2015-08-11 44 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2014-2015, Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2015, Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 1) Bill 2015, Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015, Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014, Customs Amendment (Australian Trusted Trader Programme) Bill 2015, Personal Property Securities Amendment (Deregulatory Measures) Bill 2014, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Energy Grants and Other Legislation Amendment (Ethanol and Biodiesel) Bill 2015, Excise Tariff Amendment (Ethanol and Biodiesel) Bill 2015, Private Health Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2015, Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment Bill 2015, Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill 2015, Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Insurer Levy) Amendment Bill 2015, Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015, National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015, Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Supplement Cessation) Bill 2014, Export Charges (Collection) Bill 2015, Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015, Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015, Export Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2015, Imported Food Charges (Collection) Bill 2015, Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015, Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015, Imported Food Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2015, Customs Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2015, Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2015, Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Bill 2015, Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Special Account Bill 2015, Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015, Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Employee Share Schemes) Bill 2015, Defence Legislation (Enhancement of Military Justice) Bill 2015, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Defined Benefit Income Streams) Bill 2015, Airports Amendment Bill 2015, Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Powers) Bill 2015, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015, Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014, Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 2

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2014-2015

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2015

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 1) Bill 2015

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015

Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014

Customs Amendment (Australian Trusted Trader Programme) Bill 2015

Personal Property Securities Amendment (Deregulatory Measures) Bill 2014

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2015-2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2014-2015

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016

Energy Grants and Other Legislation Amendment (Ethanol and Biodiesel) Bill 2015

Excise Tariff Amendment (Ethanol and Biodiesel) Bill 2015

Private Health Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2015

Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment Bill 2015

Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill 2015

Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Insurer Levy) Amendment Bill 2015

Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Supplement Cessation) Bill 2014

Export Charges (Collection) Bill 2015

Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015

Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015

Export Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2015

Imported Food Charges (Collection) Bill 2015

Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015

Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015

Imported Food Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2015

Customs Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2015

Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2015

Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Bill 2015

Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Special Account Bill 2015

Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Employee Share Schemes) Bill 2015

Defence Legislation (Enhancement of Military Justice) Bill 2015

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Defined Benefit Income Streams) Bill 2015

Airports Amendment Bill 2015

Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Powers) Bill 2015

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015

Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014

Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014

Assent 2 Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 2

Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015

Returned from Senate 2 BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 2 12:01 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina by leave—moved: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the order of business in the House from 7 pm today being as follows: presentation of petitions, private members’ business previously accorded priority in the House for Monday, 10 August and then the Speaker proposing the question – That the House do now adjourn – with debate on that question to proceed for a period not exceeding 30 minutes; (2) any divisions called for between 7 pm and 9 pm to be deferred until 9 am on Wednesday, 12 August; (3) if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House during this period of private members’ business, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House before the commencement of the adjournment debate, if the member then so desires; (4) the order of business in the Federation Chamber being as follows: at 4 pm, members’ constituency statements for 30 minutes, followed by private members’ business previously accorded priority in the Federation Chamber for the sitting on Monday, 10 August, and grievance debate; and (5) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a minister. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee 2 Report 2 12:03 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report on the inquiry into the child support program entitled From conflict to cooperation, together with the minutes of the proceedings. In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 by leave—The child support program is one of Australia's largest and most complex administrative schemes. More than a million children are covered by the program, created to ensure that the financial needs of children are catered for appropriately by parents in the event of parental separation. From the outset, a relationship breakdown can be an extremely difficult time for family members with different points of stress evident between separating parents and children. With a change in family dynamic comes the need to redefine relationships and ensure that decisions taken reflect the needs of all family members, but with a particular focus on the welfare of the children involved. In many cases, separating parents are able to come to an amicable resolution in developing new family arrangements; however in some instances a high degree of conflict may be present. The child support program is one of the more significant programs administered by the Australian government and, as such, has been the source of much debate since it was created in the 1980s. In part, this is because no administrative system can hope to deal perfectly with complex individual circumstances surrounding relationship breakdown and separation. It is also difficult to account for system participants, who more often than not enter into the child support system at one of the most difficult times in their lives, meaning that the program can become a lightning rod for much of the anger, disappointment and conflict that people may experience as a result of separation. Feelings about child support run deep. The committee heard from nearly 12,000 individuals and groups around Australia during this inquiry. We have identified a number of ways in which the child support program could be improved. While in most cases the child support system functions properly, it is by no means perfect, and the committee has made 25 recommendations which will improve both the design of the scheme and its administration. The committee's intention throughout the report has been to make recommendations which will help separated parents find ways to raise their children cooperatively, so that as many children as possible can grow up in homes that are free from ongoing conflict. The first of the report's key recommendations is that the Australian government expand the role of mediation in the child support system. Mediation can help separating parents to refocus on the needs of their children, helping them to find ways to cooperate in their postseparation life. A carefully designed child support mediation program has the potential to substantially reduce the burden of conflict on the child support system. The committee has recommended that the Australian government conduct a review of the child support formula. The last comprehensive review of the formula was conducted a decade ago, and the intervening years have seen substantial changes to the Australian economy and social welfare system. It is important that the Australian government ensures that the formula does not drift into unfairness. Further recommendations in this report focus on communication. It can be very difficult to understand how the child support system works, and the agency charged with administering the system has not always done a good job in explaining its decisions to child support clients. The committee has recommended that the Australian government make a range of improvements to the way the Department of Human Services communicates with child support program clients. The committee has also recommended that the Australian government create a specialist family violence unit within the Department of Human Services. This will help to ensure that victims of family violence receive appropriate services from the Australian government so that child support is not used as a venue for continuing abuse. In addition, the committee has recommended that the government conduct research into a limited child support guarantee. A guarantee could potentially provide much needed support to the most vulnerable child support clients, but more research is needed to ensure that it would be suitable for Australian conditions. The committee has also made recommendations which relate to the enforcement of child support payments, the collection of child support debts, and parenting disputes involving child support. The child support program can never hope to make separation an easy experience for parents and their children. However, the recommendations in this report will assist parents to move past the difficulties of separation and make it easier to find fair and cooperative ways to raise their children after separation. In closing, can I thank fellow committee members, particularly the deputy chair, the member for Newcastle, and other participants; I note that some are here in the chamber. I also thank the secretariat for the hard, long and dedicated work that they put into the research, collating the 12,000 submissions that we received, and for their assistance in compiling the final report. 12:09 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Mr Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to say congratulations to you on your appointment to the Speaker's role. In following on from the remarks made by the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, as deputy chair of the committee, I would really like to put on record my thanks to the chair and indeed all committee members for their work throughout the child support program inquiry. I again especially want to acknowledge the support of the committee secretariat, who I note are present in the chamber today. This was an inquiry that prioritized community engagement, which necessarily meant trialling a number of new initiatives like questionnaires and community statement sessions and a series of ongoing reporting-back mechanisms for the community. This inclusive approach was vital to the work of the committee, but I absolutely acknowledge the additional workload that it caused for the secretariat and I thank them for their willingness to embrace the community engagement strategy for this inquiry into the child support program. I would also like to acknowledge and thank, as the chair noted, some 12,000 individuals and groups around Australia who contributed to this inquiry. In particular, I acknowledge the longstanding work of many advocacy groups, representing large numbers of proponents, and individuals who shared their personal stories and lived experience throughout the inquiry, providing the critical context necessary for this report. As detailed by the chair, the child support program is one of Australia's largest and most complex administrative schemes, and throughout this inquiry the committee has identified a number of ways in which the program could be improved in both design and administration. While potential improvements have been found, it is important to put on record that the Child Support Scheme is largely operating as intended, with 93 per cent of all child support being transferred, as it should be, over the life of the scheme. So this is not a system that is broken, but it is in need of improvement, particularly for those separating parents who are unable to come to amicable resolutions about new family arrangements and are perhaps entrenched in a high degree of conflict. With this in mind, the committee made some 25 recommendations for the government's consideration, a number of which I would like to bring to the attention of the House today. Importantly, the committee recommends that the Australian government recognise the importance of specialist response and support to separated families where family violence has been present, and recommends the establishment of a dedicated family violence response unit within the Department of Human Services. The unit would be responsible for ensuring that the safety and wellbeing of the child is always paramount and it would be tasked with providing a number of important functions, including    being a one-stop point of contact for all inquiries and support services; providing a means of intermediary communication between parties; and coordinating access to services across a range of government departments. This coordination would put a stop to victims of family violence having to relive their trauma each and every time they interact with different officers and departments. The need for a dedicated family violence response unit was highlighted by a number advocacy groups throughout this inquiry, and I thank the chair and all committee members for including this recommendation in the report. I strongly urge the minister and government to accept and implement this recommendation a matter of urgency. I would also like to highlight recommendations 6 and 7, which recommend greater cooperation between the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Human Services to address the issue of nonlodgement of tax returns and to ensure that the penalties applicable to the nonlodgement or late lodgement of tax returns are actually enforced for all clients of the child support program. The current disparity between the number of child support program clients who fail to lodge tax returns and the number of such clients pursued by the ATO is alarming. The committee heard evidence throughout the inquiry that the continuous nonlodgement of tax returns was a tactic used by some parents to artificially lower their child support liability. To ensure the integrity of the program and correct assessment and payments, steps must be undertaken to eliminate this practice. Greater cooperation between the tax office and the department is essential to ensure that the financial needs of children are being adequately addressed. The committee also recommends that the Australian government respond to the Australian Law Reform Commission Report 117, entitled Family violence and Commonwealth laws—improving legal frameworksas a matter of priority. The committee very much looks forward to seeing the next stage of the Department of Human Services' family violence strategy, and reiterates that the strategy should be developed in compliance with the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 and the Second Action Plan 2013-2016—particularly around the use of integrated systems. In addition, the committee has recommended that the government give serious consideration to conducting a trial of a limited child support guarantee. The committee believes that a limited targeted guarantee system could help protect vulnerable families in the child support program, overcoming some of the more shocking examples of financial hardship arising from unpaid child support, while also providing a much needed buffer between parents at a time of potential conflict. Most importantly, a guarantee aims to ensure that children are not negatively impacted if the payee parent does not pay on time or, indeed, fails to pay at all. Calls for a limited guarantee were consistently raised and supported by a number of groups and individuals giving evidence at our inquiry. I am very pleased to see that recommendation in this report. In closing, I note the committee's universal agreement that it is, indeed, the best interest of the child that is paramount in any child support program. Distinguishing the rights of the child, and their best interest, is an essential but sometimes overlooked aspect following family separation. I urge the government to give this report and the recommendations the serious consideration that they deserve, remembering that the best interests of the child must be central to any reforms forthcoming. The SPEAKER 00APG The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 4 12:17 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 5 Report 5 12:18 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your unanimous election to this high office. On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 449: Regional Development Australia Fund, military equipment disposal and tariff concessions, review of Auditor-General reports Nos. 1-23 (2014-2015), and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 This report details the findings of the committee's examination of three Australian National Audit Office reports. A key theme emerging from the committee's review of these reports was encouraging better practice—both in terms of grants administration and implementation of audit recommendations. Grants administration is an important activity involving a significant amount of public funds each year. Transparency and accountability of grant funding decisions have been matters of longstanding parliamentary and public interest. The grants administration framework, through the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines, promotes accountable and cost-effective grants administration. Similarly, agency implementation of audit recommendations, which often reflect the Audit Office's experience of practices that other departments have found to be beneficial, is another area of longstanding committee interest. Chapter 2 of the report discusses the committee's findings concerning audit report no. 9 on the design and conduct of the third and fourth rounds of the Regional Development Australia Fund, known as RDAF. The administration of this fund was suboptimal. The Audit Office found that there was not a clear trail through the assessment stages to demonstrate that the projects awarded funding were those with the greatest merit in terms of the published program guidelines. The Audit Office also noted that the then Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport had not fully implemented recommendations from a previous audit of the first RDAF funding round, and that inadequate attention had been given to relevant aspects of the grants administration framework. A key message from the audit was that considerable work remains to be done to design and conduct regional grant programs in a way where funding is awarded to those applications demonstrating the greatest merit in terms of the published program guidelines. The committee made four recommendations, including that the Audit Office consider: establishing a standing audit focus on regional grants administration; a follow-up audit of the effectiveness of grants administration by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development; a future audit of the department's implementation of audit recommendations; and incorporating a new section on 'Regional grants administration' in the next update of its better practice guide on grants administration. Chapter 3 of the report discusses the committee's findings concerning audit report no. 19 on the management of the disposal of specialist military equipment. The Audit Office highlighted a number of issues, including: the disposal of decommissioned warships; the disposal of specialist military equipment in operational areas; financial delegations; conflicts of interest; and staff training and corporate knowledge. Despite this, the committee was encouraged by the fact that it was the Department of Defence itself that requested this audit, having recognised problems existed regarding disposal of specialist military equipment. Defence provided an overview of the reforms the department had instituted to address the concerns raised in the audit report. The committee commends the audit recommendation that Defence rationalise the framework of rules and guidelines for this area. The committee also notes Defence's assurances that it is developing a more streamlined framework. The committee made two recommendations: that the Audit Office consider a follow-up audit of progress in Defence reforms concerning the disposal of specialist military equipment; and that Defence develop comprehensive training and handover procedures for staff in the Australian Military Sales Office, the office that manages disposals. The last chapter of the report deals with the committee's findings on the administration of the Tariff Concession System. The Tariff Concession System—or TCS—is a long-lived program designed to help industry become more internationally competitive while at the same time reducing costs by allowing duty-free entry for goods not produced locally. Although the existing administration of the TCS has been supported by mature arrangements established over time, areas of its administration could be improved, particularly in relation to compliance. The committee found that the process of organisational change currently taking place at Customs—including its amalgamation with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and the creation of a single border control and enforcement entity, the Australian Border Force—provides opportunities for the agency to improve integrity assurance of the TCS assessment and decision-making process. Accordingly, the committee made two recommendations: that Customs report back to the committee on its continued progress implementing the ANAO recommendations; and that the ANAO consider undertaking a future cross-agency audit of the administration of the TCS following finalisation of the current organisational restructuring. In conclusion, I thank committee members for their deliberation on these matters. I also thank departmental representatives who appeared at public hearings to assist the committee. I would like to also thank the committee secretariat for their work in the preparation of this report. I commend the report to the House. 12:23 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I seek leave to make some brief remarks regarding the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report entitled Regional Development Australia Fund, Military Equipment Disposal and Tariff Concessions: Review of Auditor-General Reports Nos 1-23 (2014-15). Leave granted. Mr CONROY 249127 Mr Speaker, can I congratulate you on your election to your high office. I am sure you will do a wonderful job. I want to add some remarks on chapter 2, which is probably the most contentious part of the entire report, regarding the Regional Development Australia Fund. The ANAO audit and hearings rested on two agreed facts that are contained in the report: firstly, that the minister was subjected to conflicting and flawed advice from the department advisory panel and chose projects listed as suitable for funding and a small number of projects not recommended by the panel; secondly, that the incoming minister, the member for Mayo, when presented with the same advice from the department around value for money confirmed funding for the dozens and dozens of projects that were uncontracted in rounds 3 and 4. This was despite his clear right to cancel these grants, as he did for the publicly announced grants in RDAF round 5. These are the two central facts of this entire audit, and both of them confirmed that the previous minister's role in this program was exemplary. The ANAO audit confirmed the following issues: there were flaws in departmental methodology, there was a problematic panels process and there were serious contradictions between the advisory panel and departmental assessments. Fully one-third of applications awarded the highest possible ranking against each selection criteria by the department were placed in the lowest merit category by the panel. Furthermore, the formal advice to the minister was flawed, poorly constructed and contained numerous mistakes. On this basis, the minister ultimately had no choice but to trust her own judgement about what projects were suitable for grants funding. Mr Taylor interjecting— Mr CONROY 249127 Regarding the ultimate distribution of grant funding in this project, given the interjections from the member for Hume, across RDAF rounds 1 through 4, 46 per cent of funds went to the coalition held seats; 46 per cent of funds went to Labor held seats. In fact $4½ million of additional funding went to coalition seats compared to Labor seats. As a proud regional Labor member, I think this is a fair distribution of funds. Furthermore, nearly half of the projects approved in the not recommended for funding panel category by the minister were in non-Labor seats. If we strip away all the political rhetoric, all the false bluster from those opposite, when Minister Briggs had the choice to cancel projects under RDAF rounds 3 and 4, he chose not to. He had that right. He exercised that right in RDAF round 5. In rounds 3 and 4, when presented with exactly the same facts that the previous minister had, he confirmed funding for those projects. Furthermore, this audit and the hearings did reveal that the ANAO misunderstood or misapplied the AEC geographical classification of electorates. For example, the seat of Macarthur, which is classified as outer metropolitan, has the town of Appin, which is 30 kilometres from Wollongong and 75 kilometres from Sydney. Yet again, they drew conclusions about the classification of that seat. The seat of Franklin has towns 100 kilometres from Hobart and there are towns in the electorate of Canning 140 kilometres from Perth that are still regarded as outer metropolitan, which skews the analysis of the electoral distribution of grants in this scheme. The committee hearings also explored where there was usual practice for projects that were not recommended that received funding, and projects that were recommended that did not receive funding. For the list of those projects to get into the public domain, the department confirmed that this was very unusual. The committee furthermore confirmed that the only people outside the department and the former minister who were given this information was the panel and the incoming minister, the member for Mayo. I draw no conclusions about how this information entered the public domain in newspaper reports but merely make the point about who had that information. I was heartened by the ANAO's commitment to look at the Stronger Regions Fund, the current regional grants fund run by the current government. I agree with the recommendations from the committee's report around strengthening oversight of regional grants programs. I thank the secretariat for their excellent work in this audit and hearings. I thank the ANAO and the departmental officials who appeared. I also thank the committee chair for the very mature way he ran the committee hearing in what was obviously a very politically contested audit. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 7 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 7

