovery claims.

I support the Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019 because it provides vital funding for our disaster-ridden community. But I will also take this time to condemn the LNP government for its difficult and shameful criteria associated with the special disaster assistance recovery funding. The claims process has created more stress for people who are already stressed. The LNP claims process is a hoop-jumping exercise that includes incredibly harsh restrictions on claims. Cherrie Vitalli, whose house was inundated by flood—she lives in the red flood zone—was denied the vital relief funding three times. Elaine in Railway Estate was denied vital assistance because she lives in a Queenslander home, and the LNP made harsh restrictions where the water had to go over the floorboards of the main part of the home. Under her home, the bottom floor was not covered. The LNP government left the local Department of Human Services staff very vulnerable. They were not allowed to assist their fellow Townsville residents with their claims because residents could only call a Melbourne number between nine and five. Townsville had to fight through the flood and then had to fight the LNP government for its fair share.

Townsville residents shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens by this government, not to mention the fact that the LNP government is treating Townsville small businesses disgracefully. I fought the LNP government to include local small business in their disaster relief funds. Many local small businesses are struggling to get assistance from the LNP government to get back on their feet and, importantly, keep their staff employed. We dragged the LNP kicking and screaming to the table to provide relief for Townsville businesses and finally, more than a month after the flood, the government eventually came to the table. But, once again, the LNP government set strict and harsh criteria for small-business relief grants. These harsh restrictions have made it almost impossible for any small business to be granted the relief funding that they deserve and desperately need. Just as I have been visiting flood affected families, I have also visited flood affected Townsville small businesses and I can safely say small businesses are angry with this out-of-touch LNP government.

I visited local business owner Warren Figg who owns Auto Centre Townsville. His business was inundated. He has a car yard. The car yard and the office were inundated. He was concerned about keeping his business going so that his employees would not lose their jobs and he could get on with selling his vehicles. As Warren said, this funding should be easy to access to reduce the stress on small-business owners. The reality is that these funds would flow straight back into a struggling community. Surely it is not too much to expect that the LNP government would assist small-business owners after this devastation. Warren, like so many others, needs this vital funding. Warren applied for the small business relief funding almost immediately and, after six weeks, he was still waiting for a response. The grant provides up to $50,000 for small businesses impacted by the flood, but, as Warren has described, he and other Townsville small businesses have had to jump through a lot of hoops just to apply for the grant. Warren advised that, after he applied for the grant and he had not heard anything for a couple of weeks, he made a phone call. He was told an assessor had not even picked up his application to look at it and they could not give him a time when this would happen. This is simply not good enough. The LNP's criteria and mountains of paperwork seem to be designed to keep small businesses excluded rather than included. Townsville businesses need to have a simple, clear, less bureaucratic process. Simply get rid of the red tape.

Now is the time to help small businesses in Townsville. Now is the time for the government to take action to help these businesses get back on their feet. Warren has described the whole rigmarole that he has been put through by the LNP government as getting 'hung out to dry'. Warren has so far spent close to $50,000 to just get the business started again, but some businesses do not have this cashflow to get their businesses going. Prime Minister Scott Morrison and LNP members, let me tell you: you are not helping small businesses get back on their feet. You are putting the owners' livelihoods at stake and putting the one in every four jobs that is created by a small business in Townsville at risk. Townsville's jobs are directly under threat because of LNP's out-of-touch and harsh criteria for small-business relief grants.

More than 391 businesses have been affected directly by the floods in Townsville, with an average loss of $98,000. Combined state and federal funding totals $27.2 million for relief grants for small businesses. In Townsville, $724,112 has been delivered for 100 businesses. That is less than three per cent of the money delivered to our community. The LNP need to wake up. Small businesses in Townsville are hurting and hurting badly. The strict criteria are killing small businesses in Townsville and costing local jobs that we cannot afford to lose, given our unemployment rate is almost double that of the national average. Unemployment has already almost doubled, as I said, and it will continue to get worse if we do not get help to the small businesses that have been affected by this devastating flood. The LNP need to review their harsh and rigid restrictions. I demand action now on this issue. Townsville deserves our fair share and I will fight tooth and nail for my community to get our fair share.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (17:39): We thank the member for her contribution. The Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019 includes three measures, all aimed at providing support to those affected by floods and storms in Queensland. Schedule 1 makes qualifying disaster payments, recovery and on-farm grants to Queensland flood-affected primary producers, small businesses and non-profit organisations non-assessable nonincome for tax purposes. Schedule 2 treats qualifying payments to primary producers in Fassifern Valley, Queensland, affected by storm damage in October 2018 as exempt income for tax purposes. Schedule 3 provides a special appropriation for the government to establish and administer a loans scheme that will enable banks to offer reduced-interest-rate loans to eligible primary producers affected by the floods. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (17:41): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (17:43): I rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019. I move:

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

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

(1) notes:

(a) the longstanding calls from people with disability and their advocates, and the recommendation of the Senate Community Affairs Committee in November 2015, that a Royal Commission be established to inquire into the violence against and abuse of people with disability;

(b) this conservative Government rejected, in March 2017, the recommendation of the Senate Community Affairs Committee that a Royal Commission be established, and voted twice in the Senate against calls for a Royal Commission to be established;

(c) that children with disability are three times more likely to experience abuse than children who do not have disability, and that 90 per cent of women with intellectual disability have been sexually abused; and

(d) there is now commitment across the Parliament for a Royal Commission into violence and abuse perpetrated against people with disability; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure a majority of Royal Commissioners have lived experience of disability and that there is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Royal Commissioner".

We know how important it is that people with disability receive high-quality care from the people they trust. This is one of the key reasons why, when Labor were last in government, we introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is why Labor committed to a royal commission into violence against and abuse and neglect of people with disability back in May 2017.

People with disability are significantly more vulnerable to abuse and neglect, and often they are simply unable to access the justice that they deserve. This bill establishes the legislative framework for the commencement of a national worker screening database for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, known as the NDIS. The Council of Australian Governments Disability Reform Council agreed to establish a nationally consistent approach to worker screening in which states and territories will collect and analyse worker screening applications for the NDIS and the Commonwealth will establish and maintain a national database.

Currently, individual states and territories are responsible for collecting and maintaining their own worker screening processes. This bill maintains individual state and territory arrangements for the collection of worker screening information, but it creates, importantly, a central national database to store and disclose that information as required. The database will disclose information to those who are employing staff to work with NDIS participants to confirm to employers whether a particular person does or does not pose a risk to people with disability.

Labor welcomes this legislation because we know that people with disability are at greater risk of abuse than others in our community. Too often this abuse comes at the hands of people whom people with disability should be able to trust the most. There are many horrific cases of people with disability being abused and assaulted in institutions, and residential and educational settings. According to Disabled People's Organisations Australia, 92 per cent of women with intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted. Sixty per cent of these assaults occur before these women turn 18. Further, children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children.

While the national worker screening database will be an important tool to prevent some abuse occurring in the future, it can never investigate the crimes of the past, nor will it address systemic failings in other sectors, including health, education, mental health and justice. The voices of people who have been abused must be heard. We cannot continue to allow these sickening incidents of abuse to be swept under the carpet. This is why Labor committed to a royal commission into violence and abuse of people with a disability, which the Leader of the Opposition, along with the member for Jagajaga, announced in May 2017. Only a royal commission will have the power, weight and authority to uncover the stories of injustice and deliver lasting changes for people with disability. It is good to see the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government finally take the royal commission seriously. People with disability and Labor have been calling for this for many years.

Labor has called on the government to ensure that the final terms of reference are broad and cover a range of contexts, including education, health, mental health and residential settings. Labor believes it is crucial that it also covers historic abuse and abuses. Above all, it is imperative that the government consult with people with disability and their advocates, not only in setting the terms of reference but also in the conduct of the royal commission itself. Labor has also called for the majority of the members of the royal commission to have lived experience of disability and for at least one royal commissioner to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Labor has also asked the government to consider assistant commissioners to make sure the voices of people with different experiences of disability, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and LGBTIQ people are considered at every stage of the process in the formulation of the recommendations.

I also want to take the opportunity to briefly discuss the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison's government neglect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme over the past five years. I have been absolutely gobsmacked and extraordinarily disturbed by the many people I have met with, both people with a disability and their families and advocates, to hear some of these stories. The government's last-minute announcement on prices for providers is an admission that it has completely botched the rollout of the scheme. The NDIS is recording a massive underspend. The scheme is running behind schedule, with the equivalent of 77,000 eligible participants missing out. Participants are continuing to experience lengthy delays and plans are being underutilised. This means that people with disability are simply not receiving the support that they need. The government should get the NDIS right, not use it to prop up its budget, and that is what we are seeing. Let there be no misguidance on that.

