Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (10:01): I present the fourth report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament.

I draw the attention of the House to an e-petition currently open for signatures until later this week. This petition relates to the issue of climate in Australia and has so far gathered over 300,000 signatures. This is the highest number of signatures for an e-petition in the House. The second largest e-petition was presented in 2018, with over 104,000 signatures, which requested the removal of the GST from sanitary products. The two largest recorded petitions to the House remain paper petitions. The largest, with 1,200,000 signatures, was presented in February 2014 and concerned funding support for community pharmacies. The second largest, with over 792,000 signatures, concerned taxation and beer prices, and was presented in December 2000.

It's clear that people power comes in both paper and online form. The committee continues to support both ways of petitioning the House. Some people choose to start a paper petition because they want to engage a small community about a local issue or because their targeted audience prefer to sign their names on paper, rather than on a smartphone. On the other hand, national issues may gain more traction through an online petition, which is more easily shared via social media or email. The House continues to receive paper petitions from a broad cross-section of the community, including schoolchildren. This tells us that the paper petition is still as relevant today as it was at Federation.

I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the Petitions Committee.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Let me read you a quote:

There is growing agreement between economists and scientists that…risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction.

Who was it who said that? Was it the many thousands of people who took to the streets over the weekend to protest about climate change and the government's inaction? Was it members of political parties here in this place, urging the government to take action? It was the IMF. It was the IMF who said this, barely weeks ago. There is now growing consensus, and not just across everyday Australian citizens, who at the moment are petitioning this government to declare a climate emergency. It is not just coming from our leading scientists, who are saying, 'Time is running out.' It is coming from some of the most senior economists in the global financial system.

It is time to tell it like it is. We are in a climate emergency and we are facing a mass extinction, including human civilisation. Had the Prime Minister gone to the global climate crisis summit barely a few weeks ago, he would've heard the stark warning from the world's scientists that the current commitments under the Paris agreement are not good enough. We need to do at least three to five times as much as countries like Australia are currently pledging if we are to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic global warming. That's three to five times as much as what we are doing at the moment.

The world's scientists also told us last year that, because coal—especially in Australia—is the single-biggest contributor to climate change, we cannot continue our reliance on coal. In fact, they told us that, to have a chance of staying below a dangerous 1½ degrees, the world needs to be at least two-thirds out of coal for energy by 2030. That is why the time for coal is over, and that is why Australia needs a plan to quit coal. That's why today I'm introducing the Coal Prohibition (Quit Coal) Bill 2019. We're talking here about thermal coal—the coal that is burnt for electricity. Australia exports about 80 per cent of its thermal coal. About four times as much as we use domestically, burning it for power, we send overseas. It doesn't matter where it's burnt, because global warming impacts us all. Until we stop exporting coal, we will not be able to halt the climate crisis.

It is clear to everyday Australians that global warming is not under control. From the record drought that we are experiencing and that our farmers and communities are suffering through, and from the fact that towns are being told they might have to go without water, to the unprecedented numbers of fish kills and the numbers of people who are dying from heatwaves and bushfires, it is clear that the climate crisis is hitting, and it's hitting us hard. If Australia does not have a plan to exit from coal in an orderly way, we are going to make global warming worse, and that is a death sentence for people working on the land. It will mean more people will die from the heatwaves and bushfires that will hit, it will mean water will run out at a quicker rate and it will mean more extreme weather events.

This bill puts in place a plan that says thank you to all of those workers in coal communities, who have helped power our country. But we now know things about coal that we didn't know before. We now know that it's a toxic product, and when you use it as intended it kills. We need to do what Germany has done: reach an agreement in this parliament for a plan for the orderly phase-out of coal, one that will look after the affected communities. That means phasing it out at home. It means phasing out our exports. This bill puts in place a plan to do that over the next 10 years in a way that is achievable and in a way that the science requires. In my remaining time, I would invite the seconder for this bill, the member for Clark, to make a few comments.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (10:10): I second the motion and offer a few additional comments. It's self-evident that Australia must do everything in its power to combat climate change and to do so urgently, and any sensible strategy surely must include Australia banning any new coalmines and winding down existing coalmines.

The significance of this must not be underestimated. We need to understand that something like 29 per cent of coal that's traded globally comes from Australia. When we export coal, we export emissions. When you include our exported emissions with our domestic emissions, you understand that we are a very, very significant producer of greenhouse gases. In fact, if you include our exported emissions, Australia produces more emissions than Russia, a country of 146 million people, hardly an exemplar of responsible climate action. We create more carbon emissions than Russia. In fact, when you include our exported emissions, our total gross emissions are not much less than those of India, a country of 1.3 billion people. In other words, we must do everything we can to get out of the global coal trade, and that must include no more coalmines and winding down existing coalmines.

This is especially relevant to me as a Tasmanian at the moment because we had the remarkable revelations just in recent weeks that, when the country is talking about shutting down coalmines, we're actually looking to create a new coalmine. In fact, we had the remarkable revelation just recently that Midland Energy has been granted $50,000 by the Tasmanian government to establish mines in the Midlands of Tasmania, around Woodbury and Jericho, that would produce three million tonnes of coal a year for export to Asian markets. How the Tasmanian government can think that that is sensible absolutely beggars belief. Tasmania has a reputation as a relatively clean and green place. Why would we put our food exports and our tourism industries at risk by becoming just another global climate pariah? It beggars belief, and it's some of the most irresponsible behaviour I could contemplate by a Tasmanian government.

So I'm very happy to back the member for Melbourne in this motion for the second reading of the Coal Prohibition (Quit Coal) Bill 2019, which would ban coalmines and wind down existing coalmines. It would be entirely consistent with what should be this country's strategy—a strategy to, within a reasonable period of time, achieve zero net carbon emissions and, indeed, 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy. That's the way to deal with the future. It's not to be opening new coalmines in the Midlands of Tasmania, North Queensland, the Hunter Valley or who knows where else. That's why this is an eminently sensible bill introduced by the member for Melbourne.

I would add that until now the philosophy has been progress at any cost. Whenever there's talk of a new coalmine, politicians are quick to talk about the jobs. Well, it's time to draw a line in the sand and to understand that progress at any cost is the strategy that has created the climate mess we now have. So we've got to draw a line in the sand, or perhaps scratch a line in the coal, and say that from now on there will be no more new coalmines, we will have plans in place to shut down existing coalmines and we will have plans in place to shut down existing coal-fired power stations in this country, because only by doing that will we genuinely be putting our country on a pathway to zero net carbon emissions. That's what the community expects of us. Whenever you go out to the community across the whole of the country and you do polling, the evidence is unambiguous that the community wants strong action on climate change. But regrettably, until now, this place has been completely out of step with what the community wants—another case where we in this place are not representing our community. So I second the motion, I applaud the member for Melbourne and I think that the crossbench—or most of the crossbench at least—speaks genuinely on behalf of the majority of Australians, who want us to get out of the coal industry and to get out of it quickly.

The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is the minimum age below which the law determines that children do not have the capacity to form criminal intent.

The median age of criminal responsibility in the international community is 14. In most European countries it is between 14 and 16. Countries such as China, Russia, and Sierra Leone have a minimum age of 14, while Canada and Scotland are both set at age 12.

In Australia the minimum age of criminal responsibility across Commonwealth, state and territory legislation is 10. Our laws permit the arrest and detention of a child in year 4 and taking them away, often far away, from their family, prior to a finding of guilt.

Australia is universally condemned by the international community for this.

The bill I am introducing today increases the age of criminal responsibility for Commonwealth offences from 10 to 14 years of age.

Amnesty International's report entitled The sky is the limit demonstrates that youth detention is not a place where children will grow into mature and healthy young adults.

Detention is not rehabilitating young offenders; it is only increasing the risk of reoffending.

The report notes that children who are arrested before the age of 14 are three times more likely to reoffend as adults, compared to those arrested after the age of 14.

In part this is because children under the age of 14 are making decisions using the part of the brain that is connected to emotions and aggression, and are unlikely to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

That is why we do not let 10-year-old children drive cars, drink alcohol, have a Facebook account or vote.

We imposed these limits because we as a society decided that young children are not capable of making rational decisions. We accept the medical evidence that says the brain development of young children limits their capacity.

And yet, as the law currently stands, we can hold a 10-year-old child criminally responsible for their actions. We can, and, sadly, we do.

According to data released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 2017-18 there were 600 children aged between 10 and 13 in detention.

In addition to the usual limitations placed on the developmental progress of young children, both trauma and prolonged stress will also have a negative impact on brain development. Trauma can include neglect, poverty, removal from family structures and exposure to violence or abuse.

It is a sad reality that Indigenous children are more likely to experience trauma than non-Indigenous children.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are also more likely to suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, which results in abnormalities in cognitive, behavioural and social functioning, thus increasing the risk of coming into contact with the justice system.

Over a third of all children in WA detention were diagnosed with FASD, while in the Northern Territory the recent royal commission sought to address the issue by recommending that all children be screened for the disorder upon entering out-of-home care and that police receive specialist training on the effects of FASD.

The age of criminal responsibility is an issue that disproportionately affects children from Aboriginal communities. They are 23 times more likely to be in detention than their non-Aboriginal peers.

While only five per cent of children aged between 10 and 17 are Indigenous, more than half of all children in detention on an average day in 2017-18 were Indigenous.

Children should be in classrooms; they should not be in custody.

But the Just Reinvest program operating in Bourke, NSW has proven that prison need not be a rite of passage for children.

For those who remain unconvinced, I urge you to consider the economic arguments against youth detention. Earlier this year the Productivity Commission considered youth justice in the context of their Report on government services 2019.

The commission found that the average cost of community based supervision across the states and territories in 2017-2018 was $164 per day, per young person.

The average cost of detention based supervision per young person, per day was $1,455.

An average cost of holding one child in detention for one year is over half a million dollars.

If we multiply that by 600, being the number of 10- to 13-year-olds detained, it comes in at $318 million.

Modelling undertaken by PIC, the Indigenous consultancy branch of PwC, predicts that the cost of Indigenous incarceration will grow to $19.8 billion by 2040.

But, if we replace youth detention with holistic case management, cognitive behavioural therapy and other appropriate supports, modelling shows that recidivism rates will decline and deliver a saving of $10.6 billion by 2040.

Next month the Council of Attorneys-General will hand down their recommendation on whether to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

The increase I propose in the bill is consistent with the position of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and was specifically recommended to Australia by the UN committee in their concluding observations released in late September this year.

Finally, I'd like to thank the Change the Record coalition, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Justice Reinvestment Project, the Law Council of Australia, the AMA and the many other campaigners who are working to draw attention to this matter and the way we approach young people—children—in detention in this country.

The UN has spoken. We were all aghast when we saw the footage from Don Dale. Children as young as 10 were in that situation. One of the recommendations was to lift the age of criminal responsibility. Two years on, we have done nothing in this place. It is time for this place to lead the nation; it is time for this place to act.

Mr Speaker, I would like to give my remaining time to the member for Warringah.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (10:22): I second the motion. I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Age of Criminal Responsibility) Bill 2019, and I commend the member for Mayo for introducing this very important bill and attempting to address an important issue.

On 20 November this year, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia is a proud signatory to. Article 37 of the convention states that children who break the law should not be treated cruelly, should not be put in a prison with adults and should be able to keep in contact with their family. Article 40 states that prison sentences for children should only be only used for the most serious offences. The minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 14. It's not surprising that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has called on Australia to do so.

Ten is too young. Think of a child in year 4. Think of the children who visit Parliament House. Generally, they come and visit their members when they are in year 5 or year 6 in primary school. We are talking about children younger than those children. In the family law system, a child's view, whilst taken into account, is generally not given significant weight until around 13 or 14 years of age. Yet we are holding them criminally responsible at 10. The medical science is clear: their brains are still developing. Their ability to reason and think through the consequences of their actions is seriously impaired and impacted. As a mother of teenagers, like many in this place, I have seen firsthand the changes our children go through between starting school and adolescence. It beggars belief that we are holding them criminally responsible at 10.

Criminalising children disproportionately harms those who are already the most disadvantaged, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. When children are treated as criminals and jailed or detained, it traps them in a cycle of disadvantage from which many never escape. Once detained, young children are more likely to reoffend, and less likely to complete their education or find employment. Our system is failing our most vulnerable and disadvantaged children. We should be fixing the system and supporting these children, not punishing them for that failure.

Australia is out of step with international standards. The median minimum age of criminal responsibility across the world is 14. Around 600 children below the age of 14 are imprisoned in youth detention centres each year. Seventy per cent are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. This reinforces the systemic disadvantage already faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, and must end. Instead of criminalising and jailing young children, we should be addressing the underlying causes of crime, intervening early and diverting children from pathways leading to crime.

There are many wonderful examples throughout Australia of charitable organisations working with communities and governments to do just that. We have the Out-Teach Mobile Education program run by Save the Children, who are doing fantastic work. As parliamentarians, we need to support their work, and the best way for us to do so is to pass the member for Mayo's bill. I thank the House.

The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) (11:56): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Ayres has been appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System and that Senator Gallacher has been appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) (11:57): On 19 September 2019, the Speaker received advice from the Chief Government Whip and Ms Steggall nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. 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 HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (11:57): I move:

That Mr KJ Andrews, Dr Martin, Mr LS O'Brien and Ms Steggall be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System.

Question agreed to.

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:57): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Mr HASTIE: by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. This bill makes changes that are designed to keep Australians safe. It implements a COAG agreement to ensure a presumption that neither bail nor parole will be granted to those persons who have demonstrated support for, or who have links to, terrorist activity. This decision followed the terrorist attack in Brighton, Victoria in June 2017. The perpetrator of that attack was on parole for state offences and had previously been charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack.

The bill amends the existing presumption against bail in section 15AA of the Crimes Act so that it covers persons charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence. In addition, the bill introduces a presumption against parole for a broader group of offenders, including persons charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence; persons who are the subject of a control order; and persons who have made statements or carried out activities supporting, or advocating support for, terrorist acts. This will further protect the wider community and ensure that individuals are not prematurely released on parole.

The bill also amends section 19AG of the Crimes Act to require a court, when sentencing a terrorist offender who is under the age of 18, to fix a non-parole period of three-quarters of the head sentence unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to justify a shorter non-parole period. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court must have regard to the protection of the community as the paramount consideration and the best interests of the child as a primary consideration.

Many submitters expressed concerns about this amendment, noting Australia's responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or the CRC, and the recommendation by the INSLM that section 19AG should not apply to children. With respect to those arguments, coalition members of the committee were of the view that the paramount duty of the parliament is to keep its citizens as safe as possible from external and internal threats.

While international treaties are persuasive in developing public policy, they should not be simply adopted where their application could prejudice the parliament's duty to its citizens and thus undermine Australia's sovereignty. Furthermore, the CRC was ratified some 29 years ago, and, whilst child terrorism was not unknown at that time, counterterrorism was not a policy imperative at that time.

This echoes the comments of Prime Minister Scott Morrison in his Lowy speech on 3 October 2019, which I quote now:

We should avoid any reflex towards a negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill defined borderless global community. And worse still, an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy.

Globalism must facilitate, align and engage, rather than direct and centralise. As such an approach can corrode support for joint international action.

Only a national government, especially one accountable through the ballot box and the rule of law, can define its national interests. We can never answer to a higher authority than the people of Australia.

I and coalition members of the committee affirm and support this sentiment from the Prime Minister.

Schedule 2 of the bill provides that exculpatory material does not need to be included in a continuing detention order application where the material would be the subject of a claim for public interest immunity. The committee has recommended amendments so that the onus is on the Australian federal police minister to satisfy the court that any excluded exculpatory information is protected by public interest immunity. This addresses the concerns raised by submitters whilst ensuring that the intended aim of the amendment is achieved.

Following the implementation of this recommendation, the committee strongly recommends that the bill be passed. I commend the report to the House.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (12:02): by leave—There was one area of disagreement between the Labor and Liberal members of the committee. On that issue, the additional comment from Labor members which is annexed to the committee report speaks for itself. I would stress that it is an additional comment. It is not a dissenting report. It's an additional comment which notes the different position that was reached in respect of an aspect of the bill. Otherwise, Labor's view is that the bill should be supported. I will elaborate on the comments that are made by Labor members in their additional comment when the time comes to debate the bill.

Rather than speaking about the bill today, I'd like to use this time to talk about the conduct of the Department of Home Affairs during the committee's inquiry. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security heard that 52 offenders are currently serving periods of imprisonment for terrorism offences. As recounted in the committee's report, the committee repeatedly sought further information on these offenders from the Department of Home Affairs and asked that, to the extent possible, the information be provided in the form of a public submission. In response, the Department of Home Affairs provided the committee with a classified supplementary submission that set out the requested information. As this report tabled today notes, it is the strong preference of the committee that it be able to report in as public and as transparent a manner as possible. The department chose to adopt an approach that made the committee's job harder than it needed to be by refusing to provide it with the information it requested in the form in which it was requested. We've seen similar examples of this sort of behaviour from the same department in other inquiries that are currently being conducted by the intelligence committee.

This is not a partisan criticism. Liberal members of the committee have also expressed their concern about the department's conduct during this inquiry. The bipartisan report that we are tabling today notes, 'The committee was disappointed by the lack of support the Department of Home Affairs showed the committee and the parliament in its repeated refusal to provide any of the requested information in a public submission.' The department's refusal to provide the requested information in the form of a public submission was not only obstructionist and unacceptable; it was also absurd. All of the information the committee requested is available on public databases and most of it is readily available, in a consolidated form, on the website of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, an agency that forms part of the Attorney-General's Department.

I raised my and the committee's concerns about the department's unhelpfulness with the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs during a public hearing on 20 September 2019 in the context of the committee's inquiry into the impact of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. I noted that, during the press freedom inquiry, the department had emphasised that it did not inappropriately classify information. I asked the secretary how such a claim could be regarded as credible if the department was not even prepared to provide the committee in a public submission with information that other government agencies have made available on their websites. In response, the secretary agreed to look into the matter personally. The committee subsequently received a further submission from the Department of Home Affairs to this inquiry. That submission annexed the document from the CDPP's website. The committee resolved to accept this as a public submission. The department's supplementary submission was still not good enough but it is a lot better than its initial refusal to provide any information at all on the public record. For the benefit of members of the public, the media and the parliament, and in the interests of encouraging an informed public debate on counterterrorism issues, the committee has included the department's supplementary submission in appendix C of this report.

The Department of Home Affairs is now the primary Commonwealth department responsible for the legislation that the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is required to review and for the agencies that the committee is required to oversee. It is vital for the smooth and effective working of the committee that the department provides adequate support for all of the committee's activities. The only alternative would be for the committee's staffing and resources to be dramatically increased. Historically, the committee has been able to rely on the department, which was formerly responsible for most of the legislation and agencies relevant to the intelligence and security committee, namely, the Attorney-General's Department. My hope is that, from now on, the Department of Home Affairs will accept and properly fulfil the supportive role previously played by the Attorney-General's Department. The committee should not be required to, in effect, publicly shame the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs in order for the department to provide basic assistance to the parliament, nor should the Minister for Home Affairs allow the secretary to be placed in such a position. Clearly the Minister for Home Affairs has failed to make it clear to his department that officials who appear before parliamentary inquiries are there to assist the parliament, not to obstruct it. The Minister for Home Affairs should make this very basic point clear to his department so that we do not see a repeat of what we saw during this inquiry.

I commend the report to the House.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:09): I rise to speak on the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. I note that the Morrison government claims that the aim of this legislation, and matters already dealt with, is to change the geographic make-up of visa holders by increasing the number of people settling outside of major cities in regional Australia.

Labor supports this bill. However, we do have some serious concerns that this legislation and the matters connected to it have not all been properly thought through and that there are elements which have been poorly drafted and which could have serious, presumably unintended, consequences.

We are also seriously concerned that this once again demonstrates that this is a government of tactics and not strategy, and of marketing over substance—in the very image of its leader. We see this today on this very issue, with stories across the papers about increases in regional visas granted—and accompanying self-congratulation. But these reports don't withstand close scrutiny. As experts have noted, these figures, in significant part, reflect wider underresourcing and incompetence, leading to processing delays. These processing delays are something that we on this side are all too well aware of; they go right across the visa system and into cruel delays in the granting of citizenship.

It would also be helpful if this debate was rather more informed by evidence. We understand, on this side of the House, that the granting of the visa begins the journey to settlement and full contribution and participation. It doesn't resolve all those questions; it doesn't resolve them at all. It should be resolved—as just one example—by reviews undertaken by Peter Shergold into integration, employment and settlement outcomes for refugees and humanitarian entrants. But, of course, despite having had the report since February, the government still hasn't released its findings. These findings would be critically important for the particular challenges of ensuring that settlement works in regional communities. So I move now an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this bill:

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

“the House notes the Government’s failure to:

(1)   adequately fund settlement services; and

(2)   explain what extra services will be made available to support regional communities and the settlement of migrants under this scheme”.

The Morrison government has failed to produce a real plan for settlement and has failed to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs of our economy and our society. There has been no response to the very important report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities—a unanimous report—Building up & moving out. This shows six years of neglect in this third-term government.

This bill picks up on a definition of regional Australia that is: 'Not to be residing in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane or the Gold Coast or Perth'. Obviously, that's a lot of Australia, and I will return to that in my comments. Obviously, this definition is not a creature of the bill but it is fundamental to its operation and to the operation of the visa categories that it relates specifically to. These are: subclass 491, skilled work regional (provisional) visa, for skilled people nominated by a state or territory government or sponsored by an eligible family member to live and work in regional Australia—as defined; and subclass 494, skilled employer sponsored regional (provisional) visas, enabling an Australian business to sponsor skilled workers to work in their business in regional Australia. Holders of these visas will be required to live in regional areas for three years; after which, they will become eligible for a permanent visa.

These visas are a new concept in Australian immigration law, as you would be well aware, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—a provisional permanent visa. This is an important event for this parliament to give due consideration to. I will return to that. These visas will account for 23,000 places out of the 160,000 permanent places available each year. It is important on this point to remember that the Morrison government, to much fanfare earlier this year, announced, as part of its plan for Australia's future population, a reduction in the permanent visa migration ceiling, from 190,000 to 160,000—I will return to this figure later—because this government wants Australians to believe that it's cutting immigration, but this is simply not the case. The truth is that the Morrison government has no real plan for population policy in Australia.

The government claims these new visas and requirements will encourage visa holders to remain in regional Australia which, in turn, will support local communities and enhance the economies of regional parts of the nation, which is a laudable objective and one which is shared, I think, by all of us in this place. The bill directly gives effect to the government policy that holders of provisional skilled regional visas, which will come into effect on 16 November, will have access to social security payments and other government services as if they were holders of permanent visas in line with the current arrangements applicable to permanent resident visas. The following legislation picks up on this and is amended by this bill: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, Disability Services Act 1986, Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012, Higher Education Support Act 2003, National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 and, most significantly, Social Security Act 1991.

The key amendment that's been made here is to the definition of 'Australian resident' in section 7(2) of the Social Security Act. Proposed subparagraph 7(2)(b)(iia) would have the effect of including holders of provisional skilled regional visas in this definition, which would make them eligible for payments under the Social Security act and also for family payments, paid parental leave and farm household support. It would also make it possible that other non-permanent visa holders may in the future be so eligible. This concept—that people on a temporary visa should have entitlements such as those generally associated with permanent visa holders—is a significant one. It marks a significant departure from past practice and is worth emphasising here, especially in the context of Australia's drift away from a migration framework which is predicated on paths to permanency. This is a debate that has been too little recognised in this place, and it is my hope that this debate here on this legislation will encourage all lawmakers and citizens to reflect on what is happening in Australia's immigration story more broadly.

The bill would also amend the Social Security Act to provide that provisional skilled regional visa holders be subject to waiting periods in qualifying for eligibility for certain benefits, such as Newstart and carers allowance, on the same terms as permanent visa holders—that is, on the day the provisional visa is granted, not a subsequent permanent visa date.

The government has touted that these new visas and, indeed, the population package will bust congestion, but the government has failed to outline in any great detail how it intends to provide support to the 23,000 visa holders who would be living in regional Australia—not a shred of detail. Given this government's track record and the Minister for Home Affairs's general mismanagement of his department, we wonder how and if these visas will ever be implemented properly.

The Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure has been out trumpeting his new population centre located in the Treasury, and then there was a meeting with all the state treasurers with lots of talk about bottom-up approaches and data sharing, buzzwords all designed to give the impression that the government actually has a plan. But the government still needs to outline what social support networks and services will be made available to support regional communities with an increase in migrant populations and to support long-term and effective settlement and contribution, aspirations which again are shared across this place. But, on this side, we recognise and say directly that you've got to have a decent system of support in places where you want to settle new migrants, even skilled migrants. This is especially important in the present context, because we know all about the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's record of cutting support to settlement services.

Of course, nothing in this bill addresses those issues which face regional universities. In 2018, there were more than 869,000 international student enrolments in Australia, of which only three per cent were in regional Australia. The international education market contributed $36 billion to the Australian economy in 2018, but Australia's regional universities have been struggling to increase their offerings to international students. The Morrison government has said very, very little about this big economic challenge, neglecting this very significant economic opportunity. So there are very legitimate concerns about the impact of all of this on the international education sector.