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015

Second Reading 7 12:29 Mr FEENEY I0O Batman Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I join with others in congratulating you on your unanimous election as Speaker of this House. I rise to speak on this bill, which contains a range of measures to improve the Commonwealth's criminal justice arrangements, including amendments to: improve the operation and effectiveness of the serious drug and precursor offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Criminal Code; to amend the Criminal Code to clarify the war crime offence of 'outrages upon personal dignity' in a non-international armed conflict; to expand the definition of 'forced marriage' in the Criminal Code to include circumstances in which a victim does not freely and fully consent because he or she is incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony; to increase the penalties for the forced marriage offences in the Criminal Code to ensure they are commensurate with the most serious slavery-related facilitation offences; to rectify certain administrative inefficiencies, address certain legislative anomalies and clarify provisions in part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 relating to federal offenders; to allow the interstate transfer of federal prisoners to occur at a location other than a prison; to facilitate information sharing about federal offenders between the Attorney-General's Department and relevant third-party agencies; to amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 to clarify and address enforceability issues and operational constraints identified by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC; to allow the Integrity Commissioner to perform his or her functions more efficiently and effectively, while improving the general operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006; to amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australian Crime Commission's special operations and investigations; to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to increase penalties for failing to comply with a production order or with a notice to a financial institution in proceeds-of-crime investigations; to further amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to address ambiguity in the provisions, streamline the appointment of proceeds-of-crime examiners and support the administration of confiscated assets by the official trustee; to give the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption in South Australia, whose office only became operational in September of 2013, the ability to access information from Commonwealth agencies, consistent with other anti-corruption bodies found in other states of our Commonwealth, defences for certain Commonwealth telecommunications offences and the ability to apply for certain types of search warrants; to update references to reflect the new name and titles associated with the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission consequential to the Crime and Misconduct Commission Amendment Act 2014 in Queensland coming into force; to clarify when a variation to controlled operations would require deputy commissioner or commissioner approval, and clarify that an authority for a controlled operation must not be varied if it would alter the criminal offences to which the controlled operation relates; and, lastly, to amend two paragraphs in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 for consistency with current Commonwealth drafting practices, and to correct an amendment to the act made by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Classification Tools and Other Measures) Act 2014. The bill also includes amendments to insert the concept of being 'knowingly concerned' in the commission of an offence as an additional form of secondary criminal liability in section 11.2 of the Criminal Code, and to introduce mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for firearm trafficking. While Labor supports the great majority of measures found in this bill, which will improve Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements, we have serious concerns about some of the proposed amendments and do not support the bill being passed in its current form. In particular, Labor is concerned about the insertion of 'knowingly concerned' as a secondary form of criminal liability and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm trafficking offences. We note the strong opposition held by peak law organisations with regard to these amendments in particular, and the lack of consultation that has occurred with respect to this bill. Labor is concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the concept of 'knowingly concerned'. We note the concerns raised by the Law Council of Australia in relation to how the provisions have been drafted and the dangers that arise out of vaguely defined laws. We believe that the introduction of such a vague and open-ended concept as 'knowingly concerned' is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the rule of law, a principle which requires that the Criminal Code be precise enough to allow people to readily ascertain prohibited conduct. The government has argued that the need has arisen to introduce the concept of 'knowingly concerned' as a secondary form of liability into section 11.2 of the Criminal Code. The ability to effectively prosecute alleged offences against Commonwealth law remains the critical objective of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the CDPP. It is important that the CDPP have both the resources and the powers to achieve this important objective. However, Labor is not convinced that the provisions in schedule 5 of the bill support this objective. Labor notes the evidence provided by the Law Council of Australia, who strongly oppose the introduction of the concept of 'knowingly concerned': The proposal to introduce knowingly concerned as part of the law of complicity in the Criminal Code – making it applicable to all Commonwealth offences, offences numbering in the hundreds – is a radical change which has been proposed without apparent consultation with States and Territory jurisdictions and against a background of its rejection on three prior occasions in the Model Criminal Code process. Not only has the government failed to engage with key stakeholders with regard to these amendments it has also failed to justify the need for an additional form of secondary criminal liability to apply to all offences in the Criminal Code. The government has highlighted particular categories of offences where the concept of 'knowingly concerned' is required, including drug and drug importation offences and insider trading offences. However, all of the offences identified have already been drafted in a way that addresses the concerns raised without the need to include 'knowingly concerned'. Labor believes that the proposed change in relation to the introduction of 'knowingly concerned' would be a major change to the Model Criminal Code. Leading up to the adoption of the Model Criminal Code in 1995, there was a long consultation. The consultation occupied some years and included some of Australia's leading practitioners. There ought to be full consultation in relation to any proposed general change to the Model Criminal Code. No Australian state or territory, besides the ACT, has the offence of 'knowingly concerned'—nor does the United Kingdom. Introduction of a general offence in the Commonwealth Criminal Code could lead to confusion in trials where the accused are charged with both Commonwealth and state offences. Uniformity is important for drug law offences where state and Commonwealth offences may well figure in the same trial. Labor do not oppose the introduction of the element 'knowingly concerned' in relation to individual offences in appropriate cases, and indeed this has already occurred in relation to a number of offences in Commonwealth legislation. As the Human Rights Commission noted in its submission to the Senate committee inquiry into the bill: … it is difficult to anticipate the impact of extending this form of liability to all offences. Labor cannot support schedule 5 of this bill in its current form. We urge the government to conduct a proper consultation process before proceeding any further with changes to the Model Criminal Code. We agree with the recommendation of the Law Council of Australia that, where there is a need to extend criminal complicity, the proposed amendments 'should be specific to that offence' only. I turn to the question of mandatory minimum sentencing. Once again, alas, ideology has triumphed over rational public policy in this government. The government has continued to accuse Labor of not putting up a fight against organised crime because of our successful amendments to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014 which removed mandatory minimum sentencing for the trafficking of firearms into Australia. This is simply not the case. In 2012, Labor introduced legislation that actually would have increased the maximum penalty for firearms trafficking to life imprisonment. That would have made it the same as the maximum penalty for drug trafficking. Minister Keenan's proposal contains a watered-down penalty of 15 years. The government has yet to explain why it is doing this. Minister Keenan's measures are also mostly symbolic, as they do not include specified nonparole periods. There is little evidence that mandatory sentences work as a deterrent. In fact, the government's own department says that mandatory sentences may create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges even where there is very little merit in doing so. Labor wanted tougher penalties on gun trafficking, and the government has watered them down. Whilst Labor support the government's intention to protect the community from drug related violence, we urge the Abbott government to adopt a similar sentencing regime in relation to the proposed firearm-trafficking offences. This would send a strong message to serious criminals, but it avoids the issues the many fraught issues associated with mandatory minimum sentences. This outburst from Tony Abbott is just another example of the Abbott government not listening to the experts or heeding the advice of those who understand the complexities and sensitivities of such cases. Labor maintain our position that the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of firearm-trafficking offences should be avoided. We note that these provisions have already been considered and rejected by the parliament and that the government has failed to justify the need for such provisions. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee received evidence from a number of submitters who strongly oppose the introduction of these amendments. The Law Council of Australia referred to a number of unintended consequences of mandatory sentencing, which include 'undermining the community’s confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system as a whole'. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted that these amendments give rise to the potential for injustices to occur and run counter to the fundamental principle that the punishment should fit the crime. We also note the concerns previously raised by state prosecutors, who believe that these provisions can lead to unjust results and impose a significant burden on the justice system. Labor believes that the government has failed to explain the need for mandatory sentencing provisions. I again draw attention to the Attorney-General's A guide toframing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement powers, which specifically stipulates that minimum penalties should be avoided. I also refer to evidence previously given by the Attorney-General's Department, where it stated that it was 'not aware of specific instances where sentences for the trafficking of firearms or firearm parts have been insufficient'. While we note that the Attorney-General has the power to direct the CDPP to not prosecute an offender in certain circumstances, the government has given no indication that it would consider using this power when cases of injustice occur. Furthermore, the Attorney-General can also revoke an order at any point. We note that the current Attorney-General has already revoked an order introduced by the previous Attorney-General in relation to people-smuggling offences. I urge the government to replace the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm-trafficking offences with increased penalty provisions, as set out in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012. That bill was introduced in November 2012 by the then Labor government and proposed the introduction of new aggregated offences for firearms dealing which would attract a higher penalty of life imprisonment. These provisions would still send a strong message to serious criminals while minimising the risk of a miscarriage of justice. I thank the House. 12:43 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. For a lot of us, when we are out in the streets doorknocking, one of the issues that come up is law and order. There are those moments when something has happened in the lives of the people that we meet. It might be hooning in the street or antisocial behaviour in the park, even littering. These are the issues that come up quite often. There is never a bad word spoken about the police or other law enforcement agencies. Often it is explained to me at the front doors of houses in Cowan that when the police do their job and they go to court that it is often the case that the penalty imposed upon those that have been caught offending does not meet community expectations. The member for Batman in his contribution mentioned that mandatory sentences undermine confidence in the judiciary. I think that sentences that do not meet community expectations are a much bigger problem with undermining the standing of the judiciary with the community. I am quite sure that those that are on the receiving end of offences in this country as victims want to see that the punishment, the sentences, fit the crime. I think that a lot of people in this country welcome mandatory sentences. I endorse the fact that this bill will again introduce mandatory minimum sentences for offenders charged with trafficking of firearms under the Criminal Code. That is certainly something that people feel is necessary. They want to have confidence that again the punishment, the sentences, fit the crime. Firearms are obviously a deadly force and the trafficking of firearms increases the risk on our streets—there is no doubt about it. I digress to a degree because this bill really is about ensuring that the law enforcement agencies have the tools and the powers necessary to do their job—to do what is necessary to keep Australians as safe as possible—and that those laws can stand up, that they are robust and that they are effective in dealing with the threats that crime poses to our citizens and residents of this country. With due respect, it is definitely very important that we have bills that do upgrades to better meet the threats that criminal offences pose. It is very important that we have these sorts of bills to look at the challenges and the threats of the modern age. I endorse that aspect with regards to penalties for firearms trafficking offences. I would also like to talk briefly about the domestic production of methamphetamine and ice. This is receiving a lot of media attention lately. There are fairly constant reports about the threat that ice as a drug poses. There are towns in regional Australia that have been reported as being greatly affected by ice. I saw some disturbing figure—and I hope it is incorrect—that something like two per cent of the Australian population has had contact with ice. That is incredibly disturbing. Obviously no good can come of this and I am certainly one of those in favour of strong law enforcement at the same time as appropriate measures to deal with the scourge of addiction in this country. It is important that we have all the laws possible which are going to help control and deal with the importation of precursors—the materials necessary to make methamphetamine and ice. One of my constituents, Richard Boudville, has sent me many articles on the problems with ice and I thank him for keeping me up-to-date with the latest in news reports on this matter. Not far from my electorate office about six or eight months ago one of my constituents found a person who apparently was a user of ice ransacking their house. After chasing this person out onto the street, the person hopped into a car and then tried to run my constituent over. That really does say something about the effects of ice, the lack of rationality and the need for us to act on this problem, not just with regards to our health and addiction treatments but also to send a very clear message to people that it remains an illegal activity and that people should keep away from it. The next point I would like to raise is that aspect of the bill which deals with forced marriage. Somewhat different to forced marriages are arranged marriages. Cowan is quite a diverse electorate and I have lots of people that are of Indian origin or ethnically Indian from other countries around the world and a number of people have endorsed arranged marriages. It is something that I guess I am still getting used to—I find it a little bit odd but apparently sometimes they work out quite well and culturally that is the way things are done in some parts of the world—but I would like to draw a big difference between that and forced marriages. The high-profile case—and I am sure it is not the only one in this country—was in 2013 where a 12-year-old apparently, according to her father, agreed to marry a man who was 26 years old. To me that just looks like paedophilia and I am glad a number of charges were made in connection with that. It is important that the amendments as part of this bill will make it clear that forced marriage offences apply where a person is incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony because of their age or mental capacity. It is wrong on so many levels that someone as young as 12, or 13 or 14, should be forced into marriage—at those ages there should be no marriage at all. To me, in a perfect world, there should be no marriage before 18. Of course there are certain issues relating to that but certainly when we talk about 16 and under it is a terrible thing. Forced marriages are completely and utterly reprehensible. Unfortunately, this case in 2013 is not isolated. I suspect there has been plenty of that. I do make an assertion there that I cannot prove, but I suspect it is not uncommon in certain parts of this country—and wherever it occurs it is most definitely wrong. I certainly support every effort to make it a more severe offence with increased penalties. Currently the maximum penalties are four years imprisonment or seven years imprisonment for an aggravated offence, but that should be upgraded and I certainly endorse the fact that the maximum penalties will become seven and nine years for these sorts of offences. I do not want to go through every part of this bill word for word or repeat every line of the changes, but I do go to the issue of being 'knowingly concerned.' This bill talks about changes where being knowingly involved in supporting or enabling crimes should be imported back into the Criminal Code. When I was in the Federal Police back in the eighties, and even in the military police, again before 1995, it was certainly the case that 'knowingly concerned' was an offence that could be used to capture the involvement of people on the periphery of some offences but nevertheless who were undermining public safety through their knowledge. I have no problem at all with endorsing the return of being 'knowingly concerned' as an offence in the Commonwealth code. It is absolutely appropriate that we make sure that everyone, whether they are directly involved or just know of the events taking place, should be subject to possible prosecution. To do otherwise would basically have the effect of undermining our community safety. The amendments contained in this bill are completely appropriate and I certainly support them. Although it is clear that the opposition is opposed to a number of these measures, I nevertheless look forward to them passing here and then in the Senate as well. 12:56 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. The bill is broad in scope. Its general intent is to improve and strengthen the ability of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to investigate, prosecute and appropriately sentence offenders. Amendments to a total of 15 acts are proposed, most notably the Criminal Code Act 1995. Crucially, this bill amends the Criminal Code Act to introduce mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for firearm trafficking offences. Schedule 6 of the bill will give effect to mandatory five-year minimum sentences for two categories of offences. The first category is the existing offences of trafficking firearms and firearm parts within Australia. The second is the new offence of trafficking firearms into and out of Australia, which was included in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Act 2015. These amendments should come as no surprise to members. After all, they were detailed in the coalition's law and order pre-election commitments contained in the document The coalition's policy to tackle crime. We promised to send people to jail for a minimum of five years if they were caught bringing illegal firearms into Australia. With this bill, we are delivering on that commitment. This is yet another example of a government that is listening to the people of Australia; a government that made clear promises on law and order before the election and is determined to deliver on them despite Labor's daily attempts to obstruct and oppose. I am proud to be a part of a government that actually did the policy hard yards in opposition. We put a fully-formed plan to the people at the last election and were duly elected. The Australian people will not reward an opportunist opposition that fails to outline even the most basic details of what they plan to do if elected. This is something that Labor just has not learnt. The main purpose of my contribution to the debate on this bill is to highlight and champion amendments that address the truly abhorrent practice of forced marriage. It is scarcely believable that in the 21st century in a free, fair and open society such as Australia there would be men who still believe that young girls and women are property—property that can be acquired without consent. That is what forced marriage is. It is akin to underage sex trafficking. It is akin to slavery. It is a practice that should have been left behind in the Dark Ages. Yet in recent years we have learnt through a few high-profile examples that forced marriage is still a reality for some young Australian girls. In quiet ceremonies in suburban backyards, or during sudden unexplained trips overseas, girls are being forced into marriage arrangements not of their choosing or to which they are too young to legally consent. It is difficult to estimate just how prevalent the practice is. Due to the nature of the crime, it is believed that many cases go unreported because the victims are too afraid to speak out, and the cases that do come to the attention of authorities are often by chance. Take the example of a recent marriage between an 18-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl in the backyard of her father's home in Western Sydney. Tragically, the arrangement only came to the attention of authorities when the girl presented at her local public hospital believing she had suffered a miscarriage. The Child Abuse Squad was alerted, and the husband was arrested and charged. Another high-profile example involved a girl of 12 being forced into marriage with a 26-year-old foreign national in a clandestine ceremony in the Hunter Valley region of New South Wales. Media have reported that the man only came to the attention of authorities when he applied for guardianship of his so-called 'wife'. Recent research by the National Children's and Youth Law Centre has estimated that there may have been as many as 250 child bride cases across Australia in recent years. The chief executive of the New South Wales Immigrant Women's Health Services, Dr Eman Sharobeem, estimates that there are at least 60 child brides living in south-west Sydney alone. The potential consequences for girls forced into marriage arrangements extend beyond the mere act of marriage itself. Plan International reports that forced marriages can often be accompanied by violence, abuse and forced sexual relations. It can also lead to early pregnancy, which brings with it an increased risk of birth complications. More broadly, forced marriage institutionalises subservience. This can mean a withdrawal from society, a withdrawal from education and a loss of control over personal finances. It can lead to depression, social isolation and anxiety. That is why I am pleased that this bill provides a strong legislative response to the despicable practice of forced marriage. It does this in two ways: by both broadening the definition of forced marriage and increasing the maximum penalties available to the criminal justice system. This bill broadens the definition of forced marriage by making it clear that forced marriage offences apply where a person is incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony, including by reason of their age or mental capacity. The effect of this will be to ensure that it will be more difficult to argue—as in the case of the 12-year-old girl in the example I identified earlier—that forced marriage laws do not apply to cases in which underage girls are alleged to have provided consent. The bill also strengthens the maximum penalties for forced marriage. Forced marriage offences currently carry a maximum penalty of four years' imprisonment for a base offence and seven years' imprisonment for an aggregated offence. This bill increases the penalties to seven years and nine years respectively. This ensures that penalties for forced marriage are brought in line with the most serious slavery related facilitation offence of deceptive recruiting. Of course, a comprehensive response to forced marriage requires more than just tough laws. In this respect I commend the leadership of the Minister for Justice in investing $350,000 with Anti-Slavery Australia to expand the methods by which legal advice can be made to people facing forced marriage. Legal advice will now be able to be provided via email and text message so that it has the best chance of reaching the people who need it most. The coalition government has also launched the Forced Marriage Community Pack. The pack includes a range of materials about forced marriage for use by people in, or at risk of, a forced marriage, as well as for the general community, the media and other service providers. Ending forced marriage in Australia is a goal that transcends politics, and for this reason this bill should be supported. I commend the bill to the House. 13:03 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I rise today in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which delivers on the government's commitment to tackle crime and make our community safer. This amendment bill provides law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers that they need to do their job by ensuring Commonwealth laws are robust and effective in targeting criminals and reducing the heavy cost of crime on our local communities. The bill contains a range of measures across various Commonwealth acts, including measures to implement tough penalties for gun related crime, to increase the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences, to ensure our criminal offence regimes are robust and effective, to ensure efficient arrangements for administering criminal law and related provisions and to increase penalties for forced marriage offences. I would like to commend the member for Ryan for the way she spoke about forced marriages—she spoke in depth and gave some great examples. It is a totally unacceptable practice and it is a despicable act which should not be tolerated in our society. I commend the member for Ryan for her speech. Today I would like to focus primarily on the measures in this bill that tackle gun related crime and increase the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences. Before becoming a politician, I served as a sergeant in the New South Wales Police Force for more than 25 years. Due in part to my background in the police force, I now sit on two parliamentary law enforcement committees. The first, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—or ACLEI as it is known—is responsible for preventing and investigating corruption issues in the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Federal Police. The other committee I sit on, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, monitors and reviews the performance of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. In March this year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement initiated an inquiry into crystal methamphetamine. This inquiry is currently looking into the criminal activities, practices and methods involved in the importation, manufacture, distribution and use of methamphetamine and its chemical precursors, including crystal methamphetamine or 'ice' and its impact on Australian society. In particular the committee is examining: the role of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies in responding to the importation, distribution and use of methamphetamine and its precursors; the adequacy of Commonwealth law enforcement resources for the detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal activities involving the importation, manufacture, distribution and use of methamphetamines and its precursors; the effectiveness of collaborative arrangements for Commonwealth law enforcement agencies with their regional and international counterparts to minimise the impact of methamphetamine on Australian society; the involvement of organised crime, including international organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs, in methamphetamine related criminal activities; the nature, prevalence and culture of methamphetamine use in Australia, including in Indigenous, regional and non-English-speaking communities; and strategies to reduce the high demand for methamphetamines in Australia. A few weeks ago, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement commenced the first of a series of hearings that will take place right across the country into crystal meth. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement also plans to visit airports and ports in state capitals later on this year in relation to border security arrangements. Methamphetamine belongs to the stimulant class of drugs that also includes amphetamines, ecstasy and cocaine which stimulates the brain and central nervous system. This class of drug can result in a range of psychological and physiological changes, such as increased alertness, euphoria and enhanced mood but also anxiety, panic, agitation, hallucinations, aggression and violence. There are three main forms of meth—powder, base and crystal or 'ice'. Ice is of particular concern to police and health professionals because it is the most potent form of methamphetamine. Frequent users of ice tend to be unemployed, psychologically distressed and engage in dangerous risk-taking activities. In March, the Australian Crime Commission released a report that provides an unclassified intelligence picture of Australia's ice market. The report found that more than 60 per cent of Australia's highest risk organised crime targets are using ice as a source of profit to the detriment of the economic and social fabric of the Australian community. Chris Dawson, the CEO of the ACC, has stated that the use of ice continues to emerge as a national and international problem plaguing our communities and causing untold harm. How did we get to this point? As one of the few developed nations in the world to avoid the full impact of the global financial crisis, Australia became, by default, a crime target for drug traffickers and transnational crime groups seeking a safe and stable economic environment in this region away from the financial turmoil affecting mainland Europe and the US in recent years. Australia's strong economic position and relatively affluent population with the ability to pay high prices for illicit drugs has meant that traffickers are able to sell their product at a higher wholesale price here than almost anywhere else in the world. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the average street price for a gram of ice is US$80. In Australia it is US$500—six times the average price. Added to this, these criminal organisations are earning Australian dollars, allowing them to benefit from historically high exchange rates when transferring their criminal proceeds back into foreign currency. Consequently, crime in Australia has become so lucrative that competing criminal organisations are using increasingly aggressive tactics in order to capture the market, such as bribing, corrupting or coercing public officials who hold positions that enable them to facilitate criminal activities. The problem has become so significant that the ACC conservatively estimates that organised crime costs Australia $15 billion a year and is now 'part of the everyday lives of Australians in ways that are unprecedented'. This new troubling era that Australia finds itself in has meant that law enforcement committees like the ones I sit on are becoming increasingly important in ensuring that our law enforcement agencies are safeguarded from the corruptive forces of the drug trade. This bill tackles these corruptive forces head-on by making a range of amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to improve the general operation of the act and empower the Integrity Commissioner to perform functions efficiently and effectively while also providing sufficient safeguards around the exercise of those functions. This will ensure that the Integrity Commissioner's powers under the act are clear and consistent, affording the commissioner greater discretion about how to deal with law enforcement corruption issues. These amendments support the government's election commitment to stamp out corruption within Australia's law and border enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, when in office, those opposite cut the budgets of the ACC, AFP and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service right at the time when Australia was becoming a ripe target for the drug trade. In 2009 Labor cut funding for Customs cargo screening by more than $58 million. That lead to a 75 per cent reduction in air cargo inspections and a 25 per cent reduction in sea cargo inspections. Two years later, in 2011, Labor reduced mail inspections by 30 per cent, which meant that an extra 20 million packages entered Australia uninspected. It is no coincidence that the amount of drugs seized by Customs fell by 28 per cent and firearm detections dropped by 33 per cent. As the Hon. Michael Keenan said at the time: When we talk of Labor's border protection crisis, it is more than their inability to control who comes to Australia. They cannot control what comes into Australia, and funding and personnel cuts to our front-line customs agencies are feeding directly into the ability of criminals to breach our borders. Mr Keenan makes the point that, when dealing with street crime, you are almost always dealing with drug crime. So when you have a border protection agency that does not have the resources necessary to protect our borders then drugs will flow onto our streets and into our communities. When the Howard government came into office in 1996 it increased funding to Customs in real terms by 238 per cent. Not only this but the day after the Port Arthur murders John Howard, who had been Prime Minister for only 57 days, introduced the most sweeping gun control reforms ever contemplated by any Australian government. According to author Simon Chapman, this agreement represents the single biggest advance in gun control in Australia's history—and possibly anywhere else in the world. I will never forget members of the public walking up to the counter at Surry Hills police station where I was working at the time and handing over their prohibited guns as part of the compensatory buyback scheme. In total, Australians surrendered more than 700,000 firearms—the world's largest weapons collection and destruction exercise to date. Unfortunately, recent research has shown a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as it was in 1996. The fight against the flow of drugs and guns into this country began as soon as the Abbott Government came into office. As a matter of priority, the Abbott government reinvested $88 million into the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to restore its ability to screen mail and air and sea cargo, it having been completely undermined by Labor. Last year, the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection the Hon. Scott Morrison announced the government's intention to merge the border control functions of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service into a single integrated border agency. Not only will this save the Australian taxpayer more than $480 million over four years; it will provide the optimal structure for the agency to protect our borders into the future. The Abbott government have also provided Customs with: $98 million to establish a Strategic Border Command; $256 million for intelligence systems, including new capabilities to support the National Border Targeting Centre; $70 million to improve trade and travel, such as a new Trusted Trader framework; and $53 million for workforce measures and training, including the creation of the ABF College and enhanced integrity measures. We have also fast-tracked the $74 million National Anti-Gangs Squad, aimed at disrupting the operations of bikie gangs and other organised criminal outfits who are involved in and profit from the drug trade. In the Abbott government's first year in office, law enforcement agencies recorded more than 93,000 illicit drug seizures, with a combined weight of 27 tonnes, and more than 110,000 arrests were made. These figures are the highest on record and are testament to the government's tough stance on crime as well as the vigilance and expertise of our law enforcement agencies. Seizures in 2013-14 include a record 10-tonne seizure of an ice precursor that, if not seized, could have been used to produce up to 4.5 tonnes of ice, which equates to an estimated 45 million individual street deals with an estimated value of $3.6 billion. More than 740 clandestine laboratories—or clan labs, as they are known informally—were detected during this reporting period, ranging in scale and capability from crude, makeshift operations to highly sophisticated labs using technically advanced equipment and complex chemical techniques. Regardless of their size or level of sophistication, the corrosive and hazardous chemicals used in clan labs are extremely volatile and pose significant risk to members of the public and the environment. The new laws in this bill make two key changes to the Commonwealth drug and precursor offences so that it is easier to successfully prosecute individuals who are knowingly engaged in the importation and manufacture of ice. Firstly, this bill will make it easier to prosecute individuals who evade punishment because they manage their involvement in a drug operation in such a way that the prosecution cannot prove that they have the relevant level of knowledge of their own activities. Under this change when a person attempts to commit a serious drug or precursor offence the prosecution will only need to prove that the person knew that there was a risk and the substance involved was an illicit drug. This will make it simpler to prosecute individuals who are part of a larger drug enterprise but who deliberately ignore the obvious signs about how their actions fit into the broader scheme. Secondly, the laws in this bill will simplify the offences for importing chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs. Under the amendments the prosecution will no longer have to prove that the importer intended to use these chemicals to produce illicit drugs or pass them on to a drug manufacturer for that purpose. It will be enough that the person imported a precursor without the appropriate authorisations. This bill sends a strong message on the seriousness of gun related crime and violence by introducing mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for illegally importing firearms into Australia and illegally moving firearms or firearm parts across state borders. The coalition has been and always will be absolutely committed to stopping drugs and guns entering this country. As a former police officer I am honoured to be in this place to support this bill, which will dramatically improve the ability of our law enforcement agencies to fight this awful scourge on our community. 13:16 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This government is committed to tackling crime and making our communities safer. As our Prime Minister often states, the first duty and responsibility of every government is to protect the nation and to advance its national interest. We have thorough and committed law enforcement agencies that work hard to keep our people and our communities in this nation safe. These agencies, however, require our Commonwealth laws to be robust and effective and provide them with the tools and powers they need to combat the cost of crime. This bill contains a range of measures across various acts including tougher penalties for gun related crimes, increasing the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences and increased penalties for marriage offences. Underage marriage is never okay. Children have many capabilities but they do not have the experience and ability to fight against forced marriage, particularly if this is being coerced by a family member or a community member they have been raised to respect. As a result of the amendments in this bill, a child under the age of 16 will be presumed incapable of consenting to marriage, altering it from the current marriageable age under the Marriage Act of 18 years of age. Aggravated forced marriage relates to a victim less than 18 years of age. The amendments will also see anyone who engages in conduct that causes a person who does not understand the marriage ceremony to enter a marriage, such as arranging or officiating over the marriage of the child, also committing an offence. The penalty for engaging in conduct to cause another person to enter into an aggravated forced marriage will increase from a maximum of seven years imprisonment to a maximum of nine years. For non-aggravated forced marriage offences we will also increase the penalty from the existing four years imprisonment to seven years imprisonment. Forced marriage is not okay and can be prevented with the right education and tools to empower young men and women, their families and friends to protect themselves. Girls of this age should be having fun, learning and gaining life experience, studying and enjoying safe and appropriate entertainment with friends and families. They should be working towards and looking forward to working towards a career and a free life in a country that prides itself on freedoms and equality. Sadly, however, this does not always exist and Australian girls themselves have been sent overseas by their families to be married and girls from other countries have been brought to Australia to be married. When we think of forced marriage we think of the young female but it affects many—the young women, the young men who feel pressured and do not want to be part of a forced arrangement, the parents and the friends who often feel powerless as onlookers. Some of the tools that this government will provide to aid in the preventative measures are: $485,925 over four years for ongoing education; the launch of the forced marriage community pack, which provides information and resources on the issue; and maintaining specialised teams in the Australian Federal Police to investigate forced marriages. Also a range of forced marriage workshops took place during April-May this year. Education is vital in supporting these legislative amendments. Last year, in 2014, it was alleged that a 26-year-old student entered a Sydney Centrelink office requesting assistance to become a guardian of a 12-year-old girl. This girl was in fact his wife. Of course, the police were called in and action was taken. The accused, who was here on a student visa, did not believe anything was wrong with seeking guardianship as the girl was his wife. This is why education in this space is vital. There is news relating to the notorious Australian ISIS terrorists Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar. They have been allegedly killed whilst fighting in Iraq. There are also claims that Elomar recently married Sharrouf's 14-year-old daughter. The government are introducing this amendment as we will not tolerate this type of behaviour. Many Australians support this view. Amendments in this bill also relate to increasing the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences. The community do not want to tolerate drug offences and the many hideous faces displayed with abuse, crime and violent behaviour, not to mention the impact that drugs have on those using them and their families. On 20 May 2015, the Minister for Justice, the Honourable Michael Keenan, released in Sydney with the Australian Crime Commission Chief Executive Officer, Chris Dawson, the latest threat assessment, Organised Crime in Australia 2015, which reveals serious and organised crime in Australia still relies on the illicit drug market as its principle source of profit. More than 60 per cent of Australia's highest risk criminal targets are involved in the methamphetamine market and are driving the market's expansion. With this bill, the government will provide laws that will enable law enforcement agencies the powers to better combat drug crimes. This amendment will do this in two ways: firstly, it will ensure that it will be simpler to prosecute individuals who evade punishment because they manage their involvement in a drug operation in such a way that prosecution cannot prove that they have the relevant level of knowledge; and, secondly, it will simplify the offences for importing the chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs. This will ensure the same burden of proof applies to cases involving an attempted drug offence as in a case where an accused actually committed an offence. With this amendment, the prosecution will only need to prove that the person knew there was a risk that the substance used was an illicit drug. This will make it simpler to prosecute those who operate in larger drug outfits but deliberately ignore obvious signs about how their actions fit into the broader scheme. The second change deals with importing chemicals which organised criminal groups use in the production of illicit drugs like, in particular, methamphetamine and ice. With this change, prosecution no longer have to prove that the importer intended to produce illicit drugs or pass them on to a drug manufacturer for that purpose. It will now be enough that the person imported a precursor without appropriate authorisations. The use of these illegal drugs and in particular ice and the importers of the precursors and the producers of these illicit drugs must be accountable to the law. Manufacturers and drug dealers are becoming more conniving and knowledgeable about how to bypass the force of the law whilst the number of vulnerable victims grows. In the electorate of Macquarie, a newspaper recently reported that five teenagers were hospitalised for using a drug known as Batman. These young teenagers have a future. They have parents, they have families and they are part of our local community. What was particularly frightening about this drug—an acid tripper and a form of ecstasy—was that little was known by emergency services about how it operated and how they needed to respond to assist the five young people. The bill also provides tougher penalties for firearms-trafficking offences. We all want to feel safe in our daily lives and, fortunately, Australia does have significant licensing laws that contribute to our safety. Unfortunately, there has been too much sad news lately across the globe in news footage where we have observed shootings and their impacts on communities. This bill introduces mandatory minimum sentencing of five years imprisonment for the offences of possessing illegal firearms and firearm parts in Australia and illegally moving firearms and parts across borders in Australia. Again, our law enforcement agencies do an incredibly amazing job. If we can assist through Commonwealth legislation, then we will. As committed in our election promise, this government undertook to implement tougher penalties on gun related crime. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our law enforcement personnel who work so tirelessly to keep our communities and our nation safe. If we can help to do your job better with Commonwealth laws that are robust and effective and enable you better tools and powers to combat crime, then this government will endeavour to take the action required to do so. 13:26 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I also wish to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. As a former police officer with a background in counter-terrorism and organised crime, this bill is incredibly important to me, as well as to currently serving law enforcement officers. This bill seeks to address the gaps which we currently have in crimes legislation. There are always going to be gaps, but this will go towards filling some of those regarding firearms trafficking and border control. Firstly, I should note that the coalition made an election commitment to tackle crime and here we are following through on that. The central parts of that commitment include the establishment of a local anti-gangs squad to tackle organised bikie gangs. I was very proud to be the author of that document when I was shadow parliamentary secretary for law enforcement. This came about by simply having discussions with the FBI in America and its counterparts at the local level. We found out that you need a joint approach—the same applies in the UK and Italy—where the states must work with the Federal Police to get the job done. It is the best way forward and we have proven that with our commitment. We also need to reduce the number of illegal guns floating into the streets, with a $100-million boost to Customs screening. The bill introduces a five-year mandatory jail sentence for those caught bringing illegal firearms into Australia. I know the opposition is not keen to support this, but there are guns all over the streets in Melbourne at the moment, so the penalties in place currently are not working and a new approach is required. Advocating for nationally consistent penalties for serious firearm offences brings police and law-makers closer by encouraging roundtable discussions. Again, this is part of the anti-gangs squad platform: bringing all those working on this together. There is provision of $50 million for closed-circuit TV to deter criminal activity and it will pursue zero tolerance of corruption in Customs. We are following through this commitment by, firstly, cracking down on trafficking. This means boosting border security with a $100-million boost to Customs to increase the rate of cargo consignment and package screenings at Australian borders, reducing the influence of criminals at ports and airports. Criminals definitely make their way to ports and airports. We need to tighten processing for the issuing of security clearances to people who work on wharves. That is so important. No longer do we want to see organised crime figures and people with serious criminal records working on wharves in Australia. We need to undertake a study about the use of automatic number plate recognition systems at all airports. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Abbott Government: Indigenous Affairs 16 13:30 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari According to Tony Abbott, good government started on Monday, 9 February—520 days after he was elected as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia. He said on that day: So, all of us are determined to lift our game and the fundamental point I make is that the solution to all of these things is good Government, and good Government starts today – good Government starts today. Is it good government that we now have higher unemployment—at 6.3 per cent? There are now 800,000 Australians on the unemployment queue. That is more than at any time since 1994. Is it good government when he fails his own test to support the needs of Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal families in the Northern Territory? Is it good government when he fails to live up to his own core promises of getting kids to school, getting adults to work and building better and safer communities by closing the Atitjere, Yuelamu and Nyirripi childcare centres, losing 17 jobs in those communities and denying those community members access to those services? Is it good government to ensure that these communities no longer have these centres remaining open to maintain environmental health standards that parents can have confidence in and provide the quality of safety that is involved in those services? Is it good government to deny these young Aboriginal kids an opportunity to learn about school before they attend school? Is it good government to take these young kids out of the system and the oversight of health workers? It is not good government. It is a shame. (Time expired) Solomon Electorate: Davis Cup 17 13:31 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon Darwin recently hosted the Davis Cup world group quarter-final, played for the first time on Australian soil in many years. I was privileged to attend this event, and I have to say that the atmosphere in the arena was electric. Visitors came from interstate and overseas to enjoy the first-class, international-standard event, and I am so proud to say that they also got to experience the unique Top End lifestyle and hospitality. Locals were treated to some top-class tennis through this once-in-a-lifetime event in Darwin. I commend the work of Tennis NT general manager, Sam Gibson, and his team and the team of Tennis Australia, because they gave the Northern Territory this wonderful opportunity. It showed the faith that they had in us to be able to put on this amazing event. Forty-eight local volunteers and 22 talented youngsters from Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area acted as ball kids, and all were integral to the smooth running of this event. These Territorians definitely did us proud. It was great to see these volunteers have the opportunity to play a role on the court during the tie between Australia and Kazakhstan. To share the court with some of Australia's best male tennis players is an opportunity that every young sports fan dreams of. I spoke to some of the ball kids, and they were saying to me that they were so impressed— (Time expired) Abbott Government: Climate Change 17 13:33 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It is a historic day today because we are at approximately the six-month anniversary of the date on which the Prime Minister announced, 18 months into his first term as Prime Minister, that 'good government starts today'. I think it is ironic that the Prime Minister has chosen this day to announce some climate change targets, which are concerning signs for the way that this government is looking to tackle climate change. We see this as a hand-in-hand partnership with the unbelievable attack on renewable energies that has gone on over the last two years of this government. We have an enormous amount to lose as a nation from a changing climate. Even at two degrees of warming we know that this is going to mean dramatic changes to our temperature during different seasons. We are going to see real significant challenges to our natural environment, including threats to the Great Barrier Reef. These are things that are unavoidable, probably, to us now in Australia. If we do not get climate change under control, we are looking at something like four degrees of warming that we will be leaving to our children and our grandchildren. This will mean dramatic changes to our way of life in Australia. The CSIRO has shown that under four degrees of warming the climate in Cairns will resemble what is today the climate of Jabiru—one of the hottest and driest parts of our country. There are huge upsides to acting early on climate. It is, unfortunately, Labor that stands with basically the rest of the Australian people in understanding this while the Prime Minister lays blind. If we want good government to start, we do not need another six months of this. We need a new government. Catalina Flying Boats 17 13:35 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell It is my privilege to rise in the Centenary of Anzac year to record my thanks to the efforts of the flying men of the Catalinas in World War II and record my support for a national war memorial to be built in honour of their service here in Canberra. I want particularly to mention the Reverend Dick Udy who was a flight lieutenant wireless air gunner in the Catalina flying boat used during World War II by the RAAF. The Catalina was recorded by General MacArthur as one of three reasons, principally, that the Allies won the war in World War II. I will have more to say about this over the course of this parliament. The Catalina Flying Memorial that is located at Bankstown Airport is currently the subject of a restoration project to get a Catalina to fly again. I want to pay tribute to those men, those former veterans and pilots of these great planes in the 'Cat' club, who flew long and dangerous missions in World War II—and not just military missions. The only civilian service that connected Australia and the UK in World War II was a flight, a double-dawn service, from Perth to London that was flown by these brave men. The Black Cat crews and the Cat crews that are forming this group to get a Catalina flying again and also to get a memorial recording their service are enormously important. It is enormously important that we record our history; that we remember it and that we remember the service of these brave and fine soldiers in World War II. I am looking forward to supporting them and looking forward to seeing more action in this space this year. Abbott Government: Employment 18 13:36 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor As has already been commented, it is six months today since those opposite had their existential crisis, their backbench revolt. It is six months since our Prime Minister survived the leadership ballot—his 'near-death experience', as he called it—and then declared that good government would start from that day. Let us review the progress. I stand here today while 800,000 Australians are unemployed. The highest number in 20 years. Forget about the percentages—these are 800,000 people. Young people turning 21 today are faced with bleak employment prospects under this government and this Prime Minister. Before I came in here I heard our Prime Minister giving a press conference. He asked the question: 'How do we create jobs and growth?' He asked that question twice. The member for Hotham has written a book—perhaps he could read it. She has some ideas, along with the member for Gellibrand, about how to create jobs and growth. If this Prime Minister does not have answers, it is time for him to leave this parliament. Let's have a new government. Let's not wait 12 months to have a new government. The people in my electorate deserve it. They deserve jobs, they deserve dignity and they deserve a government that cares. Republic of Singapore: 50th Anniversary 18 13:38 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The 9th of August marked the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Republic of Singapore. On behalf of the Australian parliament, I would like to formally express our congratulations to the people of Singapore on reaching this significant national milestone. Australia shares an important international relationship with Singapore as strategic partners within our region. Singapore is Australia's fifth largest trading partner in terms of two-way trade. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement has been in place since July 2003. Our nations also cooperate in the area of defence and intelligence, including joint military training exercises. We share an admiration for the nation building that has occurred over the past 50 years in terms of economic development, the transformation of Singapore into an international financial centre of commerce, and its urbanisation into a vibrant metropolis. We marvel at the construction of world-class port facilities, refineries and an efficient transportation system, and social reforms such as public housing and a universal superannuation scheme for its citizens. Australian visitors often remark at its cleanliness, sophistication, and high standard of law and order. Singapore shares a heritage similar to our own, combining the British Westminster system with its own Eastern philosophies and a strong work ethic. The future looks promising, with improved cooperation and stronger ties between our nations. Congratulations to the people of Singapore. (Time expired) Defence Procurement 18 13:39 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Good government involves using defence procurement strategically for the benefit of the nation and for the development of our advanced manufacturing capacity. Using defence procurement as a strategy to paper over broken election commitments and the destruction of the automotive industry is not good government. Western Australians were rightly outraged when the PM turned up in Adelaide and said that the new build of frigates and offshore patrol vessels would start in 2018 and that the vast bulk of the work would be done in Adelaide because that is 'where the infrastructure is'. Well, note to PM: the infrastructure for building the offshore patrol vessels in the last 10 years has been in WA. Austal ships has built 14 Armidale class patrol boats. Indeed, WA has the capacity to be a major participant in the frigate rebuild, also slated to go to Adelaide by the PM one day—or to Melbourne when he visited Victoria the next day. Either the PM is totally ignorant of the shipbuilding capacities we have in WA or he is complacent because he believes his WA ministers are safe. But other seats might not be. WA wants a fair deal. We have world-class shipbuilding and defence engineering companies. As our commodities boom—which has been subsidising this nation—is waning, we need to focus on advanced manufacturing. That is good government. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Business Community 18 13:41 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro On Friday, 24 July it was my particular pleasure to host the Prime Minister as my special guest at a business community afternoon tea in Cooma. A little over 100 members of the Cooma Chamber of Commerce, as well as other business operators from the district, joined me to hear the Prime Minister outline the coalition government's strong economic measures and plans for a better Federation. The Prime Minister reiterated the coalition's deep conviction that business, and especially small business, provides one of the essential foundations for all that our country can achieve. All too often, many take for granted the tremendous role small business operators play in our community. The Prime Minister's unabashed acknowledgement of small business was warmly received. I wish to thank again the President of the Cooma Chamber of Commerce, Kathy Kelly, for her assistance in staging this successful event. I also thank Cooma Mayor Dean Lynch and Bombala Mayor Bob Stewart for again demonstrating their commitment to strengthening commerce in their shires. I would also like to make special mention of participants Tony and George Anthony, Mick Boyce, Clare and Jim Buckley, Brian and Dale Coyte, Gail Eastaway, Michael Green, Kris Laird, Jan Leckstrom, Sue and Michael Litchfield, Richard Mack, Rick Martin, Charlie Maslin, Tony Lassa, Kerry Parrott, Julie Schofield, Chandra Singh, and Vickii and Richard Wallace. Indi Electorate 19 13:42 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Winter in Indi is perfection, and on Saturday, 25 July, I had the perfect weekend travelling up the Mitta Valley in my orange caravan, beginning at Talgarno with a community meeting of over 15 people talking about telecommunications, schooling, transport and the special social issues of being a spillover from Albury-Wodonga. Next, I went up to beautiful Eskdale for the Mitta Valley community Landcare AGM, where funding for Landcare, biological control of blackberry and the future of the dairy industry were on the agenda. Finally, we finished at the footy—nothing better than footy on a Saturday afternoon—seeing Mitta play Thurgoona. I spent time exploring the new facilities and also the netball courts that have been built as a result of a partnership between the community, the Mitta Muster, the shire and the Victorian government. A special thank you to Julie for making it happen at Talgarno; to Jim de Hennin and Paula Sheehan; to Doris and Peter at Landcare; to Mac Patton for hosting me at the footy—thank you very much for that; and to Karen Moroney for all the work you do with the Landcare group. Thank you to the Mitta Valley: you are clever, you are productive and you actually show what a fantastic electorate Indi is. Page Electorate: Casino Drill Hall 19 13:44 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page On 20 November last year I attended a public meeting at the RSM Club in Casino in relation to the impending sale of the Casino drill hall. It was due to be auctioned three weeks later, on 10 December. The community at large were unaware it was going to be sold until the signs went up a few weeks prior to that public meeting. Over 200 people at the meeting asked very specifically for me to have the sale stopped to see if the community could get together to purchase it so that it could remain in community hands. I immediately went to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, Darren Chester, who was in charge of selling this. I asked him to defer the sale. After some negotiation where I explained to him the importance as well as the historical and cultural significance of the building, he gave the community six months to get back to him with a proposal. I can happily say that the community of Casino has rallied. The Richmond Valley Council—under the charge of Mayor Ernie Bennett and general manager John Walker—have purchased the hall from the defence department. I wish to thank the Richmond Valley Council, the RSL subbranch involved and my ministerial colleagues for giving us the opportunity to buy this at a very cheap price for the community so that it can be turned into a military museum and stay in community hands. (Time expired) Abbott Government: Workplace Relations 19 13:45 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo This week marks the six-month anniversary of the Prime Minister's infamous statement: Good government starts today. At the time, the Australian people laughed. They laughed that it took this Prime Minister that long to decide that he wanted to lead a good government. Here we are six months later, and Australians are still asking themselves, 'When will this good government begin?' because it has not started yet. Let us just take the recent attack on people who are earning penalty rates: the government, through the Productivity Commission, are not going after the highest paid workers in our community; they are going after the lowest paid workers. They have singled out retail workers and hospitality workers in our community—people who earn as little as a wage of $441 a week—as being the ones who should take a penalty rate cut. This is what 'good government' means to the government. They are going after the lowest paid workers and attacking them when it comes to their penalty rates. This is also the government whose Minister for Employment says that he has no problem with workers being sacked via text message and email with less than 24 hours notice: 'Check your email. You've been sacked', 'Check your email. You've been made redundant.' What kind of IR minister does not stand beside workers when a company behaves that way? That is bad government. That is not good government. Australians want to know when good government is going to start. (Time expired) Petrie Electorate: Dolphin Oval 20 13:47 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It is incredible what a community can achieve when we come together and fight for something. A few years ago it was the Moreton Bay Rail Link, and the federal coalition government has contributed $583 million towards that rail link, which will be opened next year. Now, the Redcliffe Peninsula will see an upgrade to the Dolphin Oval stadium. I want to thank the hundreds of local people that have signed my petition and the thousands more that have joined the fight to see this important infrastructure for Redcliffe. The upgrade will mean construction jobs and 193 ongoing jobs for locals in small business tourism. It will be a boost for tourism, a boost for small business and a big win for the community in Redcliffe. I would like to mention the junior players and the parents that support the club at the Dolphins every weekend; the Dolphins' staff, led by Dolphins' CEO Tony Murphy and chairman Bob Jones; the schools that wrote to me, including Southern Cross Catholic College and Redcliffe State High School; Cooke & Hutchinson Lawyers; Murri Rugby League; the Arthur Beetson Foundation; and Clubs Queensland—just to name a few. Thanks also to the Prime Minister, who recognised the need for this infrastructure in Redcliffe and came up on the weekend to announce $4 million in funding to make this a reality. I now call on the Labor state government, who are contributing nothing, to put— (Time expired) Abbott Government: Workplace Relations 20 13:49 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Six months ago today, or thereabouts, the Prime Minister claimed that good government was going to start. What have we seen? In the words of The Princess Bride, it is inconceivable to describe the last six months as good government. In fact, Deputy Speaker Scott, I assume that, like me, you are a big BuzzFeed fan. I think we all know that, if people were clicking on a button on BuzzFeed, they would be clicking on the 'fail' button at the bottom of the Abbott government post. That is the button that I would be clicking on if the Abbott government were a BuzzFeed article. As the member for Bendigo quite rightly pointed out, this is a government that seems to think that it is a good idea to cut the penalty rates of some of the lowest paid workers in our community. This is a government whose Minister for Employment seems to think that it is appropriate to sack workers by text message and email. On Friday, I visited the community protest that had been established the very next morning at the Brisbane port. The workers told me that they had received text messages at around midnight the night before and were asked to check their email. On doing so, they found that they were being told that they no longer had a job and that their personal effects would be couriered to them because they were not to come back on site. That is not how we do things in Australia. If you are going to sack someone, you look them in the eye; you are not so gutless as to sack them by text message and email. It is a very great shame that we are seeing this in our nation today, and I hope that those workers know that they have a lot of support in the community. Lyons Electorate: R Stephens 20 13:50 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons R Stephens at Mole Creek is truly an iconic Tasmanian business. In 2015, the business, run by Ian Stephens and his wife Shirley, celebrates 50 years of exporting honey. The first shipment was 28 cartons containing two dozen jars of their famous leatherwood honey to the markets in New York. They now send three or four containers each season. It is the quality of their product that has kept them competitive in the New York market for five decades. As Ian told me: We deal with people with whom a handshake is still worth a handshake. Ian and Shirley's sons Ewan, Neil and Ken and grandson Josh now also work in the family business, which was established in 1920 by Ian's father, Mr R Stephens. The business has grown from a pre World War I hobby to the state's largest apiary business, with more than 2,400 hives. The trademark leatherwood honey was first produced in commercial quantities in 1951, when road and transport allowed access to Tasmania's wild west coast. Tasmania is the only place in the world where golden nectar real leatherwood honey can be produced. The business employs 15 people during the peak of the season and sells product throughout Australia as well as to its loyal markets in New York. An important business for the town of Mole Creek in the Meander Valley and certainly an iconic business within Tasmania, I congratulate the family on this significant milestone. Abbott Government 20 13:52 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand You may have heard that today is the six-month anniversary of the Prime Minister promising Australia that good government would start today. It is six months since the Liberal Party stared into the abyss and weighed up that difficult choice between the Prime Minister and an empty chair, and selected the Prime Minister—all but 39 of them. And those 39 doubters—and I am sure there are a couple of them sitting across from me as I speak—were promised change. They were promised that good government would start today. There would be a reset. The barnacles would be carved off. Unfortunately, it has been six months in a leaky boat, six months with a mutinous crew , six months of captain's call after captain's call, floundering on the rocks of political misjudgement. It has been six months of good government that has left 800,000 Australians on the unemployment queue; a good government that has sacrificed the jobs of hundreds of workers at the Williamstown shipyard in my electorate in order to try and save the job of Christopher Pyne in Adelaide; a good government that is using the strategic naval shipbuilding capacity of this country as a political pawn to move around the chessboard in order to cover the PM's latest disastrous captain's call to abandon the Liberal Party's election promise to build our submarines in Adelaide at ASC and instead to do a secret deal with the Japanese Prime Minister. This six months of good government is a bad joke. The Australian people deserve better, and at the next election Bill Shorten's Labor Party will give it to them. Swan Electorate: Education 21 13:53 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I am actually here to talk about my electorate. I do not know what those on the opposite side have done for the last six weeks but they have not been talking about their electorates. I opened a new school site at Damla College in Ferndale. Upon the completion of the project the school will receive two prefabricated classrooms and a prefabricated science laboratory. The Australian government provided $1,036,000 in funding from the capital grants program. I was met by Mr Nail Umur, Principal, and Mr Ozer Demirkan, the Baris Education and Culture Foundation chairperson. The project involved the purchase of a school site. The Australian government contributed a grant of $800,000 under the capital grants program and Damla College contributed $900,000. The second part of the project involved the purchase of a prefabricated science laboratory, which the school was renting, and the purchase of two prefabricated classrooms. The Australian government contributed a grant of $236,000 under the capital grants program and Damla College contributed $237,000. Damla College is a co-educational primary and secondary college, with approximately 167 students. I was pleased to visit Damla College to see firsthand the new school site and learn more about those classrooms and the science laboratory. The Australian government is committed to putting science, technology, engineering and mathematics at the heart of school education. It is critical to our nation's future that more students study science and maths subjects. These new learning spaces take into account the latest in education research and will see students learn more effectively. Abbott Government 21 13:55 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I have a question for government members: what do they understand good government means? I expect some good answers, because you have had plenty of opportunity to reflect on this question over the past six months—six months which have seen a continuation of division and dishonesty, of a commitment to undermining public faith in politics as well as faith in this failed government. It is a commitment exemplified by breaking just about every significant promise solemnly made by the Prime Minister to the Australian people and by fundamentally treating lives, human beings, as if they are deposable, as exemplified by the employment minister's shameful comments around the sacking by SMS and email of dock workers in Brisbane and Sydney. Six months ago 39 of you voted for a blank space in place of the Prime Minister. So I say to those 39 and all the others: how is that working out for you? But, more fundamentally: how is that working out for the people you are supposed to be representing in this place? How is it working out for them? One thing is clear to me, to the people whom I am fortunate to represent, the voters of Scullin, and to voters right around Australia: we know that good government in Australia means one thing—it means electing a Labor government. Herbert Electorate: Townsville 21 13:56 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert Castle Hill dominates Townsville's skyline. It is one of the most beautiful parts in the world. It is 938 feet high, 2.6 kilometres up and 2.6 kilometres down. Normally, I drive people up there but not on the weekend, because on Saturday at two o'clock I blew the starting horn for Livin Hot On The Hill—a charity where people walked up and down the hill for 24 hours. The Livin organisation held a team's race and raised over $40,000. It was about youth suicide prevention—It Ain't Weak to Speak. They had limited the charity walk to 600 people. If the people of Townsville are not riding push bikes to Cairns for Kids with Cancer or if the ADF is not doing a 24-hour challenge, we are walking up and down that hill. Apparently, people run up it and everything like that. Cars were banned. What a great city in which we live! It is about the use of people, the use of our great tourist attraction and the use of our great facilities in Townsville to show what is good about our city and also to show that we care for more than just ourselves. Cliffo and Bec and the team at HOTFM did a fantastic job keeping people happy all night. They slept in the evening. Everyone had a great time. They were still smiling at two o'clock the next day, but they slept pretty well the night after, though, because there had not been much sleep going on before that. It was a fantastic event and it was great to be a supporter of it. Abbott Government 22 13:58 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin As my colleagues have mentioned in their typically subtle and nuanced way, today is six months since the Prime Minister promised that 'good government starts today'. My message for the Prime Minister today is that, if he were serious about good government, he would keep his promise to the people of Rankin that they would all have the NBN by next year. Instead, what we have is two-thirds of the people from Rankin wiped off the NBN map, including 8,000 families in Woodridge and Logan Central, where work had already commenced. To make things worse, not a single extra Rankin home has been added to the latest NBN map. There is a lot of angst in my community about this. A lot of people showed up to an NBN forum that I held with the member for Blaxland last Wednesday night. I want to thank the people who came along to express their concerns about this very important issue. Our message to the government—my message, the member for Blaxland's message and the message from all of us, all of the people in my community who showed up and all the people who write to me about this—is: don't just talk about being a good government; actually be a good government. That means: put the Rankin homes back on the map. Give the people in my electorate the NBN that they need and deserve so that their kids can get their homework done, small businesses can prosper and this country can enter the future as a first rate, first world economy. Renewable Energy 22 13:59 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to raise my constituents' concerns about Labor's feel good renewable energy target. We know what the secret modelling has revealed: destroy 10,000 jobs, lower wages by six per cent, push up electricity prices by 78 per cent and lower growth by $600 billion. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hughes will resume his seat! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 22 CONDOLENCES Randall, Mr Donald James 22 14:00 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. Sim, Mr John Peter, CBE 22 14:01 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death on 29 July 2015 of Mr John Peter Sim, CBE, a former senator. John Sim represented the state of Western Australia from 1964 until 1981. As a mark of respect to the memory of John Sim, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment 22 14:02 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. For the first time in 20 years, there are 800,000 Australians who are unemployed. Is 800,000 Australians being out of work the Prime Minister's idea of good government? 14:02 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Of course we want unemployment to be coming down, not going up. But while unemployment did increase in the last monthly figures, and while unemployment has been higher than we would like in recent months, by the same token, employment has also been growing strongly in recent months and there are more than 330,000 more jobs now in our economy than there were at the time of the election—330,000 more jobs in our economy now than at the time of the election. That is, in part, a function of the dynamism and the creativity of Australian workers; in part, it is a function of the dynamism and the creativity of Australian businesses; and, in part, it is a function of the good policy and the clear plan that this government has put in place. Our plan is to get taxes down, to get regulation down, to get productivity up, to build the infrastructure of the 21st century and to ensure that we have the educational institutions that will produce the best possible human capital for our country, for our society and for our economy in the years ahead. I have to say: this is a government which is open for business. This is a government which is creating the conditions for job creation. If I look over the chamber, what do I see? I see an opposition that wants to bring back the mining tax. I see an opposition that wants a carbon tax of $200 a tonne. I see an opposition that could not even mention the economy at their national conference. I have concluded this answer. Climate Change 23 14:04 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's economically responsible plan to reduce emissions without hitting Australian families with a carbon tax? 14:04 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the member for Bennelong for his question, and I appreciate his concerns to ensure that we hand on a better Australia and a better world to our children and our grandchildren. Ms MacTiernan L6P How can you say that with a straight face? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth will cease interjecting! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Let me assure the member for Bennelong that as far as this government is concerned, climate change is real, climate change does happen and mankind does make a contribution. It is important that this government—indeed, that all governments—have strong and effective policies to deal with it, and that is exactly what this government has in place. We have a very good record as a country and as a government when it comes to reducing emissions. This government, this country—quite rare if I may say so—is on track to meet and beat not just our Kyoto targets but also our target of a 13 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2020. We are on track to meet and beat that target. What the government has now decided is that we will achieve a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. That is the proposal, and that is the commitment that we will take to the Paris climate change conference this year—26 to 28 per cent. It is better than Japan, at 25 per cent. It is about the same as New Zealand, at about 29 per cent. It is a little less than Canada, at 30 per cent. It is the same as the United States, which has 26 to 28 per cent. It is a little less than Europe, at 34 per cent—but I have to say our economy is growing strongly and our population is growing strongly, unlike Europe. It is massively better than Korea, with a four per cent reduction. And, of course, look at China; China's target is a 150 per cent increase in its emissions. This is environmentally and economically responsible because we can achieve this without clobbering our economy—without hitting growth and jobs—with an electricity tax scam or an emissions trading scheme or a new carbon tax. Let me make this point: not only is our absolute target of 26 to 28 per cent four-square in the middle of comparable economies but our emissions reduction target per person, at 50 per cent—a 50 per cent emissions reduction per person—is the very best in the developed world. So, if you want to protect the environment and protect the economy, stick with this government. Employment 23 14:08 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to office. My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, almost two years after this Liberal-National government came to office, there are now 114,000 more unemployed Australians? 14:08 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah And there are 330,000 more employed Australians. There are 330,000 more jobs in our economy now than there were on election night—330,000 more jobs in our economy now than there were on election night— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on a point of order— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 and I think I have fully answered this question. The SPEAKER 00APG Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? He has. Climate Change 24 14:09 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker by this chamber. Also, I am sure that there are many ex-students of Kerrimuir Primary School, which we both attended, who will be proud of what you have done. My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on the government's strong, credible, effective and fair approach to reducing carbon emissions? What would be the impact of alternative proposals? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there has for long time been a ruling in this place that questions asking for alternative policies were not part of a minister's responsibility. There is specific reference to it in House of RepresentativesPractice, and I ask that you rule out that part of the question—only that part at the end. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the question asks about alternative proposals, which cover not just the policies of political parties but all alternative proposals other than the government's suggested policies. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Pyne 9V5 So in fact the minister can range across a wide number of different proposals. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG To those opposite: I would like to hear the Manager of Government Business. Mr Pyne 9V5 The point I was making was that the question asks about alternative proposals, which of course means that the minister can range across all suggestions about emissions reduction schemes and the costs to the economy, not just the sensitivities of the opposition on this matter. Of course, there have been many years of precedence of these questions being allowed even if they asked about alternative policies. The SPEAKER 00APG There have been many questions in this vein— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left, I want to be able to address the chamber without a cacophony of interjections. Thank you. I think, in the interests of free-flowing debate, I am going to allow the question. I think there should be free-flowing debate. It can be robust. I call the Minister for the Environment. 14:11 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Mr Speaker, I add my deep and personal congratulations; you deserve this honour. The member for Swan comes to this place as a tradie with real-world experience. In fact, he was an electrician, so he understands the value of electricity and its impact on individual lives when electricity costs skyrocket. Against that background, I thank him for this question, because he represents both a concern for the cost of living and a concern for the environment, and that is what we bring in the policy which we have framed today. We have announced an emissions target for Australia of minus 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 to 2030. That puts us ahead of Japan, at minus 25 per cent; ahead of Korea, at minus four per cent; ahead of China, at plus 150 per cent; and comparable with the United States, at minus 26 to 28 per cent, and New Zealand and Canada. But how are we getting there? We have an Emissions Reduction Fund which produced four times the reductions—and I want those opposite to understand this—in just the first auction, at a fraction of the cost (approximately one per cent of the cost per tonne of abatement), than Labor produced during the entire carbon tax experiment. So we have a system which will allow us to achieve our goal, which will do the right thing by the world, but which will not drive up electricity prices. I am asked whether there are any alternative proposals, and there are. The Labor Party, in the last few weeks, has told us about an alternative proposal— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in making the earlier ruling, Mr Speaker, you took the point that was made by the Leader of the House, where the Leader of the House said it might not actually be Labor policies that they are asking about. Page 555 of Practicesays quite specifically: The Speaker has been critical of the use of phrases at the end of questions, such as 'are there any threats to …', that could be viewed as intended to allow Ministers to canvass opposition plans or policies … That is exactly what has happened and it is happening in the House right now, and I ask you to restore this House to the rulings that are in Practice. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If members could cease interjecting. I am aware of some of the history of the practice. Certainly Speaker Jenkins, I think back in the early months of 2008, indicated that he had a strong view on the very point that the Manager of Opposition Business is making. Many members have been in this House a long time and you can read the Practice but, either way, for long periods of time these questions were allowed and I believe— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I have just said to the members opposite that it was Speaker Jenkins back in 2008 and there have been rulings either way. I would like to have free-flowing debate and I think that goes for questions as well. I am going to call the Minister for the Environment and I am going to listen to what he says. Mr HUNT 00AMV Let me say, there have been alternative proposals established in recent weeks. We know at the ALP conference that they laid down a carbon tax but they would not call it a tax, but the member for Hunter, to his credit, said, 'You can call it a tax if you like'—not just once, not just twice but three times before the cock crowed did Joel call them out and call it a tax. He told us it was a tax. What does it mean? Only yesterday we saw the true costs of their own modelling of their own policy. Their own tax showed a $209 price, a $600 billion cost and a $5,000 per family hit—their modelling and their tax showed a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. We will make real reductions but we will do it without an electricity tax. They have failed to make real reductions and they will impose a crushing electricity tax. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG I call the minister for Port Adelaide. The member for Port Adelaide, not the minister—I elevated you unintentionally. Climate Change 25 14:16 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide Thank you. My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister today release the government's full data and modelling on how Australia will meet its international commitments on climate change? 14:17 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah There is modelling and it will shortly be released. I can give the member who asked the question a bit of a foretaste of that modelling. Let's be honest and up-front with the parliament and with the people of Australia: if there is going to be significant emissions reduction there will be a cost. There is no entirely cost-free way of significantly reducing our emissions. The modelling that was done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade shows that a 26 per cent reduction in our emissions on 2005 levels by 2020 will cost the economy in the year 2030 between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent of GDP, so the overall cost to the economy of this will be in the order of $3 to $4 billion. The modelling also shows that a cut in the order of 40 per cent will cost more like two per cent of GDP—a massive hit on our economy, a massive hit on jobs and a massive hit on families which this government will never impose. Mr Butler HWK Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Port Adelaide. The Prime Minster will resume his seat. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I have concluded my answer. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. Climate Change 25 14:18 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Why have you set pollution reduction targets that are less than half of what the government's independent Climate Change Authority has recommended? If every country adopted targets like these, we would be on the road to four degrees of global warming. Haven't you just chosen to appease the deniers instead of satisfying the science? Isn't this just a weak and dangerous target from a weak and dangerous government? 14:19 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah At least the member who asked the question is honest and upfront about the Labor-Greens target. At the Labor Party conference the other week they committed to an emissions reduction target entirely in line with the Climate Change Authority's recommendation, which was 40 to 60 per cent—that would be a two per cent reduction in the size of our economy if the Labor-Green policy were adopted. Not only would there be a two per cent reduction in the size of our economy if the Labor-Green policy were adopted but there is a carbon tax of more than $200 a tonne—part of the electricity tax scam which the Leader of the Opposition wants to foist on the Australian people—and there is a massive $85 billion overbuild of renewable energy capacity thanks to the 50 per cent renewable target that the Leader of the Opposition has also committed himself to. To get back to the precise question that the member for Melbourne has asked, our commitment of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction is entirely in line with the United States commitment, a little less than the New Zealand commitment, somewhat more than the Japanese commitment, much more than the Korean commitment and immeasurably better than the Chinese commitment and, when it comes to emissions reduction per person, the very best in the developed world. This is a strong and responsible position that the government has adopted. It is environmentally responsible and it is economically responsible. Unlike members opposite, we are not going to clobber the economy to protect the environment. We appreciate that the best way to protect the environment is to have a strong economy too. The best way to protect the environment is to have more Australians in jobs in an economy which is growing strongly—and that is exactly what people will get under this government. Climate Change 26 14:21 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Mr Speaker, congratulations on being in the seat. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister inform the House why Australia's 2030 emissions reductions target is a responsible contribution to the international response to climate change? 