In 2014, the Liberals placed a staffing cap on the National Disability Insurance Agency which has stifled the agency's capacity to properly roll out the scheme and has placed unnecessary pressure on staff. Labor's plan, if we are afforded government, is clear. We will start by abolishing the Liberals' arbitrary staffing cap. This will give capacity for the NDIA to do its job properly. We have to make sure the NDIS fulfils its promise and improves the lives of Australians with disability and this means putting people with disability and their families back at the heart of the NDIS.

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

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (17:50): I second the amendment. I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton and shadow minister for families and social services. This bill amends the NDIS Act to provide a legislative framework for requiring that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission maintains a national worker screening database for the NDIS. Whilst we welcome the measure, it is critical that this bill notes the importance of the royal commission into violence against and abuse of those living with disability. Tonight I acknowledge my friend and colleague Liesl Tesch from the New South Wales parliament, who is also a wheelchair user. Liesl is a powerful advocate for people with disability in our community and across Australia. These are her words: 'The NDIS was designed to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities, not to create further gaps and further fears and greater inconsistency in the nondelivery of services that allow people with disabilities access and inclusion within Australian communities.' Liesl and I regularly share conversations in our professional world about individual cases of neglect and gaps in delivery that impact on people with disability across the Central Coast.

Last week we met with VOICCD, a local disability advocacy group speaking up for and supporting people with disability in our community. The clear message we have heard is of the need to improve every aspect of the NDIS—to fund, not to cut budgets, to improve the lives of people living with disability, is paramount. As Liesl says, 'People with disability need to know that our support workers and carers are absolutely trustworthy.' In my office on the New South Wales Central Coast we have been contacted by and have worked closely with 300 people who have had problems with the transition to the NDIS and with their plans. We try to work with the agency to resolve these issues. We, as Australians living with and without disabilities, need to know that a diverse cross-section of people with disability have a very clear voice in the NDIS and in the royal commission into violence against and abuse and neglect of people with disability. We want them to be active, included and full participants in Australian society. It is so critical to people in our community living with disability.

I am so pleased to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton and I'm very pleased to acknowledge the powerful advocacy of Liesl Tesch. Liesl is a role model for all of us on the Central Coast and across Australia. Liesl is a former teacher, a Paralympic gold medallist and a New South Wales state parliament member for the Labor Party. We need more people like Liesl representing our diverse community, our inclusive community, so that we can be a community where everybody can fully participate, an inclusive community that is strong and diverse and reflects the whole of our community. Liesl, you are an inspiration to all of us. It is such a privilege to consider you a friend and a colleague. I am so pleased that you could be here today in the federal parliament to hear this important debate.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to the House today about this critical issue in our community. I want to acknowledge and recognise the work of our shadow minister, the member for Barton, who has the heart, the empathy, the compassion and the know-how to change this. It must be better. It matters, and we must make a difference. Thank you.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:54): Last time we were in this parliament, the Minister for Families and Social Services stated that the NDIS was now serving over 250,000 people across Australia and the Prime Minister touted that the scheme was one that provided choice and control for disabled Australians.

At the time of that statement, the government had extended question time in what was widely believed to be a deliberate attempt to delay a vote on the establishment of a royal commission into the abuse of disabled Australians. What neither the Prime Minister nor the minister responsible discussed during the many opportunities provided during that sitting fortnight were the 184 incidents of abuse and neglect reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, the 62 reports of expected or unexpected deaths, the 91 reports of injuries, the 34 complaints against staff and providers, and the 75 cases of unauthorised restraint. All of these were in just the three-month window between July 2018 and the end of September 2018.

We, as legislators, have a duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. If we won't show the leadership that our communities expect, then we condone the poor behaviour of others through our wilful blindness: the behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept. However, the government eventually relented its opposition to the royal commission, and I note the recent announcement that the government will commit the resources needed to ensure a thorough investigation of the issue.

The exploitation of vulnerable people was set out in excruciating detail at the royal commission into institutional child sex abuse and the royal commission into banking and financial services. No doubt, we will uncover further abuses in the royal commission into aged care. The abuses may have been prevented if only we had shone a light on these issues earlier and if we had listened to those who had spoken out and given a voice to those who were too afraid to do so.

I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to investigate the abuse and neglect of people with a disability, and I am pleased to see the government taking action through the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 to prevent others from suffering the same fate. The bill will enable the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to establish and maintain a nationally consistent database for worker screening of people who provide NDIS supports and services through a registered NDIS provider or for those who self manage. Current worker screening arrangements are state based and vary in quality, with some states not recognising clearances given by other states.

The NDIS commission will be responsible for maintaining the database, which will record all cleared and excluded applicants from all states and territories. It will also enable national ongoing monitoring of cleared applicants' criminal history records to ensure that worker screening units can assess and respond in a timely manner to the risk posed to participants. This is an important step forward in ensuring that NDIS participants are treated with dignity and respect, and in protecting their welfare as vulnerable members of our community. However, there is a long way to go.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work of individuals, such as the former member of the South Australian Legislative Council, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and Senator Jordon Steele-John, who have long campaigned for the rights of disabled Australians.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (17:58): This National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 establishes the National Disability Insurance Scheme Worker Screening Database. The database will keep an up-to-date national record of information about NDIS worker screening checks. A clearance recorded in the database means that the NDIS worker has undergone a background check and has been found not to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to NDIS participants.

The Morrison government is committed to the right of people with a disability to live lives free from abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation. The central database to be established under this bill will support nationally consistent NDIS worker screening in pursuit of this objective. It is an important measure to ensure that people with disability have access to quality and safe supports and services under the NDIS, and are not at risk of harm from people who work closely with them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton 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 COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (18:00): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (18:01): I thank those who've contributed to the debate. The government is committed to implementing its response to the financial services royal commission. This bill is an important part of our commitment. It will ensure that financial products are sold to the right consumers and that ASIC is empowered to intervene in order to prevent consumer harm.

The bill introduces a new design and distribution obligation for financial products. These obligations will require product issuers to determine an appropriate target market for their products and distributors to take reasonable steps to ensure that those products are distributed accordingly.

The bill also provides ASIC with a new product intervention power that will allow the corporate watchdog to make interventions in relation to a financial product where it identifies a risk of significant consumer detriment. These crucial reforms build on the substantial steps already undertaken by the government to protect Australian consumers. They deliver on our commitment to ensure that consumers are treated fairly by our financial system. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (18:03): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (9), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

Mr ROBERT: by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (9), as circulated, together:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 5(afterline6), after the definition of excludeddealingin subsection 994A(1), insert:

financial product has the meaning given by subsection 994AA(1).

[meaning of financial product]

(2)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 5, at the end of the definition of regulatedsalein subsection 994A(1), add:

   ; or (c)   made in circumstances prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.

[meaning of regulated sale]

(3)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 6(afterline32), after section 994A, insert:

994AA Extended operation of this Part in relation to ASIC Act financial products

   (1)   In this Part, financialproduct means each of the following:

   (a)   a financial product (within the meaning of this Chapter) (see section 761A);

   (b)   a financial product (within the meaning of Division 2 of Part 2 of the ASIC Act), other than a financial product covered by paragraph (a).

Note:   Whether a target market determination is required to be made in relation to financial products covered by this extended definition is determined under section 994B, including any regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 994B(3)(f).

   (2)   In determining the meaning of a term used in a provision of this Part (other than this section), treat a reference in this Act to a financial product as being a reference to a financial product within the meaning of subsection (1) of this section.

[meaning of financial product]

(4)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (after line 10), after paragraph 994B(1)(b), insert:

   (ba)   the product is covered by paragraph 994AA(1)(b) (about the extended operation of this Part) and:

   (i)   the person issues the product to another person as a retail client; or

   (ii)   the person sells the product under a regulated sale; or

[target market determinations for financial products]

(5)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 7, line 15, omit "or (b)", substitute ",(b)or(ba)".

[target market determinations for financial products]

(6)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 25 (line 7), after "section", insert "994B,".

[civil liability]

(7)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 26 (after line 5), at the end of Division 6, add:

994P Orders to redress loss or damage suffered by non-party consumers etc.

Orders

   (1)   If:

   (a)   a person engaged in conduct (the contraveningconduct) in contravention of section 994B, 994C or 994D or subsection 994E(1) or (3); and

   (b)   the contravening conduct caused, or is likely to cause, a class of persons to suffer loss or damage; and

   (c)   the class includes persons (non-party consumers) who have not been a party to proceedings under this Act in relation to the contravening conduct;

the Court may, on the application of ASIC, make such order or orders (other than an award of damages) as the Court thinks appropriate against a person referred to in subsection (2) of this section.

Note:   The orders that the Court may make include all or any of the orders set out in section 994Q.