I draw members' attention to the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on this bill. Again, while Labor supports the bill, a number of concerns were highlighted here and should be addressed, including the threat to Australia's international education reputation—specifically, that the government seems to fail to understand the complexity of the issues that must be considered when we make even minor changes to visas that affect Australia's international education system. These issues are sufficiently complex such that there can be no quick fix, but the reputation and high standards of the Australian higher education market are a matter of great importance and should be treated as such by this government.

We also note that the committee has drawn our attention to an overreliance through this scheme on delegated legislation, which raises not insignificant democratic concerns. There are issues which go back to the importation of the definition of 'regional Australia' into this bill. No plans were put forward to maintain and develop a regional workforce, and questions go to the transfer of existing exemptions for Australian universities. I mentioned earlier that Australia's regional universities have been struggling to increase their offerings to the important international student market, and the government's own consultation paper Growing international education in regional Australia has acknowledged the perception that regional institutions have limited offerings and other related matters. We have been paying very careful attention to this and are conscious that they be supported to develop this offer whilst not putting the reputation of standards of international education here at risk.

Since the coalition government's funding freeze ended the demand-driven system, Australian universities have of course been forced to turn to the international market to balance their budgets. It's been reported that RMIT University generates 40 per cent of its total revenue from international student fees, and that some of the elite, research intensive Group of Eight universities generate about 35 per cent of their total revenue by the same means. However, some sector experts believe these figures to be understated. With China, India and Nepal making up close to 50 per cent of the market, any change in geopolitical circumstances could place Australian universities in dire straits.

In their dissenting report to the Senate inquiry, Labor senators rightly expressed their concern that there had been no advice from the Department of Home Affairs about resourcing compliance of these two new visa subclasses. This is raised in the context of the growth of student numbers from the subcontinent and media reports that the department has raised the student visa risk status of India, Nepal and Pakistan from medium to high on the basis of a number of concerns. Labor senators have asserted, properly, that there is a risk if international students' decisions on where to study are driven by visa issues rather than education choices. This is an important point.

Australia saw the consequence of these imbalanced incentives previously in 2009, which prompted the focus on quality assurance. As I raised previously, Labor is concerned more broadly by an over reliance on delegated authority. Substantive provisions should generally be enacted by primary and not delegated legislation, but this bill once again highlights the government's reliance on delegated legislation. We note that neither the establishment of the visas themselves nor the locations to which they will apply are part of the legislation but may be subject to change by the minister.

Concerns have also been raised by members of the higher education community about the inconsistency in how the minister has defined the 'designated regional area'. I believe that there are concerns that this change may not be driven by the needs of students or with the aim of improving the quality of education in our regional areas, but rather by the prospect of directing funding for political reasons. These concerns have been raised by Griffith University and by the Australian Technology Network of Universities. I quote from them:

The Australian Technology Network notes that the regional/rural classification creates some inequalities in relation to Perth being excluded from the definition, while areas such as Canberra, Adelaide and Wollongong would be included. Perth is considered one of the most isolated cities in Australia and as a consequence would be at considerable disadvantage in relation to attracting international students to the state. A reconsideration of this classification would assist in resolving this matter.

Griffith University stated:

Three state capital cities, Adelaide, Darwin and Hobart as well as the national capital, Canberra, are considered regional for the purposes of Skilled Regional Visas that include International Students. It is particularly difficult to comprehend why Adelaide, with a population of 1.3 million, more than twice that of the Gold Coast's 663,321 according to 2018 data, is considered Regional over the Gold Coast.

The seemingly ad hoc manner in which the definition has been applied is of concern and is something that should be carefully looked at, particularly in the context of past actions by this government which have seen university campuses in suburban areas defined as 'regional' and eligible for additional Commonwealth funding. One example of this is Federation University Australia's Berwick Campus, just 40 kilometres south-east of Melbourne city centre, which received over $40 million in a program that was designed to support more students at five regionally focused universities over four years.

The NTEU has expressed their concerns about issues of rorting and perhaps worker exploitation if left unchecked. The NTEU submission stated:

The two provisional skilled visas referred to in this Bill—that is, the Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) (Subclass 491) visa and the Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) (Subclass 494) are specifically created for regional and rural areas, where evidence has been shown the risk of exploitation to be particularly high. This is of significant concern because, as noted, the current provisions to deal with exploitation of temporary workers have proven to be ineffective.

This doesn't go to the terms of the bill but to the context within which this bill is being debated and the circumstances of these regional communities. These are matters the government should have paid closer attention to before now and should be addressing now.

The Senate inquiry also had concerns raised by the ATN and Rural Councils Victoria that the government has not presented a plan or long-term strategy on how to encourage visa holders to remain in regional communities after a required three-year waiting period is over. This is a fundamental point. Rural Councils Victoria noted specifically that:

… changes made at the Federal level to the migrant intake need to work in tandem with State and Local Government programs and initiatives that provide essential support services to new migrants and their communities.

It is encouraging that dialogue has begun across Australian governments on this point. But, as has too often been the case, this is simply too late for too many people and too many communities.

Sufficient funding, from state and federal governments, needs to be provided for housing support, education and training services and community assistance programs. Without these supports, and without sufficient job opportunities, long-term retention of these workers in regional areas is unlikely—a point that has been made also by Peter McDonald, the government's own population adviser. I say again: while Labor is very supportive of the policy aims and design behind these bills, we are concerned about some of these issues, and, unless the government address those concerns—particularly those raised by the education sector—they should be prepared for unintended consequences. These are matters which should be addressed in advance, not after the fact.

I raise, also, some concerns in relation to the existing exemptions for Australian universities. My colleagues' Senate minority report to the Senate bill inquiry said:

Labor Senators note the recommendation in the Joint University Submission which calls for the existing exemptions that apply to the Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186) and the expansion to the existing exemptions in relation to Age, Skills Assessment and Work experience requirements for Australian University sponsors for professional and managerial positions be made available to the two new visa sub classes.

Labor also notes the advice given by Universities Australia to the Senate committee, which advised caution in finalising the settings to ensure that the conditions associated with the new skilled regional visas are not so restrictive as to act as a deterrent to potential visa applicants. This is yet another concern which should have been addressed earlier.

I want to also speak about the Morrison government's recent foray into population policy. Just a few weeks ago, the population minister launched a new population centre—within Treasury, oddly enough. Labor of course welcomes a mature debate about population, one that is informed by evidence. Understanding how migrants and international students decide where they settle in Australia and what the government can do to incentivise them into regional areas is an important and worthy aim. Having a population strategy—a proper population strategy—is a must for any government today. Over the next 30 years, our nation's population is projected to increase by 50 per cent, and most of this growth will be in our large cities. This reflects economic growth and opportunity and poses policymakers with a big challenge and one that Labor has been grappling with: how do we continue to realise the benefits of agglomeration and maintain livability? This is critical to boosting productivity and also people's wellbeing.

In Melbourne and Sydney, we know that populations will grow from around five million today to eight million by mid-century. We also know that, in the past, the vast majority of migrants settling in Australia have chosen to stay in our big cities. In those cities, we know, the congestion is getting worse. Commuters in Sydney are experiencing a massive 71-minute average journey to and from work each day, and Melburnians spend an average of 65 minutes on their commute. We know that Infrastructure Australia has predicted that road congestion costs in our major cities will more than double by 2031. We know that the Reserve Bank governor has called for infrastructure investment to be brought forward seven times since the election. We know that, despite this, the Morrison government failed to spend a cent from the Urban Congestion Fund in all of 2018-19, even though money was forecast to have been spent in this year's budget. All we get from this government are calls for the states and territories to do more. The truth is that this government is using population and migration to cover up for its failures to invest in productive infrastructure. They are trying to hide their failure to bust congestion in our cities by blaming migration.

Just last week I was at the FECCA conference, and I heard about a young girl of South Sudanese background who explained that she always stood up on the bus to school because she's anxious that she and, as it was reported, people like her are blamed for crowded public transport and congested roads. How utterly awful! Government members should think about this in terms of how they speak about congestion in our cities and what causes it. People like this girl aren't to be blamed for going to school or going to work, so they shouldn't feel blamed. Instead, we need to see from this government some responsibility taken for failures to plan and deliver infrastructure that is fit for purpose.

This bill seeks to facilitate measures that are all about the distribution of population. But tinkering around the edges of our visa system won't make a huge difference, especially without a wider plan for resettlement and development to ensure that these changes are lasting. It won't count for much if we fail to increase the attractiveness of our regional areas through greater supports and more economic opportunities. We see no mention from the government of the great challenges of socio-economic inequality posed by some of these questions here, which are huge issues at the moment. I encourage members to look at some of the reporting in the Nine newspapers last week, which really demonstrated the extent of geographic inequality in Australia. There is also no mention of the skills and workforce challenges posed by these questions, or of the health and wellbeing challenges, or of the environment and climate change challenges, and no mention of the failures to adequately invest in infrastructure—created by the government's ineptitude. The reality is, despite its rhetoric on population, the government's policy response has been found wanting time and time again.

Returning to an earlier point, the Morrison government claims it is cutting migration. The government clearly likes the political optics of this. It says it has cut permanent migration from 190,000 to 160,000 places. That much is true, but it doesn't reveal the full story. It doesn't show that the temporary migration program, which has been around the order of 700,000 for the last decade or so, is driven by the demand for international student places, the number of working-holiday visa holders and temporary skilled migrants, amongst others.

For its COAG processes the government hand-picked an expert, Peter McDonald from the University of Melbourne, who did not offer support for this approach. A study by his school, the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, said of the government's plan to introduce new visas to create incentives for new migrants to settle outside of the major capitals:

This is flawed logic … If labour demand remains very strong, at least in the large cities, firms unable to fill that demand from international migration will draw instead upon the rest of Australia …

This is a matter that government members should think seriously about. It doesn't go to the worthy aspiration that underpins the measures referred to in this bill but to some of the underlying facts, which have not been addressed.

Like most things with this government, the rhetoric simply doesn't meet the reality. The Morrison government has talked a big game when it comes to development in our regions. When an election campaign is on, with media releases to drop and votes to win, we hear about big plans and grand ambition. But when the hard reality of governing comes along, what do we get? Not very much. Proposals to relocate government departments to regional towns don't cut it.

Labor understands that both improving regional services and investing in community infrastructure will enable regional cities and towns to grow, and attract and retain the workers needed to power regional economic development that is sustainable. An effective decentralisation strategy requires investment in communities and their infrastructure, including settlement services. While regional cities are developing rapidly as economic and service hubs, like major capitals, they are facing the need for supporting investment in enabling infrastructure. Labor has been a great proponent of creating an office for regional development to provide high-level advice and assessment of regional plans. That's why, at the last election, we committed to a comprehensive $795 million plan for regional development, to ensure the strength of our regions over time. This government has failed on regional development, and that goes to the heart of meeting the aspirations that are the subject of this bill.

Labor will be supporting this bill. We support it because of its aims, not because of the great change, we believe, it will of itself effect in terms of regional settlement. But something is better than nothing. We do think that this bill could be greatly improved if it were connected to a plan to invest in settlement services for our regional areas. We think, in combination with the measures referred to in this bill, that that could better attract and retain migrants in our regional areas, to enable them to build great lives in those communities and to make a great contribution to the future of those regional communities.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Butler: 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 Scullin 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 STEVENS (Sturt) (12:34): It's my pleasure to address the House on the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, which is fundamental to the government's population policy agenda that we announced back in March, before the election. We are, of course, honouring the commitments from that campaign. This is part of implementing what is a fundamental principle of our approach to population policy in this country, which, first and foremost, is that we simply cannot continue to have a one-size-fits-all approach to population growth and immigration in Australia. We are a big country, an entire continent, and it is not the reality that we have a consistent population growth occurring across the major cities and through to the small towns of this country—far from it. As a South Australian, which I'll touch on a little later in my remarks, I think there's a very stark difference between the challenges of population growth in somewhere like South Australia versus other parts of the country. Clearly, in our major cities, particularly Melbourne but also Sydney and the south-east corner of Queensland, population growth has been very, very strong over recent years and for quite some time. A lot of pressure has been created around that, frankly, because the sorts of investments that needed to occur around infrastructure in particular, simply weren't keeping up with the growth rate.

In a state such as Victoria, I reflect on the fact that, unfortunately, for most of the last 20 years there's been a Labor government. They've had this high rate of population growth, and an enormous pressure created around that, because they haven't been investing in the kind of infrastructure that's needed to support and sustain that growth rate. Thankfully, in New South Wales the Liberal Party were elected in 2011 and then in 2015 took a very aggressive infrastructure investment package to subsequent elections. But they are playing catch-up, frankly, and it is very difficult when it comes to population pressures and the infrastructure required when you're not planning ahead—not around electoral cycles, not around pet projects in key seats—but actually around the kind of fundamental infrastructure we need to be planning ahead for many, many, many decades into the future.

That's why, of course, we've got the congestion-busting agenda that we took to the election. This involves investing in some of the major choke points across the country. In my own seat of Sturt, we are lucky to have three very significant projects that are going towards busting congestion and helping relieve the kinds of pressures that we could see coming from increased migration into Adelaide, were it not for us planning ahead and identifying the kinds of choke points that need to be invested in. I've got the Magill and Portrush roads intersection, the Glen Osmond and Fullarton roads intersection and the Fullarton Road and Cross Road intersection. Those are all being funded by the Morrison and Marshall governments working together to make sure that, as we grow the population in South Australia—which we absolutely support and intend to do—we're not being left with infrastructure bottlenecks of the kind that would have occurred if we weren't making these decisions with foresight. Through an independent process, we're identifying the kinds of choke points in our cities and towns and across our state that we need to be investing in.

South Australia has very poor population growth and has had for a very long time, and there is a great amount of risk if we don't seriously address this—not just in South Australia but across a whole range of communities across our country that are seeing low rates of growth. The purpose of this new approach to increasing regional migration is to address the fact that there are parts of the country that have very low population growth rates. The impact of that is going to become very significant in the years and decades to come if we don't do all we can to address that. As a government, that's exactly why we're undertaking policy prescriptions like this: to put an emphasis on growing the population in the parts of the country that need it, whilst undertaking an overall reduction to reduce the pressure in other parts of the country, particularly the major cities, that have not been able to match the high levels of population growth with the kinds of investment in social infrastructure, in particular, that's been required.

There are two new visas being created. This legislation consequentially addresses both of these visas, which give people a pathway to permanent residency in this country via living in a regional area for a minimum of three years and satisfying some other requirements.

We hope, of course, that by undertaking a policy like this and creating these two new categories we'll see people taking up the opportunity to live in regional parts of Australia, including Adelaide, which is absolutely considered, within the government policy framework, part of this regional classification because it's one of the parts of the country that desperately need population growth. These two visa categories, we hope, will see large numbers of people—up to 23,000 people a year—being accepted into this program and living in those areas for three years, and then, through their pathway to permanent residency, we hope, of course, that they will have developed deep ties to the community and stable employment outcomes and they'll continue to live in regional areas well beyond that period of time.

South Australia, like many other areas that are classified as regional, has had a very poor population performance for a long, long time. We're growing, on recent figures, at about 0.9 per cent now. It's been 0.8 per cent for a very long period of time, compared to the national average over the last 10 years, which has been 1.6 per cent. So we've been growing at half the national population growth average for an extended period of time. We've tended to be about seventh out of the eight jurisdictions—the six states and the two territories—for more than 10 years now. Interestingly, whilst other jurisdictions have at times moved quite significantly from different categories within that league table, we've sat consistently at No. 7 for the whole period of time. The Northern Territory at the moment is eighth, but a few years ago it was first. So we have had a very long period of low population growth.

The risk to our economy in South Australia if we don't address this is that we're going to have an ever-diminishing percentage of our population that's in the workforce and therefore paying taxes, not just nationally but at state level and other taxes, to support—quite rightly, as we should be doing—people, particularly in their retirement, who need government services and need the ratios to be strong so that we can provide the highest standard of living in the world to our citizens. If we don't make sure that we've got a strong percentage of our population in the workforce earning an income and paying the taxes that support those services, we're going to be in a lot of trouble in South Australia.

Having said that, I note that there is some scope for hope that things are changing in South Australia, and there have been some recent developments that are quite exciting when it comes to being positive about South Australia's future not only from a population growth point of view but generally. If we're going to grow our population and increase the migrant intake to South Australia, we've got to make sure that we're growing the economy and creating jobs for not only migrants coming to South Australia but also our young people who are going through school and other qualifications now and who also need a bright future in South Australia.

Before I get to that, I think it's also very important to understand that South Australia finally has a proper, robust policy and structure for planning infrastructure investments in our state. This had not been the case for an extended period of time, until the election of a Liberal government last year with a key policy objective to establish Infrastructure South Australia, much modelled on Infrastructure Australia, which we've got at the Commonwealth level. That puts us in a position to do the kind of long-range planning for productive infrastructure for economic growth but also for population growth. If we're going to be undertaking initiatives like this legislation that will hopefully see an increase in migration into the state of South Australia, we've got to be planning effectively for that.

So Infrastructure South Australia has been formed. It has a very impressive board. It is independent, and it's undertaking a long-range 20-year infrastructure plan for the state of South Australia that will ensure that we're planning for the kind of infrastructure that we need as we hopefully are growing and increasing our population while also growing our economy. This 20-year forward infrastructure plan, which will be announced early next year, will have five-year increments, again overseen by Infrastructure SA, so that we are always in a position to invest in the kind of infrastructure that South Australia needs to support an increase in our population and growth in our economy.

The federal government have made some very important decisions in recent times that are going to see a significant increase, we hope, in demand for people to move to South Australia because the economy is growing and we are creating jobs. The obvious one, of course, is the defence decision around the capital procurement of surface and subsurface vessels. The $90 billion naval shipbuilding program, based at the Osborne Shipyards in South Australia, is for 12 Attack class submarines to replace the Collins class submarines, going from six to 12; and nine future frigates built by British Aerospace, based on the type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates, to slowly but surely replace the Anzac class. The scale of this means thousands upon thousands of jobs—thousands of direct jobs and even thousands more indirect jobs around supply chain, and then, of course, all the other multiplier effects of that kind of expenditure in the South Australian economy. It is really, really exciting. We need to make sure that we are planning for the growth and maximising the growth from those opportunities, particularly through the supply chain, and part of that is going to be the workforce—making sure that where we have skills gaps, one of the options for us is to bring people into our economy who have got the ability to contribute to that program and make sure it's a success.

The Australian Space Agency is another example of something that is going to see jobs growth in our state and why having the ability to increase skilled migration into South Australia is going to be so important—because the Morrison government has made the decision to base the space agency in Adelaide, in the state of South Australia. This gives us an opportunity to have an ecosystem around that space agency from an industry point of view so that the space sector that will definitely grow across the planet, in all countries around the world, is equally going to grow in Australia. We've made the decision to base the space agency in Adelaide, and, as firms in the space sector, in the space industries—lots of which, I might add, come from the defence sector, which goes to show the sort of synergy around that decision—there is going to be enormous opportunity to grow a workforce around space and space related industries. So we need to make sure that we are fostering that. We've made a decision that gives an enormous opportunity to the state of South Australia, but again we've got to make sure we're addressing the workforce requirements that that announcement brings.

There are other things that we're doing that are going to grow jobs and potentially require skilled migration into the state. In horticulture, the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme is an opportunity to massively grow an industry that already exists, as we increase the amount of water we can take out of the Bolivar treatment plant and open up opportunities for further investment in horticulture. There are an enormous number of jobs in horticulture, and the simple reality is that, at times, a lot of those require support through a migration program that brings workers with particular skills, or to address skill gaps, into the South Australian economy. The Adelaide Casino expansion is going to require, by its very nature, skilled migration into the state of South Australia. Whilst that's exciting and whilst there are many new jobs coming from that investment, equally, we need to ensure that we've got a migration policy in place that can provide the skill requirements—in particular, where there are skill gaps—so that the state of South Australia and my home city of Adelaide are not missing out on any opportunity that is coming our way in the near future to grow our economy.

This scheme can increase our population growth rate, and I'm confident it will. As I've said, that rate being traditionally at 0.8 per cent—0.9 per cent now—and seventh in the nation has just not been acceptable. This government wants to grow the population in areas like South Australia, to balance out the opportunity for economic growth, where for too long we've had low population growth and the poor economic outcome associated with that.

Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:49): Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, it's nice to see you again. I hope you've been well. I thank the members for Scullin and Sturt for their contributions to this debate on the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. The member for Nicholls has not spoken yet. We always look forward to his contribution to any debate. Member for Makin, I see that I've jumped the gun. It is unfortunate, but, if you don't mind, I'll keep going.

A diverse and vibrant Australia is a great Australia. A great Australia is one that promises prosperity, economic growth and opportunity. That's why I'm speaking in favour of this bill today. Australia is a land of opportunity. This place we call home is a land of wealth and prosperity. It is truly a great place. It is this parliament's responsibility to create opportunities, not to enforce them, so that those who show a genuine want to take advantage of the Australian way of life get a go. This bill promises prosperity, and it is for this reason that I'm happy to speak in favour of it.

I think of my own family and how we came to be Australians. My father was the son of a Polish migrant, who initially fled Nazi invasion and then fled communist oppression in 1957. When my father arrived in this country he was a young man and learnt English by selling encyclopedias door to door. I will not repeat some of the words he learnt while selling encyclopedias door to door. His mother, my grandmother, helped sustain her family by spending her nights screwing caps onto toothpaste tubes at the Colgate factory in Sydney. Many nights she came home with bleeding fingers.

These new visas being introduced today represent opportunity and potential. The new visas proposed by this bill today show our government's commitment to generating jobs and helping communities. These new visas being introduced today show that this government is serious about bringing economic growth and prosperity into the hearts of regional towns and smaller cities. Most importantly, these new visas being introduced into the House today give people a go.

This bill is a testament to the attractiveness of Australia on an international stage. We should be proud that there is such demand for a life in Australia. This bill shows how lucky we are to have a country where there is free speech, functioning democracy, and economic hope and opportunity for all. Australia has one of the greatest immigration systems in the world, and this bill only strengthens our rural communities. It is imperative that our primary industries be supported. Primary industries are one of the most important parts of the Australian economy, and this bill will only strengthen our rural workforce in keeping Australia's key industries vibrant and lively with strength in numbers. We need to help our primary industries and we need to support our regional towns with skilled workers.

These new visas promise greater prosperity and will rejuvenate the towns and cities that need assistance. The bill is part of the government's current population policy, which aims to reduce the migration cap by 15 per cent and provide incentives for migrants to settle in the regional hubs and small towns of Australia's vast working landscape. Along with strengthening regional jobs and workforces, the Australian government's population policy aims to ease the pressures on our larger cities, better match migration to regional needs and, most importantly, ensure that Australia remains an attractive destination for skilled and talented workers to live in and to enjoy. This approach will provide consistency across skilled visa programs. The regional migration programs will allow more regional businesses to access skills in short supply.

Australia prides itself on being free, fair and open-minded. This bill is centred on a new definition of 'regional Australia', which is simplified to be all of Australia except for the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Perth—areas that have suffered the strain of rapid population growth. The new definition will form single continuous borders, as defined by postcodes, around these metropolitan areas. The bill provides employers with access to a wider range of occupations as well as to priority processing. This approach will provide consistency across skilled visa programs and allow more regional businesses to access through regional migration programs the skills that are in short supply.

These new visas mean that if you have a go you get a go. The visas proposed by the House today highlight innovation, hard work and willingness to participate as the skills that Australia wants its citizens to have. The bill reinforces the idea that you should keep more of what you have earned. Economic freedom in Australia is something that this government is very proud of and it is also something that people around the world are desirous of. Australia is the most successful immigration nation in the world. It is our job, as leaders of this great nation, to ensure we appropriately plan for Australia's future generations.

The New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 provides this government with the opportunity to diversify our regional workforce and help brand Australia as the greatest country in the world to live. The key focus of this policy is to secure greater economic growth for small cities and regional towns and to better target the key public services they rely on. The key benefit of the bill is that it provides motivated individuals and families with a place to call home. Australia is a very friendly country. As a very attractive place to work and live, Australia must always act in a way that incentivises hard work and rewards the individual, which is exactly what this bill aims to do. These new visas being proposed today symbolise a ticket into Australia and represent an opportunity for those who are motivated enough and want to give it a go.

The real benefits of this bill are the numerous economic and cultural benefits for regional Australia. An important outcome of these new visas is that they will refresh the regional workforce. The bill allows regional employers, as well as state and territory governments, greater access to more occupations than the equivalent non-regional visas. The bill promises that the skilled employer-sponsored regional provisional visa will have access to over 450 more occupations than the closest non-regional equivalent visa, and the skilled work regional provisional visa will have over 70 more occupations than other visas. This means that we are diversifying our workforce and increasing the range of individuals that can be sponsored in our regional areas. This is not only a great thing for regional Australia; it is also a big step for Australia's workforce in its entirety. The abundant opportunities that present themselves in these towns and cities promise long-term work and hence a potential long-term solution to the need to strengthen rural towns and cities.

In addition, the bill also promises that priority process arrangements will be expanded to include all visa applicants sponsored by regional employers as well as other visa applicants who will live and work in regional Australia. This streamlined visa process makes the two new visas more attractive to those seeking work in Australia and hence incentivises applying for the new visas over equivalent non-regional visas.