14:21 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. The government is committed to being a positive, constructive player in the international response to climate change. The 2030 emissions reduction target that we announced today is responsible, it is achievable, and it is a contribution which is in step with the efforts of other developed countries. Climate change is a global challenge that requires a global response. We are already working with other countries to deliver practical action on climate change, including through our $200 billion contribution to the Green Climate Fund and our $28 million contribution to the Global Green Growth Institute. The government is committed to achievable action on climate change, and we have an impressive track record already. Unlike most other nations, Australia not only met our first Kyoto target under the Kyoto protocol—we exceeded it. We are now on track to meet and beat our 2020 target as well. In the context of the forecasts of our population growth and our economic growth, our 2030 target is credible, appropriate, fair and environmentally and economically sound and responsible for our national circumstances. It is a significant increase from our 2020 target, and Australia will reduce per capita emissions at a far greater rate than most other countries, including those in the EU and including the United States, Japan, China and Korea. We will halve our emissions per person over the next 15 years, and without a carbon tax. We have been inventive, we have been creative but we have always been responsible in meeting our climate change commitments while protecting the living standards of Australians and ensuring that our economy can continue to grow and jobs will continue to grow. I have been asked what is a responsible contribution in international terms. This is a responsible contribution. What is not responsible is Labor's endorsement of a carbon reduction target of up to 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2030. It is not responsible to reintroduce a carbon tax—a supercharged carbon tax—to do it, and Labor's own modelling shows it will hit wages, reduce household incomes and drive up electricity prices. That is the Labor way. Mr Conroy 249127 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is this relevant given the question went nowhere towards opposition policies? The SPEAKER 00APG The minister is absolutely entitled to canvas the debate. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG It is very difficult to make a ruling if you keep interjecting, member for Jagajaga. The minister has been asked a question; she is entitled to range within the policy topic— Mr Perrett HVP Range? The SPEAKER 00APG Within the policy topic, but I would ask her to be relevant to the question in her remaining 30 seconds. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked about a responsible contribution to the international effort. We will take a responsible target to the Paris meeting on climate change at the end of the year. It is environmentally sound, it is economically sound, it will not hit wages or reduce household incomes, it will not reintroduce a carbon tax, as the Labor Party has proposed, and it is environmentally and economically credible, sound and responsible. Climate Change 26 14:25 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is human activity the main cause of climate change? 14:26 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Climate change is important. Humanity makes a very significant contribution and that is why governments need to adopt strong and effective policies to deal with it. Economy 27 14:26 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I join in congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your new appointment. My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the state of the economy? What does a strong economy mean for jobs and growth? 14:26 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for her question. Over the last couple of months we have had some very pleasing economic information. Importantly, since the beginning of this year nearly 163,000 new jobs have been created, an average of 23,000 new jobs per month—23,000 new jobs per month. When Labor left office they were averaging 3,600 jobs per month. Last month Australia created 38,500 new jobs—more than 10 times the number of jobs created in one month than what Labor achieved on average every month in their last year in government. We are proud of what we are doing in creating more jobs and, importantly, as a result of what we are doing—getting rid of the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax, fixing up 96 announced but unlegislated and undealt with announcements in tax by previous governments, ending the period of writing out blank cheques to industry or $900 cheques to individuals, rolling out a new infrastructure program and dealing with the legacy of Labor on the budget—our economic plan is working and it is creating jobs. I say again, last month alone, following our important and strategic government budget which focused on small business and enterprise, 38,500 jobs were created in Australia compared to 3,600 per month under Labor. It is a telling figure. Female workforce participation today is at its highest level since 1978. Workforce participation increased substantially last month. If we had the same level of workforce participation last month as the month before, the unemployment rate would have fallen from 6.1 per cent to 5.9 per cent. But, do you know what? The Australian people have confidence in us to run the economy. The Australian people know that if they go out and have a go then they can create more jobs, they can get better employment. The only friend of the working Australian is a coalition government. We are creating the jobs of the future. Climate Change 27 14:30 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand My question is to the Prime Minister. Why has the Prime Minister previously described climate change as 'absolute crap'? The SPEAKER 00APG I am going to ask the member to rephrase the question. Honourable members interjecting — Mr WATTS 193430 It is indelicate, Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG I am asking you to rephrase the question without reference to the last section. 14:30 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Why has the Prime Minister previously described climate change as 'absolutely not real'? The SPEAKER 00APG The question is in order. 14:31 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Mr Speaker, there was a colourful phrase that was used by me some years ago, but the quotation attributed to me by the member who asked the question is not accurate. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the next member, there is a level of interjection that I accept is a reality of question time, but, if I hear members interjecting repeatedly and loudly, I will obviously warn them. I accept that in a robust environment there will be a level of interjection. Taxation 27 14:31 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment. My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the importance of keeping taxes low to ensure that we have a globally competitive business environment? What would be the impact of alternative approaches? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Charlton. I am sorry, the member for Rankin. You look alike. Honourable members interjecting— Dr Chalmers 37998 On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know who does worse out of that, Mr Speaker. If your words from yesterday are to have any true meaning, you will reflect on page 555 of Practice, which is very explicit about asking about opposition policies. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I am ready to respond when the member for Sydney ceases interjecting. The member for Charlton—I am sorry the member for Rankin—I am sorry I am not doing that deliberately; I am really not. The member for Rankin is making a similar point. As I pointed out, former Speaker Jenkins, back in 2008 and again in 2012, addressed some of these matters. He had this to say: 'It should be done in a careful way'—I am quoting former Speaker Jenkins—'and in the interests of a free-flowing debate I am going to hear the minister's answer. I want to monitor the minister's answer, but I think a discussion of alternative policies is important in a free-ranging debate. Otherwise it is really going to curtail the answers of ministers.' Similarly, I do not want to curtail the asking of questions, either. 14:34 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I say to the member for Rankin: 'Don't worry, this will only hurt a little bit—only a little bit.' The reason is— Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 The member for Hume's question was a very good question. Why should we keep taxes low? Well, we should keep taxes low because that empowers individual Australians to have more control of their own money. That is what we want. We want Australians to control the destiny of their hard work. We want Australians to be in control of their own money. We do not believe that— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin. Mr HOCKEY DK6 that the answer to every question is Canberra. We do not believe that. Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin will cease interjecting. Mr HOCKEY DK6 Individuals who work hard, individuals who take risk, individuals who invest, individuals who create jobs—they are the best judges of how to use their money. That is why that as of today we are collecting $5.4 billion less in tax revenue than would have been collected if Labor were re-elected. Why? Because of the decisions we made. We said the mining tax was a ball and chain around the legs of the mining industry. How right we were! Look at what has happened to the mining industry. Imagine if there was a mining tax on top of that. And the carbon tax—$550 a year for a family. The carbon tax was costing jobs, costing economic growth, and Labor wants to re-introduce the carbon tax that hurt the Australian economy—the carbon tax that hurt Australian families. Of course, we know that, because we abolished the carbon tax, prices for electricity have come down. A St Vincent de Paul Society study has confirmed that the saving on average for families is between $190 and $400 a year and is part of the broader $550 a year saved by Australian households as a result of getting rid of the carbon tax. But, of course, Labor wants to re-introduce the carbon tax. I found this document—their national platform—and it is compelling reading. There are some great lines in here. I would have thought at one stage that it was fiction. It says here: 'As a consequence of the decisions made by the last Labor government, Australia's public finances'— Opposition members interjecting— Ms Butler 248006 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On standing order 104, I would ask the Speaker to rule that the Treasurer maintain direct relevance in answering the question. The SPEAKER 00APG In the last 14 seconds of his answer, I ask the Treasurer to remain relevant to the question on the topic of tax. Mr HOCKEY DK6 On the topic of tax, here on page 60 there is compelling reading. It says Labor will 'introduce an emissions trading scheme'. A new tax on everyday Australians, a new tax on electricity— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG Those on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Goods and Services Tax 28 14:38 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Treasurer's last answer, will the Prime Minister rule out increasing the GST to 15 per cent? 14:38 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I accept that this is a very important issue, and I welcome this question from the Leader of the Opposition. The government has not put this subject on the table. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Order, those on my left! The Prime Minister has been asked a question. Listen without continuous interjection. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 One of the states has put this on the table. A number of the other states have put other proposals on the table. To their credit, none of the states have ruled things in or out at this point in time. To their credit, the states are prepared to have a mature debate about our tax system. Why is everyone prepared to have a mature debate about tax except the federal opposition? All the federal opposition has is one long complaint and one long whinge. That is all the opposition has here—just one long complaint. It has nothing constructive, no proposals of its own— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question contains no political argument. The question could not be more specific about whether or not the Prime Minister will rule out the increase. When it is so specific, we should be able to get a directly relevant answer. The SPEAKER 00APG The question was about the goods and services tax. The Prime Minister's answer has been— Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I am sorry, but I am not going to be interjected on by you, Member for Bendigo, when your own Manager of Opposition Business has asked me to rule. I know you interject a lot but, when there is a ruling, can you please listen. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the goods and services tax. He has been relevance through his answer. He commenced his answer precisely on the topic and he is now still talking about the goods and services tax and tax reform. The Prime Minister is being relevant, and I ask him to continue his answer. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I am not going to rule out a sensible discussion on a better tax system in this country. Frankly, if members opposite had a skerrick of real commitment to a Australia, they would not rule it out either. As far as this government are concerned, taxes should be lower, simpler and fairer. That is what we want. We are prepared to consider sensible, constructive contributions from the states and from other people, provided overall they are contributing to a tax system where taxes are lower, simpler and fairer. That is what every Australian should want. Why should we be scared of a debate about a system that is fairer, more efficient, creates more jobs and makes our economy grow faster? I say to members opposite: let's have a proper debate. Just for once, let's have a debate and not just a complaint. Defence Procurement 29 14:42 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on the government's plan to achieve a continuous build strategy for naval surface ships, including the future frigates, and what that means for my home state of South Australia? 14:42 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Mr Speaker, at the outset, as an electoral neighbour and colleague, I congratulate you on your elevation to the Speakership of this House. I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. Indeed, it was a delight to be with him in his electorate of Hindmarsh and to see the strong representation that he makes on behalf of the constituents of Hindmarsh. As the member indicated in his question, last week the government made an historic announcement. That announcement, for the first time since the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia, was a commitment to have a continuous naval shipbuilding industry in Australia. That is good news for Defence, industry and workers. It is good news for Defence, as the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, said, as it provides certainty for planning not just within Navy but within the Australian defence forces. It is good news for industry. As the head of Austal shipping, Andrew Bellamy, said, this marks a transformative change for naval shipbuilding in Australia. Of course, it is good news for workers, including those in the honourable member's electorate of Hindmarsh. Indeed, the South Australian Premier, Mr Weatherill, said it creates jobs that workers in South Australia and around the nation want. So it is good news for our Defence, industry and workers. Importantly, this reverses Labor's approach. The reality is that the Labor Party in government had abandoned a naval shipbuilding industry in Australia. They had abandoned it. Opposition members: That's rubbish! Mr ANDREWS HK5 The honourable members opposite interject, 'That's rubbish.' Then why didn't they order one single naval vessel in six years in office from an Australian shipyard? Mr Giles 243609 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member should be directly relevant to the question. The question did not canvass alternative propositions. The question was about the government— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. I will rule on the point of order. The minister was asked a very specific question about shipbuilding. He is being relevant and he is entitled to range in the way he is. He has not moved off the topic of the question. I am going to call the minister and hear the rest of his answer. Mr ANDREWS HK5 I will repeat: in six years in government the Labor Party did not order one single vessel from an Australian shipyard for the Australian Navy—not one! That was their neglect of shipbuilding in Australia. Mr Champion HW9 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The member will resume his seat. Member for Wakefield, this cannot be a point of order on relevance. There can be only one asked within an answer. Mr Champion HW9 Well, Mr Speaker, I have been trying to turn over a new leaf. The SPEAKER 00APG Resume your seat. Mr ANDREWS HK5 Indeed, they ignored the advice from the Department of Defence that they needed to make a decision by 2011 to buy future ships for Australia, leaving a potential capacity gap in the future. Indeed, the member for Lilley used Defence's budget as the government's ATM, ripping some $16 billion from the Defence budget in Australia. That is the record of the Labor Party. So what are we doing? We have brought forward the offshore patrol vessels to 2018. We are bringing forward the construction of future frigates to 2020. We are going to continually build ships in Australia, which is good for our defence, good for our industry and good for the workers of Australia. Goods and Services Tax 30 14:46 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister consider a 15 per cent GST a very constructive idea and a very strong and constructive proposal, when it would hit the average household budget by over $2,900 a year? 14:47 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I will just say to the honourable member for McMahon: if we are about to have a fair dinkum debate about tax, it is important that we properly engage with the states. As the Prime Minister said, one of the states suggested that there should be changes to the GST and compensation for lower income Australians as part of it, as part of the broader tax reform discussion. We have had a process underway for a number of months. We have received hundreds of submissions. I and a number of other people have chaired forums right around the country. We want to have a taxation system for the 21st century economy. We want to have a taxation system that gives people the opportunity to compete with the best businesses in the world. Jobs are global, money is global and retail trading is global and we are competing with tax rates much lower in other countries, particularly our near neighbours like New Zealand, and we have no choice but to find ways to reduce tax rates on everyday Australians. We want to do that. Unlike Labor, we do not believe that tax reform can be defined by simply increasing taxes. We do not believe that. That is not good enough. The Labor Party believes tax reform is increasing taxes. The Labor Party believes that introducing new taxes without getting rid of any of the old taxes is tax reform. The last time we embarked on tax reform, when we went through the process of getting the Australian people's support to introduce a GST and lowering personal income tax we abolished financial institutions duty, we abolished the bed tax, we abolished financial services taxes, we abolished a range of wholesale sales taxes and we made the system simpler. The goodwill displayed by states now—not always, but now—illustrates the fact that when you get into government you know that you have to have sensible discussions about the future of the tax system otherwise, if you do not, Australia will lose jobs and Australia will lose business opportunities. Companies and individuals will move over time. For example, 10 per cent of Australian workers pay almost half of all personal income tax and 12 companies in Australia pay over 30 per cent of all company tax and sooner or later it is going to be unsustainable for the Australian economy. We are going to do the right thing on tax. Trade with China 30 14:50 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how businesses in my home state of South Australia can capitalise on the government's free trade agreement with China? What impact will this have on jobs and the local economy in my electorate? 14:50 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein I would like to thank the member for his question and for his efforts in promoting the opportunities that are emerging from this trifecta of free trade agreements on offer. Of course the free trade agreements are a key plank of our economic strategy to help drive jobs and growth beyond the mining boom. Already we are seeing some quite extraordinary business opportunities and partnerships emerging between Australian and Chinese companies in anticipation of the China deal entering into force in two or three months time. Part of our program to identify the free trade agreement opportunities is a three-hour small business roadshow that is being taken around Australia. The member for Boothby has hosted one such seminar in his electorate, as did our fellow South Australian colleague the member for Hindmarsh last week. In total over 150 businesses attended those two forums. We have now had close to 1,000 small and medium businesses attending forums around the country, and there are up to 200 forums planned over the next two years. Brian Lawrie from Sky Seafoods in Adelaide was at one of those seminars. Sky Seafoods is an example of the many Australian businesses who are already putting in place strategies to capitalise on the free trade agreement we have secured with China, our largest trading partner. Currently, Sky Seafoods faces tariffs of up to 15 per cent. Once this enters into force, those tariffs will go. The opportunities are enormous and already there are delegations coming to Mr Lawrie's operation. He said: 'ChAFTA has opened up doors in China to expand our business with existing clients such as the big restaurant chains and offer new products which we think will be welcomed with open arms.' Chalk Hill Wines in South Australia is another example of Australian business already looking to the future beyond ChAFTA. Winery manager, Stuart Mosman, who has also attended a seminar, described the agreement as a huge boost to their opportunities. We saw Seppeltsfield just last week complete a sale of 4,000 tonnes of wine—nearly 10 per cent of the whole offering—to China; a new sale based on the prospect of the free trade agreement. That is jobs for Australians; that is opportunity; that is growth. This is the future and these free trade agreements will lead to tens of thousands of new jobs, unlike what we are hearing from the other side, and it warrants the full support of this parliament. Defence Procurement 31 14:53 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth My question is to the Prime Minister. In Adelaide, the Prime Minister said the build of our new future fleet, including the offshore patrol vessels, would be centred on South Australia. In Melbourne, the Prime Minister said that the construction of the vessels would most likely start in South Australia but then could move to Victoria. Is the Prime Minister aware that the current patrol boats were built in Western Australia? What is the Prime Minister's position on where Australia's new offshore patrol vessels should be built? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will stop interjecting. 14:54 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the Leader of the House for reminding me that, in fact, members opposite did not place a single naval order with an Australian shipyard—not a single order with a naval shipyard. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 If you do not want the answer, I will not give one. If you want an answer, sit down. The SPEAKER 00APG I ask the Prime Minister to resume his seat. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting, including the member for Herbert. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Herbert will cease interjecting, and it would help if those on my left ceased interjecting. Mr Watts 193430 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The Prime Minister was talking about the previous government. Eight hundred shipbuilders have lost their jobs in my electorate since the election of this government— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gellibrand will resume his seat. That is an abuse of a point of order. I call the Prime Minister. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 In response to the member who asked the question, the new offshore patrol vessels, or corvettes, will be a substantially different and larger vessel to the existing patrol boats. She is right: the existing patrol boats, the Armidale class, were built by Austal in Perth. They are an excellent vessel. The Cape class, which is the new class of Customs vessels, are being built in Perth. Again, they are an excellent vessel. So I can say to the member for Perth: Austal do a great job; they do a fantastic job. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth will cease interjecting. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 They do such a good job that Austal have now been commissioned by the United States navy to build war ships for the US. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Perth has asked a question. The Prime Minister is answering the question. You are interjecting continually. I am asking the member for Perth to cease interjecting. I call the Prime Minister. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 And I am praising Austal. They are doing a fabulous job. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I am trying to do justice to a great company in the member for Perth's electorate, or near the member for Perth's electorate. Austal are doing a fabulous job, and they will have every opportunity to be involved in future naval construction in Australia. But when it comes to future naval construction, the frigate build will centre in Adelaide— Ms Parke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Member for Fremantle, a point of order has already been raised. It was an abuse each time. I am asking you to resume your seat. I have ruled on the matter. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith will resume her seat. Member for Fremantle, was your point of order on relevance? Ms Parke HWR No. The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear the member for Fremantle. Ms Parke HWR Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the Prime Minister keeps referring to the ships being built in Perth. They are actually being built in Fremantle. The SPEAKER 00APG That is not a point of order. The member for Fremantle will resume her seat. I call the Prime Minister. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The offshore patrol vessels will be at least twice the size of the vessels currently being built by Austal, but Austal certainly are welcome to be involved and to bid as part of the competitive evaluation process that will begin from October. What I said and what I stand by is that the offshore patrol vessel build will start in 2018; the frigate build will start in 2020; the frigates will be built in Adelaide. The offshore patrol vessel build I expect to start in Adelaide after 2020. When the frigates are built it may move. Illicit Drugs 32 14:59 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to tackle the scourge of ice in our communities and protect families from the organised criminals who peddle this dangerous and illicit drug? 14:59 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I add my congratulations on your elevation. I thank the member for Macarthur for that important question. He knows why the government is particularly concerned about the scourge of ice. We believe that it poses the biggest risk to our community of all the illicit drugs because of the violent and menacing way that people behave under its influence. The key to stopping this drug is to break the criminal syndicates that profit from it. We are doing this through unprecedented cooperation between state and federal law enforcement agencies. Since coming to office, we have sent Australian Federal Police officers, Australian Crime Commission officers and officers from the Australian Taxation Office to sit side-by-side with their state and territory colleagues in the National Anti-Gangs Squad. Within the Australian Crime Commission we have created a one-stop shop for state and territory law enforcement agencies for intelligence on criminal organisations. We have also implemented stricter monitoring on the sale of chemicals that can be diverted to make ice. We are following the money trail by cooperating with the states and territories to create a national unexplained wealth scheme. This will undermine the business model of the criminal organisations that peddle ice. We are also clearing away the barriers to information sharing between agencies of the Commonwealth and across jurisdictions. If there is information on criminal gangs held somewhere within the Commonwealth there should be no barrier to our police accessing that information. This cooperation is disrupting more ice coming into Australia. Just today there has been another $80 million drug bust, with cooperation between the Australian Federal Police and their New Zealand and Fijian counterparts. Last week I joined with representatives from the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force and Western Australia Police to announce that they had seized a further 20 kilograms of methamphetamines with a street value of $20 million. We have also passed through this parliament legislation that bans the import of psychoactive substances unless they have a legitimate use, and we have ensured that our agencies have access to reliable telecommunications data for consistent intelligence to help police put drug dealers away. On top of this, we have established a nationalised task force that will ensure that all states and territories are cooperating with the Commonwealth to develop a national strategy to tackle ice. Today, the House is considering new legislation that will make it easier to prosecute the crooks involved in importing the precursor chemicals that can be diverted to make ice. These laws will directly target middlemen who profit in the drug trade and capitalise on legal loopholes to escape responsibility for their criminal acts. They will no longer be able to claim they are ignorant to the illicit content of those shipments to avoid prosecution. This government is committed to working, through the might of our law enforcement agencies, to ensure the safety and security of Australians from those who would abuse them by peddling ice. Marriage 33 15:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said, 'Look, we have this tradition in our party, Ray, of respect for people's deeply held beliefs, and if someone feels sufficiently strongly about an issue we accept that they do have a right to vote the way their conscience tells them. In light of these words, will the Prime Minister commit to a free vote for marriage equality for Liberal members and senators? Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Member of Jagajaga, the Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. The Prime Minister is seeking to answer it, and you are preventing him from answering a question your own leader has asked. I ask the member for Jagajaga to cease interjecting. 15:03 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah By way of introduction, I should observe that the Labor Party is not proposing to offer a free vote to its members. But I was asked on a number of occasions— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Ballarat will cease interjecting. The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The consciences of members opposite appear to have a use-by date on them. Before the election, I was very clear about our position on the matter of same-sex marriage. I said that if it came up in the next parliament— Ms Butler 248006 You're a hypocrite! Government members: Withdraw! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 it would be dealt with by the coalition party room in the usual way. That is what I said before the election and that is exactly what will happen. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the next member, I ask the member for Griffith to withdraw that remark. Ms Butler 248006 I withdraw, thank you, Mr Speaker. National Education Standards 33 15:05 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate you on your appointment. My question is to the Minister for Education And Training. Will the minister update the House on the results of the recent round of NAPLAN testing. What action is the government taking to ensure our children receive the education they need for well into the future? 15:05 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I know that she, like all members of this side of the House, is deeply concerned to ensure that quality education leads to good outcomes for Australian students. I can report that in the last week the NAPLAN results for 2015 have been publicly released. They show that year 3 results are improving slightly and that year 9 results are declining slightly, but across the board there is stagnation over the last eight years in terms of the results of our students. On this side of the House, we do not regard that as good enough. We believe that much needs to be done to improve the outcomes for students, and that is why we have a four pillars policy to change the outcome for Australian students. It consists of reforming the national curriculum from 1 January next year—to declutter the curriculum and to make it more robust and rigorous to extend our students more. This has been agreed to by all the states and territories and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. We are reforming teacher quality in Australia by forcing all institutions across Australia to be reaccredited to train teachers, so that we can put in place the structures necessary to have high-quality teachers being produced by our institutions, which will change the entire system of teaching in Australia. We are introducing more school autonomy. Every state and territory jurisdiction has signed up to the government's independent public school model, at a cost of $70 million, because research shows the more autonomy in a school the better the outcome for students. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith—again! Mr PYNE 9V5 Also, we will very soon be announcing policies around parental engagement, which will fill the fourth of our pillars. On the other hand, the opposition is a policy-free zone on this matter. At their national conference they failed to commit to extra funding to schools from 2018 onwards, unlike this government, which put $1.2 billion back into school education that Labor had ripped out—the Leader of the Opposition had ripped out. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith! Mr PYNE 9V5 Unlike the Labor Party, we got all the states and territories to agree to the national school funding model so that we deliver a national school funding model that goes up every year—eight per cent, eight per cent, six per cent and four per cent over the next four years. Labor has failed to commit to school funding increases into the future. As well as that, they are a policy-free zone on the other things that matter: teacher quality; school autonomy; parental engagement and the curriculum. They are a policy-free zone, whereas this side of the House is engaging the whole of the sector in reforms that will address all aspects of bringing better outcomes for students, certainly including funding, but, more importantly, addressing the core issues in school education. Mr Abbott EZ5 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 34 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 1 and 2 of 2015-16 34 15:09 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2015-16 entitled Audit report No. 1, Performance audit: Procurement initiatives to support outcomes for Indigenous Australians—Across entities, and Audit report No. 2, Performance audit: Regulation of unsolicited communications—Australian Communications and Media Authority. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers DOCUMENTS 34 DOCUMENTS Presentation 34 15:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. May I take this opportunity to say on behalf of this side of the House, Mr Speaker, that in your first question time you have performed superbly as Speaker and we look forward to your continued performance along those lines. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Leader of the House. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Renewable Energy 34 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to plan for a renewable energy future. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide Today the Prime Minister, who famously described climate change as 'absolutely not real'—which apparently is the parliamentary way to now describe his quote—has been dragged kicking and screaming, finally, to announce a target to take to the Paris conference in December—kicking and screaming. We are the last major developed economy to do so. Presumably the Prime Minister was waiting and perhaps hoping that global momentum behind the conference scheduled for Paris in December would either slow down or perhaps even reverse. He did his own bit over the course of 2014 to try to marshal the troops—to marshal other leaders—particularly those in the developed world who were sceptical about climate change policy, to try to oppose the momentum being led by the United States, China, our friends in the United Kingdom and in so many other countries around the world. But the momentum has not stalled. It certainly has not reversed. It is continuing to build around the world for a conference in December that is expected to put in place an agreement to start to reduce carbon pollution levels in an ambitious way and in a way that is consistent with the agreement that 195 countries of the world made five years ago to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, it would appear, and the Minister for the Environment, who has taken some time from the coalition party room meeting to participate in this debate, I am glad to say, apparently got a sense of that building momentum around the world, because reports in The Australian newspaper this morning indicated that the two ministers had taken a much stronger position to the cabinet. Mr Hunt 00AMV That is completely false. Mr BUTLER HWK The Minister for the Environment says that it is false. I am not sure where the leak came from on the front page of The Australian newspaper, but on those reports it would appear that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has yet again been overruled in her portfolio by a sceptical Prime Minister. But in any event the target is out there now for the Labor opposition and others in the parliament and, most importantly, people in the Australian community to analyse and assess. To do that—I will repeat the points we made in question time—we need to see the modelling and the data on which the government has based this decision. But first impressions are that this target will place Australia right at the back of the pack. They have shifted the baseline from 2000 to 2005. As a matter of principle we do not quarrel with that. It allows better comparisons between nations. But, frankly, it would have been better if the government had been more transparent and up-front about this and had not tried to compare apples with pears, being the old commitment from 2000 levels, to the commitment announced only this morning, from 2005. But using the same time frame—2005 to 2030—the United States has made a commitment of 41 per cent, to 2030. Germany has made a commitment of 46 per cent. The United Kingdom has made a commitment of about 48 per cent, to 2030. Mr Hunt interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK The Prime Minister tried to pretend the United States' commitment was a 2030 commitment. So don't talk to us about misleading the House, when in question time the Prime Minister stands up and tries to verbal the United States President as having made a 26 per cent commitment to 2030, when it is quite clear that that is a five-year earlier commitment. So do not try to lecture us about misleading the parliament. It is a 41 per cent commitment that the President of the United States has made when you straight-line out their 2025 commitment. The critical question is whether this commitment is consistent with our commitment to the rest of the world to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius—a solemn commitment made to the rest of the world but most importantly a solemn commitment made to future generations, to our children and our grandchildren, that we will do everything we can to limit global warming to that extent. President Obama said last week or maybe the week before that ours is the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. The importance of this commitment cannot be overstated. This government, this minister, must demonstrate how this target is consistent with that commitment. Even on this most fundamental question the government cannot get its facts straight. The environment minister, to his credit, tweets regularly that the government policy remains the two-degree limit. But in the energy white paper the government's entire policy is predicated on what the International Energy Agency describes as the four- degree warming scenario—not a two-degree warming scenario but a four-degree warming scenario. I ask the government to show us the data, show us the modelling, so that we can determine whether this target is consistent with those two things. It is also a commitment that cannot just be given lip service. It needs a proper suite of policies that will actually deliver on the commitment that we have made to our children and our grandchildren, and this government does not have that suite of policies. Only last week RepuTex modelled that in the next 10 years this government's policies will allow Australia's emissions to rise by 20 per cent—not decline by 26 per cent but rise by 20 per cent, because of this government's hopeless policies. This year alone we have had a taste of that with emissions from the power sector rising by four per cent. After reducing in 2013 by seven per cent and reducing in 2014 by four per cent, they are now rising by four per cent under this government. The central policy to deliver on the two-degree commitment we have made to our children and to our grandchildren must be a big expansion in renewable energy. Only a Shorten Labor government will deliver a big expansion of renewable energy in Australia. It is hard to think of a nation better placed to do that expansion, to surf the wave of the renewables revolution that we are viewing all around the world. We have the best solar resources, wind resources, wave resources and geothermal resources in the world. We have the best scientists and the most innovative businesses to take advantage of this revolution. PV solar, which has been taken up by citizens in every continent on the globe, was largely developed at the University of New South Wales. Wave energy is being developed innovatively in Western Australia by Carnegie, working off Fremantle. We can be leaders in this industry—and we were leaders in this industry until last year. We were the fourth most attractive place on the face of the earth in which to invest in renewable energy, until the Prime Minister launched his attack on renewable energy—until this Prime Minister launched an attack on billions of dollars in investment, thousands of jobs and significant reductions in carbon pollution. That reckless attack led to an 88 per cent decline in investment in large-scale renewables last year alone. We went from being the 11th-biggest investor to the 39th-biggest investor in just one year. We slipped below Myanmar, Honduras and Panama, among other countries. Hundreds of jobs were lost and, as I said before, carbon pollution for the first time in two years actually started to increase. We want to see Australia back in the lead, back at the head of the pack in taking up the enormous opportunities in investment, in jobs and in reductions in carbon pollution that are presented by this renewables revolution. The Australian people are awake to this Prime Minister. He is not interested in the future. He is stuck in the past. He pulls his cardigan over his head every time there is a debate about the future of this country and locks himself with a ball and chain to the past. We are not going to do that. The renewables revolution will give millions of Australians more control over the way in which they generate and use electricity. The Prime Minister's own hand-picked panel said that the expansion of renewable energy places downward pressure on power prices for households across the country. In only the last couple of weeks, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said that a four- kilowatt PV solar system on your roof combined with a five-kilowatt/hour battery will within five years be cheaper for households in Australia than taking electricity from the grid. Today confirms that the Prime Minister wants Australia to follow. He does not want Australia to lead. He does not want Australia even to stay in touch with the rest of the world on the issue of climate change and the enormous opportunities that are presented in investment, jobs and households' control over their energy by the renewables revolution. Labor wants to keep faith with future generations on climate change. We want to embrace the jobs and the investment opportunities that are available in a clean energy future. 15:21 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders That was a cracker. That was an absolute beauty. When asked what their policy on renewables is, they gave no answer. When asked what their emissions reduction target is, they gave no answer. Despite the fact that for the last month they have been telling us they have a 50 per cent renewable energy target, there was not one reference. Why is that? Why is the member for Port Adelaide ashamed? Why is he unable to talk about it? And why did he say nothing about the 40 to 60 per cent emissions reduction target for the entire country? What we see here is that when they are confronted with the reality of their policies for electricity, for households, for gas, for refrigerants—for all of these elements—they shy away from them. In the same way that there was going to be no carbon tax, in the same way that they were going to terminate the carbon tax at the last election, in the next election they will have a commitment to an ETS. Their own policy that was revealed on the front page of The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago said they would not put the modelling out before the election. How courageous and how honest is that? But there has been a moment of honesty. The member for Hunter, in an interview on the Andrew Bolt program said of their renewable target: 'It's not a policy. It's an aspiration.' It is just an aspiration. When asked how much it would cost and how much work the ALP had done, what did he say? 