   (2)   An order under subsection (1) may be made against the person who engaged in the contravening conduct, or a person involved in that conduct.

   (3)   The Court must not make an order under subsection (1) unless the Court considers that the order will:

   (a)   redress, in whole or in part, the loss or damage suffered by the non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct; or

   (b)   prevent or reduce the loss or damage suffered, or likely to be suffered, by the non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct.

Application for orders

   (4)   An application may be made under subsection (1) even if a proceeding in relation to the contravening conduct has not been instituted.

   (5)   An application under subsection (1) may be made at any time within 6 years after the day on which the cause of action that relates to the contravening conduct accrues.

Determining whether to make an order

   (6)   In determining whether to make an order under subsection (1) against a person referred to in subsection (2), the Court may have regard to the conduct of the person, and of the non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct, since the contravention occurred.

   (7)   In determining whether to make an order under subsection (1), the Court need not make a finding about either of the following matters:

   (a)   which persons are non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct;

   (b)   the nature of the loss or damage suffered, or likely to be suffered, by such persons.

When a non-party consumer is bound by an order etc.

   (8)   If:

   (a)   an order is made under subsection (1) against a person; and

   (b)   the loss or damage suffered, or likely to be suffered, by a non-party consumer in relation to the contravening conduct to which the order relates has been redressed, prevented or reduced in accordance with the order; and

   (c)   the non-party consumer has accepted the redress, prevention or reduction;

then:

   (d)   the non-party consumer is bound by the order; and

   (e)   any other order made under subsection (1) that relates to that loss or damage has no effect in relation to the non-party consumer; and

   (f)   despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory, no claim, action or demand may be made or taken against the person by the non-party consumer in relation to that loss or damage.

994Q Kinds of orders that may be made to redress loss or damage suffered by non-party consumers etc.

      Without limiting subsection 994P(1), the orders that the Court may make under that subsection against a person (the respondent) include all or any of the following:

   (a)   an order declaring the whole or any part of a contract made between the respondent and a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection, or a collateral arrangement relating to such a contract:

   (i)   to be void; and

   (ii)   if the Court thinks fit—to have been void ab initio or void at all times on and after such date as is specified in the order (which may be a date that is before the date on which the order is made);

   (b)   an order:

   (i)   varying such a contract or arrangement in such manner as is specified in the order; and

   (ii)   if the Court thinks fit—declaring the contract or arrangement to have had effect as so varied on and after such date as is specified in the order (which may be a date that is before the date on which the order is made);

   (c)   an order refusing to enforce any or all of the provisions of such a contract or arrangement;

   (d)   an order directing the respondent to refund money or return property to a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection;

   (e)   an order directing the respondent, at the respondent's own expense, to repair, or provide parts for, goods that have been supplied under the contract or arrangement to a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection;

   (f)   an order directing the respondent, at the respondent's own expense, to supply specified services to a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection;

   (g)   an order, in relation to an instrument creating or transferring an interest in land, directing the respondent to execute an instrument that:

   (i)   varies, or has the effect of varying, the first‑mentioned instrument; or

   (ii)   terminates or otherwise affects, or has the effect of terminating or otherwise affecting, the operation or effect of the first‑mentioned instrument.

[redress for loss or damage arising from contravention]

(8)   Schedule 2, item 7, page 30 (before line 21), before the definition of financialproduct in section 1023B, insert:

ASIC Act financial product means a financial product within the meaning of Division 2 of Part 2 of the ASIC Act.

[meaning of financial product]

(9)   Schedule 2, item 7, page 30 (lines 21 to 25), omit the definition of financialproduct in section 1023B, substitute:

financial product includes an ASIC Act financial product but does not include:

   (a)   a financial product issued, or offered for regulated sale, by an exempt body or an exempt public authority; or

   (b)   a financial product specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.

[meaning of financial product]

Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (18:03): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the amendments that are being moved to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2019. Labor was always very supportive of this legislation. I'm actually even more pleased to be here speaking on the amendments, because they do make some important changes that will help protect Australians from dodgy conduct by financial providers.

I want the House to be under no illusion though. These are Labor's amendments. They're amendments that we pushed for the moment that the design and distribution obligations bill was presented into the House, and, in fact, the government fought them for a long time. I do want that to be understood for the public record.

What Labor called for initially was for products such as buy-now pay-later to be included in the scope of the bill. We wanted the government to include dodgy funeral expenses products in the bill and we wanted credit providers to be covered by design and distribution obligations under the bill too. I'm very glad the government has come to the table with these amendments. It's better late than never. Unfortunately, it does reflect the very slow and lazy attitude towards regulating financial misconduct that we've seen from the government over a long period of time.

Labor initiated a Senate inquiry into this bill. That inquiry, led by Labor, proposed the amendments that are being put forward by the government today. The government senators in the other place actually opposed that report where Labor recommended the changes that are before us. Since then, this bill's been languishing on the Notice Paper—and, every week, my office looks eagerly to see whether it might be listed for debate and discussion in the House. But the government has refused, time and time again, to bring it on for debate. It is almost as if they've been hiding the bill for fear of what we believe is a commonsense approach to getting fairer outcomes for Australians.

We all know the government's record on these matters. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a financial services royal commission. Those on the other side, instead of siding with ordinary Australians, did everything they could to stop the big banks from being subject to proper accountability. They voted against a royal commission 26 times and, instead of fighting for ordinary Australians, they used their energy to push for $17 billion in tax cuts for the big banks. It's very unfortunate that that attitude bled into the way they've handled this bill. This is another sorry entry on the government's appalling record on financial services. It demonstrates a complete lack of judgement by those opposite. It's a government that refuses to lead and, instead, time and time again, as we've seen on these crucial issues of financial services, is actually being led by the opposition.

The amendments will implement recommendations made by Commissioner Hayne which were belatedly accepted by the government after the Hayne royal commission report was finally handed down. The amendments will allow ASIC to properly regulate the products that I've described and help to better protect consumers from harm. They should always have been in the scope of the bill, and Labor pushed the government for months to agree to some accommodation to the changes that we were suggesting. The amendments will bring consumer credit products such as credit cards, personal loans and home loans within the scope of the designer distribution obligations. When you think about it, it is utterly bizarre that, under the government's original bill, banks would have had to prepare target market determinations for a basic deposit account but not for a credit card and a home loan. That's how wrong they got it on the first go. ASIC called for the changes that are being made today, Labor called for the changes and the royal commission backed us in. It was only then that the government folded and said it was going to agree with the suggestions that Labor was making.

The amendments before us will implement two other recommendations that arose from the Labor senators' report from the Senate inquiry into this bill. Under the government's original bill, companies are liable to compensate consumers if they do not review or properly implement a target market determination. However, they are not required to compensate consumers at all if they've failed to make a target determination in the first place. This amendment will fix that loophole. If a company fails to make a market determination when it's required to, consumers will be able to access compensation for any loss as a result. It's only logical that some of these changes be made, and I'm very pleased to be on my feet and supporting the amendments.

The final point I'll make is that the amendments that the government is putting forward today are in part implementing some of the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. What we've heard from those on the other side of the chamber is that the royal commission is too hard and that we've got to do so much consultation and we've got to wait, delay and obfuscate before we get on and implement the royal commission's recommendations. Well, here we are in the chamber, right before the eyes of the Australian people, starting to implement its recommendations. All that shows us is that if this government really cared about financial services, if they really cared about protecting Australians from the big banks, they would have called the parliament previously and we'd be implementing more of those recommendations right now.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (18:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (18:10): I believe I'm speaking in continuation on this bill, and I just want to clarify an amendment that I spoke of when I first started speaking to this bill. I move the amendment:

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

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

(1) affirms the importance of encouraging small business to make new capital investments; and

(2) notes that the Opposition's Australian Investment Guarantee is permanent, will provide targeted tax relief for businesses that invest in Australia and Australians, and guarantees new investment".

I call for the amendment to be seconded.

Mr Champion: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Ms MADELEINE KING: I thank the member for Wakefield for seconding that amendment. I just want to reiterate our support for this bill and of course the amendment we've moved. Labor supports small business. We always will and always have. We have an excellent package of small business policies that we will take to the upcoming election, and I look forward to taking that to the people of Western Australia and indeed the greater Australian community.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (18:12): Firstly, I thank those members who've contributed to the debate, and I thank the shadow minister. This government is committed to supporting hardworking Australian small businesses, improving their cash flow and helping them invest and grow. That's why we're increasing the instant asset write-off threshold from $20,000 to $25,000 and extending it until 30 June 2020. The increased threshold applies from the announcement on 29 January 2019 and will benefit over three million eligible small businesses with annual turnover of less than $10 million which employ around six million workers. The changes mean that small business will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $25,000. More expensive assets will continue to be added to the small business depreciation pool and written off under those rules. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (18:14): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:15): Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019. This bill follows the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance, which Labor tasked with investigating concerns about the petroleum resource rent tax regime. The government commenced shortly after their own review, which was led by Mike Callaghan. The bill gives effect to some of the government's response to that review of the petroleum resource rent tax, or the PRRT.