The new skilled regional visas bill not only helps our smaller and more isolated communities; it also aims to ease pressure off the big cities in terms of population growth. This bill even provides extra incentives to potential migrants considering moving to regional Australia. For example, the bill offers five additional points for regional nomination or sponsorship. And for those who think that there is no potential in rural towns—in late 2018 Jack Archer, the former CEO of the Regional Australia Institute, even stated, 'The notion that there are limited available jobs in rural Australia is a fallacy,' alluding to the fact that, at the time, there were over 47,000 job vacancies in rural Australia. Our regional towns and suburbs will benefit exponentially from these new visas, and it is our obligation to strengthen the rural workforce in a way that helps all Australians and Australian businesses.

This bill ultimately means that skilled migrants will stay in the regional centres of Australia for longer, and in this long-term arrangement they will develop and create ties and bonds to their respective communities. Such ties to local communities are made through participation and community involvement. Community involvement is what Australian suburbs are all about. The Australian difference is that feeling of belonging and that sense of identity. Tight-knit communities and strong social capital are what make Australia feel like home to so many of us. Whether it be the local footy team, the Lions club or even your local RSL on a Friday night, this country has something for everyone. By strengthening our regional workforces, this bill will ease the pressure off our congested major cities over time. We have been forced to play catch-up when it comes to introducing skilled migrant visas, due to the failure of other governments in planning for the impact of record migration into Australia.

Separate from these outlined benefits, these new visas also provide extra options for international graduates from regional institutions. The bill states that, for any international student who graduates from a regional campus of a registered university or institution with a higher education or postgraduate qualification and maintains ongoing residence in a regional area while holding their first temporary graduate visa, an additional temporary graduate visa, with an extra year of post-study work rights for international students, will be available. By allowing international students to gain a temporary visa, whilst then working for a minimum of two years in regional Australia, we are expanding regional tertiary education and leveraging the populations of Australia's towns and cities. This policy will create an influx in population and, therefore, will also provide jobs to those Australians who wish to educate incoming students. From here, other services and sectors will grow as population demands will increase all around the country, not just in cities.

Therefore, I strongly support this bill whilst also supporting the Morrison government's policy on population distribution and immigration. Our great nation deserves to be shared with motivated individuals who wish to contribute to local communities and live productive lives. It is only right that we provide opportunities to those who wish to take them.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:02): I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Scullin to this legislation, the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. The purpose of this bill is to establish two new provisional skilled regional visa classes which, after three years of living and working in a regional area, will allow these provisional visa holders to apply for permanent residency. That in itself is quite an attractive incentive to someone who wants to migrate to Australia from overseas. Additionally, the new provisional skilled regional visa holders will have access to government services, such as social security payments, similar to permanent residents. That was previously not the case, and so this is also a new additional incentive for people wanting to come and work within Australia in a regional area.

The policy intent of this bill is twofold: firstly, to overcome a skills shortage in regional Australia and, secondly, to ease the growth pressure on big cities by providing incentives for new migrants to settle in regional Australia. The government proposes to reduce Australia's annual migration intake from 190,000 to 160,000. Of those 160,000 places, 23,000 places will be allocated to the two new skilled regional visa subclasses—491 and 494.

This legislation was referred to the Senate Standing Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and their report was handed to parliament only a couple of days ago. In their minority report, Labor senators—whilst supporting the aim of the new skilled regional visas—noted that the new visas had not been fully thought through, that details were unclear and that there could be serious unintended consequences. In particular, the higher education community raised issues with what they see as inconsistencies in the definitions of 'regional Australia', which seem to have been made in an arbitrary way. For example, it has been pointed out that Perth, one of the most isolated cities in Australia, is excluded from the definition of a regional location, despite it being at a disadvantage in attracting international students. Previously, this government has directed additional funding to university campuses in suburban areas, under programs intended to support more students at regionally focused universities. Definitions are important and they should not be used as a cover to pork-barrel money into marginal seats.

The need for this legislation highlights two serious failings of government. Firstly, there is the failure of the government to support Australian vocational education. We know that today there are about 150,000 fewer apprenticeships than there were when this government came to office. We also know that about $3 billion has been cut from TAFE funding over the past six years by this government. We know that billions of dollars were wasted on shonky VET providers under the watch of the government. And we know this government continues to pursue a privatisation ideology of selling off state or federal government utilities and assets that, in the past, would provide tens of thousands of apprenticeship opportunities. All of those opportunities are also being lost. It is short-term, foolish policy, because the apprenticeships that those government entities were providing in the past are not being provided by the operators of those very services that have been privatised. Secondly, as the member for Scullin quite rightly pointed out in his comments, there is the failure of this government to support regions with government services, while infrastructure funding fails to keep pace with growth in big cities. On both of these matters, the government has failed.

Poor planning by all governments in our cities has resulted in cities outgrowing the pace of infrastructure investment that is being provided. That is partly a responsibility of this government—contrary to what other members have said, that it is simply a responsibility of the states. If better infrastructure had been provided, those big cities would not be bursting at the seams in the way that they are. Simultaneously, if regional Australia had better services, more people would very likely be living there today. As the member for Scullin also quite rightly pointed out, it is those services that are particularly important for new migrants as they transition to Australian life. Yet this legislation says and does nothing about additional resettlement services for the very people that it says will be located in regional Australia. The government makes no commitment about that whatsoever.

With respect to one particular profession, the medical profession, we know that many of the health services provided in regional Australia are provided by overseas trained doctors. One of the biggest shortfalls or one of the biggest areas of concern was that, for many of those doctors who relocate to regional Australia, there were no support settlement services once they went out there, and that was becoming one of the serious barriers that they faced.

It would be my expectation that skilled people in a developing country would jump at the opportunity to come to Australia with a pathway to permanent residency. The three years of working in a regional location, in my view, would not be a barrier whatsoever. Indeed, it is not much of an impost when you consider there are people trying to get to this country, asylum seekers, who have now spent years in detention centres. But more importantly, it is not much of an impost when it is something that many other professionals already do in this country. There are a number of vocations where people, once they graduate, are expected to work in a regional area for one, two or three years. It's not uncommon in several professions. It is also a pathway, within those professions, to advancing a career. So working in a country or regional part of Australia is not unusual, nor is it a great impost.

But the reality is that even graduates from within our own country who have done that don't often return to the regional location where they perhaps did part of their work once they graduated. So I have serious doubts that this program will be effective. After the new migrants have spent three years in the regional areas, I doubt very much whether all of them will remain in those locations. I suspect that, like all other Australians, they will seek work where they get the most benefit—and, indeed, not only work where they get the most benefit but work which offers the most benefits to their family members as well. So, whilst this might be legislation that initially provides some benefit to the regional areas, I'm not convinced that, in the long term, it is going to overcome the skills shortages that we see in those areas.

There are other concerns with respect to this legislation that I want to talk about, and these are concerns that were also raised in the Senate committee's report. One of my serious concerns with this scheme is the likelihood of widespread exploitation of migrant workers. Only on Saturday, in the South Australian Advertiser, there was a story written by Tory Shepherd on this very matter. I want to quote the first three paragraphs of that story:

DOZENS of Adelaide businesses have been busted exploiting workers or cheating the visa system since a public register began in 2015.

Australian Border Force figures show 82 firms have been sanctioned for breaching their obligations as visa sponsors.

And immigration agent Mark Glazbrook … said those who were caught were just the tip of the iceberg.

Those comments are consistent with my own observations and stories that have been brought to me during my time in this place—stories of sponsors exploiting workers and of workers who have little understanding of their rights, who do not know who to turn to if they are being exploited, who often come from countries where labour abuse is common and who don't want to jeopardise their opportunity of permanent residency within Australia. These are vulnerable people.

Both of the two new visa subclasses proposed by this legislation will require a sponsor, which could be a family member or an Australian business. I hope that this legislation is not used as another form of access to cheap labour by employers who would do that ahead of doing the right thing by the employees they will ultimately employ. But it's a real concern that I have, and again I wonder: what is the government going to do to ensure that worker exploitation does not continue as a result of people going out to country areas, where, again, their access to support services is even less than for those who go to the cities?

In the couple of minutes I have left, I want to highlight a matter separate to all this. We have unemployment in Australia at 5.3 per cent—roughly 716,000 Australians unemployed. We have 8.5 per cent of people underemployed, which is perhaps another million people or so who are underemployed. Simultaneously, we are told that we have a shortage of skills in this country. We also know that some of the highest unemployment occurs in regional Australia, the very parts of Australia that this bill seeks to address. Indeed, we know that, under this legislation, South Australia—and, in fact, the Northern Territory and Tasmania—will be designated regional Australia for the purpose of this legislation.

In South Australia we now have the highest unemployment rate in the country, at 7.3 per cent. We know that, if we were to train people who are unemployed or underemployed, we should be able to meet those skills shortages through our own people who are looking for more work. When I look at the 7.3 per cent unemployment rate we have in South Australia, I look at the skills shortages we have, and I look at the cuts to education and TAFE in particular. Not only has the federal government made cuts, but the Marshall Liberal government in South Australia has closed TAFEs at Tea Tree Gully, Port Adelaide and Parafield since coming to office just over a year ago. The Marshall government and the federal coalition government are not only not investing in training Australians who are looking for more work and who are in the very regions that this legislation seeks to address but also, at the same time, are simply saying, 'Let's bring those people in from overseas.'

The member for Mackellar talked about the 47,000 job vacancies that appear outside of capital cities. I'm not in a position to dispute that figure—and I am not prepared to dispute it, because it may well be correct—but why are we not training Australians who are looking for work, rather than bringing in people from overseas? Shouldn't that be our first priority? Indeed it should. But this government is not prepared to do that. It would rather simply say, 'Let's bring in skilled workers from overseas,' instead of investing in training our own people. We have seen cuts right across the board in education, but we have particularly seen them in vocational education and training. I suspect that we can train people here rather than bring people in. The other matter, of course, is the integrity of the whole system. As we have seen in the past time and time again, not only are people who are brought in being exploited; one has to question how legitimate their qualifications are.

The intent of this legislation is one that Labor supports. But there is no question that there are unintended consequences, and there are a lot of other things we could have done as a country to meet the skills shortages that this legislation seeks to overcome.

Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:17): When you listen to the Labor Party talk on labour and regional skilled visas, it is incredibly scary. There are a whole raft of underlying tones that are perpetrated in the speeches of the Labor Party where they refuse to acknowledge the fact that in regional Australia around five per cent equals full employment, when you see the range and the types of employment that are available and how hard our businesses, our Australian businesses, in regional Australia have to advertise for their workers and how hard it is to get workers into many of our areas of trade, agriculture and also hospitality. To see the Labor Party continually focus on the exploitation of workers as a reason why they want to semi-oppose this—they'll probably end up supporting the bill, but they'll raise a whole range of issues. If there are issues of worker exploitation, those labour firms need to have the book thrown at them. They have got unions out there keeping an eye on things. They have got the Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission. There are a whole raft of policemen out there who are prepared to act very quickly and diligently if there are areas of worker exploitation.

The fact is, these so-called cuts are to higher education and to the TAFE system—the TAFE system is run by the state government. If you want to start criticising the Daniel Andrews Labor government in Victoria, knock yourself out. But don't throw that criticism at the federal government. All we are trying to do here, with the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, is ensure that these Australian businesses bracing themselves for a very busy time ahead in the harvest season have an adequate workforce that will enable them to get the crops sorted and packed in the packing sheds and shipped off to market. Having the workers and the legal labour force to do that is the most crucial thing. The Victorian, New South Wales and South Australian governments have recently moved legislation to actually increase the penalties of labour hire firms that are not registered. This, in itself, is seen as a way of making it even harder for our farmers to be able to access the labour that they need.

The coalition is delivering on its commitment to support rural and regional Australia. In my electorate of Nicholls we regularly meet with farmers, food processors, manufacturers, health providers and small business owners—and all of them are struggling to find both skilled and unskilled workers. Only last week I met with Richard Buchner, Managing Director at MATelec Australia—a high-technology switchboard manufacturer based in Shepparton that employs around 50 people. It's a dynamic business looking to grow, but its biggest challenge is finding skilled workers. These shortages are holding back his business, and similar skills shortages are holding back other like businesses throughout the Goulburn Valley—holding back our whole economy.

These aren't fictional facts that we are bringing up; these are the facts that we see by going out on the street and meeting with our businesses and asking them, 'How are you going sourcing the skilled workers that you need?' I continually stand in this place and talk about the struggle with finding fitters and turners, mechanics, diesel mechanics, sheet metal workers, food processors and even food technicians, who need a university degree, and how it's very difficult for all the food manufacturers in the Goulburn Valley to be able to access the food technicians they need to run their businesses.

More than seven million people have migrated to Australia since the Second World War, and they have added incredibly to our nation. They have stimulated stronger growth and they have created more jobs for our economy. The immigration system has historically had a strong view on how many people should come to Australia in any given year, but we have never actually determined where they should go; we've always left it up to them. We know that Sydney and Melbourne experienced strong population growth, of 18 per cent and 25 per cent respectively, between 2006 and 2016. A disproportionate amount of migrants have tended to settle in two major cities, leading to congestion and pressures on infrastructure. Elsewhere in Australia, like in my electorate of Nicholls and also out to the west of Victoria and up to the north of Victoria, we are crying out for skilled migration. There are around 60,000 job opportunities in regional Australia where locals are not available or willing to fill the roles. Workforce attraction and retention are the key challenges for our regional employers. Of course, our first priority is always to try and fill these jobs with Australian workers. When that isn't possible, migrants present an opportunity that doesn't otherwise exist.

This bill will give effect to government policy whereby holders of the new provisional skilled regional visas, which come into effect on 16 November, will have access to government services consistent with skilled permanent visa holders. The new provisional skilled regional visas are the subclass 491 skilled work regional provisional visa, for skilled workers who are nominated by a state or territory government and sponsored by an eligible family member to live and work in regional Australia; and the subclass 494 skilled employer-sponsored regional provisional visa, which will enable an Australian business to sponsor skilled workers to work in their business in regional Australia. These new visas are part of the coalition's plan for Australia's future population to ease the pressure on the big capitals while supporting the growth in smaller regional cities.

The plan includes reducing the annual migration ceiling from 190,000 down to 160,000 and setting aside 23,000 places for these new regional visas. It's a new feature of visa requirements for regional migrants to live and work in regional areas for up to three years before being eligible for permanent residency. This will encourage visa holders to remain in regional Australia, which will in turn support the local communities and enhance the economies of regional parts of Australia. The amendments in the bill will ensure that holders of the new visas have access to government services in line with current arrangements for permanent visa holders.

Since the Howard era, our immigration has emphasised skilled migration. In the 1997-98 program year, skilled migration represented more than 50 per cent of the migration program for the first time in our history. This figure has now risen to 70 per cent under the coalition government. Our skilled migration, which has generally very high participation rates in the workforce, increases the number of people paying taxes. Migration offsets the impact of an ageing population and helps enable us to pay for the essential services that we all need.

There have also been some changes to the working holiday-maker program. This is an essential part of Australia's agriculture and tourism industries. It's a crucial part of our labour force in the Goulburn Valley, the GMID and certainly the entire electorate of Nicholls. The GMID, the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District, is arguably the most productive fruit-growing region in Australia, with apples, pears and stone fruits for domestic and export markets. Without the working holiday-maker program, it would be impossible to bring that harvest from the trees and into our economy each and every year. Working holiday-makers are critical to filling the short-term workforce shortage that we have in rural and regional Australia, and they also inject over $3 billion into our national economy.

A range of new working holiday-maker arrangements come into effect on 1 July this year. This will include an increase in the number of places available to Malaysian nationals but also to nationals of some other countries as well. We are also going to see an extension in the working holiday-maker program that will enable visas for those that work for the same employer to be extended up to 12 months. There will be an increase in the number of places available in the 462 program for travellers from Malaysia from 100 up to 1,100, for Argentina from 1,500 up to 2,450, for Singapore from 500 up to 2,500, and for Portugal from 200 up to 500. For Greece we have 500 places available for their young working holiday-makers, and for Ecuador there are 100. It was interesting that only last week I shared the opportunity to go to Greece with some of the members in the chamber. We talked to the Hellenic Parliament, and they were very excited about the fact that many of their young workers are going to be heading to Australia. Many of them are looking forward to working on orchards owned by Greek families that have been here for three generations. So it's great that we are able to be part of this incredible program, a program that's going to help not only young Greek working holiday-makers but also many of our families and our farmers.

I build on the work from the previous speakers who have spoken about the Regional Australia Institute, which has been a very strong promoter of smaller communities that have been able to get behind skilled migrants and even unskilled migrants with a view to housing them, putting services around them and giving them the employment they need in many of these places such as Nhill, Pyramid Hill and a whole range of other small communities that have worked very hard to make themselves attractive to workers from overseas countries who are looking for a better way of life. Rupanyup also comes to mind. There are lots of programs that are going to make their economies much, much stronger because of this bill. Those 23,000 places we have set aside for regional skilled migrants from 2019-20 are going to direct migrants who are going to help these communities that are crying out for more people.

In the short time I have available, I need to acknowledge the Shepparton City Council, the Campaspe shire and the Moira shire, who are combining together to work with the government and its departments to introduce a DAMA. We have DAMAs currently working across other parts of Australia, making it easier for these regions to bring in skilled migrants to assist with businesses that are very heavily in need of new migrants.

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

The SPEAKER (15:14): Pursuant to the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present annual reports for 2018-19 of the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.

Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (15:15): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 4 for 2019, relating to a referral made in September 2019.

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

Dr McVEIGH: by leave—The committee's report No. 4 considers one proposal re-referred to the committee in September 2019 that had lapsed in the 45th Parliament. The proposal is the fit-out of new leased Australian Federal Police premises at 140 Lonsdale Street in Melbourne, Victoria. The AFP sought approval from the committee to proceed with the project in order to fit out the relocated Melbourne state office without causing disruption to AFP operations. The estimated cost of this project is $98.43 million, excluding GST. The committee recommended the House find it expedient that the fit-out of the new leased AFP premises at 140 Lonsdale Street in Melbourne proceed. Report No. 4 reflects work largely completed by the committee in the 45th Parliament.

Accordingly, I thank the members of the Public Works Committee of the 45th Parliament for their expertise in conducting the inquiry as well as members of the Public Works Committee in the current parliament for concluding this process. I commend the report to the House.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (15:17): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Report 186: IA-CEPA and A-HKFTA.

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

Mr SHARMA: by leave—Report 186 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties covers the committee's review of two separate trade agreements: the comprehensive economic partnership agreement between the government of Australia and the government of Indonesia, also known as IA-CEPA, and the free trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong and the investment agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Hong Kong special administrative region.

At this time of growing global economic uncertainty and mounting trade tensions, countries like Australia need to stand up for the principle of free trade and shore up the foundations of the global trading system. Australia has been a huge beneficiary from the liberalisation of the global economy. The ability to trade freely around the world on the basis of transparent and predictable rules has delivered us improved living standards, better jobs, higher wages and greater choice. This is why it is important for Australia to stand up for the global trading system and play our part to maintain and improve its liberal and open character. It's especially important given that one in five Australian jobs is linked to trade.

The agreement with Indonesia has the potential to transform our economic relationship and lift it to a level that better reflects the strategic importance of our two countries to one another. Australian grain and citrus growers, cattle producers, mining equipment providers and vocational education suppliers all stand to benefit from the improved access to the Indonesian market which the agreement provides.

But beyond this, and as the name implies, the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement goes on to lay the foundations for a comprehensive economic partnership with our largest northern neighbour. It will support Indonesia's own economic growth by supporting Indonesian capacity in key areas and position Australia as a partner of choice. It will improve the business and investment environment. It will provide a vehicle to tackle emerging issues in trade such as non-tariff barriers, the digital economy, connectivity, competition policy and regulatory transparency. Indonesia is one of Australia's highest priority relationships, and this agreement will help grow our ties in a part of the relationship that has been historically underdone. This is why the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has recommended that we take action to implement the agreement as soon as possible.

Our economic and trading relationship with Hong Kong, one of Asia's largest and most open economies, is already well established. The Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement largely codifies existing trade and market access arrangements, providing certainty into the future. It also modernises the treatment regime for foreign investors, making investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms more transparent and more constrained and improving safeguards for governments wishing to adopt legitimate public policy measures in areas such as tobacco control.

It would not be realistic to consider the agreement in isolation from the political protests that have been underway in Hong Kong for several months. In considering this agreement, the committee heard from witnesses about the ongoing civil disturbances and political instability in Hong Kong. The committee supports a peaceful resolution of these issues within the 'one country, two systems' framework and Hong Kong's own institutions. We also recognise that the preservation of Hong Kong's unique status under the basic law, under which it enjoys a high measure of autonomy, is in Australia's national interests, and we view ratification of the agreement, negotiated as it was with Hong Kong's own government, as a means of supporting this unique status. Whilst the committee recommends that we take steps to implement the free trade agreement, the timing of the agreement's entry into force, once necessary legislative amendments and regulations are passed, will necessarily take into account the political situation in Hong Kong at that time, as it should.

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

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (15:22): by leave—I too rise to speak on the presentation of report 186 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I just want to comment on the two free trade agreements: the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement and the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. As deputy chair of JSCOT—a new role for me post the election—I want to sincerely thank the JSCOT secretariat staff for all their hard work and the support that they provided to us through this process. I also acknowledge and thank the JSCOT chair, the member for Wentworth, for his work in leading the committee through this process, as much as can be done in this place, with less partisanship and more coordination and partnership in working towards the national interest. I thank the chair, the member for Wentworth, for all his work in preparing this report. I also thank all of the members of the JSCOT for their efforts, but particularly the Labor members for their invaluable contributions to the report.

I think the chair, the member for Wentworth, has covered many of the issues that I would have covered. I think it would probably be useful to just reflect on some of the Labor principles on free and fair trade that are highlighted in this particular report. First and foremost, in the additional comments of the report, the Labor members sought to include commitments to labour market testing. In them, we noted that Australia has not made any commitments in relation to labour market testing around contract service supplies, as we had not yet entered into negotiations on an agreement.

For this reason, during this JSCOT review process, the Labor members of the committee argued that any future agreement that Australia may negotiate with Indonesia for the entry of temporary foreign workers as contractual service suppliers should (1) be negotiated as a treaty-level agreement so it would come back to JSCOT for further consideration and (2) include a commitment to labour market testing to preference Australian jobs and also skill tests to ensure that any temporary foreign workers meet the same standards as Australian workers. The Labor members of the committee believe that report 186 should have included this as a recommendation, with the language that I've described. Unfortunately, the whole of the committee did not come to agreement on that. To have that in there did not receive support, but it has been included in the additional notes.

I also highlight two critical recommendations that from our perspective were very important to be included in this report. Recommendation 4 was in respect of the Australian government pursuing the termination of the old agreement between the government of Australia and the Republic of Indonesia concerning the promotion and protection of investments, and terminating the survival clause of that older agreement—the BIT, the bilateral investment treaty. There is acknowledgement there that provisions in the new agreement, which we have just reported on, replace the outdated previous bilateral agreements between the two nations. This measure reduces Australia's potential exposure to claims under the superseded agreement. This is a very important development.

It should also be further noted that the achievement of a comprehensive agreement with one of our largest and closest neighbours, as the member for Wentworth has outlined, is of utmost importance at a time of global trade uncertainty. We all know that in a decade Indonesia will be the world's fourth-largest economy. It is a market of 260 million people literally on our northern doorstep, yet—and some people might be surprised by this—it currently accounts for only two per cent of our exports. That is a remarkable statistic. The Labor Party has always been a party of trade on fair terms. We're hopeful that this agreement will lead to greater exports and a closer trading relationship with our most important northern neighbour.

I also want to draw attention to recommendation 5. The committee recommended that the Australian government give due consideration to implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of proposed trade agreements is undertaken in the future by the Productivity Commission or an equivalent organisation and provided to the committee, alongside the national interest analysis, which is part of the normal process, to improve the assessment of agreements. It's very important that we have this independent economic analysis to ensure that trade deals work for all Australians.

I am pleased we were able to include in the body of the report some language around the importance of consultation mechanisms and, going into the future, how they can be improved so that our agreements are better, particularly looking at them from the perspective of being a more inclusive civil society with the union movement as well as the business community. That has been achieved with some of the language in the report.

In conclusion, I echo what the member for Wentworth raised in respect of the Hong Kong free trade agreement. There is a valid argument that the ratification of this agreement with Hong Kong does in and of itself focus attention on the unique status of Hong Kong and its one-country two-systems framework. The characteristics that make Hong Kong unique under this system are recognised in a sense by the very act of engaging with them and signing a separate agreement with the autonomous territory. It emphasises the fact that they have a separate system to an extent with the rule of law, freedom of expression and the limited democratic rights that are afforded to the citizens of Hong Kong under the basic law and that are held dear by the people of Hong Kong and those outside of Hong Kong. They are in line with many democratic values of many other countries, such as our own.