'No-one knows.' That is the truth of it: no-one knows. From the words of the ALP themselves, what does their policy cost? No-one knows. Well, we know. They have not done the work, but we have. This work is in line with what ASL Tasman has said. ASL Tasman has talked about a range of between $65 billion and over $100 billion. The Department of the Environment work says there is an $85 billion capital expenditure cost for their policy and a $70 billion renewable energy credit cost for their policy. Those facts are real. If they want to dispute them, they should show us. Confirm what the policy is and show us the answers, because we are absolutely clear about what the impacts will be. By contrast, what we have is a 23½ per cent renewable energy target recently voted through on a bipartisan basis. Why? Precisely because the phantom credits problem that we had warned about before the last election came to pass. The impacts were real and significant on the industry. By contrast, we will deliver a doubling of renewable energy under the renewable energy target over the next five years. We will deliver at least a doubling in small-scale solar over the coming years. We have already seen two major announcements in recent weeks, since the conclusion of that legislation. On the renewable energy side, theirs is a 50 per cent target that they are running away from. It is suddenly an aspiration. It is a policy which is uncosted, according to the member for Hunter. If you have any differences in terms of your own policy let us know, but we have costed it using conservative modelling at an $85 billion capital cost and a $70 billion electricity cost in terms of renewable energy credits. Beyond that, though, on our side there will be a doubling of large-scale renewable energy and a doubling of small-scale solar under the target. They are the realities and they are the things that we are getting on with. Then we turned to something broader, because most of the speech of the member opposite was about the international targets and the domestic objective. Today, under this government, Australia has added to the achievements of the past. We are one of the few countries to have met and beaten Kyoto I and to be on track to meet and beat Kyoto II. They are the realities. For all the talk, Australian is one of the good guys that have done the right thing by the world. We have actually committed, and now we see that we have put on the table a minus 26 to minus 28 per cent target for 2005 to 2030. The United States has a target of minus 26 to minus 28 for 2025. We see that Japan is minus 25, Korea is minus four per cent and China is approximately plus 150 per cent, and then you see that New Zealand and Canada are clustered around minus 30 per cent. So we are in very good company. We are doing better than many others. Then we also see that, of all the developed countries and the major economies, we have the highest per capita reductions. So when we talk about people making a contribution, on our watch Australia will do the heavy lifting, and we are proud of that. I am really delighted. I am thrilled with the outcome today. It is better than I had ever hoped. I am really delighted that Australia has made this commitment. It will serve us well over time. By comparison, what we see is something very interesting: a Labor Party that, over recent weeks, has committed to and has frequently publicised the fact that they want to go for a minus 40 to minus 60 target. But that target is on 2000 figures. It is higher if taken from the 2005 figure, and what does it mean? As we saw yesterday, using their own modelling by their own government of their own target using their own carbon tax of $600 billion at a carbon price of $209 per tonne, what does that translate to? That translates to a $5,000 per household impact in 2030, and if you have got an alternative let us know. Mr Conroy 249127 How do you sleep at night? Mr HUNT 00AMV Pretty well, thanks mate. How about you? According to Joel Fitzgibbon, none of you guys know what the truth of it is. We will continue an emissions reduction fund which has delivered four times the emissions reduction of the entire carbon tax and electricity tax experiment. We delivered 47 million tonnes at $13.95 per tonne of abatement contracted by the Clean Energy Regulator in an independent auction by an independent agent of government, and that could not have been a better outcome through a better process. By contrast, what we saw on the other side was a policy which delivered abatement at well over $1,000 per tonne. It is not the cost of carbon; it is the cost per tonne of abatement. Twelve million tonnes at $15 billion—that is the reality. Right now what we want to know is: how much will your carbon tax cost, how much will it hurt Australian families and how much will electricity rise? These are the figures which their own modelling shows from their own time in government about their own policy: $600 billion at a carbon tax of $209 per tonne, $5,000 per household and a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. We used their modelling. We drew on their modelling, published in the climate change mitigation scenarios prepared by the Treasury and the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education when Labor were in government. It was not us; it was them. It was not our modelling; it was their modelling, done by the Treasury and the department of industry. They are hoist on their own petard. So Australian families and Australian pensioners will pay higher electricity prices because of this 50 per cent renewable aspiration, and I say that knowing that they know that it will not be achieved. What it will lead to, as we saw last time, is a massive carbon tax equivalent. More than that, they then add on top of it an emissions trading scheme, which is a carbon tax by any other name, and they do that against a target of minus 40 to 60 per cent. Those are their policies. What we have done is what a government should do: we have modelled, we have planned, we have prepared, we have released, we have briefed, we have consulted. We have done all of those things. They created a 50 per cent figure out of thin air. As Joel Fitzgibbon said—how much will it cost; no-one knows. That is the truth of it. They have not done the modelling, and they will not do the modelling. What did Joel Fitzgibbon say about their emissions trading scheme? He said, 'You can call it a tax if you like'. What do we see at the end of the day? We see a tax of households; we see a policy that they have not modelled, but we know that it is an $85 billion capital cost and a $600 billion economic cost for the two together. (Time expired) 15:31 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Two important things happened here in Canberra today, the first full sitting day of parliament, which is back after the recess. The first was that the government announced these embarrassing targets that we will take to the world— Mr Hunt 00AMV Oh really, embarrassing? Dr CHALMERS 37998 Yes, they were embarrassing. For a nation that prides itself on doing its bit in the world, we have an environment minister in name only who announces these embarrassing targets. The other thing, of course, is that this week marks six months since the Prime Minister said, 'Good government starts today.' He marked that occasion by getting absolutely monstered in the party room over the important topic of marriage equality. While the Minister for the Environment was speaking, I was reading a story that said that in the Liberal Party room today: News of the push leaked while the party room meeting was underway. This caused angry scenes inside the party room as to who was leaking, according to further leaks. While the Prime Minister was having a bad day, and while it was a dark day for climate change in this country, there are good people all around Australia who are doing the right thing when it comes to renewable energy. I was thinking today, when I was contemplating this important MPI about renewable energy, about three people from my electorate who came to visit me from a group called Solar Citizens. I am thinking of Bob from Woodridge, Linda from Slacks Creek and Tom from Daisy Hill, who are all in my local electorate of Rankin. They are good local people taking advantage of solar energy who want their countrymen and countrywomen to do the same thing because they know something that the Prime Minister does not—they know that renewable energy means jobs, they know it means a cleaner environment to hand to their kids, and they know that it means investment. They know that it means lower power prices over the medium and long term as well. It did give me heart, because it showed that Tom, Linda and Bob understand something that the Prime Minister does not about jobs, investment and power prices. As the Prime Minister goes around defending the member for Mackellar's job and the member for Sturt's job, it struck me that he might not have noticed that there are 800,000 people in this country who are unemployed—the first time it has cracked 800,000 since the mid-1990s. We have an unemployment rate higher than during the GFC, which is a stunning fact when you consider that unemployment is higher today under Treasurer Hockey than at any point under Treasurer Swan or Mr Bowen during the global financial crisis and its immediate aftermath. It got me thinking that if this were truly a good government, it would not deny Australia the renewable energy sector jobs; it would not deny Australia the cleaner air, or the investment in our economy that our economy so desperately needs. The problem is that we have a Prime Minister who is stuck in the past and who only has a reverse gear—captured by the extreme right, the sceptics, the deniers and the dinosaurs. The effect of this approach has been catastrophic for jobs and confidence. The member for Port Adelaide ran through the stats, which show that Australia was a terrific performer on renewable energy until the change of government, and then we went backwards from being the fourth most appealing investment destination for renewable energy before the election to being the tenth after it. We know the reasons for that—the Prime Minister's actions when it comes to trashing renewable energy in this country. The biggest scare—the Prime Minister likes his scare campaigns and we heard more of them in the environment minister's contribution, if you could call it that—is over power prices. The thing that is really interesting about this is that when the climate sceptics over there who control the Liberal Party wanted to commission a study that said that renewable energy forced up power prices, they looked for a real sceptic and they found Dick Warburton. They asked him to do a review and they said, 'Hey Dick, would it be all right if you wrote a report saying that renewable energy forces up power prices?' Warburton had a look at this and unfortunately for the government, as the member for Port Adelaide said about their 'whoops' moment, even Dick Warburton had to conclude that renewable energy was driving investment, creating jobs, putting downward pressure on power prices and reducing carbon pollution, which really does show what an extraordinary lie this all is about the cost of renewable energy. This is something that the Australian people understand, even if their Prime Minister does not. This side of the House stands with the 80 per cent of Australians who support renewable energy. We believe in the transformative opportunity that renewable energy represents for jobs, investment and power prices. We know that $2.5 trillion will be invested in renewable energy in our region, and we want to get a slice of the action. A good government would want that too. This is far from a good government and Australians know it. There will be a clear-cut choice for the Australian people at the election. We have a target for 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. It is how we will restore investor confidence in a job-creating sector that has been trashed by a backward looking Prime Minister who lives in the past. 15:36 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes What we are seeing here today is a Labor Party that is completely removed from everyday Australians. In an attempt to pander to the urban elite, they are completely trashing the opportunities for working Australians. They have a leader who is a champion for working Australians—as long as the TV camera is on him and he is looking down a coal mine or something like that, he is a champion—but when he is sitting in the party room and they need to make some decisions to stand up for working Australians they fold and go to the urban Green preferences. That is what this is about. There is no recognition of the facts that are going on here. I have heard the member for Hunter has been mentioned today. I will tell you something about the member for Hunter. In his electorate there is a town called Kandos. In the same week that the Labor Party, then in government, introduced the carbon tax the Kandos cement plant closed. Over 100 years, multigenerations of good, hardworking Australians worked in that plant. It closed down and now cement for central New South Wales comes through the heads of Sydney Harbour from a country that does not have any emissions control and the people of western New South Wales miss out. We see absolute dishonesty here today and a lack of recognition of what is actually happening. The shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, was involved in the agreement on the RET, which was made in June, which secured the future of energy over the next number of years and it secured doubling our rate of renewable energy. So the number of wind farms that we have seen in the last 15 years needs to be replicated in the next six. It will be a difficult task. It is possible, but that is about the capacity we have to do this. The idea that there is actually nothing happening in this space is an absolute distortion of the facts. In fact, in my electorate I now have three solar farms, one of them being the largest in the Southern Hemisphere and one at Moree, which was actually funded by this government. That now provides energy in a practical sense in places where the grid needs that extra boost. In fact, residents in places like Dubbo, in my electorate, have the largest take-up of small-scale solar on their roofs than anywhere else in Australia. But a 50 per cent increase in renewables that we are seeing from the opposition is just nonsense. I ask the shadow minister: are we still going to have compensation for our high energy emitters—aluminium and the other industries? Because, if we are, that pretty well means 100 per cent renewables for the rest of us. I want to know how he will explain to the battlers and the pensioners of Australia, as they shiver under their doonas in the winter and as they swelter without their air-conditioners in the summer, how this fanciful target of 50 per cent will be of any benefit to them. We need to have a sensible discussion on this matter, based on the actual facts. We need to get away from this university-high school type debate we are now having where it is all about who has the highest target wins, despite the fact that there is absolutely no practical way of that happening. Why do we not have a sensible discussion of what is possible, what it means and what it will cost the Australian people? In the Parkes electorate the Labor Party is absolutely on the nose—you might be doing well in Vaucluse and in Melbourne, in the most concreted parts of Australia—out there where people actually work for a bob, where they understand that they need energy to survive and that in summer it is nice if their mother and father can afford to turn on the air-conditioner, they understand what is going on here. This is a ploy by the Labor Party to pander to the wealthy, urban elite, to make them feel like they are doing something to protect the environment, when they are actually living in the most altered part of the country. (Time expired) 15:41 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton What a pathetic contribution we have just seen on this MPI on renewable energy. What is clear is that not only are the National Party dictating to the Liberal Party on marriage equality but they are also dictating on economic policy. The entire economic policy of the coalition is to stick their head in the sand, to consign Australia to being the rust-belt economy of the Asia-Pacific. The truth is that this is not an argument about the environment, it is not an argument about feeling good; it is an argument about hard economics and what is in the economic interests of Australia? It is clearly in the economic interests of this country to have jobs of the future, to abate carbon at the lowest possible cost through an emissions trading scheme and other associated policies, to take a rational policy and implement that policy and to make the transition as smooth and efficient as possible, rather than adopt the government's direct command and control, Bolshevik style, that would do Comrade Lenin proud. That is what has been clear in this debate. The previous speaker talked about real jobs. I am not sure whether the Minister for the Environment even bothers turning up to cabinet anymore; he just has a little side meeting with Minister Macfarlane of the 'Rolled Cabinet Ministers Club,' who does not bother turning up. We have seen their ideological masters in Maurice Newman and the wind turbine noise conspiracy theorists, who think that wind turbine noise will somehow end the world. This is a purely ideological debate from their side, with no basis in science or economics. And this country is suffering as a result. When I discovered the MPI was going to be on renewables I thought, 'Let's go to some source material, let's see what the government have said about renewables,' because they are supposed to be the year of good government. I went to their document shield, Real Solutions, their election policy which Tony Abbott hid behind. How many mentions of renewable are there in this? Guess. Zero. What about Battlelines, a great read? How many mentions of 'renewables' in Battlelines? Zero. What about the greatest political suicide note since Fightback—Not Your Average Joe? Zero mentions of renewables. What about a certain member's long-term contribution to this House, because we should be judged by what we speak on in the chamber, our contribution to the public debate. I had a look in Hansard for the Prime Minister's contribution over the last 21 years and guess how many times he has mentioned 'renewables' in 21 years of parliament? Three times. Just to give some context, once every seven years, the former chief of staff to the Treasurer— Opposition members interjecting— Mr CONROY 249127 The Prime Minister has mentioned BA Santamaria four times. He has mentioned bananas three times, bikes six times and apples 10 times. So, in the Prime Minister's mind, apples are three times as important to this country as renewables, which I think will give some heart to the Nationals but probably not to anyone else in this country. That is the sad pity of where this debate is. Those on the other side have presided over the greatest investment strike in renewable power ever seen. As the shadow minister mentioned, there has been an 88 per cent decline, falling from $2.7 billion under Labor to less than $200 million. We have fallen from 11th in the world to the 39th, putting us behind that paragon of renewable power investment, Myanmar. The Burmese generals get it; Australia does not get it, unfortunately. This is all under a government instituting Direct Action; something that has produced a $66 carbon price. The real tragedy of all of this is that it is not my generation that will suffer; it is my kids' generation and my grandkids'. If we do not take action and transition to the lowest possible cost, they will suffer. We will face carbon tariffs; we will face a rust belt economy where we cannot compete because we will be too carbon intensive—and my region will suffer more than most. I am proud to have the biggest power station in the country. I am proud to have four coalmines still operational. I am proud to have the CSIRO's clean energy flagship in the Hunter region. We can lead this country as a clean energy hub, but we need good investment from a government that accepts the science of climate change and that accepts the good economic policy of an emissions trading scheme and renewable energy industry policies. That is the way forward—not their aggressive, reactionary, DLP, BA Santamaria rhetoric that will condemn them throughout history as reactionaries who led Australia down the wrong path and condemned future generations to being the poor white trash of Asia. 15:46 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I have been away from this place for a bit, and the arrival of a new child always focuses one's mind to the distant future. I think the important part of this debate is to remember that we need a balanced approach to this. Everyone would have to accept that it is wealthy nations that can do something substantively about the environment. All of us want to achieve a cleaner, greener environment, but we want to do it from a position where we strengthen our economy. By weakening our economy, we will not have the resources to do what we need to do with respect to protecting our environment. That is why, while I was on leave, I was, quite frankly, gobsmacked to hear that the Labor Party had adopted, effectively, a policy position that called on 50 per cent of renewable energy by 2030. As I travel around my electorate and talk to producers, principally fruit processors—and I am grateful for them—they tell me that, aside from wages, the second most significant input cost to their business is the cost of electricity. I thought to myself immediately, 'What is a policy position like this going to do, if it were ever government policy'—my goodness—'to the cost of electricity?' Quite frankly, this policy would see the cost of electricity rise to a point where you could not fly a rocket over it! The member for Hunter is someone who I have come to spend a bit of time with, particularly on the joint committee for agriculture, and he seems to be a sensible bloke. I probably like him more than I should! It is one of the things you learn about coming into this place, that you seem to make friendships on both sides of the place. He was asked, 'What would this cost?' Not once, not twice—as if on Mount Sinai—he said 'No-one knows.' And that is the reality; no-one knows how incredibly expensive this shift would be. On the other hand, our government is taking a sensible approach to renewable energies. We have adopted, effectively, a target on renewable energies which is sensible, balanced and achievable, as opposed to far-fetched, fanciful and entirely unachievable. What it will see—and we saw from earlier contributions—is a doubling of the renewable energy rollout over the next few years, as we have seen in place already. That is the point. We have to ensure that we can achieve this. It is one thing to speak to our base and to move further and further to the left because we are concerned for our vote being diffused by the Greens, but it is another thing to come into this place to govern and implement policies which are achievable—and that is what we have seen from a government which has helped push us to a point where we will reach our Kyoto targets. By 2020, we will be there. Indeed, we will exceed our targets; we will better our targets. And so it will be, I am sure, in terms of the targets, which are sensible and measured and have been announced recently. We are not going to do it with froth and bubbles, with respect. It is hard work. It is about practical, on-the-ground measures. It is very easy to come in here and simply say that we will achieve a 50 per cent target by 2030. But we are not having a real discussion about what that does to the Australian economy, how it weakens it and how it makes it even more difficult to achieve positive outcomes for the environment. I have said very little about Labor's reckless 40 to 60 per cent target in carbon emissions. That will be a $633 billion-hit to the Australian economy. I do not know when we started speaking about millions and billions so easily, but it will be a $633 billion-hit our economy. That is money that we could be applying to a cleaner, greener Australian economy. It is a six per cent fall in per capita income per person in the nation. It is a $4,900 reduction in take-home pay. It is equivalent to a carbon price of over $200. The nation knows that only a healthy and prosperous country can do something about its environment, and we should avoid this— (Time expired) 15:51 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I am very pleased to be speaking on this MPI—the government's failure to plan for a renewable energy future—because this is an issue of great concern right across the country and in my electorate of Richmond as well. It is one of the areas that is most often raised with me by constituents. The fact is that the Abbott government have failed the people of Australia, as they have no plans for a renewable energy future—just as they have no plans to tackle climate change. As the shadow minister rightly pointed out before, the Prime Minister today has been dragged kicking and screaming to announce these targets. We know in the past the Prime Minister has said that climate change is not real. We know that is his view. Yet today we see these targets that are not good enough—and I agree with the member for Rankin, who said that in fact they were embarrassing. It blatantly shows those opposite have no vision for the future, no vision for the country. On this side of the House, Labor are focused on the future and we have the policies we need to improve the renewable energy sector. Renewable energy is overwhelmingly popular with Australians because they understand how effective it is and they understand how important it is. That is why we constantly see surveys and polls reflecting that, with more than 80 per cent of Australians supporting this sector. In my area I would suggest the figure is even higher, because on the New South Wales North Coast we have one of the biggest uptakes of solar power in the country. Locals tell me how important it is to expand renewables not only as an energy source but also as a suite of measures to tackle harmful climate change; they understand that. We have a very proud record. When Labor were in government we committed to expanding solar power because we understood how important it was. When we came into government in 2007, there were only 7,000 homes with solar panels on their roofs. Now there are more than 1.3 million—a huge increase. This massive increase was underpinned by Labor's support for the industry through a number of measures, including the renewable energy target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. All of these policies have all been huge successes. Also in our time in government, jobs in the renewable energy sector increased to 21,000, wind power tripled and    there were billions of dollars of investment in Australia's renewable energy sector. As we have heard, in 2013, Australia was ranked in the top four most attractive countries in the world to invest in renewable energy. Since the election of the Abbott government, we are now ranked 10th. What a shameful drop, and really a reflection of this government. It is most embarrassing. What is also embarrassing is the Prime Minister's attacks on renewable energy. They are quite frankly astounding, insulting and damaging. He has openly criticised an industry that employs tens of thousands of people. Let's look at his record. He has stifled the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, he has gutted the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and he has tried, but failed, to abolish the renewable energy target. This was due to the huge community and industry support for the sector. I think the Prime Minister's efforts really show how out of touch he is with the majority of Australians. Many people were rightly concerned about recent reports that the Prime Minister has instructed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to stop investing in wind farms. This act is only part of this government's ongoing war on renewable energy and its constant attacks. These attacks on this sector put thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment at risk. This is particularly true of regional and rural areas, where the renewable sector is one of the few growth areas. We need to have this sector growing. That is something the Liberals and the Nationals just do not understand. They do not understand how devastating it is when they attack the sector. In contrast to all of this, the opposition leader the shadow minister for the environment have outlined Labor's plans to see 50 per cent of our energy generated by renewables by 2030—a great ambition and a fantastic target. So at the next election there will be a very clear choice between Labor and the Liberal-Nationals when it comes to renewable energy. It is a clear choice, especially in regional and rural areas, where we see the National Party not supporting renewable energy. They do not support one of the growth industries in our country areas. The Nationals are part of a government determined to destroy the renewable energy sector. That is what the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National government continue to do. But Labor is committed to action. The fact is that a Shorten Labor government will put a strong commitment to renewable energy at the centre of Australia's response to climate change. We are committed to that. Our goal for renewable energy will cut pollution, drive investment, create jobs and importantly push down power bills for families and small business. We understand how important that is. We want to see more investment in this area. We want to see more investment in solar, wind and wave energies and in new technologies as well. We are absolutely committed to that because we understand the value of renewables. There is a very, very clear choice at the next election. There is Labor's rock-solid commitment to renewable energy, making sure that we have more jobs in that area and greater investment. Then you have the Liberal-National parties, who are doing everything to destroy this sector. People know that. People in the country know that, because you are destroying their jobs and you are destroying the chances of investing in a future for regional Australia. The fact is that people will hold the Liberal-National parties to account, and they will especially hold the National Party to account for trying their best to destroy the renewable energy sector. 15:56 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore On the subject of renewables, let us get this topic fairly and squarely on the basis of truth rather than the mythology of sea-green mist ghosting being peddled by those who sit in opposition. One assumes that Labor really does not have a handle on the costings and benefits arising from renewable energy. The final RET legislation that passed through the House was a negotiated outcome, where some members of Labor actually understood the needs of moving forward. Finally, investment strategies could be determined, with supply of renewables and a great outcome achieved, as well as employment opportunity. By 2020, more than 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity will be provided by renewables, which is well above expectations. The program will lead to a doubling of renewable energy in the next five years. We on this side of the House are balancing the best that Australia has to offer. We have a very sound solar industry, which continues to thrive. More than 1.4 million households, small businesses and community organisations have installed solar, which is in addition to the 900,000 solar hot water systems we have got going. The investment has been underpinned by the renewable energy target scheme. Under that scheme, some people have been getting more than $3,000 in rebates. This is equivalent to about 30 per cent of the total cost of installation. Yet Labor's 50 per cent target announcement was made without any analysis. We look at it and it looks like it is going to cost us about $85 billion. Who is going to pay for this? Nobody other than Australian families and Australian workers. Labor know this will drive up electricity prices, but they are too scared to admit it. This is fact. It is exactly what happened last time. Just talk to the families and businesses who copped massive electricity bills. The government will implement new measures to support large-scale solar and other renewable energy deployment, including options to support other innovative renewable energy technologies. Many people living in Gilmore wish to see investment in other renewables, such as wave energy and biochar development. Those sitting opposite really have no idea. Our plan for renewables is sustainable. It will lead to research, development and investment into other options for renewable energy without costing our existing industries, which actually employ huge numbers of people in our nation. After all, the options being proposed by Labor are really quite scary. Firstly, the proposal includes a new supercharged carbon tax, which will actually destroy jobs, push up electricity prices and hurt our Australian families and businesses. Labor was categorically rejected because of the carbon tax. That is one of the reasons why we are on this side and you are over there. I just wonder how the residents of Cunningham and Throsby, many of whom are directly involved in the coalmining industry, will feel when they are informed about this amazing policy reintroduction. If those opposite are re-elected and a super carbon tax comes along, the result will be very high electricity prices and the closure of 37 coalmines. I mean, really? Mr Conroy 249127 That's rubbish. It's absolutely untrue. Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 No, it is not. Our emissions reduction scheme is working. We are reducing emissions. We are successful without a carbon tax. At the same time, we are investing in human potential and the environment with the Green Army. How many young Australians are learning to love the land that they live in, becoming environmental advocates and having hands-on experience with environmental initiatives? They are growing personally. This is one of my community heroes. This is Paul. He is in Killalea State Park. He is a Green Army advocate—a young kid who was unemployed and is now working for the environment and making such a difference for our environment. I can only commend him. I, for one, will be disappointed when I have to knock on a bakery door—if you guys get back in and put the carbon tax back on—and they say: 'My electricity bill has gone back up $900 a quarter. I have to sack two employees. My refrigerant bill has gone up four times.' Opposition members interjecting— Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Really and truly, do you understand what you did to small business? You killed some of them. Your whole policy—the policy you took to government last time—was destructive for jobs and it was destructive for business. You really need to re-evaluate where you think your policy is going, because your calculations are wrong. 16:01 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle If ever there were a case study of the complete and utter failure of a government to plan for the future, it would indeed be the Abbott Liberal government's failure to plan for a renewable energy future for Australia. They are so out of touch, out of favour and out of order. Their views are now so completely skewed on this issue that contributions opposite have dared suggest that current policy mechanisms put in place by this government are going to add—somehow, miraculously—to employment gains for Australia. We hear members opposite launch the very sad but predictable attack on Labor's commitment to renewable energies here. The spectre of the carbon tax is very quickly raised on each and every occasion, by those members opposite saying what damage it did to jobs. Let us remind members opposite of the unemployment figures that are around today. They are the very highest since Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, was himself the minister for employment: 800,000. In my electorate of Newcastle, 610 shipbuilding jobs have gone under his watch. So let us not pretend that members opposite have any answers when it comes to employment. Indeed, if members opposite took any notice whatsoever of the feedback from their so-called listening posts, mobile offices or even regular interactions with their constituents, they would know full well that renewable energy is overwhelmingly popular with Australians—not just in the metropolitan areas, as was suggested by the member for Parkes, but indeed in regional Australia, in areas like Newcastle and the Hunter Region. We know that more than 80 per cent of Australians have now locked in their support for renewable energy. I speak as a member who has the electorate with the largest coal export port in the world. I am not naive about the contribution of fossil fuels to my regional economy. But you know what? The last thing that I and members in my region should do is bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we do not have to plan for some kind of transition to clean energy in the future. Mr Giles 243609 That's leadership. Ms CLAYDON 248181 It is leadership. It is what is sadly lacking from this government. This government is going to leave regional economies like Newcastle and the Hunter hanging out to dry, because it has no plan around a renewable energy future. It has no plan for jobs of the future anywhere. Let us have a quick look at the Liberal track record on renewables. We know, as a number of my colleagues have pointed out, that Australia was ranked in the top four most attractive countries in the world for investment in renewable energies. Since the election of the Abbott Liberal government, we have now plummeted to the 10th. Just last week, I met with wind energy providers in my electorate, who came to thank me for Labor reaching a position—albeit compromised—around the Renewable Energy Target last session, because their industry was haemorrhaging. They had not had a single cent of investment since the election of this government. They know that they are an important part of the future energy mix in Australia. Indeed, they were thankful for Labor's vision and our recent announcement during our national conference that 50 per cent of our energy would be generated by renewables by 2030. I have to say that that is a far cry from what this government has on the table. There will be, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, a very clear choice at the next election. It is only Labor that actually has a plan for the future, that looks ahead, that cares about not only the jobs of today but the also the jobs of tomorrow. It is our plan that will establish a clean energy future for Australia. It is the Abbott Liberal government and this Prime Minister who remain stuck in the past at a time when Australians are absolutely crying out for a vision for the future—a vision that must include renewable energies, and a vision that must be good for our economies and good for our environment. 16:06 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon For those that may be listening—sitting in their cars, watching on TV or online, or the small number in the gallery—it is very easy and very tempting to be drawn in by rhetoric. It is very easy to have big number targets to make a political party look like they are in touch with the nation. It is very easy, just like it was to say, 'We're going to have surpluses,' and never deliver. The member for Sydney, as the opposition spokesman, talks about another $20 billion worth of foreign aid, but we have never seen any commitment to that in a budgetary sense. Those opposite talk about tax reform; they are full of rhetoric, but when it comes to actually leaving things on the table for a serious debate, they run a million miles. So I would say to those people listening: don't ever listen to my rhetoric, don't ever listen to the Prime Minister's rhetoric and certainly don't listen to the rhetoric on the other side. Look at the outcomes. When it comes to renewable energy, which this MPI is about, let's talk about the outcomes. There was great discussion in the Howard era around signing the Kyoto agreement. But here is the reality: we surpassed the Kyoto agreement. We then moved to the next phase of a bipartisan commitment of 20 per cent of our energy use to be renewable by 2020. We are well on track for that to be 23½ per cent. So don't listen to the rhetoric. Look at the outcomes. It is true that when you ask or do a survey of your constituents that renewable energy is very popular in the community. If you ask anybody whether we should be working towards more renewable energy, of course the response will be 70 or 80 per cent positive. But here is the kicker, which no-one ever wants to talk about: if you add just the slight addition to the question of 'Do you support more embracing of renewable energy at any cost to your family's budget?', I would suggest to everybody listening today that that number would be nowhere near 70 or 80 per cent. People would want clarification on what the cost of that popular embrace would be. So let me tell you the facts as they stand right now. If you want to pay the cost of generating energy through coal or, in fact, hydro—I come from the state of Tasmania and we were dealing in renewable energy well before most other people's electorates in this place—it comes at a cost of around $35 or $40 a megawatt hour. If you want to deal in gas to generate your energy, the costs are $65 a megawatt hour. Wind is somewhere between $85 and $115, so let's call it $100 a megawatt hour. Solar comes at a cost of over $200 for every megawatt hour. Why do I raise this? I raise it simply to make this point: it comes at a cost to someone. If you want to achieve renewable energy targets that are being pushed by the opposition, without any regard to the financial impact on the bottom line of the budget and, in turn, on the bottom line of family budgets, you have to take this into account. If you want renewable energy there are two options. Firstly, the government, the taxpayer—the government does not have money; we only have the people's money—has to subsidise those generating costs so that it is affordable to use solar, as we did with the subsidies we provided for years, so that families can afford that good feeling of renewable energy. Secondly, forget the subsidies. Who pays? The consumer has to pay the total cost. They are the facts. There are no other options. I hear those opposite being very quiet. You can hear the crickets over there. There are no other options. Either the government subsidises it or the taxpayer pays it. Either way, the taxpayer pays. So I would ask everyone listening: do not take account of the rhetoric; take account of the outcomes. What would be the outcome for an Australian family as a result of the targets that those opposite are espousing? I will tell you what it is: it would be absolutely disastrous. Your electricity bills across Australia, folks, are way too dear now. If you think they are dear under the current arrangement and you want to take on board their policies then the cost will go up tenfold overnight. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 44 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 44 Membership 44 16:11 The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Selection Committee. 16:11 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield by leave—I move: That Mr Hutchinson be appointed a member of the Selection Committee. Question agreed to. Human Rights Committee 44 Report 44 16:1 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report—Twenty-fifth Report of the 44th Parliament, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 As this is its Twenty-fifth Report of the 44th Parliament, it is a very productive committee. I rise to speak on the tabling of the Twenty-fifth Report. The committee's reports examine the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations, and this report considers bills introduced into the parliament from 22 to 25 June 2015 and legislative instruments received from 29 May to 11 June 2015. The report also includes the committee's consideration of responses to matters raised in previous reports. Of the 22 bills and two instruments examined in this report, 18 are assessed as not raising human rights concerns. Six raise matters in relation to which the committee will seek a response from the legislative proponents. The committee has concluded its examination of six bills and deferred consideration of one. The number of bills examined are scheduled for debate during the sitting week commencing 10 August—that is this week—including the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 and the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. In this report, the committee also examined the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This is an important and complex bill that raises a number of human rights questions. In keeping with its usual approach, the committee has determined to ask the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for further information to help the committee assess the human rights compatibility of the bill—in particular, the committee wishes to understand whether there is reasoning or evidence that establishes that the stated objective of the bill would address a pressing and substantial concern. I might say that, in this matter, it is quite likely that it does, since it goes to the issue of citizenship deprivation in the context of the security issues that are before us at this time. It also asks whether there are rational connections between any limitation on rights and that objective and, finally, whether any limitations on rights are reasonable and proportionate in achieving that objective. I am sure the members of the committee will be very much aided with the full, complete and, I hope, helpful advice from the minister on this matter. These questions reflect the analytical framework that the committee has applied since its inception, which allows the committee to assess whether any limitations on human rights are justifiable. In relation to the committee's consideration of responses to matters raised in previous reports, I would like to highlight what is an excellent example of the scrutiny dialogue between the committee and the executive working as is intended. In its initial examination of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015, the committee raised a number of concerns about the human rights compatibility of a substantial number of measures in the bill. In response, the minister provided an extensive and, I might say, detailed human rights assessment of the measures, which directly addressed the matters raised by the committee. I thank the minister for that approach, because it was very helpful in ensuring that the committee could—obviously, using its analytic framework and expectations—understand the legitimate objectives of the measures. The minister also set out safeguards and processes that were in place to protect human rights and provided clear and compelling analysis that underpinned this. On the basis of this response, the committee was able to assess that almost all of the limitations on rights were reasonable and proportionate, and therefore compatible with human rights. Regrettably, this has to be contrasted to the response received in relation to the Seafarers Rehabilitation Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which was considered in this report. The response to the committee's inquiry to this bill was very brief. Regrettably, it did not address the specific questions asked by the committee and it did not reflect the application of the committee's analytical framework. Although the response contained an assurance that amendments to the bill during the passage adequately addressed the committee's concerns, there was no attempt to explain how these complex amendments in fact addressed the human rights issues identified by the committee. Looking at the substance of those issues, it appears quite possible that a more helpful and informative response could have enabled the committee to conclude its examination of the bill and assess that it was likely to be compatible with human rights. I might say that, given the task I have, it would be helpful if ministers were conscious of that. It makes it easier for me to bring about support for government measures, assuming they are compatible with our obligations or proportionately address issues that are before us. However, in the absence of the information sought in this case, the committee was unable to assess the extent of the limitation on the right to social security and was therefore unable to conclude that the bill was compatible with that right. The key element of the committee's work is the scrutiny dialogue it maintains with executive departments and agencies regarding human rights in the development of policies and legislation. This is a tale of two responses, and it demonstrates that the committee's ability to appropriately perform its scrutiny function in assessing bills and instruments for compatibility is greatly aided by the quality of the dialogue undertaken with the legislative proponents. As always, I encourage fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to inform their understanding of our deliberations. They are not easy, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend the committee's 25th report of the 44th Parliament to the House. BILLS 45 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 45