The bill lowers the uplift rates that apply to certain categories of carry-forward expenditure and removes offshore petroleum projects from the scope of the PRRT. The petroleum resource rent tax is a profits based tax on petroleum production. A person is subject to tax on the taxable profit they receive for a year of tax in relation to a petroleum project. The taxable profit is the person's assessable receipts less the sum of their deductible expenditure and exploration expenditure transferred to the petroleum project.

Categories of deductible expenditure are: general project expenditure; exploration expenditure; resource tax expenditure, which is grossed up by the PRRT rate of 40 per cent to give credit for royalties and excise paid on a petroleum project's output; acquired exploration expenditure and starting base expenditure, which recognises investments made in projects that transitioned to the PRRT regime; and closing down expenditure, which can give rise to a refundable credit to the extent of prior PRRT liabilities. PRRT liabilities are calculated on a project basis, meaning deductible expenditure can generally only be used to offset assessable receipts from the same petroleum project and generally cannot be transferred to other projects of the taxpayer. Exploration expenditure is an exception to this principle.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the future second tranche of amendments will seek to implement during 2019 other changes announced in the government's response—namely, improved rules will be introduced to identify petroleum projects to ensure the true scope of each project is recognised; more corporate groups will be able to access the benefits of grouping, including group lodgement obligations and broader access to functional currency rules; greater certainty will be created for deductible expenditure arising before a petroleum project starts to derive assessable receipts by taxpayers being required to lodge an annual PRRT return, and receive assessments, after they start holding an interest in an exploration permit, retention lease or production licence rather than when they start generating assessable receipts from production; taxpayers will be able to use a substituted accounting period for PRRT purposes if they have adopted the period for income tax purposes; there will be a new power for the tax commissioner to administratively exempt projects from PRRT obligations where they are clearly unlikely to pay PRRT in the foreseeable future until they start production or the PRRT becomes payable; and the PRRT general avoidance provisions will be strengthened to reflect changes made to part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act.

Petroleum projects generally experience periods of negative cash flow during exploration and construction before a project becomes cash flow positive. Taxpayers may carry forward unutilised expenditure to offset future positive cash flow periods. This is a principle that's long been established in Australian taxation law. The PRRT applies an uplift rate to carry forward expenditure. The uplift rates are specific to different types of expenditure. Given LNG projects are characterised by long development time lines, this increases the delay between the initial investment and positive cash flow. This in turn increases the total uplift applied to expenditure over the course of the project. The Callaghan review found that PRRT uplift rates for deductible expenditure are now overly generous.

This bill proposes the following changes. For petroleum projects that successfully apply for a production licence from 1 July 2019 based on the date specified in a production licence notice, the general expenditure uplift rate will be the long-term bond rate plus five percentage points until the financial year 10 years after the financial year in which a project first derives assessable petroleum receipts. From that financial year, the uplift rate for remaining deductions will equal the long-term bond rate. For exploration expenditure incurred or transferred from 1 July 2019, the uplift rate will be the long-term bond rate plus five percentage points until the financial year 10 years after the year in which the expenditure was incurred. From that financial year, any remaining amount of exploration expenditure is maintained in real terms by applying the GDP factor until the expenditure is deducted. Where exploration expenditure incurred before 1 July 2019 is deducted within a petroleum project, the current uplift rate equal to the long-term bond rate plus 15 percentage points will continue to apply until 1 July 2019. From that date, the uplift rate will equal the long-term bond rate, plus the five percentage points will apply.

In terms of onshore petroleum projects, the PRRT originally applied only to certain petroleum projects in Commonwealth waters. Onshore projects were subject to other resource taxation arrangements, including state and Commonwealth royalties, crude oil excises and the resource rent royalty. From 1 July 2012, the then Labor government extended the PRRT to onshore petroleum projects, including coastal waters within the state and territory jurisdictions and at the North West Shelf. The Callaghan review found the extension of the PRRT to onshore projects also meant that these projects can transfer exploration expenditure to other PRRT paying projects within a wholly-owned group of companies, which is likely to have lowered PRRT revenues in 2012. This bill would remove onshore petroleum projects from the scope of the PRRT. Onshore petroleum projects are generally not expected to result in PRRT liabilities but can reduce taxpayers' PRRT liabilities for offshore projects because of the transfer of exploration expenditure. The EM states:

Removing onshore petroleum projects from the PRRT addresses the integrity risk posed by transfers of exploration expenditure and removes the regulatory burden associated with the PRRT for these projects.

As I stated at the outset, Labor supports this bill, but we do take a broader approach to taxation reform than the government. Our multinational tax avoidance approach is stronger than the government's, we're closing tax concessions that relate to negative gearing and capital gains tax that have overwhelmingly benefited those that are well off and we are also making a fairer regime when it comes to taxing family trusts.

All in all, a Shorten Labor government will tighten debt deduction loopholes used by multinational companies, improving the budget bottom line by $3 billion over the medium term; close a debt deduction loophole that ensures consistent treatment of related party financing arrangements; automatically deny deductions for companies for travel to and from tax havens and clamp down on unsubstantiated allowance relating to tax havens; increase penalties for individuals and entities promoting tax evasion and avoidance; crack down on citizenship shopping, by requiring all individual Australian taxpayers to notify and declare to the ATO if they have residency or citizenship of other jurisdictions and the name of that jurisdiction; introduce public reporting of country-by-country reports, ensuring the release of high-level tax information about where and how much tax was paid by large corporations; provide protection for whistleblowers who report entities evading and, where the whistleblower's information results in more tax being paid, allow them to collect a share of that tax penalty; introduce a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of Australian listed companies and trusts, allowing the public to find out who really owns firms; introduce mandatory shareholder reporting of tax havens' exposure, requiring companies to disclose to shareholders a material tax risk if the company is doing business in a tax haven; appoint a community sector representative to the Board of Taxation; introduce public reporting of ATO transaction reports and AUSTRAC data reports to require the annual public release of international cash flow data; require all firms tendering for Australian government contracts worth more than $200,000 to state their country of domicile for tax purposes; develop guidelines for tax haven investment by superannuation funds; require that the ATO's annual reports provide information on the number and size of tax settlements; and restore Labor's $100 million threshold for public reporting of tax data for private companies, which was raised to $200 million by the Liberals and the Greens in a move which exempted two-thirds of private companies from that tax transparency.

As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Labor has a comprehensive tax plan, a comprehensive set of reforms, that will ensure greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability for large multinationals and ensure that, ultimately, more revenue is raised from those multinationals to, importantly, fund proper services, particularly around health, education and infrastructure in this country.

With that in mind, we support these bills, but I move:

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

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

(1) notes that a Senate committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance made recommendations for reform of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, including some of the measures proposed by this bill; and

(2) calls on the Government to act on other areas of concern highlighted by the corporate tax avoidance inquiry, such as tackling in a comprehensive manner multinational tax loopholes and tax havens used by the top end of town".

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

Mr Champion: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (18:27): Let me thank the members who've contributed to the debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019 implements key components of the government's response to the Petroleum resource rent tax review, undertaken by Mike Callaghan AM, PSM. Since the PRRT was introduced, in 1988, Australia's petroleum industry has changed, shifting to a greater role for liquefied natural gas, LNG. Schedule 1 to the bill lowers the uplift rate that applies to exploration in general carried-forward expenditure. This prevents excessive compounding of deductions.

Schedule 2 to the bill removes onshore projects from the PRRT. No PRRT has ever been collected from onshore projects. In practice, onshore projects that would never pay PRRT have been able to transfer exploration deductions to offshore projects, reducing revenue. Onshore projects remain subject to state taxation.

These measures strengthen the integrity of the PRRT and ensure a fairer return for Australia for the extraction of our oil and gas resources. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kingsford Smith 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 ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (18:29): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (18:30): It's not my intention to try to detain the House for very long, but I do appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. The Aged Care Act is to be amended, as, in its current form, it does not permit a variation of the region to which residential aged-care places are provisionally allocated. My understanding is this bill will allow the Secretary of the Department of Health or her delegates to allow approved providers of residential aged care to move provisionally allocated residential aged-care places from one region to another within that state or territory.