Given the ongoing political instability and civil disturbance in Hong Kong, any risk to those unique elements of the Hong Kong system is very concerning to us. As long as the signing and ratification of the agreement with Hong Kong strengthens those unique elements it is obviously worthwhile that we support this. I do note for the record that any diminution of those unique elements in the Hong Kong system would be very concerning and probably lead us to have another look or reconsider the time line for ratification. It is important that that is noted. I have in public and in the media spoken up for the right to peacefully protest in Hong Kong. If we as democratic leaders and members of parliament in a democracy don't actually support them and their right to peacefully protest, who will?

It's important that the report also contained some language with respect to the ongoing civil disturbances and political instability, and urged for a peaceful resolution of these issues and for the preservation of that unique status that is enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. I'm pleased to have worked with the chair to make sure that that kind of language was also included.

In conclusion, I wish to thank all of the groups, the associations, the organisations and the individuals that participated in the committee's inquiry by putting in written submissions, attending public hearings and answering our many, many questions. I thank them for all the hard work they put in and for their input. I also thank all the members of the committee. It is, as I mentioned, important that trade agreement processes should be more open and consultative, and we hope that will continue into the future. JSCOT is one of the few avenues for ordinary people—individuals, as well as other stakeholders—to provide input and feedback, so their input into the JSCOT report is of critical importance. I want to give my personal thanks to all of the different civil society groups, the union movement, business groups, researchers, academics and individual citizens who took the time and made the effort to speak to the committee during this process.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (15:31): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): 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 SHARMA (Wentworth) (15:31): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (15:32): I rise to speak on the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. This bill, I fear, is more of a plan to get a headline than a plan to get migrants into the regional areas of Australia. Of course all of us would support the idea of getting migrants into regional Australia, and of course the government claims that the aim of this legislation is to, together with the new visas that have been created, change the geographic make-up of visa holders by increasing the number of people settling outside major cities in 'regional Australia'. But, like so much else that this government does, we have here yet another marketing strategy rather than an actual strategy that might be directed at achieving a worthy aim.

Labor supports the broad intent of this bill, and the members of the Labor Party who have spoken previously on the bill have, I hope, made that clear. And, as with previous Labor speakers, I join in expressing some very serious concerns that this legislation and the two new visas that the legislation supports have not been properly thought through; are not supported by additional resources; are not supported by any program; and are not supported by additional services, particularly settlement services, that might be thought to be necessary if new skilled visa holders are to be settled in regional Australia. None of that has been explained by the government, and nor has the government put forward any evidence to suggest that this new arrangement that it has with the two new skilled regional visas is, in fact, going to achieve the aim that the government has said that it will.

I want to first comment on a curious aspect of this legislation. The two new visas that the government has announced are the subclass 491 visa, the skilled work regional provisional visa for skilled people who are nominated by a state or territory government or sponsored by an eligible family member to live and work in regional Australia; and the subclass 494 visa, the skilled employer-sponsored regional provisional visa, enabling an Australian business to sponsor skilled workers to work in their business in regional Australia. It's said by the government that these two visas are going to account for some 23,000 places out of the 160,000 permanent places that are to be available each year according to the government's current target. But the curious aspect of this bill is that the bill itself does not create these two new visas, nor does the bill do anything to specify what 'regional Australia' is for the purposes of these two visas.

Instead, this bill makes consequential amendments to a whole range of other legislation that is administered by the Department of Social Services, the Department of Education and the Attorney-General's Department. Specifically, the bill amends these acts: the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, the Disability Services Act 1986, the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 and the Social Security Act 1991. That's a curious position for what is said to be a very important new measure that the government is bringing forward.

What has in fact occurred here is that the government has put all the operative parts of this new measure in delegated legislation, which is a favoured device of this government. Rather than bringing before this House substantive matters as part of legislation, we get an overreliance on delegated authority. Something that should very much have been the subject of the primary legislation so that it could have been properly examined and properly debated here has been left to delegated legislation. The establishment of the visas themselves and the locations to which they'll apply are not part of this proposed legislation that's before the House today. Instead, they are subject to ongoing change by the minister, through regulation. It's not a particularly desirable legislative practice. It's something that the government has done a great deal in its more than six years in office. It's something that the government should reconsider.

To return to the substance of the scheme that this bill goes part-way towards implementing, the first proposition I wish to advance is that, despite multiple speakers and the minister having suggested that somehow this is going to form part of the government's 'congestion-busting program', at most it would amount to a drop in the bucket. Let's put this in a bit of context. Over the last 30 years, the population of Australia has increased by around 50 per cent. Over the next 30 years, the population of Australia is projected to increase by another 50 per cent. You've only got to look at the city that I come from to see the huge rise in population from around just over three million in 1989 to around five million today. That's more than 50 per cent growth in that 30-year period, and that's consistent with the projections for growth in Australia. Most of the growth will be in our larger cities. It reflects economic growth and economic opportunity. Of course, it poses a huge challenge to policymakers. It's one that Labor has been grappling with, it's one that Labor grappled with in government and it's one that all Australian governments will need to grapple with: that huge increase in Australia's population and particularly the huge increases that we are seeing in our big cities.

What we know is that road congestion is getting worse. We know that commuters in Sydney are experiencing a huge average journey of 71 minutes to and from work, Melburnians are experiencing an average journey of 65 minutes to and from work, and very many of our fellow Australians are experiencing much worse congestion and much longer journeys to work. Our road congestion costs are predicted to more than double by 2031. And what do we have by way of response from this government? We have them suggesting that the creation of two new subclasses of visa, which are going to commence in November this year, is somehow a congestion-busting measure. It is laughable! It is laughable as soon as one hears it stated.

What we actually know is that the Reserve Bank governor has called for infrastructure investment to be brought forward. He's made that call seven times since the election alone. He is making that call, of course, to try to ensure that our sluggish economy is kick-started but he is also making that call because he understands the economic imperative of doing something about the absence of public transport and roads in our big cities. That's what infrastructure spending needs to be directed to. What we know is that this same Morrison government that's putting forward a boast about the way in which these visa classes are to be something that's going to bust congestion has failed to spend a cent from its Urban Congestion Fund in the whole of 2018-19, even though $40 million was forecast to be spent in the budget that was handed down by this government in April of this year. All we are getting from the Morrison government is a feeble call for the states to do more—not actual infrastructure spending from the government, but a feeble call. It was most recently made by the Treasurer, who asked the states to identify some projects on infrastructure that they might perhaps start to do something about. What we've got is a government that's trying to use its pretend population policy and these new visa classes to cover up its utter failure to invest in infrastructure.

There is so much more that could be said, not about the actual proposition of this bill—which is a proposition that says it's a good idea if we can get migrants to go to regional Australia—but about the complete absence of policy, the complete absence of programs and the complete absence of any attention paid to services that would in any way be thought necessary to support migrants who might end up in regional areas.

Mr Giles: It's extraordinary!

Mr DREYFUS: As the member for Scullin reminds me, it is extraordinary, particularly given that we had a report commissioned by the government last year—done by Peter Shergold, a very eminent former senior Australian public servant—into integration, employment and settlement outcomes for refugees and humanitarian entrants. It is suggested in this report—which the government has not released—that, in line with the very many submissions that were made to Professor Shergold, the government needs to do a great deal more in relation to settlement services. That's got obvious relevance to whether or not skilled migrants are going to end up in the regions. It's got obvious relevance as well to where refugees and humanitarian entrants are going to go in Australia.

We have had a decline in settlement services spending under the six years of this government. We have no attention being paid to and certainly no publication of the findings of the Shergold review, nor any response to the findings of the Shergold review. That is emblematic of the failure of this government to bring in policy designed not for getting a headline but to actually support the outcome that is claimed. The outcome that's desired here is getting migrants into regional Australia. What we want to see is attention paid by the government to what support services there are going to be if there are to be migrants in regional Australia. That will include whether or not there are going to be the kinds of settlement services that the recent but as yet unreleased Shergold report deals with.

There is another whole area of interaction with another area of policy that this government has completely failed to explain. It is something that has been drawn to the government's attention repeatedly—that is, how these two new visa classes are going to interact with the very large industry that Australia has in international education. It is quite apparent that the government has completely failed to understand the complexity of the issues that have to be considered when making even minor changes to visas that affect Australia's very important export earner—the international education system. These interactions are very complex. There can't be a quick fix. But we would suggest that the reputation of Australia's international education services, and the high standards that Australia provides in international education, are much too important to rush into, as the government appears to be doing here, without analysing what the full effects are going to be.

One small matter—or perhaps not a small matter; it is potentially a large matter, depending on how it's administered in the future—is the definition of what is a designated regional area. The government has made regulations that define being in regional Australia as 'not residing in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane or the Gold Coast or Perth'. Griffith University, in a submission to the Senate committee that looked at this bill, made this point. They said that:

… three State Capital Cities, Adelaide, Darwin and Hobart as well as the national capital, Canberra, are considered regional for the purposes of Skilled Regional Visas that include International Students. It is particularly difficult to comprehend why Adelaide, with a population of 1,315,346, more than twice that of the Gold Coast's 663,321 according to 2018 data, is considered Regional over the Gold Coast.

The Australian Technology Network of Universities also raised concerns with the minister's definition. The ATN submission says it notes that:

… the regional/rural classification creates some inequalities in relation to Perth being excluded from the definition, while areas such as Canberra, Adelaide and Wollongong would be included. Perth is considered one of the most isolated cities in Australia and as a consequence has been at a considerable disadvantage in relation to attracting international students to the state. A reconsideration of this classification would assist in addressing this matter.

The ad hoc and arbitrary manner in which the minister has drafted this definition, which he has not attempted to support, is of concern. It is certainly something that needs to be looked at, and there are real concerns, particularly as have already been expressed by Queensland members of parliament, about the way in which this has been approached.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Fowler.

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (15:47): In March this year, the Morrison government announced a reduction in the permanent visa migration ceiling from 190,000 to 160,000. Part of that announcement was the introduction of two new skilled visa classes for skilled regional visas. Labor supports the objectives of the new skilled regional visas. That certainly is a change to the geographic distribution of visa holders by increasing the number who reside outside the major cities. Significantly, it's not as if the bill is going to define regional Australia for the purposes of these two new visa classes. The minister, through regulation, will define living in regional Australia as not residing in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or the Gold Coast. So it takes a pretty broad brush to regional Australia.

Whilst I say that Labor is supportive of the objectives of the bill, I would particularly like to address, as I go on, the amendments moved by the member for Scullin. But, before that, I'll say that the bill introduces two new classes of visas. The first is subclass 491, which is the skilled work regional provisional visa, for skilled people who are nominated by the state or territory government, or sponsored by an eligible family member, to live and work in a regional area. The second one is subclass 494, the skilled employer-sponsored regional provisional visa, enabling an Australian business to sponsor skilled workers to work in their business in regional Australia. Clearly, either of those classes of people will be required, if the bill is passed, to live for at least three years in a regional area before they'll become eligible for a permanent visa. It is predicated on moving people—certainly with these visa classes—out of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The purpose of that, according to the government, is to decrease the level of congestion which occurs in those main cities. But what the government has failed to outline, quite frankly, is how they intend to provide support for the almost 23,000 visa holders living in regional Australia.

I don't represent an electorate in regional Australia. However, I do represent an electorate in outer metropolitan Sydney. I do represent an electorate that does receive the vast majority of refugees and many new immigrants to this country. One of the things I have complained often about—not only in this place but to the minister directly—is the fact that, while my electorate receives the vast majority of refugees and new arrivals in this country, it certainly doesn't get the majority of finance going to settlement services to help people properly settle into this country and to help them make a valued contribution to the nation. This is what the member for Scullin's amendment goes to: he notes the government's failure, firstly, to adequately fund settlement services and, secondly, to explain the extra services that will be made available to support regional communities and the settlement of migrants under this scheme.

I can tell you that electorates like mine did have many issues associated with improper settlement in the past. The centre of my electorate is a place called Cabramatta. Those people who have been around long enough will recall that it was only about 10 to 15 years ago that Cabramatta was the centre of the heroin trade for the country. As a matter of fact, it was also the firearms exchange centre for the nation. Much of that came about because authorities at that stage did not effectively understand the value of settlement services. It is one thing to accept immigrants into this country and to work through various agencies, such as St Vincent de Paul and Mission Australia, to ensure people have clothes on their back and somewhere to live, but the idea of being able to properly settle people in this country would have had a significant impact on not developing various crime patterns which emerged as a consequence of that.

I think we have learnt a lot about settlement over the years, particularly from the time of the fall of Saigon, when the Vietnamese came to this country and then the issues that occurred in the Balkans, where we played a significant role helping people settle, to what we see now in the Middle East. You will recall that former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, to his credit, decided to accept 12,000 people out of the Middle East—Syrian refugees. We supported that. We think he did a decent and compassionate thing for people in need.

By the way, my community received 7,000 of those 12,000 people that came to this country. I would not have minded and I wouldn't have complained so much if we had got seven-12ths of the money that was allocated for the settlement of those people. But that was not the case. The shortfall in those areas had to be made up by the various charitable agencies out there—once again, St Vincent de Paul and other agencies—who tried to ensure that people were properly settled. They are not getting paid for it. By the way, I give credit to the various churches that operate in that space and try to help people settle.

With these regional settlement visas, again, there is a void. Nothing in this bill says how resources are going to be allocated to help people settle as a consequence of that. I note that there's been concern expressed by the chief executive of the Australian Local Government Association, Adrian Beresford-Wylie. He says the bill must ensure adequate support for visa holders and 'thus take some of the potential pressure off councils, which often have to fill service gaps when these services are not otherwise available to members of the community'.

He's quite correct in that. I know that for a fact, because the mayor of the City of Fairfield in my electorate, Mr Frank Carbone, has often made the very same point to the minister and to this government. When my area receives, and continues to receive, many of the refugees coming to this country, the resources are not adequate to ensure their proper settlement. In saying that I am trying to make a constructive criticism for the government. We're not opposing the object of this bill: the object of getting more people who come on temporary employment visas into regional areas. But what I am clearly saying to the government is that, when you do that, you can't take your eye off the fact that you need to provide the services to assist that settlement there. It is absolutely critical to do that. Otherwise the consequences can be diabolical.

So we're not opposed to the intention of the bill: to ensure that people coming on these employment related visas can live outside Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and the Gold Coast and will be there for a period of three years. But make the financial investment. Make sure that the community is protected. It is one thing to simply say that we need to have a settlement service to help people so they and their families integrate within the mainstream community. But, where that falls down or where it doesn't occur, there are consequences that flow to the community itself. I think we've been around long enough to make sure we get this right. I think by and large Australia is very much an immigrant based country. People come to this country from all quarters of the globe and, in the main, they come for two reasons: a better life for themselves and a better life for their families. Clearly, people can bring their skills and talents to bear to help progress further in this nation. What I'm saying is that we should never take for granted that, coming to a country like Australia, someone simply moves out of Mascot or moves out of their point of introduction to this country and their settlement is just taken for granted.

As the Prime Minister has said on many, many occasions, and I agree with him—as a matter of fact, Tony Abbott used to say it regularly—we are the most successful multicultural country in the world. We are successful, not because we're Australia or because he was in government or anything like that. We are successful as a multicultural country because we work at it. We are conscious of doing what is necessary to make our multiculturalism work. Part of that is affording those who arrive in this country access to proper settlement services. That's been one of the things that we have learnt over many, many years now, and which has contributed to us being a most successful multicultural country.

As I say, I'm trying to be constructive about this, because, regrettably, none of this is actually in the bill. But for all those people who are going to be invited to go to regional Australia, whether by family members or by businesses, governments or academic institutions, I think we owe it to those regional communities where people are going to go to make sure that they have the appropriate resourcing and the appropriate ability to properly settle people, peacefully and successfully, in their respective communities. I think we've got a vested interest, and we want to make this work. We want to make it work for those who are coming in on the visas. We want to make it work for those who are going to be employing these people. But, above all that, we want to make sure it works successfully for those regions where people are going to be living.

So I just think this can't be what we've seen elsewhere with the issue about settlement, where the government has gone on its way in cutting funding for critical services so that they can no longer provide adequate services in particular areas. By the way, the area where I live is one of those. What I'm saying is that if the government is right in what it wants to do here—getting people out of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and the Gold Coast as the points of destination for these work visas—you've got to properly resource those organisations and not be in this realm of continual cutbacks and simply thinking that everything is going to work because people have come in on these temporary visas. We need to make sure that it works for them, it works for their sponsors and, as I say, it works for the local community they're going to be going to.

So my request of the House is that it think seriously about this. Whilst we won't stand in the way of the passage of these bills, because I understand and support the intent of them, I would ask the House to look seriously at the amendment moved by the member for Scullin:

…"the House notes the Government's failure to:

(1) adequately fund settlement services; and

(2) explain what extra services will be made available to support regional communities and the settlement of migrants under this scheme".

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:02): I rise to speak on the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 and the amendment put forward by the member for Scullin. I thank the member for Fowler for his contribution. I want to make a few particular points about Griffith University and the Gold Coast, but I'll come to that later.

I just have some general comments about immigration policy as contained in this piece of legislation. Basically, what's happening here is that the Morrison government has announced a reduction in the permanent visa migration ceiling from 190,000 down to 160,000. This bit of information has been put out by the government in a number of ways. I want to particularly bell the cat and suggest that this reduction in numbers reflects one thing that is troubling, and that is that the best and brightest in the world, the people that used to line up to come to Australia, are no longer choosing Australia. They're going to Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom or other countries rather than Australia. The fumbling, bumbling minister responsible for this, Minister Dutton, has then tried to window-dress the fact that the Morrison government has seen a reduction in demand for Australia.

You might say: 'Well, what's that about? If they don't want to come here, that's no loss to Australia.' Well, it is. It is a great loss to Australia. The jobs of the future, the jobs that my children and my grandchildren will have, will come from expertise. Obviously agriculture—growing stuff and exporting two-thirds of it around the world—will always have a role in Australia. We're great farmers; we know that. We will be affected more and more by drought, and that will have impacts on our agricultural output. We are also some of the best miners in the world. We will always have a role in exporting products we dig out of the ground. We'll do that. I understand that. But the high-end jobs, the jobs that show a skilled nation, the jobs of the future, will come from expertise.

If we are unable to attract those top brains of the world, if that decrease from 190,000 to 160,000 is indicative of the fact that we are no longer attractive when it comes to the best and brightest in the world coming here, that is a problem. It actually, I would suggest, goes to the heart of the productivity that has been delivered by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments—that is, we have not seen an improvement in productivity under this government at all. That's the first one. I'm happy to put a spotlight on that. The legislation before the chamber, as part of the announcement, includes this decrease from 190,000 to 160,000.

Accompanying that has been two new regional visas. You might be misled by some of the information from the government. We heard it in question time today. They said that this is—what did they call it?—congestion busting. They said, 'We are sending people to the bush and that is congestion busting.' That is a classic ploy from the advertising man who is now in the Lodge—to actually send more people to the bush and say that, because those people are not settling in the city, that is congestion busting. The ACCC would go after them for passing off if they were in the business world. This is typical. They have a slogan and an advertising campaign but not a policy. This is the CV of the Prime Minister. Where the bloody hell is he when it comes to actually rolling out infrastructure? Where the hell is he when it comes to actually having a national vision, whether it be on droughts or on infrastructure in cities? He's missing. But he will come up with a glib line and some cheap visuals that he'll send out to people and say: 'Look, we're doing something. We appear to be doing something.'

I'm all for having more people reside in the bush. I would say that upfront. I particularly say that to the minister at the table, the member for Parkes. I do recognise that the bush has challenges associated with drought and also just the basics of mechanisation. Where you used to have 10 shearing gangs in a region, you might be flat out having one nowadays. Where you would have had two or three families on a property, now you'd be flat out having one because of mechanisation. That has challenges for the bush. I think Australia is a better nation when we have as much employment in the regions as possible. So I do recognise that side of it.

The government's aim is to change the geographic make-up of visa holders by increasing the number of people settling outside the major cities, perhaps to make up for the fact that they're not going to invest money now in shovel-ready projects like the Cross River Rail and the Coopers Plains rail crossing in my electorate. That will have extra congestion now because of Cross River Rail that the Queensland government is rolling out. They're not actually investing in infrastructure. They've got a big-ticket item in the budget, but it'll be two, three or four years before they actually start putting a shovel in the ground and a few years after that before they cut a ribbon and we get the benefits of such infrastructure.

For the purpose of these visas, regional Australia is defined as not residing in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and—this is the interesting one—the Gold Coast. As I flagged earlier, I wanted to particularly come to the Gold Coast because the only university in my electorate, Griffith University, has a campus on the Gold Coast. This will have significant implications for Griffith University. Griffith University has a campus in the electorate of Griffith, the electorate of Bonner, the electorate of Moreton, the electorate of Rankin and also on the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast will be significantly impacted by this change saying that the Gold Coast is no longer in regional Australia.

These two new types of visas, subclass 491 and subclass 494, are all about putting people into regional Australia. That's the plan. In the future, of the 160,000 places—there's been a reduction from 190,000 to 160,000—23,000 will go to regional Australia. But I don't think those opposite have actually done the hard work. Despite being in their seventh year of government, they have not done the hard work when it comes to these visas.

Let's have a look at what's happening. We've already seen that Minister Dutton is not processing people who have a right to reside in Australia, people who are living amongst us and are keen to be Australian. These are people who are keen to take the oath and affirm that commitment to Australia and become a part of that great Australian story, like the seven million who have arrived here since World War II and who call Australia home, but they are just unable to be processed. It's policy by bottleneck. Those opposite couldn't get their policies through the parliament, so Minister Dutton sneakily sacks people, cuts back on services and then has a bottleneck on desks, with people who want to become Australian citizens, people who are keen.

Every MP would see this: on Harmony Day, Australia Day or any day where you normally have citizenship ceremonies—guess what?—there have been fewer and fewer people becoming Australians. These are people who are keen to become Australian citizens since Minister Dutton has taken office as the immigration minister. But obviously Minister Dutton has to speak to those extreme right-wing nut jobs—not just the ones in his caucus room, in his party room, but that part of the electorate that they used to dog whistle to but they now pull out the dog trumpet to speak to. These are the ones that say, 'No, no, there are fewer and fewer people coming to Australia,' particularly in the last few years.

For the last 230-odd years, the No. 1 source of people coming to Australia has been the United Kingdom. But in the last couple of years, as soon as we had an increase in people coming from China and India and those countries became the No. 1 and No. 2 sources of new Australians, suddenly Minister Dutton had to recalibrate. How did he do it? By cutting the number of staff in immigration, by jamming immigration into this Home Affairs monster and by cutting back on the number of people who are being processed to become Australian citizens.

As we've seen with many of this government's migration policies, what will actually flow from this visa decision remains unclear. I do want to point out again that I'm happy for people in the bush to receive some of that labour. I do worry that this won't actually deliver it, and I want to call out the suggestion that somehow increasing the number of people in Australia is going to bust congestion. That term should not be connected in any way with these visas. If you've got more people coming and you do not build the infrastructure to support them, that is a problem. If there are fewer jobs available in the country, either because of drought or because of mechanisation, then guess what: people coming on those visas and going to country areas will then displace people, who will then move to the city, and there will be more congestion in the cities.

The government still needs to support people in regional areas. Whether it be the subclass 494, where the skilled employer sponsors the person coming on the visa, or the subclass 491, where skilled people are nominated by state or territory governments or sponsored by an eligible family member, I know it can work. There are plenty of opportunities. There are plenty of places I've seen in Queensland. Toowoomba does it well. Up near Cairns they've done it well. They bring in people, like the Hmong people up near Innisfail, to various communities. If you bring in the support, perhaps have the schools, the language and the religious establishments that provide support to people, you can then enliven an area.

I want to go to part of my shadow portfolio area, which involves looking at education and at higher ed students in particular. Let's look at what's going on in regional universities. Regional universities have struggled to increase their offerings to international students, unlike universities such as Melbourne University, where, perhaps problematically, nearly 49 per cent of the student body are international students—full-fee-paying students, if we want to call them that. The regional universities have nowhere near those numbers. I met recently with the University of Southern Queensland up in Toowoomba; they don't have anywhere near those numbers. With the nature of the visa process, I guess if someone in Brazil, India or China is shopping around for where to go to university, they don't necessarily think of Bathurst or Toowoomba or even Darwin or Rockhampton as places where they want to go to university. So these regional universities need a bit of a helping hand. They don't have the same pulling power, obviously, as a Melbourne, a Sydney or even a Brisbane.

I think you need to look at that mix. Obviously, if you've got 49 per cent of your students from overseas, with a significant chunk of that, a significant percentage, coming from one nation in particular, that could be problematic—especially if that nation is able to turn off the tap for international students with one decision. We know that even with students from democratic nations there can be issues, as we saw back in the late noughties when there was an incident down in Melbourne that had implications for the Indian community. The number of students coming from India diminished significantly overnight, just through the actions of one evil person. So, with things like this, you want to have a good mix of countries from around the world supplying your international students.

Regional universities in particular need some help here, and I don't think the government has done the consultation. Of the nearly 900,000 international students last year, only three per cent of them actually went to the bush—to regional Australia. It's our third-biggest export, with $36 billion coming into the Australian economy, and some of the great jobs of the future will involve our ability to retail education to, perhaps, our ASEAN neighbours, to Indonesia and the like. With all that money coming into Australia, we do have to get that balance right.