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015

Second Reading 45 16:19 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I am speaking in continuation on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. I was cut off before when I was talking about the government looking at undertaking a study of automatic number-plate-recognition systems at airports and wharfs. As a law enforcement tool, this is exceptionally valuable. In the days when I was with the counterterrorism squad we looked at what the UK were doing, and automatic number plate recognition was exceptionally effective at giving a very quick time response to police with regard to car registration. Obviously, cars are registered, so within a quick time the police, if they were looking at a vehicle or the whereabouts—as it used to be called—of a vehicle, could be alerted and immediately they could dispatch someone to go and intercept the vehicle. It is the same for basic traffic offences. It allows the police to know, for example, whether the person may have had their licence suspended or if the owner of that vehicle may have warrants out for their arrest. It is amazing how many times police get information from this—especially when we look at the area of counterterrorism and organised crime groups. Obviously, around airports and wharfs the customs officers are the gatekeepers to Australia. As discussed before, fighting organised crime redirected $64 million to the anti-gangs squad. As I said before, the partnerships between state, territory and law enforcement agencies are so vital. I think it is important to highlight that not only are we working on trafficking and organised crime but we are also addressing the issue often at the forefront of the community's focus—that is, the safety of our streets. That is the commitment we took to implement tougher penalties on gun-related crime. I very much thank Victoria Police and Inspector Ian Campbell from the Echo Taskforce, who invited me to a national anti-gangs task force forum earlier this year. It had representation from not only Victoria Police and state and territory police from all around the country but also they had experts flown in from Canada and America. They even had a former Hell's Angel there, a colourful character. What was interesting about the forum was twofold. First of all, it was brought to my attention that firearms are a huge issue. At the moment Victoria Police, basically every night, are intercepting cars and finding firearms in those cars. So the laws at the moment are not working. We need to make much tougher laws. Interestingly, most of the firearms they are finding are coming from abandoned farmhouses. Obviously, farmers have a legitimate reason for a licence. The problem is that organised crime have realised that, if the farmers are not there, those farm properties, those households, are easy targets. So we might need to look at tightening up the laws in regard to that. The second issue of interest when I was talking to Victoria Police who work in the area of outlaw motorcycle gangs is that—and, as I said, I was heavily involved in putting the policy together for the National Anti-Gangs Squad—in Victoria we are finding that outlaw motorcycle gangs are growing. One of the reasons for this, even though we see arrests on TV every night or read reports about that, those gangs are still, sadly, attracting a lot of people, who think, 'This is what I want to get involved in.' Bikies go to gyms and they target what we used to call the gym junkies there. Sadly, they are also targeting service members who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to lure them into organised crime. I will talk a bit later on about what Queensland is doing, because I really believe that the state of Queensland and its police force are now leading the way in how to deal with outlaw motorcycle gang members. According to ABS data released on 26 June 2014, the statistics for firearms related crime are that, in 2013, New South Wales had 533 offences; Victoria, 138; Tassie, 17; South Australia, 44; Western Australia, 100; the Northern Territory, three; Queensland, 195; and the ACT, four. Nationally, that is a total of 1,034 firearms related offences in one year alone, and I would say those would have increased. Of those, 54 were murders, or homicides; 56 were attempted homicides; 23 involved sexual assault crimes; 43 were kidnappings, or abductions—and there has been a huge increase when it comes to kidnapping. During my time in the police force, there was rarely a kidnapping, but these days, I know from Victoria Police, there is some sort of kidnapping occurring almost every night. Lastly, of those firearm related offences, 886 were robberies. Clearly, this is a problem for our nation that current legislation is not addressing, and it only seems to be getting worse. We just have to look at our TV screens every night to know that. We need to address the scourge that firearms have brought to our streets. The rash of thefts, kidnappings, sexual assaults and murders or attempted murders by those with access to firearms cannot continue in this way, and we need to come down heavily on those involved. This bill will introduce mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for offenders charged with trafficking of firearms or firearm parts, under the Criminal Code Acts 1995—and it is sad that the opposition are not supporting this. These mandatory minimum sentences demonstrate how serious a threat guns are to the safety of all Australians and also sends a strong message that gun related crime and violence will not be tolerated in our society. Having a history in policing I understand that it can also be dangerous to implement legislation without proper consideration of the safeguards that may be required in different circumstances. To ensure we take those into consideration, this legislation does not include specified nonparole periods, it does not apply to minors and it provides courts with the discretion to set custodial periods consistent with the particular circumstances of the offender and the offence for minors. As I was saying before, the situation with outlaw motorcycle groups is that they are pretty much going south. They are leaving Queensland and coming to Victoria. Even though there have been record numbers of arrests and drug seizures, sadly, we are seeing more bikie clubhouses opening up. Something else needs to occur for us to, basically, win in this space. That is where I believe the Queensland law enforcement agencies have got this right. I had the great pleasure of meeting a number of police in Queensland when I visited there recently, including Senior Sergeant Mark Morrish and Inspector Shane Holmes. At a different level, to talk about counter-terrorism, I also met Assistant Commissioner Peter Crawford, head of Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and Major Events; Detective Superintendent Darryl Johnson, head of security operations; and other law enforcement members. In Queensland—for anyone who has been tracking outlaw motorcycle gangs—the Gold Coast is where they were hanging out the most. They basically set up shop there and took control of the nightclubs and the drugs. They were bad for business and they destroyed young lives. The former LNP state government had the position that they were really going to take on the outlaw motorcycle gangs with their criminal law amendment act. The Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 contains a range of amendments targeting criminal gangs, including the creation of new offences, increased penalties for existing offences and increased police powers. The new offences include three or more members of a criminal gang, including those listed by regulation, being together in a public place, meaning that bikies can no longer sit around in their colours or leathers and intimidate other people—because that is what the colours are about: intimidation. Another new offence is a member of a criminal gang being at a banned location, such as a criminal bikie gang clubhouse, or at a banned event. From speaking to members of the police, I hear people no longer go to the clubhouses. Why? Because they will be arrested. Another new offence is a member of a criminal gang recruiting, or attempting to recruit, another person to the gang. What they do is target young people, particularly those in street gangs, and they get them involved with ice and—I was speaking to [inaudible] recently, from Victoria—it does not matter what sort of penalty they get; they basically continue to push them to keep trafficking. It is this kind of approach to closing gaps in legislation which we really need to take seriously. I have spoken to Minister Michael Keenan about it and he has obviously made no decision on this, apart from listening to what I have said. But there is a very stark difference between what is happening in Queensland and what is happening in Victoria. From what I have seen—and I have spoken about law enforcement internationally—it is pretty much the way the Americans took on organised crime over there. They took on the bikies and they took on the mafia with the RICO laws. The RICO laws are very similar to these Queensland laws, and I believe that is where they are based. Especially now with the ice scourge, I really believe we have to go to the next level and look at tougher measures to disrupt organised crime. If you can stop the outlaw motorcycle gangs meeting together and if you can stop the organised crime groups having meetings and basically pushing drugs and pushing firearms, it can only be good for all Australians, especially young people because bikies do not care if they sell drugs to a young person and they do not care if they sell a firearm to a young person. This is the danger that we face. I strongly support this legislation. My next push will be to look at stronger legislation, such as the Queensland legislation, going national. 16:31 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The people of Queensland passed their judgement upon that government. One of the major issues was their barbarian—and that is only word I can think of to describe it—attitude towards justice, humanity and the rule of law. People rose up against that. It was a very real element, along with the sale of the assets, that caused the biggest swing in Queensland parliamentary history—the biggest ever. Mr Wood E0F Not on the Gold Coast. Mr KATTER HX4 The Gold Coast is not the end of the world; it is not even the start of the end of the world. We do not pass laws for 400,000 people in a state of 4½ million people. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see the attitude. If you talk about humanity, justice and the rule of law, you are immediately tagged by this mob because they are a bunch of bullies. 'Bullies' is the word used extensively and continuously in the media in Queensland, outside of the Murdoch press, to describe the Queensland government. I think that everyone who I have run into and has expressed an opinion about that government and even their own supporters would say that. Mr Deputy Speaker, let him have his indulgence. I hope you have good fun with these little toys that you have because the people of Queensland cannot afford to have 7,000 people in jail. We were regarded as very right wing—and I would use the word 'barbarian' again for the government of the 1980s—but not once during that period did we introduce mandatory sentencing and not once did we introduce reverse onus of proof. As a very active and I might even say powerful member of that government, I am very proud to be able to say that. We were people who acted in a confrontational manner when we were called upon to do so—no-one acted more aggressively than that Bjelke-Petersen government, I can assure you. Let us get back to these 7,000 people in jail. That government, which was supposed to be a law and order, strong government—and we were—had 2,000 people in jail. The LNP last year had 7,000 people in jail. It is over $200,000 per person in jail. You can rant and rave about people getting drunk and driving cars—and there is no doubt that they should not and that they should be punished—but the people being punished are the poor taxpayers in Queensland. They are the ones suffering most of the punishment here. If we had some community service out on the territory border, up in Burketown or somewhere, I might have a different attitude, but when these people are costing us $200,000 a year then we are talking about a different animal altogether. I have a little document here that caused a bit of a stir at the time it was written, which was the year 1215. It is called the Magna Carta. On page 39 it says that no free man is to be arrested or imprisoned except by the legal judgement of his peers. It is saying that some of these principles of justice are worth dying for. A lot of my forebears came from England. There is no doubt that some of them, like all of the people of England at the time, were involved in trying to get a system of justice that was fair and—I cannot avoid repetition—a system that delivered real justice to the people. I have been informed that this legislation is mandatory sentencing. If you have had some illegal dealings with firearms then you have a mandatory sentencing period of four or five years, or whatever it might be. I have had 41 years of drawing up legislation myself—about 10 of those years as a minister and many times on committees prior to that—and know that you have to look at the effect of legislation. If some poor innocent beggar decides he would like a sight for his gun, a holding package for his gun or maybe actually a weapon and he orders it on the internet, when it comes in he will find out he has breached these laws and he will go to jail for five years. The member for La Trobe, the previous speaker, talked about the bikie laws in Queensland. When they originally came out they covered the Ulysses Club and the Vietnam vets club, so we had all of our war heroes being raced off to jail by the police. They did modify it because they realised the mistake that they had made. They cast the net so widely that it picked them up. For those who do not know, you have to be pretty upper class, such as a barrister, a specialist surgeon, a psychiatrist or similar, to belong to the Ulysses Club. They are the elite of society. Of course the Vietnam Vets were people prepared to die protecting and defending their country. These people were caught by the act and were being carted off to jail—some poor school teacher librarian was carted off because she was talking to two bikies in a pub. I don't think she had ever seen violence in her whole life! You get your name in The Courier-Mail by going out there and thumping your chest, like 'I'm really tough', and the last government of Queensland did that all the time. It intrigued me, because we never had to do it. No-one ever questioned whether we were tough or not—they knew we were tough. We did not have to go out and prove it by putting forward ridiculous legislation of this nature. There was a gentleman in the state parliament called Neil Turner, and Neil said, 'As long as I am in this place, you will never ever get reverse onus of proof or mandatory sentencing.' This bloke had a background as a shearer, a fencer, a stockman, he owned a cattle place and a couple of butchers shops by the time he went into parliament—he had done all right for himself. He had knocked out the heavyweight champion of Queensland when he was 19 years of age—a pretty tough boy. He did not have to have a university education to know that we were not going with mandatory sentencing and reverse onus of proof. He was determined that it would not happen. He and I and half a dozen others spent a pleasant 10 years on the backbench, seeing a lot of ning-nongs get promoted over us, because we would not roll over and accept mandatory sentencing and reverse onus of proof. Those close to the people in their electorate must know of cases of the grossest injustice that occur when you do these sorts of things. As I have throughout all my parliamentary history, I will continue to oppose mandatory sentencing and reverse onus of proof. In this case the legislation, as far as I can see, is drawn so widely and so loosely that what you are doing is delivering discretionary powers. Some of my closest friends on the planet have been policemen, and some of the bravest and most decent men I know come from the police force, but I have lived in small towns where the policeman has wanted to take out a certain girl and she was going out with a bloke in the town, and it was amazing how many times that bloke from the town went up on charges and went to jail. So discretionary powers are not to be delivered to anyone. As far back as the Magna Carta, men have thought these principles were worth dying for. To stand up to King John and to stand up to all the other tyrants down through history men have had to sacrifice their lives, but to see little pygmies in this place run away and throw all those principles to the wind like they count for nothing is a demonstration of the relative sense of justice that these pygmies have compared to the sense of justice that the great heroes of history displayed in the stands they made on issues similar to this. I share the comments made by the member for La Trobe about bikies and their activities in Queensland, and I can suggest a number of notorious cases where they needed to be reined in. But extra resources should have been put in that direction—not discretionary powers but extra resources. Frankly, if they are not breaking the law then they should not be going to jail. If they are breaking the law, then the resources to ensure that they do go to jail should be put in place to do the job. I venture to suggest that, if we had more sensible gun laws in Queensland, some of the 200 policemen who are out there driving us all crazy enforcing those laws could be relieved from that to do the real work of police, which is standing up to dangerous elements in our society such as some of these bikie gangs. We would have been a hell of a lot better off. I do not think the member for La Trobe was wrong when he said that we have the problem back again and it is pretty bad and pretty serious. I would agree with that. After all those draconian laws, you ended up with the problem still there—so your draconian laws did not seem to achieve very much at all. If resources had been taken out of the most stupid areas they operate in at present, it might have made a difference. I would say over 80 per cent of the population of Queensland, if asked whether the traffic police perform revenue raising duties for the government or whether they perform a worthwhile exercise, would say it was revenue raising for the government and was not a worthwhile exercise. Some of those resources could have been converted over to this area. Some members of the police force we are recruiting now are not tough sorts of people—they are not big, tough people who can go out and mix it with some of the brutal types we get in bikie gangs. They are a different class of people altogether—they are more suited to the role of clerk than going out and doing confrontational work. The very real shortcomings of the police intake were glaringly obvious in their failure to cope with the bikie situation. I remember one classic example which occurred in Mt Isa where there were two police sitting in a car watching a woman be bashed nearly to death. She was flown out by the flying doctor the next day with a suspected fractured skull; she had bruises all over her head. I called a public meeting over the issue and the inspector of police said, 'Well what were we to do?' One police officer in the car was a little woman and the policeman was not a very formidable bloke. They were not going to get out of the car. There were 15 of the worst possible types kicking this poor woman to death and one of the famous Daisys, a famous rugby league family, George, went over, by himself, he got kicked unconscious, and they are still sitting in the car watching it all happen. These are not real policemen. There is a serious problem in Queensland. They are talking about developing a new section of the police force, which goes back to the days when we had tough coppers who gave us all a kick in the pants if we got out of line when we as young blokes deserved it. They were the sort of people you did not trifle with. We are now at the stage where the inspector of police—he was actually having a go at me as a member of parliament—said: 'You've forced us into a situation where we have got these people who could not remotely go in there to protect this woman's life.' I might add that a few fellows who were at the disco had the courage to come out and stand up to the 15 bullies there. Their coming out probably saved the life of George Daisy. He should have received a commendation, but, because the police were sitting there in their car, he did not get a bravery commendation after saving this woman's life. I tell this story, because we do not have police who are the sort of people to confront the sort of animals we have. I would share the views of the last speaker on the point. Some of these motorcycle clubs—not all of them; the Vietnam Vets' Harley Davidson club led the Anzac procession—(Time expired) 16:46 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I rise to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This bill contains a number of measures designed to tackle crime and endeavours to make out communities safer. Forming an important component of the government's plan to deliver a safer and stronger Australia. Since this government's election, we have set about ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the capacity and capability required to effectively conduct their duties. This is essential in ensuring the safety of Australians in a world where threats and dangers to our nation are continually evolving. This bill contains a range of measures across various Commonwealth acts, including but not limited to: implementing tougher penalties for gun related crime; ensuring our criminal offence regimes are robust and effective; and establishing efficient arrangements for administering criminal law and related provisions. Last year I supported the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substance and Other Measures) Bill, which sought to strengthen the powers available to law enforcement agencies, inter alia, in relation to firearm offences The bill introduced tougher penalties for gun related crimes, including the introduction of mandatory, minimum sentences of five years' imprisonment for offenders charged with trafficking firearms or firearm parts While this particular measure of the bill successfully gained passage through the House of Representatives, Labor, the Greens and Senators Leyonhjelm, Xenophon and Madigan voted to defeat this measure. This bill re-introduces mandatory minimum sentence penalties previously rejected by the Senate. This re-introduction is important because Australians are entitled to feel safe, knowing our borders are free from the importation of illegal firearms. Furthermore, a mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment is a key part of the Australian government's commitment to pursue a strong and nationally consistent approach to gun crime. Mandatory minimum sentences send a strong message that gun related crime and violence will not be tolerated. Punitive measures will be enforced to deter those willing to put the safety of Australians at risk. These measures also reflect the Australian government's commitment to act quickly to implement the firearms related recommendations from the joint Commonwealth-New South Wales review into the Martin Place siege. Recommendations include that the Commonwealth, states and territories simplify the regulation of the legal firearms market through an update of the technical elements of the National Firearms Agreement; and that the Commonwealth, states and territories provide further considerations to measures to deal with illegal firearms. Globally, Australia is renowned for its tough stance on guns. Following the tragic events of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the then Howard government set about ensuring the safety of Australians with tough but necessary gun reform. Since this time, gun related homicides in Australia have declined, and our nation is undoubtedly a safer place. Last year, when speaking to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substance and Other Measures) Bill, I stated: Our laws must maintain pace with criminal activity and, where possible, foresee and adapt to future challenges and threats. Sadly this message has been lost on those senators who failed to appreciate the need to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for particular offences. This bill amends the Criminal Code Act of 1995 to implement the government's election commitment by introducing a mandatory minimum five year term of imprisonment for the existing offences of trafficking firearms and firearm parts within Australia and the new offences of trafficking firearms into and out of Australia in the Criminal Code Act of 1995, as introduced in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substance and Other Measures) Act 2015. This government remains steadfast in ensuring that offenders receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their actions. There is no doubt that firearms trafficking leads to serious crimes and has a devastating impact on our community. This bill and its measures reflect the seriousness of supplying firearms and firearm parts into the illegal market. The entry of even a small number of illegal firearms into the Australian community can have a significant impact on the size of the illegal market. Furthermore, firearms can remain within the illegal market for many years. This provides a growing pool of weapons which can be accessed by groups for potential use to commit serious and violent crimes, including homicide. In 2012 firearms were identified as being the type of weapon used in 25 per cent of homicides in Australia. We must do everything possible to eliminate the trafficking of illegal firearms and firearm parts and to ensure that organised criminal groups cannot equip themselves to carry out serious crimes. It should be noted that this bill does not impose a minimum non-parole period on offenders. This will preserve the courts' discretion in sentencing and will help ensure that custodial sentences imposed by the courts are proportionate and take into account the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender. It is also noted that these mandatory minimum sentences do not apply to minors. This bill also updates technical elements of the National Firearms Agreement to simplify the regulation of the legal firearms market. We are also introducing a National Firearms Interface to improve the ability of law enforcement to track firearms across the country. In addition to these necessary amendments to firearms and firearm part trafficking, this bill also introduces a number of measures to strengthen Australia's criminal laws. Schedule 1 of this bill provides for amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 to improve the operation of serious drug and precursor offences. In particular, these measures will make recklessness the fault element for attempted offences and remove the 'intent to manufacture' element from offences relating to the importation of border control precursors. This measure is particularly important in supporting the government's response to methamphetamine and ice. These drugs, as we all know, are causing widespread devastation and destruction within our community. Methamphetamine and ice usage on the Central Coast has increased by 112 per cent over the last two years. In 2014 the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre's annual survey of people who use illicit drugs found that 61 per cent of those who inject substances had also used ice in the last six months. This represents an increase of nine per cent over the past 10 years. Last year, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that seven per cent of Australians aged 14 years and over have used methamphetamines one or more times in their lifetime and 2.1 per cent of Australians aged 14 years and over have used methamphetamines in the previous 12 months. Of these people, 50.4 per cent reported using crystal or ice as the main form of this drug. The domestic production of methamphetamine and ice is growing, with close to 750 meth labs raided by police across Australia last year alone. The New South Wales Police drug squad stated that labs were often found in rural areas and have also been discovered in motel rooms, shipping containers, car boots and on the back of trucks. Domestic production is increasingly using precursor chemicals, the ingredient chemicals sourced from overseas. As a result of tightening domestic regulations, the importation of precursor chemicals is playing an increasing central role in the production of illicit drugs within Australia. This is evidenced in the increasing number of seizures of precursor chemicals at the Australian border. In 2012-13 the number of precursor chemical detections at the border increased by 11.3 per cent on the previous year to 1,043 instances. Additionally, the number of charges laid in relation to importing or exporting border controlled precursor chemicals increased by 50 per cent from 2012 to 2014. The measures within this bill will make the enforcement of the border controlled precursor offences simpler and more effective, without affecting the legitimate drug industry. Specifically, these amendments ensure that it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that an individual was reckless as to whether a substance intercepted was a controlled or border controlled substance. This change is necessary to ensure that serious drug and precursor offences address the impracticality of proving actual knowledge in the absence of a direct admission from the defendant. As stated by the Minister for Justice, the Hon. Michael Keenan MP, these measures will improve our ability to bring persons who seek to profit from the trade in illicit drugs to justice and ensure that they face severe punishment for their crimes. This bill also expands on the definition of 'forced marriage' under the Criminal Code Act 1995. Currently the forced marriage offences apply where a person does not freely and fully consent to marriage because of coercion, threat or deception. Earlier this year, a Sydney man was sentenced to 10 years jail over the case where a 12-year-old girl was married in a backyard sharia law wedding. This is a sickening example of forced marriage occurring in our community. It is near impossible to comprehend the cruelty that innocent children are subjected too when forced to marry someone, usually an adult, against their wishes. The measures within this bill will clarify that the forced marriage offences apply when a person is incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony, including due to their age or mental capacity. Forced marriage offences currently carry a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment for a base offence and seven years imprisonment for an aggravated offence. Following a review conducted by the government, it has been decided to increase the penalties to seven years and nine years respectively. This ensures that these penalties align with the most serious slavery related facilitation offence of deceptive recruiting. We have taken this decision because forced marriage is a barbaric form of slavery. It is based on gender violence and is a clear abuse of human rights. The consequences of forced marriage, including emotional and physical abuse, are permanent. Those seeking to deny a child their right of freedom and autonomy in regard to marriage should be dealt with appropriately. The Australian public would expect nothing less. This government is committed to ensuring that our law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary tools to fight crime in Australia and abroad. Recently, I argued for the need to introduce new powers under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 in order to capture important metadata information essential for successful investigation into national security threats and other serious crimes. This bill will also ensure sufficient prosecuting options in the Commonwealth criminal law by making those who are knowingly concerned in the commission of an offence liable for their involvement. This will ensure that people who actively participate in a crime but cannot currently be held liable for it because they do not fit neatly within existing categories of liability can be held responsible and prosecuted. The concept of 'knowingly concerned' was previously introduced in the Crimes Act but was not carried over to the Criminal Code when it was drafted. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution has found that its absence has hindered prosecutions, often making them more complex and less certain. While time does not permit me to outline all the measures contained within this bill, I have focused my contribution on the major elements which require the consideration of the House. This bill contains a number of minor amendments that are critical to supporting our law enforcement agencies, including changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 to ensure our law enforcement agencies are equipped with the tools and powers required to combat crime. As evidenced by the measures contained within this bill, this government are committed to strengthening our national security. We want to ensure that our communities are safe from crime, no matter what type of crime it may be. This government acknowledge that there is not one single measure that will strengthen our security. This is why we are continually looking to improve the powers and resources of our national security agencies. We will continue to legislate and bring measures, including the ones contained within this bill, before the parliament in order to strengthen our national security. I commend this bill to the House and call on members opposite to support its measures in full. 16:59 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am pleased to rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. I would like to start with some figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics about a fortnight ago. They showed how our state governments, our federal government, our Federal Police force and our state police forces are actually being quite successful at reducing crime. Some of the numbers published are very noteworthy. We have actually seen major reductions in almost every level of crime over the last 12 months. I will just run through a few. Armed robberies were down 14 per cent—from 5,631 in 2013, down 776, to 4,855 in 2014. Unarmed robberies had an even more impressive decline of 17 per cent in just 12 months—down from 6,076 to 5,033. There was a decline of over 1,043 unarmed robberies across the nation in 2014. Again these are impressive numbers. Unlawful entry with intent was down from 194,000 to 181,000, a decline of 12,000 or 6.5 per cent. Motor vehicle theft is still way too high in this country. The last number for 2014 shows that there were 50,000 motor vehicle thefts and that was down 4.4 per cent on the previous year. Kidnapping and abductions are also down eight per cent. So over the last 12 months the Australian Bureau of Statistics record that we have been successful in making significant reductions in most of the major categories of crime. Even though there are reductions these numbers are still way too high and there is a lot more work to do. That is why the measures in this bill are so important. They are practical measures. At their heart they send the message to those who wish to break the law, those who wish to engage in criminal activities, that this government takes law enforcement seriously, in complete contrast to the previous Labor government. In 2009, when the previous Labor government had money to spend on everything else and were prepared to run deficits in the tens of billions of dollars, they decided it was wise to cut Customs screenings by $58 million. There was a $58 million cut in Customs screenings. What happened? This led to a 75 per cent reduction in air cargo inspections and a 25 per cent reduction in sea cargo inspections. Then in 2011, when Labor still had all this money to spend and throw around like confetti, their cuts resulted in mail inspections being reduced by 30 per cent and we saw 20 million packages come into the country uninspected. What happens when you do this in our society? It sends the message to those who wish to get involved in unlawful activity and import illegal firearms and import illegal drugs that the holes in the net are bigger and that they have a greater chance of getting their illegal contraband through the security net that we put up at our borders. That is exactly what happened. Across the border from my electorate in Sylvania 150 Glock pistols were imported into this country through a post office. Thankfully the police have done a good job and have found many of those guns and bought many of those people before the courts, but there are still at least 80 of those Glock pistols out there, mainly in Western Sydney, in many parts of my electorate. There is another reason why we need to crack down on those who seek to import illegal firearms. In June 2009 a Canberra truck driver was driving along Milperra Road in my electorate. He had done his day's work. He had left Canberra early in the morning and was driving back to Canberra in the evening. He was driving along Milperra Road, like tens of thousands of other motorists do after their typical day at work, and across the road a criminal gang decided that they would have a gunfight in the carpark of the KFC. One of those bullets, just a random shot from that criminal gang, went across the road, went through the guy's cabin and struck him in the head and he died. An innocent civilian, an innocent worker—someone just going about their everyday business—lost their life because of gun crime. We in this parliament owe it to the citizens of this nation to crack down on this activity. We are going to put strict laws in place to crack down and say this is unacceptable in our society. That is exactly what this bill does. We say it is unacceptable to seek to import firearms and to traffic firearms in this country. This bill introduces a minimum mandatory five-year sentence for firearm trafficking offences. We owe that to the people of our society. Those who go about their lawful business, who go about their everyday work, should be free from these criminal gangs shooting guns and having access to guns. The other provisions in this bill include taking action on the growing problem of methamphetamine, or crystal meth as ice. Over the past week during our parliamentary break, one of the things I did as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement is hold hearings in Melbourne, Sydney, down in South Australia and Brisbane. We heard heartbreaking stories of the destruction that this drug is doing to people, the destruction that it is doing to families and the deaths it is causing. There is no magic bullet for the solution to the problem of methamphetamine use in this country, but this bill takes one more step to close the gap. The measures in this bill will make recklessness the fault element for attempted offences and will remove the intent to manufacture element from offences relating to the importation of border controlled precursors. This will send a strong message that we are taking action against those who seek to import the ingredients to manufacture methamphetamine in this country. The other issue in this bill is tackling the problem of forced marriages. I have raised this in our parliament before. I have cited cases of girls as young as 12 being forced into marriage, becoming pregnant and having miscarriages. We need to send a very clear and strong message that forced marriage in this country is completely unacceptable. That is what we need to do because, unfortunately, there are some people in this country who think it is just another multicultural practice. We need to send the message that the rights of young girls in this country are predominant, and that is what this bill does. We are increasing the maximum penalties, which are currently four years' imprisonment for a base offence and seven years' imprisonment for an aggravated offence, to seven years and nine years respectively. We are changing the definition of what a forced marriage is to make that definition stronger so that there can be no escape for those who engage in this most abhorrent practice. In this bill, there are some other steps and some other schedules that are minor, but those three things—the issue of serious drug importation, the issue of firearms importation and the issue of forced marriage—are scourges in our society and we are taking strong steps and we are sending a clear message to those who are engaged in those practices: the government is coming after them. We are strengthening the penalties and we are giving our law enforcement authorities the ability to chase these people, prosecute them, bring them before our courts and put them behind bars where they belong. As I said earlier, our law enforcement officials, our Federal Police and our state police, have done made an absolutely fantastic effort over the last 12 months. The reduction in crime that we have seen over the last 12 months is something that we should celebrate in this nation as a great success, but there is still a lot more work to be done. The bill takes those steps and I commend it to the House. 17:11 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This bill is a significant piece of legislation in the fight against crime. It includes improvements to the operation and effectiveness of the serious drug and precursor offences of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and seeks to introduce a mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment for firearms trafficking. It is these two key parts of this bill, along with the changes to forced marriages, that I wish to focus on today. The bill delivers on this government strong stance against unlawful firearms and illegal drugs. These serious threats to Australia are intricately linked together. As the member for McPherson on the Southern Gold Coast, I can say that we have had our fair share of both in recent years. Organised crime is at the heart of the crimes that we are looking to tackle in this bill. The United Nations states: Organised crime threatens peace and human security; it violates human rights and undermines economic, social, cultural, political and civil development of societies around the world. It is well recognised through research that organised crime has diversified, moved globally and reached national levels. This global reach means illicit goods may now be sourced from one country or continent, trafficked across another and marketed in a third, perhaps halfway around the world. In developing nations, organised crime is undermining governance and democracy by empowering those who operate outside the law. Research also tells us that organised crime is not static. It adapts well as new crimes emerge and as relationships between criminal networks become both more flexible and more sophisticated. According to research from our own Parliamentary Library, transnational organised crime has been estimated to generate US$870 billion each year globally. Illicit drugs alone account for around half of the total, with significant funds also derived from trafficking in persons, firearms, natural resources and wildlife, people-smuggling, counterfeit goods and cybercrime. I would like to especially acknowledge the hard work of both the Federal Police and the Queensland Police in recent years who have done an excellent job at cracking down on organised crime on the Gold Coast. I will now turn to schedule 1 of the bill. Under schedule 1, the changes proposed remove the requirement to prove intent to manufacture when it comes to the importation of precursor drugs that are used to make dangerous drugs like ice. The importation of the likes of pseudoephedrine, which is the main ingredient for ice, and other amphetamine-based drugs has been on the increase. Furthermore, as outlined in the explanatory note, we have had some success at closing down the redirection of precursor drugs, and the changes in this bill will strengthen our response at the border. Everyone in this House would agree that ice has become a very worrying drug. For us on the Gold Coast, the distribution of ice linked directly to dangerous organised crime groups has been devastating to local families. I would like to acknowledge at this point the work of a local organisation in my electorate, Lives Lived Well, who are helping individuals and their families battling drug addiction every day. This organisation has seen bed occupancy for in-patient rehabilitation go from 87 per cent three years ago to 95 per cent this year. In 2015 alone they have had 286 people go through their 40-bed facility in my electorate, up from 193 two years ago. Ice is the third-highest reason for admission behind alcohol and cannabis. The staff at Lives Lived Well have seen firsthand the damaging effects ice can have on peoples' lives as well as on the community. It is a problem in our cities and it is a problem in our regional towns and centres. The Australian Crime Commission considers ice to be the highest risk of all illicit drugs in our community, with ice use almost doubling in the last 12 months. More and more Australians are touched by the ice epidemic every day. That is why I was so pleased when the Prime Minister announced the National Ice Action Strategy to tackle the growing scourge of ice—crystal methamphetamine. We know that work is already underway. The Assistant Minister for Health, Fiona Nash, and the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, are overseeing the task force and taking the lead in the government's response to the ice issue. I support schedule 1 of this bill, which further strengthens our response to the ice issue. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science, I also need to put on record the great work being done by the National Measurement Institute to assist in the fight against drug crime. NMI's cutting-edge science is playing a central role in the Australian government's law enforcement response to illegal drug trafficking. As criminal methods of producing, importing and trafficking drugs become more sophisticated, law enforcement agencies need to draw on the strategic intelligence provided by science, particularly scientific testing and measurement. The Australian Forensic Drugs Laboratory at the National Measurement Institute provides just this intelligence. The world class chemists at the National Measurement Institute provide intelligence on the geographical origins of seized cocaine or heroin, and the precursor ingredients of methamphetamines and other designer drugs. The results of this work help law enforcement agencies to disrupt drug trafficking, and this ultimately contributes to saving lives and reducing crime. It is these scientists who are helping to stay one step ahead of the criminals, and I want to say thank you for the work they are doing. I now turn to schedule 6 of the bill and the changes to penalties for the importation of firearms. We know that the threat of unlawful firearms being trafficked into Australia is real. The Australian Institute of Criminology reported in 2012: There are three primary firearm markets in Australia. The licit market comprises all firearms that are subject to registration and held by a person with the approved authority to do so. The grey market consists of all long-arms that were not registered, or surrendered as required during the gun buybacks, following the National Firearms Agreement (1996). Grey market firearms are not owned, used or conveyed for criminal purposes but may end up in the illicit market. Illicit market firearms are those that were illegally imported into or illegally manufactured in Australia, diverted from the licit market or moved from the grey market. The Institute of Criminology concluded in that same report: Overall, the trafficking network is not considered to be overly organised in structure, but largely dominated by serious and organised criminal entities (such as outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMCGs)) who traffic illicit firearms as a side venture and smaller operators, who move firearms around by word of mouth … It is fair to say that the one constant in all the research is organised criminal groups. Whether loosely connected or through more elaborate international rings, they are the poison holding the movement of unlawful firearms together. That is why I think it so important that government send a clear message on offences like firearm trafficking. Our message is clear: as a society we will not tolerate this, and if you are caught you can expect to spend a minimum of five years imprisonment. This is exactly what the bill proposes, and it is a proportionate punishment to this insidious crime. Research tells us that even the entry of a small number of illegal firearms into the Australian community can have a significant impact on the threat posed by the illicit market. This is due to the enduring nature of firearms, as a firearm can remain within that market for many years. In the lead-up to the 2013 election, the coalition undertook to implement tougher penalties for gun-related crime. This bill represents a government implementing its election commitment. The offences preserve a level of judicial discretion to allow courts to take into account mitigating factors when setting the period offenders spend in custody. These are important safeguards to have in place when we are dealing with mandatory sentencing. Finally, the bill also introduces tough new penalties for forced marriages. I know that the serious crime of forced marriage of a child or a person with a disability is particularly relevant at present. These amendments deliver greater protection to children and to vulnerable people. One only has to look at recent media on the issue to see that across the country, in particular in parts of western Sydney, this crime is very real, and these changes add further protection for possible victims and serve as a serious deterrent. In concluding, this bill delivers on our key election commitment to tackle the serious crimes related to drugs and firearms, strengthens our stance against forced marriage and sends a clear message that we will not bow to organised crime in this country. I commend the bill to the House. 17:22 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I am very pleased to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 and to support the measures contained in it. I have a very strong view about law enforcement and the appropriate level of legislation necessary for our law enforcement agencies to be able to do the job that we expect them to do and that our communities expect them to do. One of the strong commitments of this government has been a focus on keeping our communities safe. This is just another step in that work. I heard the previous speaker talk about the issue of serious and organised crime. The reports in that space are very concerning. When you consider that, internationally, this is an area that is worth $870 billion, it is an extraordinary figure. The crimes legislation amendment bill is delivering on our commitment to tackle crime and to simply make our communities safer. That is what is asked and expected of members like me at all times in our communities. We have to provide our law enforcement agencies with the basic tools and powers they need to do their job and we have to make sure that our laws are robust and very effective. This bill reflects our efforts to target criminals and to reduce the heavy cost of crime for Australians. They are very personal costs, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker. The bill contains a range of measures which are covered in Commonwealth acts, including implementing tough penalties for gun related crime, improving the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences, increasing penalties for forced marriage offences, ensuring our criminal offence regimes are robust and effective, and ensuring efficient arrangements for administering criminal law and related provisions. These are the simple ways that the government is delivering on our commitment to tackle crime and to help keep our communities safe. There is no question that our communities around Australia have very real expectations of law enforcement. That law enforcement is enabled not only through the legislation put through this House but also through the legislation that operates at a state level. Criminals are extremely creative and they work overtime to find their way around whatever laws apply. They are extremely creative in the methods they use. The laws contained in this bill will help to increase the possibility of successfully prosecuting individuals who are knowingly engaged in large-scale drug and precursor importations. We want to make sure that the process is effective. That is what the community is asking for. They do not want to see those engaged in this type of crime simply get off on a technicality. This legislation is making sure the laws are simpler so that the prosecution of individuals is likely to be more effective. It will simplify the offences for the importing of chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs as well. The capacity to prosecute individuals for attempted drug offences is at the centre of this legislation. The first change ensures that the same burden of proof applies to cases involving an attempted drug offence and to cases where an accused actually committed an offence. Under this change, where a person attempts to commit a serious drug or precursor offence, the prosecution will need to prove only that the person knew there was a risk that the substance involved was an illicit drug. This will make it simpler to prosecute individuals who are part of a larger drug enterprise but who deliberately ignore the obvious signs about how their actions fit in to the broader scheme. I think many of us want to see this happening in a practical sense in our communities. We want to see local law enforcement being able to deal with this at a grassroots level. It is particularly important where a controlled operation is used as part of the drug investigation. Simplifying offences for the importation of precursor chemicals is important, as they are what the criminal groups are using in the production of illicit drugs like methamphetamines, including ice. I want to focus my comments on two key areas of change by the Commonwealth: firstly, the drug and precursors offences and the simplification of offences for importing chemicals; and, secondly, the issue of forced marriage. In this debate the importance of proceeds of crime investigation cannot be underestimated. At my local level this has a major impact on the decisions made by those involved in the drug scene—for want of a better word—and those seriously engaged in major amounts of this particular drug. The Proceeds of Crime Act will be amended to streamline the appointment of examiners and to support the administration of confiscated assets by the Official Trustee, and that is very important. From talking to local police, I know that that is a very effective tool that sends a very clear message to those engaged in serious drug offences and in the manufacture and distribution of drugs. When local police, for want of a better phrase, kick down the doors of these places, the individuals involved are subject to the proceeds of crime laws and they lose their assets. That sends a very clear message to the broader community and to those involved in the drug trade. At a local level, it has a major impact because of course there are a whole range of others who are involved in the distribution and sale of the drugs. It is a very clear message that local law enforcement needs to make sure that this is having an impact at a local level. We want to see the laws resonate on the ground. This is a really critical area. From talking to local law enforcement, I found that this was one area on which they could not place more importance. I have been engaged in discussions on this issue, particularly around methamphetamines. I do not think anybody in this place can afford not to be, given the impacts these drugs are having. I see the effects on our voluntary emergency service people, like St John Ambulance and those at the emergency departments in hospitals. Most recently I have seen the effect that ice is having on individuals, some of whom are destroying affordable housing. That has an impact on the agencies that have to deal with such people and remove them from those premises. Then I have seen those who cannot go out—those who are doing this work cannot then go out in the local community, because they become a target because of the work that they have to do. Of course, the violence, the threats and the risk that go with that are huge. When I looked at the Australian Crime Commission illicit drug data of 2012-13, the detections of amphetamines were the highest on record, as was the number of heroin detections. So organised crime is extremely active in Australia, and the number of amphetamine-type stimulant precursor detections at our Australian borders is also at its highest reported level in the last decade. Yes, our law enforcement agencies are doing an amazing job, and I have great respect for what they do, but in this place we need to make sure that they continuously have laws that underpin their efforts. We also had a record number of national illicit drug seizures and arrests in 2012-13. I would suggest that number—86,918 seizures—is the tip of the iceberg. That is seizures, but the amount of drugs coming into this country is just extraordinary. Organised crime have money to make in this space. That is why they are so active I saw an article in The West Australian by the WA police commissioner. He said that WA's Chief Justice described the numbers of murders and armed robberies committed by people addicted to ice as truly frightening, saying that 95 per cent of armed robberies and up to half of all murders could be attributed to people taking methamphetamines. That article quoted independent researchers saying, at the Perth watch-house, that 15 per cent of people had used methamphetamine and the figure has now risen to 43 per cent. Ambulance data in Victoria, that article said, shows a 318 per cent increase in ice related attendances. It spoke of the importance of enhancing cooperation between state and Commonwealth agencies—something that this government is working very hard on. The federal government review of interstate freight in Australia showed the challenges in dealing with drug shipments. Commissioner O'Callaghan spoke also about police focusing on key drug transit hubs and corridors—the practicality and the logistics—and rail, air and postal systems. In that article, a federal review of interstate freight showed 63 per cent to 70 per cent of freight entering WA from Victoria and New South Wales is on trains, 8 to 10 per cent is by road, and 22 to 26 per cent is by sea. Because I do so much in cybersafety, I am well aware of how much of the drugs are entering and circulating via Australia Post. At my ice forum, we focused on the community need to be the eyes and ears, on how to respond, on how to report to our local police, and on the need for evidence that can be used in what the police do. Briefly, I want to talk on the issue of forced marriage. I am very pleased to see the measures in this bill. On the issue of forced marriage of a child in Australia, I ask the members in this House: what should a young girl of 12 be doing? She should be going to school. She should be at home with her family. She should be enjoying her friends. She should be socialising, perhaps playing a bit of sport—whatever. She should not be forced into a marriage with a man perhaps old enough to be her father or—indeed, as we heard evidence of—old enough to be her grandfather. Just the thought of it literally makes you feel sick. So I am very supportive of the measures in this bill. The members in this House who have children are horrified at the thought of a 12-year-old child being forced into having sex. Physical abuse and violence is often part of that. The risks of internal damage and poor reproductive health are just some of the practical reasons why forced marriage is absolutely abhorrent. It is against the law, and the law will be further strengthened by the measures in this bill. As we know, in many cases forced marriage is just like slavery. It is exploitation. There is no member in this House who would be supportive of that at all. I think that all of us only have to relate it to our own family and our own friends. Any measure to prevent forced marriage will be supported for very sound reasons by the members in this House. In section 270.1A of the Criminal Code Act, coercion is defined to include force, duress, detention, psychological oppression, abuse of power and taking advantage of a person's vulnerability. In this place, all members of parliament work overtime to protect children and in this space of forced marriage, even more so. So I am very pleased to speak on this bill. I see this as a key part of how we are working overtime to keep Australian families safe and the community safe. We are dealing with drugs, in particular methamphetamines, in our communities on a daily basis. The effects on local people are just appalling. In the ice forum that I held, I had a 70-plus-year-old woman who was unable to go home, because she was going to be belted up by her ice-addicted son, and she was living in a refuge. We have put together a number of those people to support each other, because the families who are affected by ice share a dreadful journey and they need people to talk to. One of the simple things that we are doing is linking them up so that they can sit down and have a talk and then talk about what resources might be there to help them. So many of them live in what some of them describe as their own personal hell. What is not well understood is that the first time that young people and people of all ages—I have seen 50-year-olds addicted—try ice they are affected by this and potentially addicted. It is a dreadful drug. I applaud the efforts of all of our ministers and those involved in this space. 17:37 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It is a great opportunity for me today to lend my support to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. There is no doubt that there are a suite of measures in this bill which address, quite frankly, the most fundamentally important thing for any government and the most fundamentally important thing for any parliament, and that is ultimately the security, safety and order of our society and the safety of our people. If we are unable to guarantee the safety and security of our people then, in effect, any other discussion or argument that we have in this place is rendered meaningless. The suite of measures that are being proposed in this bill take us a long way to addressing a number of areas where, I think it is fair to say, we have seen gaps in our existing legal security and law enforcement framework. This bill seeks to deliver on a number of key commitments that we made prior to the last election to ensure that the Commonwealth legal framework is up to date and robust when it comes to providing our law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to do their job and reduce the impact that crime has on our communities. In particular, this bill seeks to make a number of changes in broadly the four following areas: gun related crime; serious drug offences, including importation; forced marriage; and proceeds of crime. I will seek to briefly address each of those four key areas. With respect to gun related crime and illegal firearms and to ensure the safety of our community and the safety of our broader society, we know from the swift and important decisions made by the Howard government back in the mid-nineties that being able to limit the number of firearms of any description in our society will have an appreciable and positive impact on gun or firearm related crime. Obviously, the last thing that we would ever want to see is the prevalence of gun crime in Australia that we see in many other jurisdictions around the world, most notably the United States, which is culturally very different with its constitution—but we see the outcome. We see the outcome of the prevalence of illegal firearms in their communities, and it is quite horrific. Over the last 15 or 20 years, I think we have probably patted ourselves on the back a lot and said, 'Haven't we done fantastically well in ensuring illegal firearms have been, in effect, expunged or removed from our society with the gun buyback?' It is fair to say, though, that, over that period of time, criminal networks, criminals in general, have become extraordinarily adept at getting illegal firearms into this country, and they are often the worst type of firearm. They are handguns, which are easily concealed. They are the source of many, many crimes. That is why we took to the election a commitment to implement tougher penalties on those who engage in gun related crime. This bill seeks to fulfil that commitment in a number of ways, including through introducing—and this is one that I am particularly proud of—mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for offenders charged with the trafficking of firearms or firearm parts under the Criminal Code. As I have said many times in this House in relation to a range of criminal matters, mandatory minimum sentences are an extraordinarily powerful way for the legislature to ensure that the wishes of our communities, the wishes of the Australian public, are met. I do not want to use my contribution to bash the judiciary, but, far too often, in every range of crime that you look at, the judiciary do not reflect the wishes, the values and the expectations of our community. That is the sad reality. I am not suggesting for a minute that that is the primary reason that has motivated this particular change, but as somebody who has been a long-time advocate for mandatory minimum sentences, to say to somebody, 'If you are going to illegally try and bring in a firearm, a handgun or a handgun part or perhaps a whole heap of handgun parts that you will then later assemble, you are going to have a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.' I think every single person in this House and 99.9 per cent of people in the Australian community would sleep extraordinarily well at night knowing that that person will have a five-year sentence. The second major area that this bill seeks to address or the major area of concern that we spoke about before the election that we wanted to address is in relation to serious drug offences. We have heard some wonderful contributions about the impact of drugs and the reality of precursor drugs, in particular, being brought into Australia and the impact that they are having on our communities. This is again a very, very important way that we can do some practical things to arm our law enforcement agencies with the ability to address the importation and sale of those drugs. Most notably, I look back to April this year when the Prime Minister, along with Minister Keenan and Minister Nash, announced the establishment of a national task force to address the growing danger of crystal methamphetamine. I have held forums in my electorate and, indeed, in neighbouring electorates, and there is no doubt that it is a significant issue that is absolutely hitting communities across the country. I do not think there is any community that is immune. Importantly, the task force was set up to provide a forensic assessment of the problems that this drug is causing to the health, welfare and safety of our community and how we can fix the problem. But we are also wanting to give our law enforcement agencies the powers and the resources that they need to limit the supply of these drugs to start with. Our law enforcement agencies, most particularly in this case the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Federal Police, have had some success. So, we know that they can do it. We know they have the skill and the ability to stop a lot of methamphetamine and precursors being brought into our country, but we have to give them the tools. Do not ask them to do their job with one hand tied behind their back. This legislation unties that hand. One example was 150 kilograms of ice which was stopped only a couple of months ago by those two agencies. That is 150 kilograms of drugs that would do untold damage to our community. It is not just causing untold damage to our communities but it is also a major attraction for organised crime. The more organised crime can peddle in these drugs, the greater the resources that they ultimately have to cause other mischief within our society. The bill seeks to improve, importantly, the operation of the serious drug and precursor offences in the Criminal Code. This seeks to make recklessness the fault element for attempted offences and removes the intent-to-manufacture element from offences relating to the importation of border-controlled precursors. The amendments in this bill ultimately seek to more easily enable the enforcement of border control in this area without affecting the legitimate use of these chemicals in industry, and it improves our ability to bring justice to those who seek to profit from the manufacturing of drugs such as ice. What could be worse than somebody getting rich by ruining our communities, ruining lives and ruining families? Another very important area that this bill seeks to address is forced marriage. I never thought that in Australia, in federal parliament, we would have to discuss forced marriage. It is perhaps naive of me, but I never thought that that medieval, barbaric undertaking would be an issue that we would have to deal with in Australia. Sadly, it is. We cannot pretend it does not happen, and we cannot try to appease certain lobby groups by pretending these things do not happen. Our duty is to protect children. That is our duty, and that is what this bill will seek to do. Under the current legislation, forced marriage offences apply in cases where an individual does not consent freely and fully to marry another, due to coercion, deception or threat. Over recent years, the federal police have learned of cases where—and other speakers have mentioned this—girls as young as 12 have consented to be married to much older males. How can a 12-year-old consent? How? It is absolutely outrageous, quite frankly, that it has taken the Australian parliament this long to fix it. It really is quite embarrassing that it has taken both sides of politics this long to fix it, but I commend the minister. He has acted swiftly: he has seen a problem, he has made an election commitment and he has absolutely ensured that, to the best of our abilities, we can address it. The bill amends the act to state that forced marriage has occurred in a situation where one of the parties is incapable of making an informed decision. A 12-year-old cannot enter into a contract—a 12-year-old cannot do many things—because they cannot consent. They cannot make an informed decision, therefore the legislation brings in line our criminal law with what is absolutely within community expectations. There is nothing controversial about this, but it took the current minister to make the change. He must, therefore, be absolutely commended for doing that. I know it has huge support within the community. I think, in years to come—though we will not be able to record it in any way, and we will not be able to measure it—there will be countless women in Australia whom we will have saved from a life of subjugation and abuse. That is why that is probably one of the best parts of this bill. The last of the four broad areas I mentioned at the beginning were the amendments regarding the proceeds of crime. Again, in the community, in my electorate and probably in every one of the 150 electorates in this country, Australians do not want to see anybody who is engaging in illicit activities being able to, ultimately, profit from those crimes. Crime must not pay. How else do we remove the incentive for those people tempted to get into crime? So, in this bill, we are seeking to make amendments which really enhance the Proceeds of Crime Act, to ensure that the old adage that 'crime does not pay' actually applies. The bill increases existing penalties for failing to comply with a production order or with a notice to a financial institution in proceeds-of-crime investigations. No longer will people be able to flout the laws when our law enforcement agencies are exercising those notices and undertaking those proceedings. The bill also increases the integrity of the process for appointing persons to conduct proceeds-of-crime examinations, facilitates the administration of confiscated Commonwealth assets by the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy and addresses ambiguity in a range of other existing provisions. This bill does a lot. It does a great deal of good towards ensuring that our society is safer and that we are meeting our election commitments in an earnest fashion. I commend the bill to the House. 17:51 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This bill is particularly significant to me in my role as the federal member for Paterson. No matter if I am at the very north of my electorate in Forster, south in Raymond Terrace, in Maitland or out at the Port Stephens peninsula, the topic of crime prevention remains a key concern for all of my constituents in Paterson. It is a sentiment that is not lost on this government, a government which today has renewed its commitment to creating safer communities for all of us to enjoy. By providing our law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers they need to do their jobs and by ensuring the Commonwealth's laws are robust and effective, this bill reflects the government's efforts to target criminals and reduce the heavy cost of crime to all Australians. This bill contains a range of measures across various Commonwealth acts. They include measures to implement tougher penalties for gun related crime, to increase the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences, to increase penalties for forced-marriage offences, to ensure our criminal offence regimes are robust and effective, and to ensure efficient arrangements for administering criminal law and related provisions. In this way, the government are delivering on our commitment to tackle crime and make our communities safe. And that is the role of members of parliament: to make our communities safer havens. The amendments will have a major impact on the lives of many, particularly those in Paterson. In 2014, it was with great horror that I learnt of a young girl, 12 years of age, who was forced to wed a man 14 years her senior. The girl was not living on the other side of the world. Her parents were not unaware of this barbaric arrangement. The wedding took place in Raymond Terrace—sadly, the same town where my electorate office is located. The wedding was arranged by her father with the blessing of a Hunter-based Muslim cleric. In the absence of her family or the church advocating for her basic human rights, this young girl would have benefited from our legal system providing a stronger framework and support. I am proud that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 delivers this support. This young girl's alleged husband has already been jailed for 7½ years, charged with the persistent sexual abuse of a child. It disgusts me. Last month, her father was sentenced to at least six years jail for procuring a 12-year-old child for unlawful sexual activity and being an accessory before the fact of sexual intercourse with a child. I am disgusted. How could anyone do this to a child, particularly their own child? The case sparked debate on how widespread the problem of child marriage is in Australia. A children's legal centre has stated that, in the two years prior to that young girl's illegal marriage, it identified 250 cases of forced marriages involving a child, and I am informed that these statistics, without doubt, are only the very tip of the iceberg. Accordingly, the government is introducing new laws into the parliament today to clarify what constitutes a forced marriage and to increase the penalties for conduct that causes a person to enter into a forced marriage. As a consequence of these amendments, a child under the age of 16 is presumed incapable of consenting to marriage. Any person who engages in conduct that causes a person who does not understand the marriage ceremony to enter into marriage, such as through arranging or officiating at the marriage of a child, may be committing an offence. In addition, these changes, if successful, will increase the penalty for engaging in conduct to cause another person to enter into a forced marriage. The penalty for an aggravated forced-marriage offence will be increased from a maximum of seven years imprisonment to a maximum of nine years imprisonment. The forced-marriage offence is 'aggravated' if the victim is under 18 years of age. We will also increase the maximum penalty for non-aggravated forced-marriage offences from the existing four years to seven years imprisonment. Forced marriage is a hideous crime and it is something I feel very, very strongly about. The criminalisation of forced marriage in Australia in 2013 signalled that forced marriage is never acceptable in our country—and it is our country. Accordingly, it is vital that criminal law be supported by community measures to detect and prevent forced marriages, because, if such a heinous crime can happen within striking distance of my electorate office, without the right deterrence it can and will continue to happen all over our country. I applaud the government for listening to my representations on this matter and the views of many who were appalled by this heartbreaking story. Introducing practical tools to guard against forced marriages is well and truly appreciated. Education is crucial to changing behaviour, and, as such, this government has taken the following steps to address and educate people about the issue of forced marriage. The government are providing funding of $485,925 over four years to prevent and address forced marriage by providing ongoing education. We have launched the Forced Marriage Community Pack, which provides information and resources on forced marriages; maintained the operation of specialist teams within the AFP to investigate forced marriage; and hosted a series of forced-marriage workshops in each capital city throughout April and May 2015 to raise awareness of forced marriage amongst front-line officers and service providers. I am sure that everyone in this House shares my hope that these changes in the bill will prevent any further person from organising or officiating at forced marriages in Australia, particularly a marriage involving an innocent child. As I previously touched on, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 also offers support for the Paterson community by way of introducing measures to prosecute individuals who knowingly engage in large-scale drug and precursor importations. Significantly, the new laws will ensure that it is simpler to prosecute individuals who, to date, have evaded punishment because they have managed their involvement in a drug operation in such a way that the prosecution could not prove that they had sufficient knowledge of planned illegal activities. The first change will ensure that the same burden of proof applies to cases involving an attempted drug offence and to cases where the offence was actually committed by the accused. Under this change where a person attempts to commit a serious crime, or a precursor offence, the prosecution will only need to prove that the person knew there was a risk that the substance involved was an illicit drug. This will make it simpler to prosecute individuals who are part of a larger drug enterprise but who deliberately ignore obvious signs on how their actions fit into the broader scheme. This amendment is particularly important where a controlled operation is used as part of the drug investigation. The amendments I speak on today also simplify the offences for importing the chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs like methamphetamine and ice. I welcome these changes, in particular in relation to my electorate of Paterson and the Hunter region at large which has seen over the past two years a 71 per cent increase in the use of the drug ice—the figure is horrifying. This ice epidemic is prevalent across the entire Hunter region but is found in concentrated pockets in the region, and Port Stephens in my electorate is one such pocket. On 5 June this year the Port Stephens Local Area Command undertook a drug bust operation in the Heatherbrae and Raymond Terrace area. Alarmingly of the 87 tests conducted, 26 returned a positive reading to illicit drugs—this is a ratio of one positive for every 3.3 drivers tested. Under these amendments the prosecution will no longer have to prove that the importer intended to use these chemicals to produce illicit drugs or pass them on to a drug manufacturer for that purpose. It will be enough that the person imported a precursor without the appropriate authorisations. This change is intended to make sure our laws keep pace with the methodologies of the drug traffickers. It will assist in prosecutions of persons involved in the importation of precursors but who deliberately avoid knowing their place in the larger criminal operation. In my electorate late last year a clandestine methamphetamine drug lab was uncovered in suburban Nelson Bay. It has since been discovered that it was a large supplier of the deadly drug to the Port Stephens area and was also linked to bikie gangs. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of ice and meth oil was uncovered from the Nelson Bay home. These drugs were being sold on our streets, in our electorates. I am glad as a government we are taking a strong approach in relation to this. The changes in this legislation will not affect people who bring these chemicals into Australia with the appropriate authorisations. These authorisations exist specifically to minimise the risk that precursors can be diverted into drug manufacturing. Increasing the avenues to prosecute individuals who are knowingly involved in importing and manufacturing illicit drugs will, it is hoped, decrease the amount of drugs on our streets. Decreasing the prevalence of drugs in our community ensures not only a healthier population but a safer one as well. The spike of drug use in my electorate concerns me deeply. With the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research reporting a fivefold increase in people being caught using ice in the New South Wales Upper Hunter region, laws to prosecute people associated with the illegal importation of ingredients used to make the harmful drug are welcomed. They are welcomed by my regional command because they are determined to make a difference in the outcome. In the Port Stephens LGA alone there were 10.6 cases per 100,000 people being picked up for something else in the year to September 2010 and in the year to September 2014—four years on—there were 94.2 amphetamines incidents. Of course, this is a deeply concerning trend and without intervention it shows no signs of easing. As the ABC recently reported, as the demand for the drug grows the price of it falls. It is a vicious cycle and one that has encouraged the illegal importation of ingredients used to make the illicit substances. The side effects of using manufactured drugs, such as ice, include increased heart rate, hallucinations, paranoia, aggressive behaviour and psychosis, with studies showing prolonged consumption can have permanent impacts on the user's brain. Many in the community are scared to be around people under the influence of ice—and rightly so when there are countless cases involving trained professionals, such as paramedics, healthcare workers and police officers, being assaulted by ice users, let alone the innocent bystanders. The Abbott government understands what a scourge these drugs are on our community. We are determined to tackle the problem from a number of angles. In addition to increasing the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences, this government has introduced measures such as the National Ice Taskforce to stamp out the problem and improve the safety of our community. This combined approach is a shining example of the multifaceted approach this government adopts to creating a positive change. This bill introduces a variety of measures which improve the safety of all Australians on a number of different fronts. The amendments have been welcomed by many in the community and from members on both sides of this House but I am not surprised. This bill, like so many already introduced by this government, is proof that the Abbott government delivers on its promises and is serious about cleaning up our communities. Accordingly, I strongly support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. 18:05 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Joey Williams in my electorate is someone I have quite a deal of time for. Joey played in the National Rugby League competition with South Sydney, Penrith and Canterbury Bulldogs. He has returned to Wagga Wagga and he does a bit of motivational speaking. Last year he spoke at the Mount Austin High School presentation day. He also runs a gymnasium right next door to my electorate office in Fitzmaurice Street. Joe has also had problems with depression, which he has bravely overcome and also very courageously spoken up about in the public domain. When he speaks I listen to him. He recently stood up at the Wagga Wagga ice forum. There were nearly 1,000 people in the Wagga Wagga High School Currie Hall that night. The meeting was chaired by my predecessor, Kay Hull AM. We had heard from a number of speakers and Joe stood and asked the meeting quite passionately, 'Why has it taken this long for us to hold such a forum here in Wagga Wagga, the largest city in inland New South Wales?' Kay Hull, as was always her wont, addressed his question very appropriately and very eloquently and said, 'That is because the alarming trend towards ice has taken the community by surprise.' She pointed out that cannabis and alcohol are still the major causes of criminal behaviour that ends up in admissions to the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, and that anecdote was backed up by Associate Professor Dr Shane Curran, who runs the emergency department at the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. She said the major problems they have not just in Wagga Wagga and not just in regional Australia but right throughout Australia are marijuana and alcohol, but she said there was an alarming take-up rate of ice and it had dreadful repercussions, as in people addling their brains and committing crimes for no apparent reason—people from good families. I know from personal experience that people from good families often get into trouble with drugs. As the member for Paterson just pointed out, ice is a scourge in society. As I said, there were 1,000 people at that forum in Wagga Wagga—and it takes a big community issue to get 1,000 people out on a cold winter's night in Wagga Wagga, let me tell you. On 14 May there were more than 600 people at Gundagai—and Gundagai is not nearly as big a community as Wagga Wagga. At Tumut on 14 July, just two days before the Wagga Wagga forum, it was standing room only in the venue when 500 people turned out. They are big numbers, and that is why I am so pleased to talk about this Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015—because I know it will help those people who are responsible for applying the law to do whatever they can within the law to wipe out or minimise this dreadful scourge that is affecting particularly regional Australia. Whilst I know that Joe Williams meant very well when he asked why it has taken this long, I know that Kay Hull was also quite truthful when she said this ice epidemic has just swept everything before it. A recent story in The Australian was headed—unfortunately, I might say—'Ice epidemic: Narrandera, the sweet country town in the grip of crystal meth.' It brought home quite a few home truths, but I do not think that all the anecdotal evidence in that article of 11 July was entirely accurate for Narrandera—the town of trees, as the sign says on its outskirts, just 100 kilometres west of Wagga Wagga. It has the distinction, I suppose, of being on the crossroads of the Newell Highway, which is the longest highway in New South Wales, and the Sturt Highway, which is the major inland road linking Sydney to Adelaide, starting 40 kilometres east of Wagga Wagga and working all the way through to the South Australian capital. Those two highways, the Sturt and the Newell, carry a huge amount of freight across the nation. The mayor of Narrandera quite correctly told The Australian that there is a real vibrancy around the place. Councillor Clark said that unemployment is low, approvals have just been granted for a $70 million hazelnut plantation and a $60 million chicken farm and, as she pointed out, they are going to be good, solid employers for years to come. She talked proudly of the district's other main industries—a state-of-the-art engineering works, its piggery, the cotton and fruit farms, the feed lot just down the road at Yanco, which is due to expand very soon, and the timber mill. Much of Narrandera's prosperity is due to its locality. Unfortunately, because of its unique location, being on the junction of those two highways, there are also a lot of drugs coming into town—and included in those drugs is a lot of ice. Narrandera police sergeant Brett Roden said that the drugs—ice—started to appear two or three years ago and ice has now taken hold of a disturbing proportion of the town's inhabitants. Some of the statistics that accompany that report have probably exaggerated the situation, to the point where I have co-signed a letter with Katrina Hodgkinson, the elected member for the new state seat of Cootamundra, which is going to Ken Lay, the chair of the National Ice Taskforce, to see what we can do, what communities can do, not only to address the problem but also so we do not see the picture painted that every adult, or a large proportion of them, and certainly every Indigenous adult, in communities the size of Narrandera, or in communities with a high Aboriginal population, are beset by this dreadful drug. Sure there is a problem, and I am pleased that this crimes legislation amendment bill addresses some of the issues that Narrandera has and that Wagga Wagga has, and indeed that those two other towns I mentioned, Tumut and Gundagai, and many other regional communities, also have. I am pleased that this legislation, if passed, will introduce mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for firearm trafficking offences. That is good—that is committing to an election policy that we took to the 2013 ballot. It will enhance the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' ability to prosecute importers of border controlled precursors and ensure that the Australian Federal Police's use of controlled operations to prevent illicit substances from reaching Australia does not unduly complicate prosecutions. That, too, is essential. It will clarify that proof of an intention to influence a particular foreign official is not required to establish the offence of foreign bribery. The member for Paterson very well prosecuted the need to expand the definition of 'forced marriage' to include circumstances in which a victim does not freely and fully consent because he or she is incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony due to age. I too, like the member for Paterson, am quite disgusted that a young girl could be married off under those sorts of dreadful circumstances at the tender age of 14. Quite frankly, 14-year-old girls should be playing with Barbie dolls and communicating with friends and going to parties and doing all the sorts of things that 14-year-old girls do. I think all too often in society these days, due to the internet and other things, that kids are forced to grow up far too young. They are exposed to far too many things at far too early an age. I am speaking as a father of three. To think that a 14-year-old girl was forced into a marriage is, as the member for Paterson quite correctly pointed out, just disgusting. Increasing penalties for forced marriage offences in the Criminal Code to make them commensurate with the most serious slavery related facilitation offences is a good thing. I am sure that members on both sides of the House would agree with that. Getting back to the ice epidemic or problem, we need to make sure that as a parliament and as a community we do everything in our power to minimise the scourge of this dreadful drug. That is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister announced on 8 April this year the establishment of a National Ice Taskforce to develop a National Ice Action Strategy. The aforementioned Mr Lay, the former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, is heading that body. He will be greatly assisted by my colleague, the Nationals' Assistant Minister for Health, Fiona Nash, and the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan who, I have to say, is doing a fantastic job in his portfolio. They will oversee this taskforce and lead the government's response to the ice issue, which is also very important to Labor members and to the crossbenchers. We as a parliament must do everything in our power to minimise the impact it is having on individuals and the community. We just heard the member for Paterson say that ice users are at an increased risk of a range of health related harms—most notably psychosis and mental illness. One snort, one injection, one puff or one insertion—whichever way you take it—can destroy your life and your health. That is how dangerous it is, and the trouble is that it is so damn readily available and so damn cheap. That is one of the biggest worries. Kay Hull told me that, whereas they need meth labs in garages, with ice it can be done out of the boot of a car. That is such a worry because it is then so mobile. Around 200,000 Australians have used ice in the past 12 months. What an alarming statistic! Since 2010 the number of people requiring treatment has more than doubled. Professor Curran at the emergency ward of the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital would tell you that the rate is far higher in his section of the hospital than that national statistic. The impacts of the increased use of ice are being felt nationwide, as I say, but no more so than in regional Australia. Kay Hull, who is the chair of the Australian National Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drugs and a key member of the National Ice Taskforce, has been pivotal in driving the message of the dangers of ice not only in her former electorate of Riverina but throughout Australia. I would certainly encourage members to contact Mrs Hull and invite her to a community ice forum in their electorates and do the same with Senator Nash, who has already travelled more than 20,000 kilometres—the length and the breadth of the nation—to gather firsthand accounts and information as part of the National Ice Taskforce. In the time I have left, I want to share a few more alarming statistics. Wagga Wagga police have arrested more than 50 people since initiating their Strike Force Calyx antidrug blitz on 16 June. More than 30 sellers of illegal drugs such as meth, cannabis and ecstasy have now fronted the Wagga Wagga local court since the crackdown began. Disturbingly, between five and 10 people are caught driving under the influence of illicit drugs—quite often ice—in Wagga Wagga each and every day. That is horrendous. They are mobile time bombs; if they do not kill themselves, they will certainly kill somebody else. I commend the Wagga Wagga Local Area Commander, Bob Noble. When he was asked on national radio, 'What's the best thing parents could do?', he told listeners on 2GB: 'Look after your kids. Talk to your kids.' Ban mobile phones at the dinner table and talk to your kids about their futures and about ice. Listen to them, but, more importantly, tell them about the dangers. It is good advice; it is old-fashioned advice but good advice. I commend this legislation to the House. 