The Department of Health is not seeking the power to move provisionally allocated places from one state or territory to another. This bill will not allow the movement of any provisionally allocated places outside the state or territory to which it was originally allocated, and I put that on the record to ensure that that does not occur because we understand that that's not allowed under the bill as it has been drafted. We understand that, under this amendment bill, providers must demonstrate the movement of the provisionally allocated places is in the interest of aged-care consumers and that there is a clear need for places in the new region being proposed. The amendment bill will seek to ensure that residential aged care is available as quickly as possible to those older Australians who require it and is appropriately allocated to address local needs. There appears to be no financial impact for the Australian government by these proposed amendments, because those places are allocated through the ACAR rounds.

It's not my intention to detain the House, and Labor doesn't want to cause any issues or delay this bill going through, but I do need to put on record that, after almost six years of cuts in the aged care portfolio, any announcements that are made tonight in relation to aged care—and particularly in relation to home care packages—will not fool older Australians, their families or their loved ones. Let's be really frank about this: the government has mucked up aged care to the point where it had to call a royal commission into the quality and safety of aged-care services in this country. We all know that more than 128,000 older Australians are currently on the waitlist for home care packages; 69,000 of those have no package at all allocated to them at this point in time and the others are on interim packages—that is, packages below the level of support that they require.

The government of course has made some announcements in the last few months in relation to aged care and home care packages, but let's not forget the cuts that they made to aged care. I do want to put them on the record: $110 million cut to the dementia supplement in residential aged care, almost $500 million cut in the 2015 MYEFO and a $1.2 billion cut to the aged care funding instrument in the 2016-17 budget. The architect of these cuts, almost $2 billion worth, was the current Prime Minister when he was Treasurer.

Recently it was revealed how the $1.2 billion cut has had an impact on the residential aged-care sector. We are hearing about it all the time. Departmental briefings confirmed that residential aged-care funding has gone backwards for those with complex needs. Departmental briefings described older Australians as 'winners' and 'losers' and revealed for the first time that funding for those with complex healthcare needs in residential aged care went backwards as a result of the Prime Minister's $1.2 billion cut. Funding for residents went backwards and staff cutbacks and aged-care 'losers'—according to the department—tripled. So let's not shy away from the fact that this government has taken billions of dollars out over six years, and any announcements tonight and over the next six weeks are not going to make up for those billions of dollars cut and the neglect of and lack of focus on aged care until the last few months.

Let's be honest: the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deal with this aged-care issue. It has only been because of the families who are contacting the offices of members of parliament every day trying to get reasonable aged-care services for their parents or their family members. Every day, my office and other offices in this place are taking calls from people desperate to get their loved ones home care packages. It is about time the government did something about this. It has been leaked to the Sunday papers to say that there are going to be home care packages in the budget tonight. That is welcome, but it's really not going to fool older Australians into thinking that this government does care about older Australians or has been focused on them for the last six years, because we know, with all the internal chaos and division, the government has been only focused on itself. Any increases tonight in home care packages will be really about the government trying to save itself and not about older Australians.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (18:35): The Australian population is ageing, and senior Australians and their families deserve to have access to high-quality aged care and services when they need them. Integral to this is supporting approved providers to make residential aged-care places ready for use as quickly as possible. The comments that were offered by the shadow minister are not a true reflection of the reality that has occurred since the Productivity Commission report. The challenges that are embedded in the aged-care sector arise from the time of the Productivity Commission report, the choosing of its recommendations that Labor, at the time, thought were appropriate, and inadequate funding that has been provided over that period of time. In addition, at the time, there was a reduction to the bottom-line budget by Labor over three consecutive years. I won't go into the level of funding. It was never put back in.

Our coalition government has focused on increasing the spend on aged care—$5 billion in the last budget. There will be a continuation, in the forward years, of our commitment to improving the outcomes for senior Australians. The royal commission was not called because the system failed. The royal commission was called to address the structural flaws that exist within the aged-care sector. The commentary around the loss of funding is to do with inappropriate behaviour by providers against the budget that was set within the budgetary processes. Labor's continued claims were refuted by Fact Check on two occasions. It made it very clear that the statements were not the truth, because the budget for aged care has continually improved, and it continues to grow.

Ms Collins: It's in black and white in your own budget statements.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The minister has the call.

Mr WYATT: The portfolio budget statements show the increase in budget expenditure by our government, unlike what the shadow minister says. We will take the construct and build it into a very simple process of providing the authority of the parliament to move provisionally allocated places to areas of need that are important, because, at the moment, we can't do that. This enables it. Constructing aged-care homes is a difficult, time-consuming and expensive exercise. It's not uncommon for providers to finish their aged-care homes with fewer rooms than originally intended, due to either planning or construction issues. Where this is the case, the Aged Care Act needs to be flexible enough to allow these leftover places to be moved to another suitable location.

Similarly, a provider may find a more suitable or affordable location for an aged-care home a few minutes drive away from the planning region to which the places were originally allocated. Again, the act needs to be flexible enough to allow this. The amendments within this bill add to the flexibility to act by allowing provisionally allocated residential aged-care places to be moved from one region to another where a provider can demonstrate that the movement is in the interests of aged-care consumers, that there is a clear need for places in the new region and that it is not detrimental to the region to which the provisionally allocated places are currently allocated. This change is in the best interests of all older Australians and the broader community. It will remove a potential barrier to the community accessing residential aged care, thereby aligning with the government's commitment to ensuring delivery of high-quality aged-care services when and where they're needed. I thank the members and senators for their contributions to the debate on this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (18:39): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (18:40): I rise to speak to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019. Labor have serious concerns about the cashless welfare card, and we oppose its rollout nationally. We have always opposed a national rollout of the card. Labor have always said that we will support evidence based approaches to addressing the challenges that these local communities face, and we will do it in consultation and partnership with these local communities.

This bill extends funding of the cashless debit card trials in Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields until 30 June 2020. The trials in these areas are currently scheduled to end on 1 July 2019. There is also a trial in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay; however, the end date for that trial is already 30 June 2020.

This bill also extends the funding for the Cape York Welfare Reform initiative until 1 July 2020. That funding currently expires on 1 July 2019.

We believe that, if a community want to try something new to tackle social issues, it's not for this parliament to stand in their way. For this reason, Labor supported the introduction of the trials in the first two trial sites, Ceduna, in South Australia, and the East Kimberley, in Western Australia. However, Labor have not been able to satisfy ourselves through our own consultations that this same community desire was present in the other trial sites—that is, the Goldfields and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay. For this reason, Labor did not support the introduction of the cashless debit card to the other trial sites.

With the Prime Minister reported to have confirmed today that the election could be as late as 25 May, the timing of this bill puts the parliament in a really difficult position. I want to stress that the timing puts us in an incredibly difficult position. That is because, regardless of the people's position on the cashless debit card, funding for communities is likely to run out in a matter of weeks. Without any prospect of sorting out a transition to alternative arrangements, this could be very disruptive to those locals.

The government has included in this bill the extension of the Cape York Welfare Reform initiative, an approach which does have a level of community support and which cannot be simply left unfunded in a matter of weeks.

Since the introduction of the cashless debit card trials, the government has continually failed to be up-front about the full costs of implementing the cashless debit card. In addition, Labor has become increasingly concerned about the Liberals' persistent clinging to the deeply flawed ORIMA evaluation. The Prime Minister and his conservative government have continued to use this report to sing the praises of the cashless debit card and mislead Australians about the extent of its success. Leading academics have referred to the comments made by the government as 'extremely misleading' and 'perplexing'. The Auditor-General found deep inconsistencies with the ORIMA evaluation.

The government must stop relying on this report to justify its increasingly outlandish claims about the success of the cashless debit card trials. At a recent Senate inquiry into this bill, the committee heard evidence that in some trial sites the way the cashless debit card has been rolled out and the period it has been in operation preclude a proper piece of evaluation of its impact. We are no longer talking about trials in some sites but a government that is looking to entrench a policy without proving that it works.

There have now been a number of inquiries into the cashless debit card scheme and the committee has continued to hear mixed evidence about the card. Some think it has been beneficial to their communities. Others think it has made existing problems worse. Indigenous leader and Foundation Chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne Professor Marcia Langton has said the cashless debit card is a failure. She said because the local community was not involved in the policy, the policy failed. One of the community leaders in Kununurra who initially supported the introduction of the trial, Mr Desmond Hill, has since withdrawn his support. Mr Hill told the committee that one of the conditions community leaders had, when agreeing to the East Kimberley becoming the trial site, was that people should be able to apply to leave the trial. Another Indigenous leader in the East Kimberley, Ian Trust, who remains a supporter of the cashless debit card, told the committee that he was not opposed to people being able to come off the card in some circumstances.