Labor will support this legislation, but we're concerned that the government has failed to understand the complexity of the issues that must be considered when making even minor changes to visas that affect Australia's international education system. I ask the government to have another look at what they're doing as it applies to Griffith University and the Gold Coast. I know that the mayor of Gold Coast, Tom Tate, has raised this, and I hope the education minister and the immigration minister will listen.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:18): When we're talking about permanent visa migration, I think we should take a step back and have a look at how things have changed, particularly over the past two decades, compared to the rich history of permanent migration that we've had in this country. The government has made a big song and dance about cuts to permanent migration. It's definitely where they tried to win a few votes in a couple of areas which may not have been much in favour of migration, and there was that dog-whistle politics that we saw during the election. But it's also a distraction from what has actually happened under this government. You cannot talk about permanent visa migration without talking about the explosion in the temporary skilled or temporary work visa migration. Whilst the figure sounds like it's a drop of 30,000—from 190,000 to 160,000—in the permanent visa migration ceiling, there are over 1.4 million people currently in this country on a temporary arrangement who have work rights.

I'll speak on the government's failures in this area in a moment, but I also want to touch on the pathway that people now take to become permanent residents in this country and to become Australian citizens. It's a tough journey these days. It's a complicated journey. Gone are the days post the Second World War where people came out, whether they be ten-pound Poms or whether they be people migrating from Italy or Greece post the Second World War, and we welcomed them and said: 'We have jobs. We have regional communities. We want you to move to and be part of our community.' Fast-forward to what we have in this bill: we have a complex, complicated skilled employer sponsored regional visa where we have no real detail, no outline of the costs, no outline of the employers, of how they apply or of whether they'll prioritise big employers over little employers, no suggestion of labour market testing and no outline of the skills, the preferred occupations or the types of occupations. Will they go to the areas where they're most in need? This is the kind of chaotic approach this government now takes to visa migration.

I am one of many people in this place who's the first in my family to be born in Australia. My mum, a ten-pound Pom, came over on a boat like the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—maybe even in the same boat. A number of people came over on boats back in those days. My father came over as a skilled permanent migrant. He was a mechanic and came over here after he had finished his apprenticeship in England. It's a common story for so many in this country. We have a proud, rich history of encouraging invited people to come here when we have skill and labour shortages in this country, not on a temporary arrangement but on a permanent arrangement, and to bring their families with them, to settle up, to integrate and to be part of our communities.

Back then, we helped people with housing. We helped them find a home. We helped them find a job. In my father's case, it was subsidised and he would have actually had to pay back the Australian government if he left before he'd done his time. So, in the past 50 to 60 years, we've seen a radical removal from that common Australian story where we encouraged people to apply to move to Australia, to bring their families and to establish themselves as permanent residents in this country. Now what we see is a lot of dog whistling about that notion, a big hoo-ha about how they're cutting numbers and no talk of addressing of the 1.4 million temporary visa workers that are here in this country. Granted, a huge chunk of those are international students. As we heard from the previous speaker, there's just under a million—about 900,000—international students across our country. Most of them aren't in regional areas.

But let's also be truthful about those international students. Many of them are on a pathway to permanent residency. Many of them see coming here as a student as the first step to settling in this country. We in this place have the privilege to meet people who've made that journey. It takes about 10 years for some of them. They might end up studying two or three degrees. They might end up then getting sponsored for a skilled visa. They might, if they're young enough, also apply for a backpacking visa—work rights to stay here—eventually, hoping to get enough points to stay in our country. They see themselves as Australians already, particularly if they've been here for 10 years and if their children have been here. But it's a very different process and it's a very different experience to the one that many others have enjoyed throughout our history.

These international students, too, are quite often exploited. It could be their first experience when they arrive in this country. They're not just here to study. Many of them, desperate to pay their study costs, are exploited by terrible employers and labour hire companies. They work in industries like cleaning and hospitality. Report after report has told this government of this worker exploitation yet they've done nothing. They set up a taskforce, but they've not yet implemented the recommendations of their own taskforce.

Our international students are not being treated well in this country by some universities, but more so by employers—people who do the wrong thing by these workers. It's not just the big high-profile cases that we have seen, like what's happening with Dominos or what's happening in our service stations; we have also seen smaller operators exploit international students who have work rights.

The government has also failed temporary workers who fall into the backpacker category. It appears their only solution to one of the labour crises that we have in horticulture is to increase backpacker numbers. Let's just remember for a moment that backpackers aren't required to work in agriculture unless they want to stay for a second year. Then they do the 88 days. This program has been so successful—I say sarcastically—that #88daysofslavery is the hashtag for this program. That is because so many people here as backpackers—working holidaymakers—experience that 88 days as slavery. This is the government's record on helping people into the regions to help with labour shortages. Some of these backpackers speak out bravely about their experience. The smart ones, the ones who have a good grasp of English, tend to find the really good employers. Unfortunately, they are literally taking jobs away from people in those regions who might work.

You will find Irish backpackers working at Parmalat, when there are local workers wanting those jobs. You will find Irish, English and other European backpackers working in Shepparton in the fruit-packing business which runs for 52 weeks of the year—a full-time job. Then you will find backpackers who come from countries where they might not be aware of our rights and obligations in this country, who are being ripped off and exploited by horrible labour hire companies, and quite often the farmer is also ripped off. In one case we heard about last week, temporary workers, working for a labour hire company, were told that the first three bins that they picked—they are on a piece rate—go back to the farmer. The farmer says: 'I don't see that money. I've paid for those bins.' The labour hire person in the middle just takes off with the money—phoenix—and comes back the next day.

These are some of the challenges we have in the regions when it comes to visas and this government and their inaction to do anything about it. I also need to mention their failure to really explore, expand and fix up the problems with the seasonal worker visa. Granted, they have bounced a few dodgy labour hire companies. But I put this challenge to the government: employers in the bush, the regional ones, have the choice between a backpacker, who they can hire, fire and turn over through labour hire, and a seasonal worker, where they have to pay award wages, find them accommodation, help fly them over here, and provide the pastoral care. Fewer and fewer of our regional employers are going for the seasonal workers through the seasonal worker program, because they see it as too expensive; there is a cheaper option. This is some of the cynicism that occurs in the bush. This is what this government has not cleaned up.

I should say it is not everyone in the bush, because I know that there is a real skills shortage in the regions. I have met with many councils, including many in my own electorate, and there are many employers desperately calling out for workers. But I highlight the challenges that we have because the bush has become a place that's not attractive to work. Because of this government's failure to crack down on exploitation, a lot of migrant workers are fearful to move to the bush. They don't think the jobs are going to be there and they don't think that they're good jobs because they hear of the exploitation that occurs in some workplaces that this government has failed to crack down on.

One of the other reasons people aren't moving to the regions, and why they end up in the cities—and it's really basic—is the lack of services. They come to Australia and they start working but there's a lack of services in the bush. There is this idea that you can just force people to live in the regions without services. There are people who grow up in the regions and then move to the cities because of the lack of services. I'm quite fortunate. In the Bendigo electorate, we have a big regional town, Bendigo. Bendigo is able to service our region—our south and our north. But in many other parts of regional Australia you have to drive beyond an hour to get support. So simply forcing people out to the regions isn't necessarily going to solve the long-term regional people drain that is occurring.

In their own visa here, the government are saying that people will stay for three years. There's no evidence that those people will stay longer than three years if you don't fix the services problem that we have in the regions. Take the township of Nhill, where Luv-a-Duck recruited a number of Karen humanitarian visa workers to come and live in the community. They loved the work. They enjoyed working for the employer, but the council and the community didn't have the services available for so many new young families. There were no maternal health services and no childcare services. So, a few years on, despite this great example of an employer working to hire recently arrived workers, a lot of the workers disappeared because there were no services. The government have not set out in this bill how they're going to have those services established in the regions to support new migrant workers. This is the real failure of the government. They put a lot of policy and a lot of ideas out there that are based on soundbites and what they think will win them votes, not actual policy that will deliver long-term change.

I am in this for the long haul, with a lot of the people in my community, and I'm desperately looking for a policy process so that, when people arrive in this country, they are encouraged to move to the regions and there are services there. We know that there are jobs there, but highlight the good jobs. Let's kick out the dodgy employers who are giving our regions a bad name. Crack down on that exploitation. Let's give people a real opportunity to develop roots so that they can stay. But, if the government think that what they are proposing, simply offering a three-year visa, is enough for people to stay, bring their families and settle down, they are wrong. We will have people doing the commute, taking a job in the regions and establishing a home, but their real roots and family will be back in the cities. That is not enough. We have to be genuine and serious about making sure that we grow the opportunities.

Whilst Labor support this bill, we have a number of questions that we've raised. I have in this contribution highlighted to the government that they really genuinely have to work with regions on this long-term solution, not just for migrants but for all Australians. There are great opportunities in the regions if we work together. People leave the regions because of a lack of services and a lack of support, regardless of their visa status.

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:33): I'm really pleased to follow the member for Bendigo, because I know that in her community she has worked incredibly hard to bring the diversity in her community into the mainstream workforce, and I've heard stories of the wonderful work she's done with local businesses and particularly some of our newer Australian migrant communities in Bendigo. I want to do three things today. I want to just very briefly outline what this bill, the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, is about and why we reserve our final judgement until after the Senate committee has conducted its inquiry. Then I want to talk about the model that the government has used in putting this together. It's an extremely industrial model, and I want to explain what I mean by that. Then I want to talk about my community and why the approach the government is taking underestimates the needs of my community in Parramatta and the contribution that many of them could make to regional centres if those centres had the services that they need to do well.

Firstly, the bill is essentially about reducing the permanent migration ceiling from 190,000 to 160,000. They've done that already, and as part of that announcement they're announcing two new regional visas. Their purpose is to change the geographic make-up of visa holders by increasing the number of people who settle outside of major cities, in regional Australia. 'Regional' in this context means not Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Gold Coast or Perth. It means not the five big economies. The two new visas are subclass 491, which is the skilled work regional provisional visa for skilled people who are nominated by a state or territory government or sponsored by an eligible family member to live and work in regional Australia; and the subclass 494 visa, the skilled employer-sponsored regional provisional visa, enabling an Australian business to sponsor skilled workers to work in their business in regional Australia. These two visas will account for 23,000 places out of the 160,000 permanent places available. But there are many aspects of this approach which are unclear. They are of course provisional visas; people won't receive permanent visas until they've spent three years there. But, again, there's very little information on whether there's going to be market testing, whether it's going to be big business or small business, and how it's going to work. The detail really isn't here.

It risks the same sort of failure that we've seen many times with programs which, with some sort of incentive, encourage people to move into a regional area for a short period of time, but as soon as that period is over they move back to the city. I have known people in my community where, for example, one partner is a doctor and needs to work in a regional centre for a period of time but their partner remains in Sydney, and they literally join each other on weekends. They are only there for as long as they need to be, because the services simply aren't there, their community isn't there and the opportunities for their family aren't there.

Secondly, I want to talk about the model that the government is taking here, which I call an industrial model, and I'm going to tell a very brief story that explains that. When I worked at the Australia Council many, many years ago, we had 35 grant programs. This was because the Australia Council and the government would decide what the answer was to a particular problem and then they would put out a grant program which specifically solved that problem, according to the solutions they'd found. So, if you fitted into their solution, you could apply for funding. I came to the conclusion that that was an extremely industrial model and that the whole sector would work better if the government decided what the outcome should be and gave people the opportunity to put together their own projects that would meet that outcome.

Now, this particular model is saying, 'We can solve this problem by simply having these two visas, and, as long as people fit into those, the problem will be solved.' It won't. The problem is really complex and needs a far more nuanced approach—probably a range of approaches, because each community is different. As the member for Bendigo said, there is the really big regional town of Bendigo. If you're further down the Murray, at Echuca or Rutherglen, they're great little towns. But, if you're further up, the support services simply aren't there. If you're Muslim or Hindu—in my community, we have probably 10 Hindu groups, and they're all slightly different—there is no place for you to worship; there is no place for you to assemble. There are very complex matters when you move into regional areas, so we need a far more nuanced approach.

I want to talk about my community, because my community is incredibly diverse. The majority of people in my community have parents who were both born overseas. We have a highly skilled population, but many of them are not working anywhere near the level that their skills would warrant. The banks tell me that the bank teller role is supposed to be for those straight out of high school. Well, in Parramatta, bank tellers have PhDs. In banks in Parramatta, people who couldn't get work elsewhere, who are far too qualified for that job, are occupying that entry-level job because that's the only job they can get. We have engineers who can't get their foot in the door. We have accountants that can't get their first work experience. We have an incredibly underutilised skill base in Parramatta of people who have come to Australia to build a better life and simply cannot get the kind of work they should be getting.

We also have lots and lots of farmers, which is surprising because Parramatta, of course, is not a farming community. But we have many, many farmers, from the countries of Africa, from Nepal, from Burma—farmers by the thousands actually—living in units in Parramatta. They tell me that sometimes their need to touch dirt, their need to get their hands in the soil, is almost overwhelming, and they can't do it in Parramatta. I've asked them, 'Why don't you move to northern Victoria, where there are huge hydroponics companies desperate for workers and there's lots of land?' and they say to me, 'I might stand out, and my family is here and my temple is here and my children are still learning English.' And that's before you get to really basic things like food.

I spent the last two weeks down on the Murray. I took my first break in nearly two years and spent two weeks on the Murray. I learnt to cook in Parramatta, and I get really frustrated if I can't find tamarind or fresh coriander. I got really frustrated because even the basic things that I need to cook the meals that make me comfortable just aren't there. I say sometimes that, if I lived there, I'd have to go in to Sydney regularly to shop because even basic things like that aren't there.

The ability to have your child learn as they grow the language of their grandparents, if their first language is Bahasa, Vietnamese or Dinka, and the ability to share your cultural heritage with your children in places where you are a very small group is less if you live in regional centres. Many of them tell me that they think about it but feel uncomfortable. They are not quite certain they'd be accepted and they don't know where the services are. As Australia, we miss an extraordinary opportunity when we underuse the extraordinary capacity that we have in places like Parramatta which are incredibly diverse and where people have come from all over the world. When I use the word 'Australian' in Parramatta, it means everybody. If they got their citizenship yesterday, they are Australian. We have Australians here that would welcome the opportunity to work in regional centres if they believed the services were there.

If Australians who already live here won't move to a regional centre and stay there because the services aren't there, why would people who come from overseas pick up their entire family and move there for three years if the services aren't there? They would only do that, I would suggest, if they believed they could stay for three years and then move. Again, I would suggest to you that you will see exactly what you see when we require doctors to work for three years in regional centres before they can come back and work in the city—families will be split. The families will be split because quite often with your skilled migrant visas, in particular, both parties, both the husband and the wife, are skilled. They're both skilled. With the skilled workers that came in to work at Westmead Hospital, we found, whether they were male or female, their partner was also highly skilled. That's the nature of this community and, unless both partners can work in the regional centre, one will move to the city.

They will also move, quite frankly, in many cases to the best school zone. Quite often skilled migrants come to Australia for the future of their children as much as for their own. They come here because they believe they can make a better life for their children. You will find in various groupings within the Parramatta community that they choose one school or another. There are a couple of schools in Baulkham Hills and people try to buy in that particular school zone. Westmead Public School is an incredibly good school and you will find people move into Westmead in order to get their children enrolled at that school. They move later, but they enrol their children at that school. I notice even on realestate.com and domain.com now you can search by school zone as much as anything else. That is a real indication of how much emphasis is placed on that. Again, we have some very good schools in regional Australia, but they are going to be competing with Westmead and James Ruse Agricultural High School, which are some of the best in the country. They are recognised as the best in the country. You will find families are split because one parent will go where the children will get the best education they possibly can and where the wife can work.

You are also going to get rorting or exploitation of people who feel they have no choice, people who have given up a life in their first country and moved to Australia on the understanding that they would work in regional areas for three years. Without a doubt, you will find exploitation, because we've seen it in every field where visa holders are compelled to work for a company or lose their visa rights. You will find people who are underpaid, are exploited and work too-long hours—all the things that we know happen already in our communities under these programs.

So I would suggest to the government that, if it thinks this is a possible solution, it also widen its scope and consider people like those in my community, people who are farmers, people who have skills with new crops and people who are experts in African heritage vegetables. Ask my Kenyan farmers about kale—they think we are hilarious because they have been growing it for millennia. There are new products coming in from all around the world. We have coffee grinders in Parramatta who are desperately trying to find ways to do their work here. There are lots and lots of skills that we simply aren't using in our cities and we're not finding ways for those people to build homes in some of the great regional areas we have.

I quite often talk to my communities about what they would require to pick up and move. We've seen examples of it; we've seen large Sudanese communities go to some of the meatworks in Rockhampton and be wonderful workers in those communities. We've seen it here and there. But we, as a country, can do much more to make sure that Australians of all backgrounds, with all of their skills and all the wonderful experiences and knowledge that they bring to this country, are used to the full before we find ways to bring in other people and keep them out of the workforce. That's, unfortunately, what I think this particular program will do. It will deny my people an opportunity to find permanent and wonderful lifestyles in regional Australia. I travel out there enough to know how wonderful some of those regional towns are, how extraordinary they can be, how beautiful they are, and how interesting, kind and welcoming the people are. But we've got a long way to go before we find work paths to new lives for the Australians who are here already—who came to Australia to build a life and who are currently struggling to do that.

We on the Labor side will wait until the Senate inquiry has concluded before we make a final decision. There's a lot of detail that's simply not there. There are a lot of questions to be asked and a lot of safeguards to be put in place to prevent exploitation of people who feel that they have no choice—that they can't leave and they can't stay. People are being exploited. We've seen some terrible examples in regional towns of exploitation of seasonal workers and of student backpackers. We know it takes place. We wouldn't want to see this program turned into that. There are a lot of questions to be asked and answered, and we will be asking them.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (16:47): I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the New Skilled Regional Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. I would also like to recognise that this bill is the result of successful collaboration across multiple different Commonwealth agencies, and I thank those agencies for their work.

The bill makes consequential amendments to legislation administered by the Department of Social Services, the Department of Education and the Attorney-General's Department to give effect to government policy that holders of new provisional skilled regional visas, which come into effect on 16 November this year, will have access to government services consistent with skilled permanent visa holders. The new provisional skilled regional visas are set out in the Migration Amendment (New Skilled Regional Visas) Regulations 2019. They are subclass 491, the skilled work regional provisional visa for skilled people who are nominated by a state or territory government or sponsored by an eligible family member to live and work in regional Australia, and subclass 494, the skilled employer sponsored regional provisional visa enabling an Australian business to sponsor skilled workers to work in their business in regional Australia.

These new visas are part of the government's plan for Australia's future population, to ease the pressure on the big capitals while supporting the growth of those smaller cities and regions that want more people. The plan includes reducing the annual migration ceiling from 190,000 to 160,000 places and setting aside 23,000 places for these new regional visas. The visas will support businesses in regional Australia to get the skills they need quickly.

A key feature of the new visas will be a requirement for regional migrants to live and work in a regional area for three years before being eligible for permanent residence. This is a very important feature which will encourage visa holders to remain in regional Australia, which in turn will support local communities and economies, and enhance population growth in regional parts of the nation. These changes will have a low financial impact while ensuring that provisional skilled regional visa holders are not disadvantaged compared to holders of permanent skilled visas available for people to work in metropolitan areas. Holders of these new visas will support local businesses and economies and contribute to rural and regional communities throughout Australia. It's all a part of the government's focus on improving migration to regional Australia and providing skilled migration to those regional parts of Australia where it is most needed. In summary, this bill deserves the support of all members, and I commend it to the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin 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 moved by the member for Scullin be agreed to.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (17:01): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (17:02): Labor will be supporting the passage of this bill. I am disappointed, of course, that the government has not had regard to the second reading amendment nor to the contributions of Labor members in the course of this debate, which has been an important debate on an important issue. What this bill will do is facilitate some significant improvements to the establishment of a rebalancing of settlement and regional development. But the bill, as it stands, does not do nearly enough of the work that is required to be done. In particular, I asked the minister to consider the passionate contributions that have been made on this side of the House, drawing his attention and the attention of his government to the need to think more clearly about what is happening around these provisional skilled visas and settlement support.

We know there are a range of reasons why a government strategy is required to direct skilled migration towards the regions. That's obvious, and I would have thought a government of a party of the market would recognise that. But what we're not seeing, in an appropriate and worthy endeavour to direct skilled migrants towards the regions, and to encourage them to settle there beyond the three years, is recognition of what appropriate settlement services are to be provided. It is deeply concerning to me that the government, having at the end of last year commissioned Peter Shergold—a very eminent public servant, a very eminent Australian—to look at the issues going to settlement services for humanitarian migrants, has not released this report, a report which was delivered to government in February. I know the minister at the table has, I believe, committed to releasing the report before the end of the year, but this is a report which could have and should have guided debate on the issues that are the subject of this legislation. We know that migrants of all types face particular challenges when settling in more regional communities rather than in established centres.

Something like this consideration of settlement services is appropriate in this context for a number of reasons. The first is recognising that under this government we have seen cut after cut after cut to vital settlement services. I had the great privilege of spending a couple of days at the FECCA conference in Hobart last week. Among all the themes that were consistent across a conference that was engaging and inspiring was a concern that our very proud and bipartisan record of being a leading country when it comes to resettlement and settlement is under threat because of a series of cuts and, I think, also a failure to listen to the voices that speak for migrant Australians. We saw that in the contributions of submitters to the Shergold report in the media recently. These are comments which are very much applicable to the debate that's before us here in terms of better understanding what supports are required to enable people to settle effectively in the first instance, to make sure that they can make effective contributions and to make sure that their families, where appropriate, can also be integrated into communities, be economically productive and feel part of the community.

I hope the minister has the opportunity to consider the contribution of the member for Bendigo, who touched upon some of the challenges that have more recently been experienced in the community of Nhill in my state of Victoria, where we have seen a great record of private sector engagement with humanitarian migrants around the viability of a very important business but we have seen, as the story has gone on, some significant challenges going to the provision of appropriate settlement services. Of course, this is something that all of us who want to see consistent policies around regional development would like to see. So I urge the minister, in relation to this bill but also more broadly in relation to his responsibilities and his role in working with other ministers and other departments within this government, to think hard about how we can wrap around a proper, responsive and adequately funded series of settlement arrangements to go with these new visa subcategories.

In my contribution in the second reading debate, I touched, as did a number of my colleagues, on the issues raised by this legislation that are particular to higher education. In Labor, we accept that these are complex questions and there isn't a quick fix, but we are concerned in this area about unintended consequences. Again I urge the minister to consider the submissions made by Griffith University, by Universities Australia and by the Australian Technology Network of Universities, which raised some very significant issues which I don't think should be the subject of particular partisan contest in this place but are fundamentally important to the operation of one of Australia's most significant industries—in particular, one of Australia's most significant export industries. I imagine that in coming days we'll be talking quite a lot about the potential for higher education exports in the context of other legislation which is going to come before the parliament. Let us make sure that with these arrangements—worthy as they are in making sure that the consequences of the establishment of the provisional skilled visa scheme mean that people will have appropriate access to appropriate Commonwealth entitlements on the basis of being permanent migrants—we don't miss out on working through these challenging and critical issues that go to higher education.

The introduction of these two new visas is obviously not a standalone policy for the government, as the government itself has made clear; it's part of a population plan. But this plan, to be meaningful, has to have more substance to it to go with the soaring rhetoric, particularly that of the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, because there are simply too many gaps and too many failures to properly consult and go through the processes one would expect when grappling with challenges as profound as the nature of our population growth and the distribution of that growth. In Labor we take these challenges very seriously: in particular, getting the balance right between ensuring that we continue to reap the great benefits of agglomeration in the knowledge-intensive economies of inner Melbourne and inner Sydney—and inner Canberra too, I'm sure the member for Fenner would like me to say—and making sure that we prevent these economies from collapsing on themselves and that we maintain livability and do everything we can to ensure that we continue to have other clusters of productive economic activity.

This is a big challenge for governments. Governments have been good at talking about this challenge for a long time, but have generally underdelivered. My fear is that government will continue to underdeliver if the challenge isn't grappled with more seriously on the basis of more evidence. In this regard, the critical report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities—chaired by the member for Bennelong in the last parliament—Building Up & Moving Out provided a really important overview of the challenges of Australian settlement, the linkages between communities and the possible transformation of communities. The issues it raised are absolutely central to the problem that this bill is part of the intended solution to. Yet two years after this report was handed to the minister, he is yet to respond. I'd like to say that this is an isolated example, but it is not. We have a government which, in too many areas, appears allergic to evidence in—and here we need the evidence.

I say again that we are sympathetic to the policy aims that are the subject of this piece of legislation. They are important aims. They are worthy aims, whether it's about revitalising regional communities and seeking to develop and sustain those alternative centres of productive economic activity or whether it's about changing the nature of our population distribution for our migrant communities by offering a broader range of options. But, again, this all seems rather half developed. If we had the benefit in this place of deeper thinking and more considered work on a population plan rather than just a series of talking points, we would have the basis to more easily come together as a parliament in confidence that we will provide a vision for the future.

It's all well and good to talk about what's happening with the permanent migration intake, but the other point I'd ask the minister to consider is temporary migration, particularly when we are talking about regional communities, particularly when we are talking about exploitative arrangements and particularly in the context of some of the other debates that are going on—in particular, proposals still on foot this month to privatise our visa processing services. Again, Labor will be supporting this bill, but we expect answers to all of these questions, and Australians are entitled to expect them too.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (17:13): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019. Labor will support this bill which will reduce the PBS safety net thresholds from 1 January 2020. Labor matched the government's commitment to do so during the election campaign. That's what political parties should do—recognise and adopt good ideas from the other side. We urge the government to do the same with the health policies we took to the recent election.

I first registered as a pharmacist in 1998, so I have a longstanding interest in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. At that time, the PBS co-payment for a concession patient was $3.20 and it was $20 for general patients. But I'd like to go back a bit further and take a quick step back through the history of medicine access in Australia, because it matters. In 1919, with sick and wounded Australian service men and women returning from the Boer War and World War I, a program was necessary to provide veterans with access to life-saving medicines, and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was established.

In 1944, a High Court challenge struck down the first attempt made by a federal government to legislate for a scheme to expand access to approved prescription medicines, such as antibiotics, free of charge to all Australians. It wasn't until four years later, in 1948, under Labor Prime Minister Chifley, that a limited version of what we now know as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme began, offering free medicines for pensioners, and 139 life-saving and disease-preventing medicines free of charge for the general public. In 1986, the Hawke Labor government introduced a safety net threshold of 25 prescriptions in a calendar year for both concessional and general beneficiaries, which meant, for the chronically ill and other high-volume users of prescription medicines, that no individual or family would have to pay for more than 25 PBS prescription items in any calendar year. Fast-forward to 2019, and medicines are now the most common medical intervention in health care in Australia. In fact, over 80 per cent of Australians aged 65 and over, and 70 per cent of Australians aged 45 to 64, regularly use pharmaceuticals.

While we support this bill, we know that this bill won't fix the crisis in medicines' affordability that we see on this government's watch. The government's own figures show that many Australians don't fill prescriptions because they just can't afford them. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 961,000 people a year delay or avoid taking prescribed medicines due to cost. Alarmingly, the rate of people skipping prescriptions is twice as high in the most disadvantaged areas as in the least disadvantaged areas, meaning that the cost of medicines is contributing to healthcare inequality in Australia and to worse health outcomes for those in more disadvantaged communities.

For many years, I was a specialist mental health pharmacist and chief pharmacist at Wyong hospital in my electorate on the New South Wales Central Coast, and I note that this month we're marking Mental Health Month. The minister can spruik listing PBS drugs, but if people can't afford them then some will delay or avoid filling a prescription—particularly the most vulnerable in our communities, such as those living with major mental health conditions.

I've been there in an outpatient clinic when a patient living with a major mental health condition has said to me, 'Which medication can I do without?' These are real people with major health concerns who need proper support, and they are having to make this decision which no-one should have to make: 'Which one can I skip? Which one can I delay?' People are sometimes taking medications every second day, or they might get one prescription filled this month and an alternative prescription filled next month. And we know what happens when people skip their medications. They get worse, not better. They present at our emergency departments with worse symptoms and need urgent care and often lengthy inpatient stays, particularly patients living with chronic diseases and major mental health conditions.

Last week, I visited the St Vincent de Paul in Wyong in my electorate, where my late father, Grant, was a volunteer. It was, for me, a chance to hear from them of the work that they do to assist many people in our community, particularly people in crisis. This year, to date, they have assisted 108 people with health care, including prescriptions. Whilst I am grateful, and it's commendable that organisations like the St Vincent de Paul Society and other charities and not-for-profit groups provide assistance and sometimes vouchers for medication for people in crisis who can't afford to have their prescriptions filled, this should not happen in a wealthy country like Australia.

And what has this third-term government done about this crisis? It's only made it worse. In the 2014 budget, the government proposed to increase the cost of PBS medicines by up to $5—even for concession patients; even for age pensioners—and to increase the threshold for the PBS Safety Net, which, as I mentioned earlier, was introduced to help people, particularly those living with chronic, complex conditions and families, to be able to afford medicines. This would have forced patients to pay $1.3 billion more for medicines and caused even more Australians to skip essential treatment. It was only Labor's opposition in the parliament that stopped the government from implementing this cruel measure. But Australians shouldn't forget that this Prime Minister and this minister were part of a cabinet that wanted to make medicines more expensive for every Australian, including vulnerable Australians, such as age pensioners, and that measure was on top of the government's appalling record of delaying PBS listings.

Last month, the PBAC made public their recommendations from the July meeting, which took the total number of drugs waiting to be listed by Minister Hunt to more than 60. These are drugs that have been recommended for listing by independent experts, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, because they stack up on both clinical and costs grounds. This includes medications like Symdeko, which was approved in March by PBAC.

Symdeko is a life-changing cystic fibrosis drug which treats the most common cystic fibrosis mutation, extending life expectancy and improving quality of life. The minister made a promise to those with cystic fibrosis that they would have access to Symdeko on the PBS as soon as it was approved. Thankfully, it appears there is now some movement on this, with the government shamed into reaching out to the manufacturer following a Channel Nine news report. It shouldn't take a news report for the government to do the right thing and to do what the minister said they would do. I would like to quote from a letter from Nettie Burke, CEO of Cystic Fibrosis Australia. This is how she described the delay: 'Seven months of lung damage, seven months of mental stress and strain, seven months of a blame game, seven months of the best hopes and the worst fears exacerbated—years of hope dashed by seven months.' Nobody should be put in that situation.

We shouldn't be surprised, really. The government has form when it comes to delays like this. In a press conference in November last year, Minister Hunt confirmed that Flash technology would be available on the National Diabetes Services Scheme on 1 March 2019, stating:

… as of the first of March 2019 the continuous glucose monitoring program will be expanded both in terms of the range of people but also in terms of the options for devices. The Flash glucose monitoring will now also be included alongside the Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Seven months later, there is still no word.

This government has made 120,000 people living with diabetes type 1 wait seven months longer than he promised they would. That's a significant amount of time for someone living with type 1 diabetes, because of the long-term consequences that can happen from poorly managed or mismanaged diabetes. The health minister likes to congratulate himself. He often likes to come into the chamber and appear in the media and pat himself on the back with every PBS listing. He is also accountable for every drug that he refuses to list, for those almost 60 drugs that we know that PBAC has recommended and that haven't yet been listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Australians who are sick deserve to have a medication which has been approved by the PBAC recommended as soon as possible. The government's recent budget updates show an underspend of $155 million on the PBS. We know there are people living with chronic complex diseases, we know there are people in crisis, and we know there are vulnerable people, particularly First Nations peoples or people living with major mental health problems, who can't access these medications. We know that there are people who are in crisis or who are in urgent situations and can't get the essential health care they need. We know this particularly affects people in regional and remote Australia. We know that people in regional and remote Australia have worse health outcomes than those living in major cities. This is something that the government either hasn't recognised or hasn't properly acted to fix.

The government shouldn't be propping up its budget surplus by underspending on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This government does like to pat itself on the back about having a budget surplus, but the reality is that the surplus is built on underspends like this one, and like the $4.6 billion underspend on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. These underspends are arising because of maladministration by this government, preventing Australians—particularly vulnerable Australians, many of whom live in rural and remote Australia—from accessing the essential services that they so desperately need and that a government should provide.

The latest health spending data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that out-of-pocket costs are the highest they have ever been, with Australians spending a record $30 billion a year for their own out-of-pocket costs for health care. This is an increase of $920 million over the financial year—up three per cent. So while this government spends less on the PBS, Australians are spending more, particularly those who can least afford it. Out-of-pocket costs have never been higher and hospital waiting lists have never been longer than under the Morrison government. They need to stop the delays on PBS listings and start treating Australian patients with respect.

I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that I first registered as a pharmacist in 1998 and I worked for almost 10 years at my local hospital in Wyong, on the Central Coast of New South Wales, as a specialist mental health pharmacist and as a chief pharmacist. I have seen people in crisis, particularly families and those who are desperate, have to come to an emergency department because they can't get in to a GP or they can't afford the gap payment. All of that compounds. They might be able to get in to see a GP—and often with families it's not just one child who is sick; there will be more than one child sick at the one time—and then they might end up with three prescriptions for antibiotics that they have to fill at the community pharmacy. It is very expensive for families to be able to get the essential health care they need. For this government to be propping up its budget surplus at the expense of Australians, particularly vulnerable Australians—many of whom are living in regional and remote Australia—is not fair. The government needs to act. It needs to properly acknowledge the crisis. It needs to act in the interests of all Australians.

As I mentioned earlier, October is mental health month. Last week we marked headspace day and we also marked 10/10 World Mental Health Day. I want to speak to each of those as a former mental health worker. The government's appointment of Christine Morgan as a special adviser to the Prime Minister on suicide prevention is commendable. The government's commitments in the election to increasing funding, particularly to services for young people through headspace or other programs, is commendable. But what we really need to see is real action and genuine bipartisanship in the area of mental health.

Before I conclude, I would just like to go back to the visit that I had with St Vincent de Paul last week. As grateful as people are for the support of charities and organisations like St Vincent de Paul, it shouldn't be their responsibility to provide support for people to access essential health care. Over 100 people in this calendar year have already needed to access help from the St Vincent de Paul service in Wyong, and those are just people seeking support with health care and pharmaceuticals. I've worked in community pharmacies, particularly in pharmacies that are open out of normal business hours, where people have come in who have had a voucher in order to have a prescription filled. That shouldn't happen. We shouldn't see people having to get vouchers from charities to be able to get the essential medicines that they need. It's not fair and it should not happen in a wealthy country like Australia.

Accordingly, I move:

That all words after 'That' be omitted and the amendment be circulated in my name with a view to substituting the following words:

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

(1) delaying Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listings; and

(2) trying to increase PBS co-payments for all Australians".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Is the motion seconded?

Dr Leigh: I second the motion.

Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (17:30): It's a great pleasure to speak in the chamber today on this bill, the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019, without amendment, because this is why a strong economy is so important. This is why the government fights so hard to ensure that we have responsible economic management. A strong budget, a surplus or a strong financial framework are not ends in themselves; they deliver real on-the-ground outcomes to residents, to people who need them. And this bill certainly does that. In particular, it helps people and families, in a very important and coherent way, to tackle the cost-of-living pressures that they face. This bill will present significant savings, particularly for those on concession cards and those who have a chronic illness.

I appreciated very much the history lesson from the member for Dobell, but I think it's time that we as a chamber acknowledge that it is truly obvious that this government is the best friend that the PBS has ever had. This government is as committed as any government—or more committed—to make sure that the PBS remains a strong and important pillar of our healthcare system. The PBS may be over 60 years young, but it is currently supported like never before. The member for Dobell's speech, while giving some initial support to the bill in front of us, was concerned about medicine affordability. But this is where I struggle to wrap my head around it. Those opposite say they are concerned about the affordability of medicine, yet it's those opposite who stopped listing drugs on the PBS. That is such an important point to make, and we won't stop making it. The member for Dobell stood there at the dispatch box for her speech and talked about somebody who has waited seven months for a life-saving drug. Well, under Labor they simply would have kept waiting and waiting and waiting, until 'fiscal circumstances allow'. If we know anything about a Labor government it's that, given their management of the economy, fiscal circumstances would never allow them to restart listing drugs on the PBS.

In contrast, this government has listed over 2,000 new and amended drugs on the PBS, because we can afford to do it. I take umbrage at the way that it was characterised by the member for Dobell, and I know that, if the Minister for Health were here, he would do the same and point out that this argument that Labor members make about there being delays—in fact, I think the words the member for Dobell used were that the minister was 'refusing to list' some drugs that PBAC had recommended—is simply not true. We as a government have made a firm commitment to list those drugs on the PBS that have been recommended to us, and we have a track record of doing it. Over 2,000 have been listed. We have the strong economy, the strong budget and the strong record of economic management to show that we can do it.

Whenever a drug is recommended for listing, there is a period where there have to be negotiations with the manufacturer to ensure there is adequate supply and that the price is locked in to protect the taxpayers of Australia. But that is it. There is no refusal to list it. There is, in fact, a commitment to make sure that those medicines are listed as soon as possible—as soon as the negotiations can be completed between the department and those manufacturers—once the recommendation has been made. Let's not buy into the argument of those Labor members opposite when they say that that is not what is occurring, because our records show that it is. The new PBS drugs are being listed at an average of one a day—over 30 a month—to help particularly those with chronic illnesses.

Those opposite, including the member for Dobell in her speech, also want to scoff at the savings provided for in this bill. It just goes to show how out of touch they are with ordinary Australians who are struggling with the cost of living and for whom savings of between $80 and $100 provided for in this bill—because they can access the safety net sooner—are significant. Those savings will allow them to either better manage their cost of living or seek and purchase medication sooner. While the Labor members opposite scoff at those kinds of savings, they were quite happy to go to the recent election with a great, big, new retiree tax costing thousands of dollars for self-funded retirees, who were—exactly as the member for Dobell said—making sure that they were planning very carefully, when they purchased their medicines, to manage their cost of living. The Labor Party were very happy to go to the recent election with a great, big tax on retirees without a second thought, yet they stand in this place and scoff at the real savings that we are providing to help people with their cost-of-living pressures.

I would hope that an affordable, accessible healthcare system is something we can both agree on. The government has certainly made that commitment to the Australian people, and I'm certain it's an important reason that the government was re-elected in May. Our plan is to strengthen our world-class health system and guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. As I said, an important part of that is ensuring we have good economic management to deliver it.

As part of our election commitment to the Australian people, we promised to reduce the safety net thresholds that apply to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Under this government, with that responsible economic management, we have the budget to do it. It's the people that matter. Ninety-one per cent of scripts dispensed every year—the equivalent of $186 million—are to concession card holders, including seniors. As the son of two pharmacists myself, having grown up working behind the counter in pharmacies, I know firsthand the difference that quality, cost-effective medicines can make, particularly to older Australians. I saw firsthand how older Australians and concession card holders who were grappling with the cost of living were careful to time their purchase of medications and how careful they were to monitor their access to the safety net. Under this bill, they will get there sooner. Throughout all stages of life, most of us require medicines. Certainly we will have a family member who will understand that their illness has a profound effect on their quality of life. That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering this bill.

In some cases, medicines that Australians rely on would cost tens of thousands of dollars per year without the PBS. However, the PBS means that concession card holders pay a maximum of $6.50 per script and nonconcession patients pay a maximum of $40.30 per script. Patients receive free or reduced-cost scripts once they reach the safety net, which, under this bill, will be sooner. Twenty per cent of all scripts that are dispensed, the equivalent of $37 million, are free of charge because patients have reached a safety net—a safety net which they will get to sooner under this bill. That is because this government doesn't believe that financial circumstances should impact access to treatment.

My electorate of Ryan is home to over 39,000 families. Health care, medicines and affordable access to them are a priority. It's important to me, as part of the Morrison government, that we do all we can to ease the financial impact that is placed on families with a sick family member. The Morrison government can do that, because of our strong economic management. For instance, under this government, the bulk-billing rate in Ryan last year was over 613,000 visits—some 171,000 more than Labor's last year in government. That is because of our strong economic management. Unlike those opposite, who would increase the cost of living with their new taxes—which they certainly tried to do last May—we are helping Australians with their healthcare costs in a very real and tangible way.

The bill will reduce the PBS safety net threshold amounts for both concessional and general patients and their families and will come into effect on 1 January 2020. The impact on everyday Australians and their families in my electorate of Ryan will be significant. The number of scripts needed to reach the safety net threshold will be reduced by 12 for concessional patients, down from 60 scripts to 48 scripts. Reaching the safety net sooner will mean that patients receive free scripts or scripts at significantly reduced costs and this will reduce their out-of-pocket costs. The safety net threshold for general patients will reduce from the 2019 level of $1,550.70 to $1,486.80. This is equivalent to saving $100. As I said, Labor scoffs at this amount. It just goes to show you how out of touch they are with ordinary Australians working to make sure that they reduce their costs of living. With this bill we are looking to benefit 1.6 million concessional patients and 129,000 general patients across Australia.

Recently in this place I spoke about some of the recent PBS listings we have had. These have had a profound effect on those suffering from chronic illnesses, such as lung cancer, leukaemia, stroke and many more. Medications for well-known conditions that are suffered by many and that cause significant physical and mental pain as well—conditions like diabetes, cystic acne, high cholesterol, asthma and arthritis—have also recently been listed on the PBS under this government. I remind the House again that these listings simply stopped under Labor because they couldn't afford to do it. Since 2013 this government has listed more than 2,100 new or amended items—a total outlay of $10.6 billion. This is what good, strong economic management can achieve and the benefit it can have on people's lives. When sufferers of these chronic conditions and many other conditions reach the safety net they will pay less for their scripts and have fewer out-of-pocket costs.

This isn't just for people suffering from these well-known conditions; it is for many people and many Australian families, for example, when a couple is starting a family. Starting a family is incredibly emotionally and mentally challenging, particularly with the financial impact of treatments through an IVF cycle. Once the PBS safety net threshold is reached the co-payment rate for scripts for some costly medications associated with fertility treatment will be reduced. Allowing them to reach the safety net sooner is a way we can help families in one of the most stressful and challenging times in their lives.

It is at all stages of life that we rely on medicine. In Ryan we have a large ageing population. These individuals have in many cases spent most of their life living locally and helping make our community what it is today. As part of our promises to Australians we have committed to making sure that seniors and retirees in particular get more support. Assisting in their physical and mental health is important to the Morrison government. It's important to me as their local member. Reducing the safety net threshold will make sure that we look after Australian seniors and concession card holders in particular. To help achieve this we have committed $100 million to deal with the fear and loneliness that can accompany age that affect far too many senior Australians. The weekly trip to the chemist to pick up the scripts for the week is important for many older Australians, but it hits the hip pocket. Again, with strong economic management we can continue to invest in the PBS and continue to list new medicines—which Labor weren't capable of doing—to address the illnesses and conditions that are prevalent in older Australians, and we can continue to help them with their healthcare costs.

Not only are we investing in the PBS; I remind the House that we have increased hospital funding by 60 per cent since Labor left office in 2013—and not through new taxes and not through ripping money out of people's pockets, as Labor members opposite would have done if they had been successful at the last election. Through strong economic management we have invested more in our healthcare system than they were ever able to.

That is why—to circle back around—I'm confident to proclaim that this government is truly the best friend that the PBS has ever had. We are keeping it stronger than it has ever been to make sure that it remains a foundation pillar of our healthcare system, to ensure that people with chronic illnesses can access medications cheaper with less out-of-pocket costs and to make sure families are able to seek medical treatment that's ongoing, like IVF, in a way that is cost-effective for them. The Morrison government are ensuring that we are truly strengthening our world-class health system.

Dr ALY (Cowan) (17:45): I think the member for Ryan mustn't be very proud of this policy, because he spent most of his time talking about Labor six years ago. But Labor is going to support this National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill, as the previous speakers from this side have said, because it will reduce the PBS safety net threshold as of 1 January 2020. Labor did match this commitment during the election campaign. On matters of health and medications, I think it's important that we recognise good ideas and what's in the best interests of all Australians.

But, while we support the bill, there are a couple of points that I'd like to make. This bill, as much as it does and as much support as it has on both sides here, won't do much at all, quite frankly, to fix the affordability of medicines and the crisis that we've seen in the affordability of medicines under this government's watch, which, I might add, just to remind the member for Ryan, has been six years. To illustrate that point, I would like to relate a case to the chamber. In this case, I was doing a regular 'meet your member' at one of the local shopping centres on a Saturday morning. There was an elderly lady named Sue who waited very patiently to see me. When I finally got the time to see her, I sat down with her and I asked, 'How can I help you?' She started telling me about how she has suffered from chronic pain for the last decade. She was so emotional, so overcome with emotion, as she was talking to me that she broke down in tears. So I held her and I calmed her down and I said, 'That's okay; that's okay.'

The issue that she wanted to raise with me was the cost of her medications. She had tried so many different medications but the one medication that gave her relief was Panadol Osteo and, in 2016, this government saw fit to delist Panadol Osteo from the PBS. Since that time, this woman who suffers so immensely from chronic pain and who has tried everything that she possibly can to manage her pain has had to find the money to buy the level of Panadol Osteo that she needs. She's at a point where she simply can't afford it. She simply cannot afford to purchase the medication that she needs to give her the slightest bit of relief of her pain. That's what brought her to tears.

Osteoarthritis affects around 60 per cent of people over the age of 65, and people like Sue rely on good pain management to enjoy a quality of life that many people—and I'm sure most of us here—take for granted. That old saying that you never miss your health until it's gone rings really true. For her not to be able to afford the medication that she needs to give her that little bit of relief and to give her that quality of life that, as I said, we take for granted, I think, is a really sad state of affairs.

By the government's own figures, many Australians don't fill prescriptions because they can't afford them. Panadol Osteo, of course, is an over-the-counter drug, but we're looking at the number of Australians who can't even afford their prescription medicine. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 961,000 people a year delay or avoid taking prescribed medicines due to the cost of those medicines. The rate of people skipping prescriptions is twice as high in the most disadvantaged areas. Five per cent of people skip their prescriptions in some of the least disadvantaged areas. In the most disadvantaged areas, it's around 10 per cent of people. What does that mean? It means that the cost of medication is prohibiting people from filling out their prescriptions and from getting the medications that they need for their health, for their wellbeing and for their quality of life is contributing to health inequality in Australia.

There's no other way to describe this other than as a crisis. This government is now in its third term, and rather than really look at this crisis for what it is—when you cannot afford medication, when you're choosing between food and medicine or between paying the rent and getting pain relief—in 2014, this government proposed to increase the cost of PBS medicines by up to $5, even for pensioners. My mum's a pensioner, and I know how much medication she has to take just to enjoy a quality of life that we take for granted, to be able to get some sleep, to be able to walk without pain and to be able to look after herself and live independently as she is so vehemently insisting on doing. I know how much it costs her just to be able to afford her medications, even though she is on a pension and even though she has a concession card. Increasing the cost of medicines by $5, even for pensioners, and increasing the thresholds for the PBS safety net would have forced patients to pay $1.3 billion more for medicines over four years. It would have caused even more Australians—people like my mum—to skip their essential medicines.

It was only Labor's opposition in parliament that stopped this government from implementing that measure. It was only Labor that kept this government in line and opposed this measure that would have seen PBS medicines increase by up to $5, including for pensioners, and see an increase in the thresholds of the PBS safety net. It was only Labor that stopped this government from doing this. Australians shouldn't forget that this Prime Minister and the current minister are part of that cabinet that wanted to make medicines more expensive for all Australians.

Last month, the PBAC made its recommendations public from the July meeting. That took the number of drugs waiting to be listed by Minister Hunt, the current Minister for Health, to more than 60. So there are more than 60 drugs at the moment waiting to be listed on the PBS. One of those drugs is Symdeko. Many members of parliament will know that I meet quite frequently with children suffering from cystic fibrosis and that I'm an advocate and a huge supporter of the cystic fibrosis cause. Symdeko is a life-changing cystic fibrosis drug. It treats the most common cystic fibrosis mutations and can extend life expectancy and improve quality of life for sufferers of cystic fibrosis, many of them children.

The minister made a promise to all of those with cystic fibrosis—to the children and to their parents—that they would have access to Symdeko on the PBS as soon as it was approved. It was approved six months ago. Six months may not seem long in our lifetime. I'm like anybody else who comes to October and November: we think, 'Where did the year go?' We say it every year: 'This year went so quickly. Where did the year go? Where did the week go?' Six months doesn't seem like that long at all, but I'll tell you: six months in the life of a child with cystic fibrosis is everything. To the parents of that child, six months is everything. To people who suffer with chronic pain, six months is everything. To people with life-threatening illnesses, six months is everything. It's just not good enough when this minister tells children suffering from cystic fibrosis and their parents that once Symdeko is approved they'll have immediate access to it and yet six months later they're still waiting.

Before I finish, I note that I have spoken before about continuous glucose monitors and I note that the government has made them available. However, I will raise this issue once more: once young people reach the age of 21, they are no longer eligible for the continuous glucose monitors. Again, I'm a big advocate for type 1 diabetes. What we're seeing is that, once people are over the age of 21, they no longer qualify for continuous glucose monitors unless they have a serious hypoglycaemic event that requires hospitalisation. The reports that I'm getting from the Diabetes Foundation and from advocates for type 1 diabetes is that young people are actually putting their lives at risk by purposely going into a hypoglycaemic event so that they can be transferred to the hospital and can qualify once again to get the continuous glucose monitors under the PBS, because they simply cannot afford them, particularly if they are studying or working part time and don't have wealthy parents who can pay for them. Young people are putting their lives at risk to get continued access to the continuous glucose monitors. I would urge the minister and this government, as a matter of urgency, to have a look at extending the regime and the access to continuous glucose monitors for people over the age of 21 so that we don't have young people putting their lives at risk.