The government has failed to properly provide this option. People who do the right thing have been unfairly stigmatised by being forced to take part in the cashless debit card trial, which is targeting behaviours that they themselves don't engage with in the first place. Labor will move an amendment in the Senate to allow people to get off the cashless debit card in certain circumstances. The amendment will allow people to come off the card if they can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of their financial affairs, taking into account these points: the interests of any children for whom they are responsible; lawful behaviour; risk of homelessness; health and safety of the individual and the community; the responsibilities and circumstances of the participant; and engagement in community, job search and work.

Local community panels will be responsible for approving applications for people to leave the trial, but, where a panel is not in place, the Department of Social Services will make the decision. At its recent inquiry, the committee heard from a number of witnesses about the lack of evidence supporting broad based, compulsory income management. It has been revealed that the government itself, or at least the Public Service, certainly acknowledges this. Late last year, in a document presented to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Australian government wrote: 'There are more positive results associated with people who volunteer, as they have made a choice to change their behaviour and receiver assistance. Positive results have been found by a social worker or a child protection officer.'

Anti-Poverty Network SA told the Senate committee about a woman they had met in Ceduna who used to be able to purchase things online. Because of the cashless debit card, she is no longer able to do so. The network told the committee that this woman was never drunk and never had drugs or anything like that. It's just an inhibitive way of life for her now. Why should someone who has never engaged in binge drinking or taking illicit drugs be forced onto a cashless debit card that was introduced to address these behaviours? The answer is simple: they should not.

We call on the government to vote with us in the Senate so that people who do not need to be on the cashless debit card no longer have to be. Labor has never supported the rollout of the cashless debit card nationally. We will not proceed with the government's plan to roll out the card and its harsh policies, including across the Northern Territory.

Labor will not support the expansion of the cashless debit card and this form of income management to new communities unless the community wants the card and there is informed community consent. I want to really emphasise that just for a moment. Labor does not believe that parliaments or governments should stand in the way of communities who are properly consulted and give informed community consent if they want the card. That is not our role.

In Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, where the rollout of the cashless debit card is only partially implemented, Labor will stop the rollout and take a case management approach to putting in place alternative support for people already on the card and invest in support services and programs that work, if we are afforded government. In Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields, where the rollout of the cashless debit card is complete, Labor will work with local communities to establish whether there is ongoing community consent. Where necessary, Labor will work with communities on alternative supports and programs, acknowledging that there are serious and complex social issues that will require commitment, time and resources to address. At all times Labor will consult properly with the local community, and we acknowledge that this will take some time. Labor will take an evidence based approach to policy and to income management. We will not demonise social security recipients, like this government.

I re-emphasise that we will seek to move an amendment in the other place that will give the capacity for people to come off the card in certain circumstances that I have outlined. If those circumstances are met, there will be a local community panel in place that can facilitate a person coming off the card. Where there is not a panel in place, it will be done through the department of social security. That is, in essence, the amendment that we will move in the upper house. I do hope it is successful.

We very much recognise that in Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields, where the rollout of the cashless debit card is complete, it would be extremely disruptive to cease those trials now. Given the timing of the coming election and the uncertainty around that, we believe that we are taking the responsible approach in continuing those trials for a set period of time and, hopefully, if the Senate amendment is successful, giving people who do not need to be on the card the capacity to come off the card. I move:

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

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

(1) notes the conservative Government's continued, false assertion that the widely discredited Orima Evaluation provides proof that the cashless debit card is effective, which experts have labelled 'extremely misleading' and 'perplexing';

(2) notes the conservative Government's ongoing failure to provide details about the costs of extending the cashless debit card trials; and

(3) criticises the Government for its irresponsible and unproven approach to policy making and its obsession with demonising income support recipients".

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

Ms Collins: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (18:53): I rise to speak on behalf of the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP, the Minister for Families and Social Services. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 extends the cashless debit card program for a further year in the first three sites of Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. This will allow the cashless debit card trial to operate in all sites until 30 June 2020. The bill will also extend income management in Cape York for a further year up to 30 June 2020. These measures aim to reduce the devastating effects of alcohol, drug and gambling abuse. The evidence shows that it is working, with reductions across the board. The continuation of the cashless debit card and the Cape York Income Management demonstrates the Morrison government's commitment to providing a sustainable social welfare safety net, reducing social harm in areas with high levels of welfare dependency and supporting vulnerable people, families and communities. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I see the member for Grey in the chamber, who has been an advocate and a strong supporter of the trial site in Ceduna.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (18:55): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (19:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tonight, I announce that the Budget is back in the black and Australia is back on track.

For the first time in 12 years, our nation is again paying its own way.

We have made real progress, but we know the job is not done.

Australia is stronger than it was when we came to government six years ago.

Growth is higher.

Unemployment is lower.

There are fewer people on welfare.

There are a record number of Australians with a job.

School and hospital funding are at record levels.

And the Budget is stronger.

This is our record.

But Australia does face some serious challenges.

The global economy is slowing.

Communities are feeling the impacts of flood, fire and drought.

Families face cost of living pressures.

And every one of us wants to see wages growing faster.

But let me be clear: the answer to these challenges is not higher taxes.

The answer is a stronger and more competitive economy, with lower taxes and more jobs.

This Budget builds on our plan for a stronger economy.

A stronger economy that benefits you – your family, your business, your community, your country.

The plan

The plan I outline tonight does this in three ways.

First, it restores our nation's finances. Without increasing taxes.

Second, it strengthens our economy and creates more jobs through a significant new skills and infrastructure agenda. Without increasing taxes.

And third, it guarantees essential services like hospitals, schools and aged care, while tackling the cost of living.

All without increasing taxes.

Our plan is shaped by our values.

And our values embrace all Australians. Not just some of them.

We believe in:

Reward for effort.

The power of aspiration and enterprise.

Upholding personal responsibility.

And always providing a helping hand to those who need it.

We want Australians to have a go and we want Australians to get a fair go.

Our commitment to fairness means the next generation not having to pick up the tab for the last.

This requires budget discipline.

And this much at least we owe our children.

Restoring our nation' s finances

So, tonight, I am pleased to announce a budget surplus of $7.1 billion.

A $55 billion turnaround on the deficit we inherited six years ago.

In 2020-21, a surplus of $11 billion.

In 2021-22, a surplus of $17.8 billion.

In 2022-23, a surplus of $9.2 billion.

A total of $45 billion of surpluses over the next four years.

Surpluses will continue to build toward one per cent of GDP within a decade.

As we climb the mountain and reach our goal of eliminating Commonwealth net debt by 2030 or sooner.

Only one side of politics can do this, because only one side of politics has done this.

John Howard and Peter Costello paid off Labor's debt.

And tonight the Morrison Government sets a path to do it again, without increasing taxes.

This matters because over the last year the interest bill on the national debt was $18 billion.

And this was in a low interest rate environment.

This is money that could have built 500 schools or a world-class hospital in every state and territory.

We are reducing the debt and this interest bill.

Not through higher taxes but by responsible budget management and by growing the economy.

Strengthening the economy

Tonight I am announcing the next stage in our economic plan to make Australia even stronger.

Building more infrastructure to relieve the congestion in our cities.

Equipping more workers with better skills to meet future needs.

And lowering taxes.

Because we want Australians to earn more and we want Australians to keep more of what they earn.

Delivering tax relief

That's why last year we passed into law a three step plan to deliver $144 billion in personal income tax cuts.

First, providing immediate relief to address cost of living pressures.

Second, protecting income earners from bracket creep.

Third, abolishing an entire tax bracket, simplifying the system, incentivising and rewarding hard work.

Tonight, I can announce that we will go even further.

Two significant changes will deliver $158 billion of tax relief for hard-working Australians.

These are the largest personal income tax cuts since the Howard government.

The Government is more than doubling the low and middle income tax offset from 2018-19.

Taxpayers earning up to $126,000 a year – including teachers, tradies and nurses – will receive a tax cut.

For a single income family, this means up to $1,080 in your pocket per year.

And for families on a dual income, up to $2,160.

This is money that could go towards your monthly mortgage payment, your quarterly power bill or your yearly car insurance.

More than 10 million taxpayers will benefit, with 4.5 million receiving the full amount.

This relief will flow quickly and be available to Australians after tax returns for the 2018-19 year are submitted in 13 weeks' time.

This tax relief will lift household incomes, ease cost of living pressures and boost spending at local businesses.

The second change I announce tonight delivers long-term structural reform by lowering the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent from 1 July 2024.

This will cover all taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $200,000 and will mean that 94 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar.

Following these changes, our tax system will remain highly progressive.

With the top five per cent of taxpayers paying one third of all income tax collected.

And someone earning $200,000 paying 10 times as much tax as someone on $45,000.

But unlike those opposite, we believe there should be limits to the amount you are taxed.

That's why, under the Morrison Government, tax as a share of the economy will not rise above the 23.9 per cent cap.