Just to conclude, as I said, Labor does support this bill. We support anything that is going to make medications more available to the people who need them. We do this with a history of continuing to hold this government to account as it wants to increase the costs of medicine and shows tardiness on putting drugs onto the PBS once they have been approved by the PBAC. I would urge this government and this minister to look at those 60 drugs that have been approved. I urge the minister to be able to look children with cystic fibrosis and their parents in the eye and say to them that he did all he possibly could and used his position as the Minister for Health to get Symdeko onto the PBS as soon as possible, because every day that goes by is a day that these children and their parents are suffering and a day that that suffering is continuing needlessly.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (18:00): I rise today to support the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019 to lower the safety net threshold. I congratulate the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, and I'm proud the Morrison government is delivering on yet another election commitment that will make a real difference to the lives of Australians and their families, in particular those living with chronic conditions like heart disease, asthma, arthritis and diabetes. These illnesses often mean patients are taking continual medication, sometimes dozens of pills a day for the rest of their lives. I know; I have many family members, and I'm sure many members of this House do too. But, unfortunately, compounding the problem, many require treatment for multiple conditions at the same time, and that results in the requirement for long-term medication. Understandably, these long-term illnesses can have a devastating financial effect on individuals and families, not just because of the cost of the medication itself but often because a person cannot work as a result of their illness. That's why I'm proud to support this bill today. The bill amends the National Health Act to implement our election commitment to lower the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS, safety net threshold amount by 12 scripts for concessional patients and two scripts for general patients.

So why is this bill important? This amendment aims to help those who are the most vulnerable in the health system. These patients are often the sickest and require the most doctor's appointments. They are also the most at risk from financial pressures. I am proud that this amendment will help ease the burden on the most vulnerable patients in our health system. Currently 91 per cent of PBS scripts each year are for concession card holders, which shows just how important this amendment is and that we are supporting those who truly need it. By reducing the safety net threshold, pensioners and families will qualify to access free or further discounted medication much sooner. This will directly benefit around 1.6 million concessional patients—that's 1.6 million Australians—and a further 129,000 general patients who reach their PBS safety net each year. By allowing them to reach the PBS safety net sooner, patient out-of-pocket costs will be reduced, on average, by a further $80 each year.

This amendment is certainly not the only thing we are doing in the area of health. Our healthcare system is one of the best in the world, and that excellence remains a top priority for our government. There is much to be proud of. Our public health system provides care for everyone who needs it, and our private healthcare system provides choice for the consumer. Our healthcare system is unique in the world. Our strong economy means that we can make extra investments in our hospitals, and we have provided record funding for that purpose. What I'm really proud of is the fact that almost nine out of 10 Australians who visit a GP have no out-of-pocket expenses whatsoever, thanks to record Medicare bulk-billing.

Another very important thing that we should be enormously proud of is that we are continually at the forefront of medical breakthroughs and innovation as a result of stable and consistent funding from the coalition government. Our multibillion dollar investment in the Medical Research Future Fund is the envy of the world. I should know, having been a medical researcher myself and travelled overseas, where people have had a lot of interest in our Medical Research Future Fund.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which we're discussing today, is yet another complementary arm that keeps our population healthy, and it's not just for those who can afford it. The PBS already provides Australians with access to medications that would often cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Morrison government has already approved 2,000 new drugs on the PBS—that's 2,000 new drugs—which is something to be very proud of.

I want to highlight two tangible examples within our overall commitment to putting new medicines on the PBS. The first is life-saving drugs for cystic fibrosis and the second is life-saving drugs for lung cancer sufferers. As a paediatrician, I've seen the pressure that young families experience when a parent can no longer work and contribute to the household income, or, worse, if a child is sick and the parent needs to stop working to provide full-time care for their child. As a paediatrician, I've cared for many with cystic fibrosis. Unfortunately, no cures for cystic fibrosis are known and, consequently, several treatment methods are used for patient management.

While infants born with cystic fibrosis 70 years ago were unlikely to survive even past their first year, infants today are likely to live well into adulthood. It's one of the great success stories of medical research, and we are seeing people with cystic fibrosis now surviving into their fifth and sixth decade. Recent advances in the treatment of CF have resulted in patients living a fuller life, less encumbered by their condition, through proactive treatment airway infection and pulmonary rehabilitation. I'm proud of the recent announcement that the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, has made to that end. However, families of patients still experience a massive burden of health costs with regard to disease management and its necessary treatments. This amendment is going to make changes to lower the PBS safety net threshold to ensure chronically ill patients, including those with cystic fibrosis, and their families, who also have other numerous medical burdens to consider in their day-to-day lives, are less encumbered by the financial burden that come to hand with such an illness.

Similarly, lung cancer patients will also reap the benefits of this safety net amendment. My mother died of lung cancer 25 years ago last week. It was hard watching her suffer without any hope. One of the medications that has just been placed on the PBS by the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, would probably have saved my mother's life—she would still be with us today; she would have had the opportunity to meet her grandchildren. At the time, I remember we were so urgently wishing there was a treatment that was available. I remember the excitement when the treatment that is now available for people with metastatic lung cancer became available, but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars for patients. I know that cancer sufferers are looking for that lifeline all the time, and to be able to have it listed on the PBS is something that we should all be proud of as Australian taxpayers.

I also remember at the time speaking to other cancer sufferers and their families about the impact that the cancer had on keeping their head above water, especially those who were the primary breadwinners in their family. Fortunately, new medicines are being listed each and every day as they become available on the PBS, and I'm proud to say that there are now cancer treatments that are available that are saving lives and protecting lives as we speak.

Earlier this month I actually hosted a community roundtable in my electoral office in Higgins to raise awareness about the impact of lung cancer. We've heard about the stigma that can be associated with lung cancer. A local patient, Jenny, told us how she often felt lonely and overwhelmed experiencing battling cancer. But she also told us about the stigma associated with lung cancer compared to the diagnosis of colon cancer that she had recently miraculously recovered from. She said the stigma associated with lung cancer was immense, because people assumed that she had smoked when she had not. She also reflected on the financial burden she felt during this challenging time. This amendment bill is a pragmatic approach to ensure that such patients are supported and eased of the financial burdens that exacerbate the challenges felt by facing either a life-threatening condition or a chronic illness. Such reforms are possible due to the government's strong financial management and will benefit countless Australians when they need it most.

More than delivering affordable drugs, the Morrison government is committed to investing in research to deliver better outcomes for patients. The Morrison government's recent $33 million investment into healthcare practices and interventions, focusing on those with or at risk of developing chronic conditions, is one such complementary and pragmatic preventative approach being undertaken by the government. Certainly many illnesses, disabilities and deaths experienced by Australians are caused by chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease, some cancers, lung disease, diabetes and, of course, mental health. The funding for this initiative was provided through the Medical Research Future Fund's Rapid Applied Research Translation initiative.

The Medical Research Future Fund, introduced by the coalition government in the 2014-15 budget, is yet another example of a complementary policy introduction. It seeks to help understand vulnerable Australians and to provide groundbreaking preventative medical treatment to those in need. We are so lucky to have a world-class medical research group that is out there, trying to fight diseases and make better outcomes for patients. In conclusion, the Morrison government is delivering on its commitments in health and getting on with the job of supporting Australian families. This amendment bill is a pragmatic step to ensure that patients, in particular those with chronic illness, receive the support that they need without the financial stress. That is why I move to support this bill.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (18:11): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019. As has been made clear by speakers before me, Labor will support this bill, the purpose of which is to reduce PBS safety net thresholds from 1 January 2020.

Labor made it clear—certainly since not later than the election, when we matched the government's commitment to reduce the PBS safety net thresholds from 1 January—that we will support, and would support, this legislation when it was brought to this House. That's what responsible political parties should do. They should recognise good ideas when they are brought forward. They should recognise legislation that has beneficial effects for the Australian community and they should support legislation that has beneficial effects for the Australian community. It shouldn't be a matter of saying, 'That's a Labor idea; therefore, we won't support it,' which, regrettably, is something we hear constantly from those that are presently occupying the government benches.

We saw it today in the talking points that were leaked. These are, of course, the written instructions that go out like holy writ from the Prime Minister's office to government ministers telling them what they must say on each and every topic that might arise in the politics of the day. Unsurprisingly—I say 'unsurprisingly' because we hear it constantly inside this chamber—there were 34 references to Labor in the 14 or so pages of these talking points. That tells you a lot about this Liberal government. It tells you they're practically bereft of ideas themselves and all they can think of to do is attack Labor at every opportunity, and that's what passes for their idea of political debate.

But that is not enough for political debate. What we actually are looking for in this chamber, what the Australian community is looking for is engaged debate on policy, debate which actually weighs up the advantages to the Australian community of adopting particular policies, the costs to the Australian community of adopting particular policies and whether or not legislation that's proposed will, in fact, achieve the aims that it is stated to achieve. The idea that, when one side of politics comes up with a good idea, the other side of politics is prepared to adopt it, should not be regarded as an unusual idea. We would urge the government to adopt that approach to the health policies we took to the election on 18 May. But, of course, that's not what this Liberal government, which has now been in office for more than six years, wants to do. It actually, as its stock in trade, thinks that it's sufficient simply to attack Labor.

But let's return to this particular bill. Let's be clear: although this bill puts forward a desirable objective, it won't actually fix the crisis in medicines affordability that we have seen on this government's watch in the more than six years that they have fitfully governed. The government's own figures show that many Australians don't fill prescriptions because they can't afford to. That's a deeply distressing statistic to have to put before this House. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, the government's own agency, says that some 961,000 Australians every year delay or avoid taking medicines that have been prescribed to them by their treating doctor, and the reason that they don't go and purchase those medicines, or put off taking those medicines, is cost. That is a very sad state of affairs, and it gets worse when you consider how localised or in what parts of Australia this delaying or avoidance of taking medicines that treating doctors have prescribed is occurring. The rate of people who are skipping prescriptions from their treating doctor is twice as high in the most disadvantaged areas, at 10 per cent, as in the least disadvantaged areas, where the rate is only five per cent. That, of course, means that the cost of medicines is contributing to health inequality in Australia.

We want to see a health system that absolutely every Australian benefits from because they are holding a Medicare card, not because they are holding some particular kind of credit card. It's vital that health services, which include prescribed medicines, be affordable and available to every single Australian who needs those medicines. Unfortunately, when you look at what this third-term government has done about the crisis that's revealed by the statistics that I've just referred to, you can see only that the government has basically tried to make it worse.

You could start with what the government did in the 2014 budget right at the start of this government's period of more than six years in office. What happened in the 2014 budget was that the government proposed to increase the cost of PBS medicines by up to $5 even for pensioners and to increase the thresholds for the PBS safety net. The PBS safety net is vital for people who have chronic illnesses because, once you reach the threshold, which is already set at a fairly high level, you move to a lower rate of payment for prescribed medicines. What this uncaring Liberal government proposed to do in the 2014 budget was increase the threshold, which would have meant that more money would need to be spent by people with chronic illnesses before they were entitled to purchase their medicines at the reduced rate. It would have forced patients—and the PBS safety net, just to remind members of the House, is about people with chronic illnesses—to pay $1.3 billion more for medicines over four years. It would have caused even more Australians to skip essential medicines. It was only Labor's opposition in this parliament that stopped the government from implementing the measure that was in the 2014 budget, and every time members of the Australian community hear the current Minister for Health boasting about his supposed excellent record in relation to the provision of medicines to Australians they need to remember that this current Prime Minister and this current Minister for Health were part of the cabinet in 2014 that wanted to make medicines more expensive for every Australian. This Prime Minister and this health minister were part of the cabinet which brought a budget to this parliament for approval in 2014 that would have had the effect of making medicines more expensive for every Australian. That measure was on top of this government's appalling record of delaying PBS listings.

Let's pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that Labor introduced the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme under Ben Chifley. It was a great achievement. It has become, since then, a national institution which has benefited generations of Australians. The PBS is far too important to allow any side of politics, any political party, to seek the kind of cheap, temporary, partisan advantage that this grubby self-serving health minister seeks to engage in almost every time he stands up to answer a dorothy dixer in question time. Almost every time he does a press conference, we hear from him about how wonderful he is and how wonderful his government is now that he has been so generous as to list some further drug that has been recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. No previous minister for health has sought to engage in that kind of self-serving behaviour. No previous minister for health has sought to say that it's because of his administration or because of his political party's orientation that these drugs, whatever they may be, are listed. This minister has taken it to a whole new level, because not only does he claim some personal credit for the government extending listings that are recommended by a committee which is intended to be non-partisan, bipartisan and disinterested in every sense and disconnected from drug companies—that's what PBAC is there for, to get separation from the drug companies, to get separation from vested interests and, particularly, to get some separation from political game playing—but this Minister for Health seeks constantly to engage in the seeking of partisan advantage by claiming that some special credit should reflect on him. And he engages in a nasty, untruthful comparison with his imagined version—because it is not a real version—of Labor's record over six years in office.

Let's just think about what has been the actual record of the government in delaying PBS listings. Let's look at last month when the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee having made public their recommendations from the July meeting, which took the total number of drugs waiting to be listed by the current Minister for Health to more than 60. These are drugs that have been recommended for listing by independent experts—that's what the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is—and the reason the listings are recommended is that these are drugs that, finally, after clinical trials and after examination of their costs, stack up.

An example might be a drug called Symdeko. I heard the member for Higgins talking about cystic fibrosis drugs before. It's a shame to hear someone as knowledgeable about the health system as the member for Higgins merely reciting talking points that have been written for her by the Minister for Health's office. Her knowledge of the health system is far greater than his, I am certain, after her many decades of work for the Australian community both as a treating professional and as an academic. In particular, I refer to her work at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. I've got the utmost respect for the knowledge and competence of the member for Higgins, and it is disappointing that she's been forced to just recite talking points provided to her by the Minister for Health. If we go to cystic fibrosis drugs, we can look at Symdeko. It's a life-changing cystic fibrosis drug. It treats the most common cystic fibrosis mutation, and that extends life expectancy and improves quality of life. The minister made a promise to those with cystic fibrosis that they'd have access to Symdeko on the PBS as soon as it was approved. It's six months since that was recommended back in March, and there is no word on when or even if the government intends to list it. Speaking with Ray Hadley on 2GB, the minister was asked by a listener about the delay in listing drugs that can help people suffering with cystic fibrosis. He said:

… I think it’s important that the cystic fibrosis community knows that, you actually wonder what keeps a minister up at night—this. It’s the new medicines and the new listings and getting them there …

Clearly, he's recovered his ability to sleep through the night, because he's actually asleep at the wheel when it comes to listing approved drugs on the PBS.

We have a minister who loves to pat himself on the back, a minister who loves to hold purpose-specific—drug-specific at that—press conferences, where he associates himself with a particular sufferer or the family of a sufferer and pats himself on the back every time the government finds the money through the Expenditure Review Committee or the budget processes to approve the listings that have been recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. If he's responsible for the listings, he's also responsible for every drug which he refuses to list—every drug which he sleeps through the night on and neglects to list. He needs to stop the delay on PBS listings and start treating Australian patients with respect. A good start would be to stop these grubby self-serving press conferences and claims for credit which he does not deserve.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:25): I rise in support of the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019, because it's a very good bill. It gives a very good outcome to the health consumers of Australia—the taxpayers of Australia and people who need affordable medicines. We have a system that is the envy of other nations.

Dr Freelander: Thanks to Labor!

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: We're not arguing over who started it. We are talking about this bill and what we are doing. It is a good system. It wasn't brought in in the last six years, but it is a wonderful system.

Thousands of people get drugs for complex or common conditions that would bankrupt whole families in other countries. In fact, people in some jurisdictions just can't afford their regular medicines, let alone the expensive ones. Under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, as we know, when people go to fill their script and a drug is on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, hundreds of thousands of people only pay $6.50 for their script if they're a concession cardholder. Even though it might cost $80,000 or $300,000, they are paying $6.50. For non-concession cardholders, it's $40.30. What a wonderful system. People with cancer, cystic fibrosis and with all sorts of rare genetic diseases can get drugs that improve their condition out of sight.

There are 186 million scripts dispensed in the PBS every year. That's a frighteningly large number, but we managed to pay for it because we have been wise with managing our money. Of these prescriptions, 91 per cent are dispensed to people who are on a concession card. This bill enacts a change to the safety net. The safety net is the financial threshold over which you don't even have to pay the $6.50 or the $40.30. We're reducing that from 60 scripts for a concession cardholder down to 48 scripts. That will deliver quite a considerable saving for the individual concerned. If you're a non-concession cardholder, we are reducing the number of prescriptions of PBS drugs that need to be dispensed before you reach that threshold from 38 scripts down to 36 scripts. That's dropping from $1,550 to $1,486. If you were telling some friends of mine who live on the west coast of America that they only had to pay that amount of money for their prescriptions, they wouldn't believe the system that we have here.

As you know, we have a good record. This government, since 2013, has listed over 2,100 new drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We're all very familiar with the wonderful new drugs for ovarian cancer, for all sorts of cancers like melanoma, the treatment for hepatitis C, the treatment for cystic fibrosis and the new cardiac drugs—all these wonderful pharmaceuticals are available. They're cutting-edge drugs. All the immunological, immune modulating drugs and all the drugs that target specific genetic abnormalities in cancers are available. They're incredibly expensive, but we can deliver them to people who need them for the price that they pay—either $6.50 or $40.30. It's a wonderful system.

In the budget, we have, as the first cab off the rank, the Medicare guarantee. Everything that is really important in the health system can be boiled down to three tranches. We have the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; we have the Medicare system; and we provide a co-contribution, or a rebate, for private health insurance, so that people can afford to hold insurance, take responsibility for themselves and not put a strain on the public hospital system. So we have a very good blended system here.

Many would remember that this wasn't always the case. There was a period when the finances of the nation were in a runaway deficit situation. It's on the budget record—and many quotations have been delivered in this House, stating what we all remember very well—that a lot of PBS drugs were delayed in their listing until the budget position allowed. But it wasn't when we were in control of the Treasury benches and balancing the budget; it was, unfortunately, with the former, Labor-led government. Because they hadn't controlled their budget spending in so many other areas, they delayed treatments. I know if they look back they would admit it; it's just a fact. But we have managed to balance our books. We have finally brought the budget back into the black. But, well before that, as I said, we brought in the Medicare guarantee and we brought in all these new wonderful drugs.

There are many more coming through the pipeline, but we have a system. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is a group of highly professional doctors, scientists, pharmacologists and medico-economists that look at the safety and the efficacy of the drug and how well it works against the current therapy. It goes through a rigorous analysis. If the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee makes a recommendation, the maker and the Australian government then negotiate a price. We are willing buyers of drugs and they are willing sellers, and general negotiation takes place. It is a sound system, because we have to deliver value for money and we are bulk purchasers of drugs. So not only is the science rigorous, but the financial side of the equation is also rigorous. We get a great deal for everyone in Australia who requires medication.

I am just so pleased that I was, by the lottery of life, born and live in Australia, because there are plenty of people that don't get the system that we have in this nation. So I would like to thoroughly recommend this bill to the House. It is going to cost the budget a considerable amount of money. The taxpayer will be paying $328 million more because of this safety net reduction. But it was a coalition commitment during the election to make medicines more affordable. We've delivered on our promises. We've delivered the drugs. We've delivered a balanced budget and we are delivering the best medicines for the people of Australia. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (18:34): At the beginning, I would just like to say that, in talking about health policy on the Labor side, I stand in the shadow of giants. Some of those giants were Ben Chifley and his government, who introduced in 1949 the PBS, which had been much talked about prior to the legislation being brought into the House—and the Curtin government, who during the war years, certainly recognised the need to help subsidise the cost of medications for all Australians. On the back of that legislation, we have been able to introduce fantastic health policies from then on, including our wonderful immunisation program, which has been the envy of the world. Following the Chifley government, we had many other great Labor leaders. The prime ministerships of Arthur Calwell, Gough Whitlam, Bill Hayden, Bob Hawke, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd developed health reforms for all Australians.

My career as a doctor started in 1972 as a medical student, and I well remember the talk of this new policy, Medibank, which actually revolutionised health care for Australians. Up until that point, medical costs had been a leading cause of bankruptcy in Australia. Medibank revolutionised health care in Australia, and I well remember when it came in and what a wonderful change it made for the ordinary Australians who, up until that time, had really struggled with health care. Of course, it was dismantled by the Fraser Liberal government, and then there were several iterations of partially-effective health insurance schemes by conservative governments. It wasn't until the onset of the Hawke-Keating government and the advent of Medicare that we in Australia really developed a universal healthcare policy that enabled all Australians to access fair and reasonable health care. It is important to note that part of that Medicare agreement led to a cooperative arrangement with the states, and also with private health insurance and the private health care industry, that enabled fair access to comprehensive health care for all Australians.

I started my private practice in the week that Medicare first started in Australia, in February 1984. Medicare revolutionised health care for many families in my electorate of Macarthur. I can remember seeing families who had not been able to have access to a paediatrician before because they couldn't afford the cost. It really did revolutionise health care in the electorate of Macarthur.

I am really pleased that my medical colleagues, the member for Lyne, David Gillespie, and the member for Higgins, Katie Allen, were able to speak in support of this bill, the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019, and the amendment. But I do think it is a shame that they do not recognise that there has been a change in the last 10 years, and that health care for ordinary Australians is less and less affordable. That is one of the reasons why I'm in parliament.

It's fantastic to hear my very good friend and colleague the member for Dobell, who has worked in the public hospital system for a long time with some of the most disadvantaged members of our community. I know how much she recognises the way that health care in the last few years has really changed in Australia and that we are at great risk now of developing a two-tiered, American-style healthcare system where the poorest in our community get the poorest health care and have the most difficulty accessing it. We are seeing this already in the public hospital system with the collapse of the public hospital outpatient system, with longer and longer waiting lists and more and more difficulty accessing public hospital outpatient clinics for many people, and with greater gap costs for people accessing private practitioners, particularly specialists. The increasing gap costs are making visits to some specialists, such as ophthalmologists, ENT surgeons, cardiologists and neurologists, virtually unaffordable for many Australians. That is not to say that that is true for all Australians. Of course, people who have the financial ability can access specialists very quickly, and, through the private health system, can often access hospital waiting lists very quickly. But in the public hospital system we're seeing increasing gap costs for private consultations, and longer and longer waiting lists for public outpatient clinics. In fact, many hospitals don't have public outpatient clinics. For the paediatric ENT surgeons in my electorate, there is no ENT public outpatient clinic. I know at the Sydney Children's Hospital it's virtually impossible for a child to access a public outpatient clinic, so people are forced to see private practitioners and pay increasing gap costs. It makes it very difficult for the very poorest in our society to access top-notch health care.

I welcome any steps that address issues in affordability and access to health care. This bill in a small way does help people address medication costs. Through this legislation, once a patient reaches the safety net threshold their co-payments are reduced—for people not on concession cards they are reduced from $40.30 to $6.50 and for people on pension cards they are reduced from $6.50 to zero. I certainly welcome this reduction in the safety net thresholds for the PBS, but I must say that the government can and should be doing a great deal more to address the healthcare and medicines affordability crisis that we now know has occurred under their watch.

Don't forget the horrendous 2014 budget. This Prime Minister and members of his cabinet were the ones who wanted to introduce the GP co-payment and they wanted to introduce increased costs for concession card holders when getting medication. That was a horrendous and shameful budget. It really did a lot towards giving the okay for increasing the gap costs for a whole range of medical treatments. It was very shameful.

It really is a sad state of affairs when Australians are forgoing filling their prescriptions because they can't afford them. That's the reality that we are presently faced with. The government's own data confirms that this is happening in Australia in 2019. As more eloquently stated by the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, the difficulty in affording medications is worse in the most disadvantaged electorates, so rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas are where these difficulties are occurring. That to me is really a travesty. The universal health insurance scheme that we have in Australia is about trying to make access to health care and medication more affordable for the poorest in our community, because of course the poorest in our community tend to be the sickest. The government are turning their backs on it.

I know that people have good access to health care at the North Shore Hospital, and they would certainly let you know if they didn't. In my electorate in outer metropolitan Sydney it's more difficult for people to access health care. I have on a number of occasions had to ring some of my specialist colleagues and ask them to bulk-bill patients so that they can have access to care. I contacted a neurosurgeon for one lady and a cardiologist for another. For a man who was going blind I contacted an ophthalmologist so that he could have his cataracts done. It's the reverse of what should be the case.

The government denies that there is a problem. I'm pleased to hear that some of the member for Lyne's colleagues who obviously are quite wealthy and live in the United States think that we have a good system, but I can tell you that a lot of people who live in outback New South Wales or even in outer metropolitan Sydney have real difficulty affording prescriptions and have real difficulty affording health care for their children. The government denies that that is the case and pretends that this very small move is going to make a difference to the everyday lives of many Australians.

We know that some of the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable people in our society are being hit the hardest with health costs and that in the most disadvantaged areas the rate of people who are skipping their prescriptions is twice as high as it is in the least disadvantaged areas. There is no disputing the fact that the cost of medicines is contributing to the growing inequality in health care that we're seeing in Australia. When 10 per cent of patients are skipping their prescriptions in some of the most disadvantaged areas of our society we have a crisis on our hands. I'm not normally a catastrophiser; I'm generally an optimist. I think the majority of Australians do have access to pretty good health care. But we need to face the reality that many of the most disadvantaged are not accessing the quality of 21st-century health care that they should be in Australia. It's time we had a real look at our healthcare systems to see how we could better provide for the most disadvantaged. Many of those opposite do not share the same belief as me, and time and time again they've sought to make it harder for ordinary Australians to access the care that they need.

I have spoken in this chamber on a number of occasions about people being locked out of health care. We see that in public hospital waiting lists. For some of the surgical specialties—ophthalmology, ENT surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopies, et cetera—there are enormous waiting lists. And the waiting lists are worse in outer-metropolitan, rural and regional areas than they are in the inner-city areas. As I said at the beginning of this speech, we are at real risk of developing an American-style, two-tiered health system where those who can afford it have access to the very best of 21st-century care, and those who can't afford it are condemned to very poor health outcomes because they get very poor health care. We've been heading further and further down this path since the coalition government has been in power. Instead of taking the necessary steps to address this, those opposite have actually sought to make matters worse. Once again, it's the 2014 budget that comes to mind, with the increasing gap costs and the increasing out-of-pocket expenses for a whole range of health services. If they'd had their way, this government would have forced Australian patients to pay an extra $1.3 billion over four years to access the medicines they need. Thankfully, Labor's opposition in the parliament prevented those measures from being enacted in 2014 and stopped the government's attack on some of the most vulnerable in our society. We support this bill, the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019, and it does reduce some of those costs, but I would stress the fact that the most vulnerable are falling further and further behind in health care.

I just want to say a little bit more about the PBS. The minister is very prone to crowing about his very special abilities to list drugs on the PBS. I know that the PBS for many, many years has been bipartisan. It acts on bipartisan advice. It separates the political arm from the enabling arm of the PBS through the PBAC. That's very important, so that the specialists involved in assessing these medications are able to give evidence-based reasons why they should or should not be listed. We know that there will be an absolute tsunami of new drugs being considered for listing on the PBS in the next few years. We know that because medicine is changing dramatically. It's much more data driven and there's much more technology in developing genetically targeted drugs. For example, there are some very rare diseases that now have genetic treatments that costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. We're all going to be faced with how to deal with this, no matter who's in power—and that's why the PBS is a very good, bipartisan system. It annoys me to see the minister crowing about his abilities when he's asked about this in question time on the floor of the House. The PBS is bipartisan. I will say that again: the PBS is bipartisan, and the minister should not be trying to politicise the PBS. It is absolutely shameful. Those on the other side who are involved in health care should know that and understand that, and I'm sure they do. I will call the minister out every time he tries to politicise our bipartisan PBS. We support this bill and the amendment, and I thank the House for its indulgence.

Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (18:49): I rise to speak on this bill, the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019. I want to echo many of the comments made by the previous member, who has spent a lifetime dedicated to helping others in his previous profession, and I know he still practices even though he serves in this place. It stands as a reminder of how lucky we are to have people who live to serve others and who live to heal others. I know the member for Macarthur is an outstanding representative of the medical field. It's a tough thing to come after him. Also the member for Lyne, who I have gotten to know over the last few weeks because we are serving on a committee on another matter together, has dedicated his life to the medical profession. It's a worthy profession. I can't say that I've had the same experience. My only job inside the healthcare profession was back when I was a pimply 18-year-old. I was a courier and I used to pick up blood samples from one hospital in Box Hill and deliver them to Peter MacCallum. It was just a small taste of getting to know and be a part of the health system. Even though I only did that job for a few months, there was certainly pride in working for our outstanding healthcare system.

Today we are obviously here to speak about the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill. As has been mentioned previously, the Labor Party will support this bill which reduces the safety net threshold from 1 January 2020. I think that we come to this debate with a basic premise that health care should be affordable and that the cost of medicines should not ever be a prohibitive factor for Australians. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the Labor Party have always believed that health care is a right and not a privilege and anything that we can do in this place to ensure that access to good-quality health care and good-quality medicines is absolutely essential.

Growing up, I had doctors in my family. My auntie was the family doctor, as was my grandfather. He also served on the head of hospital boards. One of the things that I never appreciated growing up was that good-quality health care and medical advice was only ever a phone call away. While many other people would have to go and book an appointment and hopefully get in to see their GP but often face a lengthy waiting list, my family were fortunate enough to just call and seek advice about whether we needed to seek further attention. It was, I think, one of the luckiest parts of my life. Both my parents worked hard, but having access to medical care was a crucial thing. It was something that I always appreciate now, especially as I've got a young daughter. Having to take her to the Monash one time at three in the morning was something that I certainly felt as a parent.

As I mentioned, we're here to support this bill. It is a bill that is, hopefully, going to make health care and medicines more affordable. On that premise, I think Australians are looking for more of that. They're looking for more of political parties saying: 'You know what? It's not about Labor; it's not about Liberal. This is about a good idea when we see it.' And we're here to back it. We're here to back the government. They have put forward this bill, and we think that it's worthy of support. But, by the same token, while we didn't get things right at the last election—and that hurts; no-one's here to say that the last election was where we wanted to be and, even though coming to this place is the privilege of my working life, obviously I would like to be sitting on the other side of the chamber talking about all the different reforms we are going to bring in—I do believe that the Labor Party brought to the last election some healthcare reforms that were going to make our country better, were going to make our country fairer and were going to reduce the cost of medicines and the cost of treatment, much like this bill sets out to do.

I'm just going to briefly touch on some of those reforms in the same spirit that we are treating this bill. The first one was, I think, the most significant piece of policy that the Labor Party brought to the last election and that we were proudest of and, if the government recognised it was a good idea and was willing to implement it, we would be the first to back it. That was our $2.3 billion cancer package, where $600 million was going to go to improving access and affordability of diagnostic imaging, with up to six million free cancer scans funded through Medicare; $500 million to cutting public hospital wait times for cancer treatment through a national partnership agreement with the states; $433 million to funding three million free consultations with oncologists and surgeons for cancer patients through the creation of a new bulk-billed Medicare item; and $125 million to cancer research. There would have been a guarantee that every drug recommended by the independent experts would be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Much like this bill, which seeks to ensure that medical treatment isn't a prohibitive factor for Australians, that, I think, is a policy that is worthy of support.

While we didn't win the election, we did come up with a plan to make treating cancer more affordable and to make sure that, if you had cancer, your job would be to worry about getting better and not worry about the cost of your treatment, the cost of your specialists and the cost of the medicines that you needed in order to make a full recovery. While we come today in this debate welcoming some reforms around the safety net thresholds, we would absolutely come back here and celebrate and work with the government if they were willing to support our cancer policy that we brought to the last election.

One of the other things I want to quickly mention is the proposed Better Hospitals Fund, where we had an extra $2.8 billion in funding for more beds and shorter surgery wait times over the six years. Hospitals in Victoria, my home state, would have been $635 million better off, including the Alfred Hospital in my electorate, which is one of our nation's finest medical institutes. I had the privilege of spending a bit of time with the doctors, nurses and researchers in the Alfred. It's quite a big medical research precinct in and around the Alfred, looking at ways in which we can find the next drugs, the next research and the next public policy health-saving measures to better the health and lives of Australians.

The other one is the Pensioner Dental Plan. The Prime Minister likes to talk about quiet Australians, but I think this policy would have made a huge impact on confidence and perhaps some of the neglect that many of our pensioners have felt simply by being hesitant when they're about to smile. That, I think, is something that we should never have in Australia. It is absolutely a medical right that Australians should have the confidence to have the ability to smile, to show off and to have healthy dental care. Our dental plan would have given you $1,000 worth of free essential dental medical care covered by Medicare every two years if you had an age pension or a Commonwealth seniors card. Over 185,000 older Australians would have benefited. We see too many Australians skipping dental care as a result of this.

These are just some of the measures that we brought to the last election. We say we're here to work together. We lost, and it hurt. While there are lots of arguments about who did what well and who did what not so well, I don't think any Australian would say that we don't become a better country by making medicines more affordable and by making sure the safety net thresholds are reduced. But I also think that Australians would say that we become a better country if, when you've got cancer, the medicines that you need in order to get better are covered by your government. If you are sick, you should focus on getting better.

While it is welcomed that the government has brought forward this bill to try and help alleviate some of the costs in health care, it hasn't always been a squeaky clean record when it comes to—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr BURNS: I'm getting interjections from my own side here! It hasn't always been a squeaky clean record when it comes to ensuring that Australians have affordable health care. You only have a look back at that famous budget in 2014 when the member for Dickson, the now Minister for Home Affairs, was the health minister. It was a different time. It was the budget where—while government members were celebrating over a cigar in the back lounge in the Senate—we found out that the GP co-payment was doing to be heaped upon Australian taxpayers and the Australian people, and that savings of over $1.7 billion would be brought about by pausing the indexation of the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the income threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge and the private health insurance rebate. Patients were expected to pay a $7 co-payment to visit the GP and to pay more for medication through changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that we're talking about today. There was $252 million of savings by raising the cost of certain medicines on the PBS—$252 million of savings by making medicines more expensive for Australians. So, while we welcome this bill, we do it with a sense of caution. We do it knowing that the government have form in this regard, that their instinct when they first came into government was not to make medicine more affordable but to make it more expensive and to bring in pretty harsh and cruel budget savings measures in order to bring down their cruel budget, which they celebrated over a big cigar.

I think today is a good step. It's a good step that this is about making medicines more affordable and that we in this place can say to the Australian public that, when we look at the PBS, we recognise that medicines can be a prohibitive cost and that we're here to fix this. But, on this side of the House, we also say that we're here to work together, we're here to make sure that medicine and health care are affordable for Australians and, if the government decides to recognise that this is not about politics but rather about good policy and wants to bring forward some of Labor's measures, including cancer treatment and dental plans and dental care for pensioners, then we stand ready to work with them.

I don't want to get too focused on the minister in my last minute in this contribution, but I would say that there have been instances where the minister has promised a big game on the PBS and hasn't delivered. The minister did make a promise to Australians living with cystic fibrosis that they would have access to Symdeko on the PBS as soon as it was approved and, unfortunately, we're now six months on and we are none the wiser on when the government intends to list it or when the government intends to put it on the PBS. So, while we say today that this bill is worth supporting and that we in the Labor Party do support better healthcare measures, we stand ready to work with the government and we stand ready to put forward and to look at some of the things we brought to the last election. And the minister should get on with the job of listing much-needed medicines on the PBS.

Dr MARTIN (Reid) (19:04): The National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to implement our election commitment to lower the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, safety net thresholds for individuals and their families.

The amendments are needed to implement our 2019 election commitment to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for patients who are accessing PBS medicines. This bill will reduce the PBS safety net threshold amounts for concessional and general patients, and their families, from 1 January 2020. The changes to the safety net threshold amounts will enable PBS patients to reach the safety net earlier in the calendar year. The safety net threshold for concessional patients will be reduced by 20 scripts, from 60 PBS scripts to 48 PBS scripts, at the concessional co-payment level. This will reduce the concessional safety net threshold to an estimated $316.80 in 2020. Without this proposal, the 2020 concessional safety net threshold would have risen to an estimated $396. The safety net threshold for general patients will be reduced from the 2019 threshold of approximately 38 scripts to approximately 36 scripts. Without this proposal, the 2020 general safety net threshold would have risen.

Lower PBS safety net thresholds will benefit up to around 1.6 million concessional patients and 129,000 general patients, allowing them to reach the PBS safety net sooner, reducing their out-of-pocket costs. It will, in particular, improve access to PBS medicines for patients whose treatment requires a larger number of PBS prescriptions each year, such as people with chronic conditions including asthma, diabetes and high cholesterol. Reaching the PBS safety net enables a patient to access PBS medicines either at no cost or at a cheaper price for the rest of the calendar year. The measure will reduce prescription costs, saving the majority of patients approximately $80 per year. Lowering the concessional safety net threshold will benefit the holders of pension concession cards, Australian senior health cards and healthcare cards. It will also provide a benefit for gold, white and orange card holders under the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The measure to lower the safety net threshold was previously announced by the Prime Minister on 2 May 2019 as an election commitment and, at the time, was welcomed by stakeholders as a positive measure that would benefit patients. The safety net threshold amendment will cost $328.8 million over the current budget and forward estimates. Through the PBS, patients can access medicines that in some cases would cost tens of thousands of dollars per year for a maximum of just $6.50 per script for concession card holders or a maximum of $40.30 for non-concessional patients. Patients receive free or reduced-cost scripts once they reach the safety net. Ninety-one per cent of PBS scripts each year, or 186 million scripts, are dispensed to concession card holders, including pensioners and low-income earners, meaning they pay no more than $6.50 per script for medicines that without a subsidy would cost them much, much more than that. Twenty per cent of scripts for concession card holders, or 37 million scripts, are free of charge because patients have reached the safety net.

Since coming to government in 2013, we have invested $10.6 billion to list over 2,100 new or amended medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We are averaging 31 new or amended listings per month—approximately one per day. Many medicines would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and would be out of reach for many, but, through the PBS, general patients will pay $40.30 per script, or $6.50 per script with a concession card. Recent new PBS listings include medicines for lung cancer that were costing patients $88,000 per year; for cystic fibrosis, $300,000 per year; and for arthritis, over $16,000 per year. Recent new PBS listings costing $67 million include Botox, which will have its current PBS listing extended to include adults with lower-limb focal spasticity following a stroke. More than 2,800 patients per year are expected to benefit from this listing. Without the PBS subsidy, patients would pay more than $5,400 per year for this treatment. In August, another key listing was Avastin, for relapsed or refractory glioblastoma. Around 890 patients with relapsed or refractory glioblastoma will benefit each year. Without the PBS subsidy, the $31,200 per course of treatment would have been borne by the patients. Avastin treats brain tumours that are resistant to previous treatment and it is very important to patients with relapsed or refractory glioblastoma.

Sprycel is for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The Morrison government is extending the current listing of Sprycel to newly diagnosed patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Without the PBS subsidy, around 88 patients might pay more than $51,000 each year for this medicine. Through the PBS, they will pay $40.30 or $6.50 per script.

Another treatment listed on the PBS is Actemra. This listing will directly benefit patients who have an inflammatory disease affecting the large blood vessels of the scalp, neck and arms. This charge could benefit an average of 852 patients per year and, without this PBS listing, patients like Alistair would otherwise have paid more than $10,200 for each course of treatment.

In Australia, one in 2,500 babies are born with cystic fibrosis each year. That's one every four days. Sadly, there is currently no cure. Kalydeco has been extended and added to the PBS listing and is now available to patients aged 12 to 24 months with cystic fibrosis. Kalydeco lessens the viscosity of mucous in the lungs, helping patients to breathe more freely. Without the PBS subsidy, patients might pay up to $300,000 per year for this medicine.

Labor stopped listing medicines in 2011 because they could not manage the economy. The 2011-12 portfolio budget statements explained that the listing of some medicines would be deferred 'until fiscal circumstances permit'. This included medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, endometriosis, IVF and asthma, among others. A strong economy ensures that the Morrison government is able to invest in essential health services. If you can't manage the economy, you can't manage health. The Morrison government's plan for strengthening Australia's world-class health system is providing Australians with access to quality medical care, record hospital funding, affordable life-changing medicines and breakthrough research for new drugs and treatments.

Medicare is funding at record levels. Almost nine out of 10 Australians who visit the doctor have no out-of-pocket costs with their GP. Bulk-billing is at a record rate of 86 per cent, up from 82 per cent under Labor. In my electorate of Reid, 93 per cent of GP visits were bulk-billed last year. That's over a million visits to the doctor in my seat alone. Hospital funding is up 60 per cent since Labor left office in 2013, and the Morrison government is providing an additional $31 billion for hospitals from 2020-21 to 2024-25, to employ more nurses, doctors and specialists, delivering in partnership with the states and territories, and offering more surgeries and medical services. If you can't manage the economy, you can't manage health.

Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (19:13): I rise to support the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019. Labor champions fair access to health care for all Australians, including protecting our most vulnerable from excessive costs in medicines and health care. While Labor supports this bill, it won't fix the significant issues that many are facing in this country, with escalating costs of health care. That number is clear: 961,000 people a year delay or avoid taking their prescribed medicines due to cost. Recently, in my electorate office, the public face of these numbers came to meet with me. They are a pensioner couple, both over the age of 70, who regularly make decisions about which one of them needs the pain medication more, because they can't afford the cost every fortnight of both medications. How is this reasonable in a country like ours?

We know that this is not the best way for them to manage their health. Being in constant pain will curtail the exercise which will ultimately keep them as healthy as possible. For our older Australians, this is just not fair. A first-world country where citizens cannot get the best care possible because the government refuses to support them—that's the path we are worryingly heading towards in Australia.

How many drugs have been recommended for listing on the PBS by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and not listed? Unfortunately for people with cystic fibrosis, they can tell you that Symdeko still hasn't been listed. The health minister promised those patients and their families it would be listed as soon as it was recommended by PBAC. Well, Minister, it's been six months since it was recommended by PBAC and it has still not been listed by this government—another group of patients waiting, and more broken promises by the health minister. Cystic fibrosis destroys the lungs and the nervous system. It can't be cured, but it can be treated with drugs like Symdeko. It affects one baby born every four days. For the six months that these babies and infants, and their families, have been waiting, another 45 babies have been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. It's time for the government to make good on their promise.

I also note the election commitment from this government, for people with type 1 diabetes, that flash glucose monitoring—or FGM—would be added to the National Diabetes Services Scheme. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder, and it is not curable. Again, this typically affects children, and it is a lifelong disease. It is a leading cause of blindness, amputations and renal failure. It's time this government recognised the benefits of the flash and continuous glucose monitoring systems. Instead of pricking your finger upwards of 15 times a day, FGM and CGM machines place a small disposable sensor in the body and read blood glucose levels once every five minutes. It's like pricking your finger every five minutes for a blood sugar result without the pain, the calluses and the inconvenience.

FGM and CGM are proven to drastically improve control for people with diabetes, and greatly assist preventing the additional complications that drain our healthcare system. Baker IDI calculates the annual cost to Medicare of a person with diabetes at $3,468. For people with complications, that increases to a staggering $16,698. This government would end up spending four times as much, or around $13,000 more per year. An investment of around $2,000 per patient could avoid those complications and costs, both financial and social, and allow those patients to continue to be part of our society and have great jobs.

The health minister promised the listing of flash glucose monitoring on the NDSS as of 1 March this year. Has it been done? No, not yet. I hope this was not just an election promise. People with diabetes and their families are waiting for this promise to be kept. It is currently over seven months late, and it has been nearly a year since this promise was made. People under 21 with diabetes have access to that technology, but what about those who are over 21? In March, when the Minister for Health intended on listing flash glucose monitoring on the NDSS, 32 countries around the world had already subsidised flash glucose monitoring. Diabetes is a lifelong disease, and should be supported for all of that time. As I've already pointed out, better management means healthier people and a better budget bottom line.

As Maria Craig, a professor of paediatric endocrinology at the University of Sydney, wrote in the InSight + magazine from The Medical Journal of Australia:

Type 1 diabetes is not a choice or a lifestyle disease. I can't see a reason why Australia wouldn’t follow other nations in subsidising technology that is proven to improve the lives of people with it.

However, this government will only support people with diabetes to access constant glucose monitoring until they are 21. Even then, people with diabetes do not have a choice.

However, there are exceptions. If you have a history of multiple episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, you may be eligible. But, distressingly, there have been anecdotal reports of people deliberately triggering hypoglycaemic episodes because they can't suffer the alternatives. By doing so, people with diabetes are deliberately risking permanent damage or worse, with the possibility of complications such as kidney failure, blindness, heart failure and perhaps death.

The PBAC has recommended also more than 60 treatments to be listed on the PBS. I wonder why the government continues to stand in the way of patients accessing these much-needed treatments at costs which are more reasonable. And what is the result? Nine hundred and sixty-one thousand people skipping their treatments because they can't afford them—children, families, brothers, sisters, mums and dads skipping medication because they simply can't afford it. There are families who are dealing with chronic and potentially life-threatening illnesses, and they have to think about the costs associated with the treatment.

And this just relates to the cost of prescription medicines; let's not forget if you have to go to a doctor to get that prescription. Look at the government's record on the cost of a GP visit. Since 2013, when the government was elected, the cost of visiting GPs has skyrocketed, on average, by 36 per cent. In New South Wales and Victoria, the average has actually increased by 39 per cent. This doesn't include the $7 GP tax the government considered in the 2014 budget, a proposal that was rejected by Labor. Instead, this government then continued with the Medicare freeze, another way to introduce the GP tax by stealth. The figures are even worse when you look at the cost of seeing a specialist. The cost of visiting a GP since 2013 has gone up, on average, 36 per cent, but for a specialist visit the increase has been, on average, 58 per cent. This government has overseen sharp increases in fees that Australians pay to visit a specialist. This is on top of the blowout over the same period in the time that it takes to see a specialist in my electorate.

I am sure many of us in this place frequently see constituents who ask us how they can afford to see their doctors and treat their conditions. Recently I saw a gentleman who, due to a significant injury, is on Newstart. He needs regular specialist appointments to assist with his conditions but he can't afford them and pay bills and eat. What do you say to a proud man who breaks down in tears in front of you because he can't pay for the medicines or see his doctor? Australia's sick and chronically ill are delaying and avoiding Medicare services due to cost. That's the hard fact from the government's own experts, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. What do you say to a family whose young son, three years old, is diagnosed with cancer and who, to be able to support him and look after him, have to run a GoFundMe page so that those treatments can happen? It shouldn't happen in this country. Ours is a country that prides itself on its access to health services and medicines that are affordable. That needs to continue.

I sum up by saying this government has not listed 60 drugs on the PBS despite PBAC recommendations, it's introduced a GP tax by stealth, it's allowed costs to see GPs to spiral out of control, it's allowed specialist visit costs to spiral out of control, and it's prevented people with type 1 diabetes having fair and equitable access to constant flash glucose-monitoring systems. When will this government consider health as a priority, as most Australians do, and support our health system for better outcomes? The government must stop further escalation in the cost of medicines, treatments, medical devices and the accessibility of health care. Australians deserve better for their health and for the health of our country.

Dr MULINO (Fraser) (19:24): I rise to support the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019. This is an uncontroversial bill that represents election commitments made by both major parties at the last election. It will reduce thresholds in 2020 from where they would have been. As earlier speakers on this side of the House have indicated, this is a welcome measure.

But, as earlier speakers on this side of the House have indicated, when we discuss measures such as this which are uncontroversial and relatively narrow, in addition to noting support for the specific bill it's also worth noting the broader context within which the bill is brought to the chamber. It's an honour to follow on from speakers such as the member for Werriwa, the member for Macnamara and the member for Macarthur who have so well laid out that broader context. In particular, they've laid out the major contributions of earlier governments to health policy and health service delivery, such as the creation of Medicare and not just the creation of that framework but also over many years the funding of many services within that framework. They've also pointed out failings on the government side, such as the 2014 budget with its unannounced proposal that wasn't taken to an election for a co-payment and other proposals that were not acceptable to the community and which were blocked by the opposition and those on this side of the chamber.

Those earlier speakers on this side have also pointed out how those failings have actually continued since that now infamous budget. I just want to put on the public record a few facts about where we in Australia find ourselves today in relation to the provision of health services. These are some basic facts which I think should be very concerning to everybody in this place and which should create an urgency for much more to be done. In 2017-18, Australians spent $9.4 billion on medicines and pharmacy products not listed on the PBS. That's money coming out of the pockets of people who are already feeling that their household budgets are under strain.

In addition to this, the government's own figures show that many Australians don't fill prescriptions because they can't afford them. What burden can there be on people, on people's lifestyles, for them not to take drugs that doctors have recommended and that they need because they can't afford them? According to the ABS, 961,000 people a year delay or avoid taking prescribed medicines due to cost. I say again: these are drugs which doctors or specialists have indicated to people that they need and that people clearly want, but they're delaying taking them or not taking them at all because of the fact that they can't afford the out-of-pocket expenses. Importantly, the rate of people skipping prescriptions is twice as high in disadvantaged areas as in less disadvantaged areas. This shouldn't come as a surprise, but those figures should be on the public record in this place because that inequality is something on which this parliament should be taking action. It's something which a bill like this, a worthwhile bill, an uncontroversial bill, but a very narrow bill, completely fails to address in any way whatsoever. So that's really the broad context within which we are debating this bill. This is a small, positive measure, but health policy is lacking.

As earlier speakers on this side have said, we on this side acknowledge the result of the last election, but when you look at the offerings of the two sides in this area in particular the difference couldn't be starker. The difference couldn't be starker when it comes to the assistance that this side offered to those who can't afford needed drugs and the assistance for out-of-pocket expenses that would have been offered and the vision this government have and the very narrow vision that's being offered by those opposite.

Let's look at mental health. Again, just to draw on one particular area of health policy, Allan Fels has put on the record that he sees mental health as an area which is particularly underdone. In Australia, the total mental health budget is itself only 6.5 per cent of the health budget when the burden of disease due to mental health suggests this should be closer to 14 per cent. So there are clear economic costs in this area. Again, if you are looking at the funding of drugs, mental health is an area where that failure is particularly stark. Allan Fels looked at the impact of that not just on income inequality but across the age spectrum. He knows that there are still serious questions about our 'investment in young minds', as he puts it. About 11 per cent of spending on specialised mental health services in 2010-11 was towards child and adolescent services, yet zero- to 17-year-olds constitute almost 23 per cent of the population. I want to put on the public record that there are a number of very serious—and I would say urgent—health issues that need to be addressed currently but that are—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fraser is interrupted.