We will put a speed limit on taxes, while our opponents will put a speed limit on the economy.

Mr Speaker, taxes will always be lower under the Coalition.

Backing small business

And tonight, I also announce additional tax relief for small and medium-sized businesses.

Small businesses are the engine-room of our economy.

They are integral to every local community.

People running a small business put their livelihoods on the line.

They start early and finish late.

They manage the front desk and the back office.

They pay their workers first and take their own wages last.

We want small businesses to prosper, and we are backing them to do so.

Cutting their taxes to 25 per cent.

Increasing their access to finance with a new $2 billion fund.

Ensuring small business is paid on time, both by government and big business.

And from tonight the instant asset write-off will be increased and expanded.

It will be increased from $25,000 to $30,000, and it can be used every time an asset under that amount is purchased.

Allowing a café to get a new fridge or grill, a plumber to buy new tools or a courier a new van.

The instant asset write-off will also be expanded to businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million.

This will cover an additional 22,000 businesses, employing 1.7 million Australians.

Already more than 350,000 businesses have taken up the instant-asset write off.

And now, even more will have the chance to do so.

Businesses are also benefiting from the free trade agreements this Government has secured.

China, Japan, Korea, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and now Indonesia.

Tonight, we provide an additional $60 million for Export Market Development Grants to allow small and medium-sized businesses to capitalise on those opportunities.

We believe in lower taxes but we also believe everyone should pay their fair share.

The Government has been at the forefront of global efforts to crack down on multinational tax avoidance.

We have implemented tough new laws, which helped raise more than $12 billion.

Tonight we provide additional support to the Tax Office to continue these efforts.

We also provide additional resources to our financial regulators following the Banking Royal Commission.

This will strengthen the financial system and deliver better outcomes for all Australians.

Investing in infrastructure

A strong economy requires lower taxes.

A strong economy depends on small business.

And a stronger economy needs ongoing investment in roads, rail, bridges, dams and ports.

Tonight, I can announce that the Coalition Government is boosting our infrastructure spending to $100 billion over the decade.

All without increasing taxes.

Cranes, hard hats and heavy machinery will be seen across the country, as we build Australia for current and future generations.

We will deliver new infrastructure projects:

To ease congestion in our cities.

To unlock the potential of our regions.

To better manage population growth.

To improve safety on our roads.

We know you want to be there for the school drop off, to help the kids with their homework and to spend more time together at the dinner table.

Tonight, I announce we are increasing the Urban Congestion Fund four-fold from $1 billion to $4 billion.

This fund will focus on immediate, practical measures to cut travel times within our cities.

Removing bottlenecks and improving travel corridors.

It will include a $500 million Commuter Car Park Fund that will improve access to public transport hubs and take thousands of cars off the roads.

Central to our plan is a long-term fast-rail vision for Australia.

To make this vision a reality, we are providing $2 billion in this budget for fast-rail between Melbourne and Geelong, slashing travel times in half.

Work is underway to develop fast-rail corridors in other areas:

Sydney to Wollongong, Newcastle, Bathurst, Orange and Parkes.

Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast.

Melbourne to Shepparton, Traralgon and Wodonga.

We are getting on with the job of building infrastructure.

With funding in this Budget for the Tonkin Highway in Perth, the North-South Corridor in Adelaide, the Gateway Motorway in Brisbane and the Freight Rail Revitalisation Program in Tasmania.

It was this government that ended 50 years of indecision and started construction on the Nancy-Bird Walton Airport in Western Sydney.

It was this Government that committed $5 billion to build the Melbourne airport rail link.

And it was this Government which is investing $1.4 billion to build Snowy 2.0.

Modernising a national icon and building on the vision of Menzies and Chifley.

Our regions and their vitality have always shaped the Australian story.

In this budget, there is an additional:

$2.2 billion for safer roads.

$1 billion to improve freight routes and access to ports.

$100 million for regional airports.

These investments make our regions stronger and our country stronger.

Over the past year drought and flood have taken a heavy toll on our agricultural towns and communities.

These communities have shown strength and resilience, as all Australians have stood with them.

The Morrison government is providing $6.3 billion in drought support and $3.3 billion for those affected by flood.

Expanding the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund.

Establishing the Future Drought Fund.

Extending the Farm Household Allowance.

And supporting graziers through a new North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency.

Tonight I can announce that we will establish a new $3.9 billion Emergency Response Fund that will ensure additional resourcing is available to support future natural disaster recovery efforts.

Agriculture, like other primary industries that helped build this country, must be recognised and valued.

Our economic plan is about driving all industries forward, not just a few of them.

Investing in skills

Mr Speaker, our people are our most valuable asset.

We need to ensure all Australians of all ages have the skills they need for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow.

Tonight I can announce a new $525 million skills package.

We will create 80,000 new apprenticeships in industries with skills shortages.

We will double incentive payments to employers to $8,000 per placement.

And these new apprentices—including bakers, bricklayers, carpenters and plumbers—will also receive a $2,000 incentive payment.

The government will also work closely with industry to train Australians in areas of future high demand, including communications technology, advanced manufacturing and health services.

We announce tonight 10 new training hubs connecting schools, local industries and young people in regional areas with high youth unemployment.

We're also investing $62 million to boost literacy, numeracy and digital skills.

And refocusing the job services model to provide more personalised support for disadvantaged job seekers.

Mr Speaker, young Australians should have every chance of success when it comes to career opportunities in the digital age.

Tonight we provide further funding to increase participation for women and girls in STEM.

Complementing our Future Female Entrepreneurs Program, which is supporting 55,000 young women.

We are also backing the industries of the future.

We're investing $9 billion this year in science, research and technology, including its commercialisation.

And we established the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, with dividends going to new clinical trials and research in areas such as tuberculosis and traumatic brain injury.

There is also more than $400 million in this Budget for genomics research to unlock the secrets of our DNA.

And $160 million for research to improve the health of Indigenous Australians.

Investing in our young people

Mr Speaker, as I said in my first speech in this place, education is the first defence of our nation.

It is critical to our prosperity, to our harmony and to the advancement of Australia as a nation.

While money is important, so too is the quality of education afforded to all Australians.

Under our government, funding for public, independent and Catholic schools is at an all-time high and will continue to grow substantially in the decade ahead.

We are committing around $300 billion to all schools, a total increase of 63 per cent.

This is a real dividend from a strong economy and comes without increasing taxes.

No one knows the needs of a local school better than the school community itself, its parents and its teachers.

So tonight's Budget includes a new local school community program.

Funding will be available for projects such as upgrades to libraries, classrooms and play equipment.

This Budget also includes a new scholarship program for over 1,000 students to study in regional Australia each year.

We want our children to get the best possible start in life.

So tonight, I am announcing $453 million to once again extend pre-school education, enabling 350,000 children to receive 15 hours of quality early learning per week in the year before school.

We will continue to work with the states and territories to support a longer-term plan.

Lower taxes, more infrastructure, better skills and a quality education.

This is our plan for a stronger economy that will help our nation reach its potential and enable every Australian to reach theirs.

Guaranteeing essential services

Mr Speaker, a strong economy is not an end in itself. It's what you do with it that counts.

With a strong economy, we can guarantee the essential services that Australians need and deserve.

Health is front of mind for all Australians, and this year the Government will spend more than $80 billion on healthcare.

An amount that has increased every year we have been in government.

More MRI machines.

More life-changing medicines on the PBS.

More funding for mental health.

Better access to dental services.

Better access to hospitals.

And better access to regional GPs.

In this Budget, we are:

Funding upgrades to regional hospitals, the first being in Townsville.

Establishing Australia's first comprehensive children's cancer centre in Sydney.

Helping to build a new Brain and Spinal Ward in South Australia.

In this Budget, we also list more medicines on the PBS to treat kidney, bladder, liver and skin cancer.

And tonight, we announce the listing of Besponsa, a medicine for people with acute Leukaemia.

Instead of costing $120,000 a course, patients will now have access to the medicine at a cost of only $6.50 per script for concession card holders and around $40 for general patients.

This brings the total number of new listings to more than 2,000 since we came to government, costing more than $10 billion.

A real and profound dividend from a strong economy, and done without increasing taxes.

Under the Coalition, Medicare is guaranteed.

Bulk-billing is at a record high.

And we are adding new services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, including diagnostic imaging for breast cancer and heart health checks.

We're establishing a Heart Kids Project for new research to treat and prevent heart disease which affects thousands of Australian children.

Mr Speaker, mental health is an issue of deep concern to all Australians.

It is a national tragedy that we lose so many people to suicide and that so many people live a life of quiet desperation.

Tonight I say: we hear you and we are with you.

This issue demands our ongoing attention and resources.

We must work together to combat youth suicide as a national priority.

In this Budget, the Government will invest $461 million in Australia's most significant youth mental health and suicide prevention strategy.

30 new headspace centres.

Reduced waiting lists.

More support for Indigenous youth including through mentoring and peer support.

Treatment for early psychosis.

A perinatal mental health program.

And extra counselling services for communities who have suffered from natural disasters.

All of this is about looking after each other.

It reflects the best of Australia and its values.

Looking after older Australians

Mr Speaker, a stronger economy also allows us to invest more in looking after older Australians.

Australians deserve to age with dignity and have earned the right to expect the highest standards of aged care services.

In some cases, these services have badly let Australians down.

That is why we established the Royal Commission into aged care.

This Budget includes a significant investment of $725 million that will deliver:

10,000 new home care packages.

Bringing to 40,000 the number of new packages announced over the last 18 months.

Additional financial support for residential care.

A capital works program with a focus on regional Australia.

And a series of new measures to improve the quality and safety of aged care services.

We achieve this without increasing taxes and without raiding retirees' hard earned savings.

Mr Speaker, we also recognise the pressure energy bills place on those who can least afford it.

That's why we are providing additional cost of living relief for pensioners through a one-off Energy Assistance Payment of $75 for singles and $125 for couples.

This payment will be paid this financial year and comes on top of other actions the Government has taken to reduce power bills.

Mr Speaker, we know that carers are our nation's unsung heroes.

Their job is 24/7 and emotionally as well as physically demanding.

Many carers need and deserve a rest.

So tonight we are announcing $84 million to enable carers to leave a loved one in safe hands and get a much needed break.

Mr Speaker, supporting people with disability is a moral imperative, recognised by both sides of this House.

Growing to $22 billion, it takes a strong economy to fund the NDIS fully and sustainably.

This is what our Government has done.

In this Budget, we have also set aside half a billion dollars for a Royal Commission into the mistreatment of people with disability.

Affordable housing is another priority for this Government.

Just over a week ago, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, established by this Government, successfully issued the largest social bond in Australia's history.

Over $300 million was raised, providing a significant injection into the community housing sector.

Protecting our environment

Mr Speaker, we all have an important responsibility to protect our environment and address climate change.

This Budget includes a $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package – $2 billion of which will go to practical emission reduction activities, working with farmers and Indigenous communities.

Through our measures, as we have done in the past, we will beat our international emissions reduction targets.

Australians have been gifted a precious inheritance.

Tonight I announce a $100 million new Environment Restoration Fund to deliver large-scale environmental projects.

Protecting the habitats of our threatened species, our coasts, our waterways and cleaning up waste.

It will complement a new Communities' Environment Program, providing smaller grants for projects that target local community priorities.

Ensuring safe communities

Mr Speaker, all Australians have a right to feel safe in their community.

In the largest Commonwealth investment in women's safety, in this Budget we are providing $328 million to fund prevention, response and recovery initiatives.

Bringing our total investment in this area to $840 million since we came to government.

There is new funding for the 1800RESPECT helpline, more safe places and training for health and other service providers.

But we must also change attitudes, as the path to violence begins with disrespect.

This Budget also provides for a new round of the Safer Communities Fund, assisting religious organisations, schools and other organisations to install fencing, lighting and security cameras.

We also have to do more to keep our kids safe online and tackle cyber-bullying.

Just as we teach our kids how to cross the street, we now need to teach them how to sensibly and safely use the web.

In this Budget, we are funding new practical training to give kids, parents and teachers the knowledge and skills necessary to keep our children safe online.

Mr Speaker, the Government's cashless debit card is delivering life-changing outcomes in child welfare and the safety of communities.

And so, in this Budget, we extend its roll out to other areas.

It is already making a real difference, halving the frequency of alcohol consumption, gambling and drug abuse.

Mr Speaker, drugs like ice and heroin have a devastating impact on families.

Tonight, we announce $337 million in new funding for our comprehensive drug strategy.

Cracking down on outlaw motorcycle gangs and their drug supply chains.

And improving treatment and rehabilitation services to support those affected by the scourge of drugs.

Our law enforcement agencies are also on the front line of countering terrorism and extremism.

We are providing the Federal Police and ASIO with $570 million to keep Australians safe from these threats.

In this budget, we are also allocating an additional $680 million to support our service men and women deployed abroad.

Mr Speaker, our Government also recognises the importance of supporting our veterans.

They have served our nation, defending our values and our interests.

In this budget we are adding to the $278 million invested in our last two budgets to improve the wellbeing of our veterans and their families.

Economic outlook

Mr Speaker, the fundamentals of the Australian economy are sound, but there are genuine and clear risks emerging both at home and abroad.

The residential housing market has cooled, credit growth has eased and we are yet to see the full impact of flood and drought on the economy.

Global trade tensions remain, the Chinese economy has slowed and there has been a loss of momentum in Japan, Europe and other advanced economies.

Notwithstanding these challenges, it is a testament to the strength of the Australian economy that it is in its 28th year of consecutive economic growth.

Our economic plan will see this continue.

GDP growth is expected to pick up to 2¾ per cent in 2019-20.

We delivered ahead of schedule on our promise to create one million new jobs.

And we now commit to creating a further 1.25 million new jobs over the next five years.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, six years ago when we came to government:

The economy was weakening, unemployment was rising and the budget was deteriorating.

Since then, we have made the right choices, the difficult but necessary choices and our economic plan is working.

Tonight marks the next stage in that plan.

The first surplus in 12 years, and the first repayment made on Labor's debt.

Lower taxes for 10 million Australians and three million small businesses.

80,000 new apprenticeships.

A $100 billion National Infrastructure Plan.

Record spending on schools and hospitals.

We have done all of this without increasing taxes.

The Australian people can trust that:

Under the Coalition, the economy will always be stronger, allowing you and your family to get ahead.

Under the Coalition, our borders will always be more secure.

Under the Coalition, there will always be more jobs and lower taxes.

And under the Coalition, essential services will always be guaranteed.

Mr Speaker, tonight we have set the course for an even better and brighter Australia.

I commend this Budget to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (20:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 form the principal bills underpinning the government's budget. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $58.5 billion. This represents seven-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations, and new measures since the 2018-19 additional estimates process.

I will now outline the significant items provided for in this bill. First, the Department of Defence will receive almost $19.8 billion to protect and advance Australia's strategic interests through the provision of military capability, the promotion of security and stability, and the provision of support to the Australian community in accordance with government direction. Included in this amount is funding to support ongoing major defence operations, including operations Okra, Accordion, Highroad, Resolute and Manitou.

Second, the Department of Social Services will receive approximately $5.7 billion, including funding for: the Commonwealth's contribution to the Fourth Action Plan to prevent violence against women and their children; the expansion of the cashless debit card to tackle drug, alcohol and gambling misuse; and the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

Third, the Department of Health will receive approximately $6.3 billion to continue to strengthen health services for all Australians. This will include funding for new medical research, including: administration of the Medical Research Future Fund; better mental health and drug and alcohol support services, including the expansion of the national headspace network; further support for improved access to quality aged-care residential and home-care services; and workforce priorities, improved access to medicines and implementing the Sport 2030 National Sport Plan.

Fourth, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive just under $3.2 billion to advance Australia's international, strategic, security and economic interests and to manage and distribute Australia's official development assistance.

Fifth, the Department of Human Services will receive just under $2.7 billion to support individuals, families and communities to achieve greater self-sufficiency and providers and business through convenient and efficient service delivery.

Sixth, the Department of Home Affairs will receive just over $2.2 billion, which includes funding for national security, the management of noncitizens within onshore and offshore detention, facilitation of people and goods across the border and the provision of refugee and humanitarian assistance.

Finally, the Australian Taxation Office will receive just over $2.1 billion to manage Australia's taxation and superannuation systems, including through helping people understand their rights and obligations, improving ease of compliance and access to benefits and managing noncompliance with the law.

In particular, the bill contains funding for the continuation of the Corporate Tax Avoidance Taskforce and the expansion of the Single Touch Payroll.

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

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (20:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-20 along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-20 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.1) 2019-20 are the budget appropriation bills for this year.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $7.4 billion. This represents seven-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations and new measures since the additional estimates process.

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) provides appropriations for 2019-20 for the operations of the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $162 million. This represents seven-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriation and new measures since the 2018 additional estimates process.

The most significant item in this bill is for the Department of Parliamentary Services, which will receive almost $127 million for the maintenance of the Australian Parliament House and to support the functions of parliament and parliamentarians through the provision of professional services, advice and facilities.

This amount also includes funding to replace the original Australian Parliament House auxiliary power system, to ensure the continued supply of power for critical systems, and to upgrade the mobile phone antenna for the benefit of building occupants and visitors.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (20:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.