18:20 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise in support of the bill and in doing so commend it to the House. We hear repeatedly that the first duty of government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. It is a commitment I am sure that both sides of this place take seriously. This legislation is a further example of how our government takes that commitment seriously. It takes a bit to shock a bloke who worked in the criminal law for 10 years, but I recently had occasion to speak to a senior police officer in Mount Gambier about an incident, the terms of which I will not go into. It involved an illicit drug user who was addicted to methamphetamine or ice, as it is termed. I sat listening to the story gobsmacked. This is someone, who on ice, committed an act of self-harm that, but for the intervention of emergency services personnel, would have resulted in the loss of his life—effectively in a fit of psychotic rage, I expect a direct product of the illicit substance he had consumed. I will come back to that a little further down the track. This legislation seeks to strengthen and secure our country. It does, substantively, three things. It implements tougher penalties for gun related crime, it increases the operation and effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions in relation to serious drug and precursor offences, and it increases penalties for forced marriage offences. There are some other technical amendments which deal with the sharing of information under the Crimes Act. The legislation improves the process for dealing with applications and requests under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. It ensures the efficient use of functions by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It enhances the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which we all know is such an effective way of dealing with serious and organised crime. It extends powers and offences under various Commonwealth laws, such as the newly established office of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in my home state of South Australia. It clarifies approval processes for controlled operations and makes minor drafting amendments to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. I will turn to the substantive penalties for firearm trafficking offences. Every time I hear of a massacre emanating from the United States, I am just so grateful for our very rigorous gun laws here in Australia. It is a credit to former Prime Minister Howard and his government that they took such a principled stance in the face of strong opposition perhaps from their conservative base. But I think every Australian is safer on account of it. I reflect on this regularly whenever we hear the stories emanating from America—and there seems to be a weekly occurrence of massacres, principally as a result of easy accessibility to firearms. We have a very strict regime in Australia, and I think we have the balance right on our regulation governing the ownership and use of firearms. This legislation is a really important approach to mandatory minimum penalties for those who traffic in firearms and those who would seek to engage in illegally importing firearms. We need to do all we can at every point in the process to ensure that those who would seek to do us harm cannot access firearms illegally. Mandatory minimum penalties send a strong deterrent message with respect to this offending. The entry of even a small number of illegal firearms into the Australian community can have a significant impact on the threat posed as a result of the illicit market. Mandatory sentences in this case will not apply to children. There is no minimum non-parole period. So the offences as drafted preserve a level of judicial discretion to allow courts to take into account mitigating circumstances when setting the period that offenders will need to serve in custody. That is how it should be. The concept of judicial discretion is one that should be respected. Obviously in the lead-up to the 2013 election the coalition undertook to implement tougher penalties for gun related crime. In legislating in this way, we are carrying through on our promise. The introduction of this penalty is appropriate to ensure that higher probability offenders receive sentences proportional to the seriousness of their offending while providing courts with the discretion to set custodial sentences consistent with the idiosyncratic circumstances of their respective offending. I will now turn to forced marriage. It is obviously something that in modern Australian society we abhor. We are introducing new laws to the parliament to clarify what constitutes forced marriage and increased penalties for the conduct that causes a person to enter into a forced marriage. As a consequence of these amendments, a child under the age of 16 is presumed incapable of consenting to marriage. In effect, it is a rebuttable presumption. That will make the prosecution of these offences easier. It is consistent with a number of sexual offences to do with crimes which deal with children of this age. I have not personally come across any of these examples, but I accept what we have heard—that there are very many occasions in our community when children as young as 14 are forced to enter into the institution of marriage in circumstances where they do not understand what they are being asked to commit to. I think a rebuttable presumption in this case is appropriate, bearing in mind that we as legislators need to be careful about rebuttable presumptions because a fundamental tenet of our criminal law that underpins our criminal justice system is the concept of innocence until proven guilty and that one's guilt needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to establish those objective elements. But, in this case, a rebuttable presumption, in my respectful view, is appropriate. I want to speak about amendments that seek to address illicit drugs and the importation of precursor chemicals. These new laws make two key changes to the Commonwealth drug and precursor offences so that it is easier to successfully prosecute individuals who are knowingly engaging in large-scale drug and precursor importations. First, the law will ensure that it is simpler to prosecute engaged individuals who evade punishment because they manage their involvement in a drug operation in such a way that the prosecution cannot prove they have the relevant intent. Second, these amendments will simplify the offences to do with importing chemicals used in the manufacturing of illicit substances. I said earlier that I had a reasonably long career acting for people on criminal law. Given that I acted for people in regional communities, I know that invariably it was victims themselves who were forced to sell these drugs. Very rarely were prosecutions able to be successfully maintained in respect of those people that go about the large-scale importation of, particularly, precursors. These changes will ensure that the same burden of proof applies to cases involving an attempted drug offence and in cases when an accused actually commits the offence. Of course, we all know that when for reasons of community safety a precursor is exchanged with an inert substance then the offender can only be charged with the offence of attempt. These amendments seek to deal with that. Rarely have I seen an issue solidify rural communities like the concern surrounding illicit drug use, particularly with the methamphetamine known by many as ice. I have long been aware of the drug, but it seems to me that communities are now coming to understand the harm that it afflicts on individuals, the fact that it rips families apart and it smashes up communities. At one point in this debate it was suggested that my home town of Mount Gambier held the title of Australia's ice capital. I reject that on the basis that, in my view, illicit drug and methamphetamine use in Mount Gambier is no more prevalent than in any other regional community in Australia. We had over 350 people attend the Sir Robert Helpmann Theatre for an information session. That would have been significant enough, but there were a further 350 people outside wishing to enter the venue. We then had a series of other forums throughout the Limestone Coast where 100 to 200 people attended. We saw over 700 people in the Riverland attend a forum. I am sure the member for Wannon, who is in the chamber, will speak of similar experiences. This issue has brought rural communities together, perhaps because of our close relationships, perhaps because our communities are small, perhaps because on average country constituents are more open about their circumstances or perhaps because they just cannot hide them because the communities are so open. We have seen a level of concern around illicit drug use that I have never seen before, and it is in that context that I am incredibly grateful that the Prime Minister has seen fit to establish the National Ice Taskforce. The interim report, of course, speaks of six key criteria. That interim report was taken to COAG and I think the most powerful and persuasive point that needs to be made is that there was a clear understanding that there needs to be a national strategic and collaborative approach between the federal, state, territory and local governments. Clearly, we need to do something about educating everyone in our community about the harms of illicit drugs and in particular methamphetamines. We need to make sure people in the community understand that the serious and organised crime that trades in this drug is engineering the drug daily to be more addictive. We also need to do more to ensure harm minimisation. In my electorate of Barker it is unfortunate that, while this debate is raging, one of the few regional rehabilitation facilities in South Australia—the Karobran New Life Centre—has had to close on account of their financial position. I have raised this issue with the justice minister. So having identified the need to embark on education and having spoken about harm minimisation for those people that are suffering from the effects of addiction to illicit substances, particularly ice, we are left with one other thing that needs to be done—that is, we need to focus our efforts on law enforcement. We will not prosecute our way out of this, but we can certainly work hard to strengthen the tools that are available to our Federal Police at our borders. It is our responsibility, in this place, to deal with precursors, and this legislation is seeking to do that. I am hopeful that our respective state counterparts who have responsibility for local law enforcement on a day-to-day basis will see fit to strengthen the tool kit available to police on the front line and prosecutors as they go about ensuring that those who seek to trade in this type of misery are given appropriate sentences and in very many cases immediate custodial terms. I am so pleased that our community has identified this issue. I am so pleased that we are embarking upon a respectful and robust debate about what is required. I am grateful that I am part of a government supported by an opposition which wants to do everything it can to secure the safety of Australians, particularly when it deals with illicit substances like ice or methamphetamines. 18:35 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I recognise the member for Barker and thank him for his significant contribution in his speech this evening on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. He has worked in a law firm in Mount Gambier and has been on that side of the fence, especially when it comes to dealing with serious drug and precursor offences. Also recently, since he has become a member of parliament, he has had forums where communities have come forward saying how afraid and scared they are about the impact that ice is having on regional and rural communities. He has done a first-rate job in that regard. I would like to take this moment to support him when he calls for extra services in regional and rural areas when it comes to rehabilitation from drug use. One of the worst effects of isolation is that people do not seek the treatment that they should, because services are not as readily accessible as they are in urban areas. We see the statistics for a range of illnesses which are damning because of the distance that it requires individuals to travel to get to services. That has a huge impact on regional and rural areas. Given the impact that ice in particular is having on regional and rural communities, once again we need to look at what services are available when it comes to rehabilitation in country areas. My hope is that the taskforce that has been set up through COAG will be able to make some positive recommendations in this regard, because it is going to be vitally necessary for us to deal with this issue. The bill before us is the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. It delivers on the government's commitment to tackle crime and make our communities safer. This is a policy that we took to the last election and are now implementing by providing our law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers they need to do their job and by ensuring government laws are robust and effective. This bill reflects the government's efforts to target criminals and reduce the heavy cost of crime for all Australians, and crime does have a cost. It has a cost to the individual on a personal basis, it has a cost to the family members of those who commit crimes, it has a cost to those whom the crime is committed against, it has a cost to the local community and it has a cost to the economic productivity of our nation. It has a cost every which way you look at it, and that is why, as a government, we are determined to deal with it. The bill contains a range of measures across various Commonwealth acts. These measures include the need to implement tough penalties for gun related crime; increase the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences, as I touched on briefly; increase penalties for forced marriage offences; ensure our criminal offence regimes are robust and effective; and ensure efficient arrangements for administering criminal law and related provisions. In this way the government is delivering on our commitment to tackle crime and keep our communities safe. As the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions, keeping our communities safe and keeping our nation safe has to be the No. 1 responsibility of government, because without that all the other freedoms that we seek to protect and enjoy become meaningless. I would like to touch on three aspects of the bill in particular. The first is the penalties for firearms trafficking offences, which is schedule 6 of the bill. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I know you are a keen shooter yourself. I obviously represent an electorate where shooting occurs. Being a rural electorate, a lot of sporting shooting takes place, but there is also a need for farmers to shoot as they go about their general business. What we are seeking to do here is very much target the illegal use of firearms. The bill introduces mandatory minimum sentences of five years' imprisonment for the offence of illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts into Australia and illegally moving firearms and firearm parts across borders within Australia. These mandatory minimum penalties send a strong message on the seriousness of gun related crime and violence and acts as a deterrent for criminals. It is very important that we deal with those who want to use firearms illegally in a very tough way, where the penalties are clear-cut. The entry of even a small number of illegal firearms into the Australian community can have a significant impact on the threat posed by the illicit market and, due to the enduring nature of firearms, a firearm can remain in that market for many years. It is the intent of the government to make sure that illegal firearms are removed. Obviously, those who have legal firearms which they want to use for legal purposes can continue to do so. Mandatory sentences will not apply to children as there is no minimum non-parole period. The offences preserve a level of judicial discretion to allow courts to take into account mitigating factors when setting the period offenders spend in custody. In the lead-up to the 2013 election, the coalition undertook to implement tougher penalties for gun related crime. We are now following through on that promise. The introduction of this penalty is appropriate to ensure that high-culpability offenders receive sentences proportionate to the seriousness of their offending while providing the courts with discretion to set custodial periods consistent with the particular circumstances of the offender and the offence. Once again, this is the government honouring an election commitment in a meaningful way and honouring it in a way which is solely designed to keep the community safe. Especially with what we have seen recently when it comes to the illegal importation and use of firearms, it seems to be something which organised crime in particular focuses on, so it is only right that the government seeks to deal with the illegal use of firearms and their importation. The other schedule of this bill that I would like to touch on is schedule 1, which is on illicit drug and precursor offences. Obviously I mentioned this a little bit earlier, but these new laws make two key changes to Commonwealth drug and precursor offences so that it is easier to successfully prosecute individuals who are knowingly engaged in large-scale drug and precursor importation. We know that organised crime and, in particular, illegal bikie gangs move into this space, sadly, more and more. First, the laws will ensure that it is simpler to prosecute individuals who evade punishment because they manage their involvement in a drug operation in such a way that the prosecution cannot prove that they have the relevant level of knowledge. This, in particular, enables us to track those who are doing the organising but very skilfully trying to keep a distance in their organisational role from those who are actually carrying out the illegal drug operations. Secondly, they will simplify the offences for importing the chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs. By making it easier to prosecute individuals for attempted drug offences, it is the hope of the government that we will once again be able to keep the scourge of drugs off the street. The first change will ensure that the same burden of proof applies to cases involving an attempted drug offence and in cases where an accused actually commits the offence. Under this change, where a person attempts to commit a serious drug or precursor offence, the prosecution will only need to prove that the person knew there was a risk that the substance involved was an illicit drug. This will make it simpler to prosecute individuals who are part of a larger drug enterprise but who deliberately ignore obvious signs about how their actions fit into the broader scheme. This amendment is particularly important where a controlled operation is used as part of the drug investigation. Controlled operations are becoming more and more important as a policing tool for dealing with the sophisticated way in which criminals are seeking to import drugs or precursors. In controlled operations, law enforcement agencies may substitute an illicit drug with an inert substance. This helps to protect the community, but it means that those involved can only be charged with attempted offences. In one case the police conducted a controlled operation for 80 kilograms of ice that was imported into Australia, to replace it with an inert substance. The accused received the consignment and was subsequently charged with an attempt to import a border controlled drug rather than of importing an illegal drug. We saw at the trial how the accused successfully exploited the greater onus of proof for the prosecution in attempt cases. He argued that while he knew that he was importing something illegal, he believed that he was helping to import counterfeit money and cheating cards for use in casinos, not drugs. He denied he knew that the consignment contained drugs or that he intended to import drugs and, therefore, could not be found guilty of an attempted importation offence. Had the controlled operation not occurred, the prosecution would have only had to prove that the accused was recklessly indifferent to the risk that the consignment contained illicit drugs. As this example demonstrates, the legitimate actions of a law enforcement agency to reduce the potential harm from a drug importation should not make it more difficult to prosecute the people involved in the offence—and there are other means and other issues that we are addressing when it comes to this schedule 1. Before I conclude I would like to touch briefly on the forced marriage arrangements. The coalition government is introducing new laws to parliament today to clarify what constitutes forced marriage and increase penalties for conduct that causes a person to enter into a forced marriage. As a consequence of the amendments, a child under the age of 16 is presumed incapable of consenting to marriage. I think everyone in this parliament would be supportive of that. When it comes to forced marriages, this is something that we, as a liberal democracy that believes strongly in individual personal rights and especially our ability and need to protect children, should be very clear in stating—that a child under the age of 16 is presumed incapable of consenting to marry. I think this is a very positive step. Any person who engages in conduct that causes a person who does not understand the marriage ceremony to enter a marriage, such as through arranging or officiating over the marriage of a child, may be committing an offence. In addition, these changes, if successful, will increase the penalty for engaging in conduct to cause another person to enter into a forced marriage. The penalty for an aggravated forced marriage offence will be increased from a maximum of seven years imprisonment to a maximum of nine years imprisonment, reflecting community expectations of how we, as a society, need to make sure that we are providing proper protections and ensuring that children under the age of 16 are not being forced into things such as marriage. It gives me great pleasure to be able to support this Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill. I think these are sensible changes to help tackle crime and make our community safer. Keeping our community safe is a fundamental principle that government needs to adhere to. Through this bill, we, as a government, are continuing to do that. 18:51 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I am pleased to rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. If there is a community that has been particularly affected by crime—and certainly by the perception of crime—and one where crime has had a detrimental impact on the main revenue source for the city, which is predominantly the tourism industry, it would have to be my city of the Gold Coast. As the federal member for Moncrieff, I take seriously two aspects of my role. One is in relation to the protection of the income the city derives from the tourism industry and the need to safeguard the perceptions of our city—that is to ensure as a city that people's views about holidaying on the Gold Coast are positive ones, that they approach a holiday with enthusiasm and that they know that they will be safe if they choose to have a holiday on the Gold Coast, whether they are a domestic tourist or an international tourist. The second important aspect of my role as federal member is to stand up for my community and ensure that my community feel safe—that they feel safe in their own homes, that they feel safe with their personal belongings and, in particular, that parents feel safe in the knowledge that their children are not being exposed to a drug culture or indeed, for example, to a culture of forced marriages, which would corrupt and, over time, diminish the strength of the social fabric in our city. The Gold Coast is an amazing city. It is a wonderful place to raise a family. It is a terrific city that has not only a bright daily outlook in terms of the weather but also a bright outlook in terms of its future. Moving swiftly to ensure that we are able to address concerns in relation to crime is important and something I have been very pleased to be part of. I regularly host community forums as part of my ongoing commitment to engaging in a meaningful way with the community I have the privilege of representing. I hold forums with my constituents on a regular basis—small business forums, crime forums, town hall meetings—all centred on the importance of engaging, mixing and mingling with my constituents, giving them the platform and the opportunity to put forward their points of view on what should be happening in our community—those aspects they like and those aspects they do not like. Relatively recently I was pleased to host a crime forum with the Minister for Justice, the Hon. Michael Keenan. Minister Keenan travelled to the Gold Coast and took the time to meet, to mix, to mingle, to hear from and to listen to ordinary Gold Coasters who wanted to raise an array of different issues with him. I did this not only because of the opportunity it provides as a platform for my constituents but also because there was widespread concern and indeed a negative perception, which had been brought to my attention through various media, that the Gold Coast was being overrun by organised criminal gangs. The previous state LNP Newman government moved swiftly some time ago to introduce the VLAD laws, which were directed towards doing what could be done to crack down on outlaw motorcycle gangs and, more broadly, criminal gangs across the city. It needed to happen. As a result of the decisive action taken by the former Newman government, the city was cleaned up in a fairly short period of time. Having spoken with so many people on the Gold Coast, I have to say there was widespread relief that the decisive action that had been taken made a difference to the feel of the city and thwarted attempts by organised criminal gangs, who more often than not—certainly anecdotally, but I know from speaking with police as well—were the instigators and the distributors of a lot of illegal narcotics. In that respect, the legislation before the House today builds on the good work that has been done at both state and federal levels. Following some brawling between various outlaw motorcycle gangs, Minister Keenan moved to establish one of the first joint strike forces on the Gold Coast. This sees collaboration between federal and state police officers, and other authorities such as Immigration and the tax office, working in a comprehensive way to ensure that maximum pressure is applied to those who would seek to benefit from engaging in criminal activity and peddling drugs. That was a terrific step forward. The legislation now before the House builds on the solid foundation and the important work that has been undertaken thus far not only in my electorate of Moncrieff but, more importantly, across the city of the Gold Coast. A great concern that we had was that the previous Labor government took the very short-sighted decision to shut down the Australian Federal Police office on the Gold Coast. It is the sixth largest and fastest growing city in Australia, with a population of more than 500,000 people. I was not literally but figuratively left dumbstruck that a Labor federal government could be so short-sighted as to shut down the Federal Police offices on the Gold Coast. The Federal Police played a crucial role in investigating organised criminal gangs, and Labor walked away from the city. I should not be surprised—it is consistent with the Labor Party, which has absolutely no regard, no inclination, no interest and no time for the Gold Coast. In fact, under successive Labor governments, the only time we saw a federal Labor minister on the Gold Coast was when they travelled there once a year to speak at the annual conference of the Australian Workers Union—or one of the unions—which always takes place on the Gold Coast. For the benefit of the President of the Labor Party, who is in the chamber, can I say that we welcome the Labor Party holding their union conferences on the Gold Coast. We value their business. Notwithstanding that, it is still a great shame that Labor should be so short-sighted. But I guess Labor ministers are but fleeting tourists from time to time. The legislation before the House is important. It implements tough penalties for gun related crimes. It increases the operation and effectiveness of laws relating to serious drug and precursor offences. It increases penalties for forced marriage offences and ensures our criminal offence regimes are robust and effective. It ensures efficient arrangements for administering criminal law and related provisions. It is part of the coalition government's clear and consistent commitment to tackling crime and to ensuring that our communities across Australia are kept safe, particularly the Gold Coast. I take local law and order issues on the Gold Coast very seriously. That is why I was pleased not only that we had the joint strike force but that we were able to roll out additional CCTV cameras across the city. The Gold Coast now has one of the widest networks of CCTV cameras. From the many police I have spoken with, as well as the Gold Coast City Council, I know that they play a very effective role not only in cleaning up crime through the ability to get evidence directly from videotapes but also in the prevention of crime, as police and others are able to respond in a proactive way to trouble that might be brewing, thereby ensuring that we prevent assaults and other issues like that from occurring. It is important work and it does require an ongoing substantial commitment from the federal government to make sure our communities are safer. People in communities like Ashmore, Nerang, Southport, Surfers Paradise, Benowa, Broadbeach Waters, Broadbeach, Mermaid Waters and Mermaid Beach want to know that the federal government have some investment in the city. We do. This legislation continues it. I absolutely commend the bill to the House. Debate interrupted. PETITIONS 68 PETITIONS Responses 68 19:00 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 209(c), I announce that the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received: Asylum Seekers 68 Australia's Asylum Seekers Policies 69 Burnett Heads: Telecommunications 70 Electorate of MacMillan: Treatment of Asylum Seekers 71 Citizenship 72 PETITIONS 72 PETITIONS Statements 72 19:01 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney In my remarks today as Chair of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I will cover a fundamental aspect of the petitions process, and that is signatures. Early in 2014, a petition was presented with more than one million signatures. Prior to that, the petition with the greatest number of signatures was presented in the year 2000, with more than 790,000 signatures. Whilst it is always impressive to hear about large numbers of people supporting a petition, today I would like to focus on petitions which have been presented to the House with fewer than 100 recorded signatures. Standing order 205 provides that every petition must contain the signature and full name and address of a principal petitioner on the first page of a petition; otherwise, there is no requirement relating to the number of signatures a petition must have. This reflects the longstanding principle that every Australian has the right to petition their parliament. Of the 1,932 petitions received since the establishment of the committee in 2008, 458 petitions—or approximately one-quarter of all petitions presented in the House—had less than 100 signatures. Usually, the topics of these petitions are similar to petitions with higher signature counts. Reasons for low signature counts on petitions can include: Australia's population distribution, interest levels in the topics of petitions, knowledge of the House's petitioning requirements and neglecting to meet certain petitioning requirements. Some petitioners only intend to collect a smaller number of signatures, because the request of their petition is fairly localised or time limited or because they do not have the capacity to seek more. Deputy Speaker Goodenough, as you know, a significant proportion of Australia's population live in regional and remote areas. That is, approximately seven million people—or 29 per cent, as of 30 June 2014—according to ABS statistics. Living in regional and remote areas can be prohibitive to collecting a large number of handwritten signatures, unless they are collected over a long period of time or there is an organised effort among several groups to distribute and collect petitions pages across the nation. Living in these areas can also bring with it very specific reasons for petitioning the House, which may not generate much support from other parts of Australia unaffected by those issues. Increasing public knowledge of the House petitioning system may also contribute, in a roundabout way, to lower signature counts. For example: occasionally, single-signature petitions have been lodged because the principal petitioner is aware that standing order requirements are met if the petition contains their identifiable signature only. In these cases, the petitioner will often be petitioning about a personal grievance. Another reason why some petitions only have a handful of signatures is that petitioners may have neglected to meet one of the petition requirements and so certain signatures could not be counted. Unfortunately, some petitioners may fail to note the requirement set out in standing order 204(b), which states: The terms of the petition must not contain any alterations … In practice, this means that the petitioner's request on subsequent pages must be the same as that on the front page. If this requirement is overlooked, it could mean that some signatures cannot be included in the signature count, resulting in a recorded signature count much lower than the actual number of signatures collected for the petition. It is regrettable that such great efforts are made by petitioners, only to have their petition found to be noncompliant due to this oversight. However, as long as the front page meets requirements, most petitions falling into this category can still be presented. As I have done in the past, I strongly encourage all petitioners to seek advice from the secretariat with regard to correct wording and format of petitions. Whilst there may be more publicity surrounding large petitions and the topics they cover, administratively every petition received by the petitions committee is assessed in the same way. The committee considers a petition for compliance with the House's standing orders, not on the basis of its subject matter, its political viewpoints or how many signatures have been collected. Whether petitions have one signature or one million signatures, they remain an important means by which Australians can directly raise their concerns with parliament. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 73 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Netball 73 19:06 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I move: That this House: (1) places on record that the: (a) recently completed 2015 ANZ Championship has taken on new importance on the Australian sporting calendar; (b) ANZ Championship cross Tasman competition has been significant in increasing the profile of the sport through live television coverage and internet streaming; and (c) Netball World Cup is happening in Sydney throughout August, involving 16 international teams in 64 matches over 10 days at Sydney Olympic Park; and (2) congratulates: (a) the Australian Diamond players, coaching and medical staff on their preparation and performance in this tournament; (b) the Trans Tasman Netball League for the innovations they have delivered to netball; (c) the International Netball Federation; and (d) Netball Australia for its impact in boosting the profile of women in sport, providing its members with valuable leadership skills and supporting world class athletes. I rise tonight to speak to this Private Member's Business motion to support and to celebrate the fact that the world championships in netball are happening in Australia, as I stand in the chamber this evening. The International Netball Federation and Netball Australia are hosting the international championships, the world cup of netball, in Sydney. This has been running since 1963. It is an absolute celebration for those of us who love the sport of netball and for those of us who grew up playing the sport of netball. The level of competition that we are watching at home on our television screens or at the stadium in Sydney is absolutely exemplary. A lot of that goes to the ANZ championships that have been run trans-Tasman by Australia and New Zealand over the last few years. The standard of netball has improved exponentially. The professionalism of the elite athletes that we are seeing on display is extraordinary. I want to mark this and mark it in a very special way. As a young girl who played netball, it was not within my purview to watch even a state team play a game of netball. I grew up with my brothers watching their heroes every week on our television screen, playing football or cricket. For me, maybe a small segment of the Herald Sun wouldcover the state championships or the national championships. I look at the young girls I coach today and hear, as I did last Saturday morning, the excitement in their voices that they can see their heroes, those girls, on court, on national television. It is extraordinary. I also want to comment on what was an incredible welcome to country at the opening ceremony. What an opening ceremony! The welcome to country was performed Marcia Ella-Duncan—someone I remember seeing play and someone I admired as a player. There was such poise, such grace, such integrity in that fine welcome to country, which was then followed by some dancing. For me, the most important event of the evening at the opening was the song Who run the world? Girls. That was the highlight for me, and I am sure it was the highlight for many young girls around the country. It would be negligent of me not to congratulate the women who lead the administration of netball internationally. It would be negligent of me not to acknowledge the women and men who umpire, coach and play netball. I see the member for Moreton in the chamber, and we know what a great netballer he is. I would also like to make some personal points about the game of netball. It is a unique game. It takes a whole team to move the ball down the court. It takes a whole team to deliver on the strategy. But, most of all, it is musical. It is rhythmic. It is brutal at times but it is beautiful. It is like jazz music—each player forming a riff as they move for the take and the pass of the ball, and the next player adding to that music and taking their own pitch to it. It is a delight to watch netball on Saturday morning at the Rex Centre in Werribee. It is an absolute delight to watch the international competition that is occurring on our shores at the moment. I would encourage all in this parliament and all across the country to get behind the world cup of netball and to get behind the ANZ Championship. Get tweeting NWC2015. That is your hashtag. Get tweeting and support our girls. With the member for Rankin in front of me—particularly the member for Rankin—members around me and other members who are also wearing scarves as they come into the chamber, it would be remiss of me not to mention the fabulous, the glorious, the wonderful Laura Geitz, Captain of the Queensland Firebirds, obviously, but, more importantly, Captain of the Australian Diamonds. This woman is an absolute role model to young girls across this country in the way in which she leads that team and in the way in which she plays that game. No-one shirks a ball in the Australian netball team—and Laura Geitz leads them in that. There is not a contest that she does not go to. She sees the ball early, she commits her mind and her body, and she goes after it. Go Diamonds! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? 19:11 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I second the motion. I would like to thank the member for Lalor for moving this motion and for the scarf. The 2015 ANZ Championship final held on Sunday, 21 June at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre was one of the great sporting events in our nation's history. The record shows the Queensland Firebirds defeated New South Wales Swifts 57-56. The packed house saw a game where the Swifts led for the entire match, except for the final minute. This was a level of drama unrivalled in professional sport. Over the past eight years, the ANZ Championship has grown into a world-class competition, drawing large crowds and television audience numbers and showing off the sublime skills and athleticism of the world's best netballers. Over 14 home and away rounds between March and July, five Australian and five New Zealand teams battle out for the ultimate prize in the world's best netball league. The ANZ Championship is the first professional netball competition in Australasia, and hearty congratulations deserve to be given to Netball Australia and Netball New Zealand for uniting and running this most impressive tournament. Our two nations have dominated the international history of netball, winning every world championship title since 1963. All going to script, this record should continue in the Netball World Cup, which is taking place right now in Sydney. In front of a world record 16,223 fans yesterday, the Silver Ferns ended Australia's 21 match winning streak. Whilst disappointing, these are just the pool games, and I am sure all of us will send our support to the Diamonds to win when it really counts in the final on Sunday. As I have often spoken in this place, my passion for sport is first and foremost for the encouragement of participation and healthy activity of people of all ages. Our elite sports men and women inspire us to achieve greater goals, which provide untold benefits to society and the economy. This is clearly evident in the sport of netball, which has the third-highest participation rate of any sport in Australia, boasting 371,000 participants on 2011-12 ABS figures. This exceeds football sports, basketball, cricket and even my former profession. In Bennelong I regularly see the extraordinary participation with the amazing local organisation ERNA, the Eastwood Ryde Netball Association, under the strong, effective, tireless and loving leadership or Anne Doring. ERNA provides access to sport for people ranging in ages from six to 60—and there are a few who are lying about their age. The regular season runs from April to September and there is a mixed night competition from September through to December. ERNA is growing at pace. This year ERNA boasted 431 teams with 4,500 members—a 20 per cent increase in the past five years. These teams play on 27 hard courts at Meadowbank Park—a number that Anne Doring will regularly remind me is not enough—with 150 games per week totalling a massive 2,100 matches over the course of the season. Brush Farm Park has four hard courts and 12 grass courts that host 50 games per week. In the state league, ERNA were runners-up this year in division 1 Waratah Cup, following seven grand final appearances in the past eight years. ERNA also came third in division 2, won division 3 and were runners-up in division 5. Next year the new premier league will replace the Waratah Cup as the highest level of competition in New South Wales featuring the best players in the state who are at the forefront of selection for the ANZ Championship. ERNA was one of only eight clubs selected by the Netball NSW Premier League. As Anne Doring wrote to me with excitement, 'Go Eastwood Ryde.' ERNA's success, both on and off the court, has led to a very long list of participants going on to play at the highest levels, representing their state and the nation. This list includes current Diamond, Firebird and 2015 ANZ champion all-star, Kimberley Ravaillion. This is a most extraordinary club that continues to reinvest into the local community. As an example, ERNA is running a NetSetGo beginners program in August-September, with a plan to attract 50 more kids between the ages of five and eight. ERNA recently advertised in local schools and has already received 100 children's applications. ERNA's engagement with the local community and the positive social and health benefits that flow from that are second to none in Bennelong. I wish to take this opportunity, through this motion, to congratulate ERNA for its great contribution and successes. 19:17 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to enthusiastically support the motion put forward by the member for Lalor and commend her contribution and also the member for Bennelong's. I would particularly like to acknowledge the great victory by the Firebirds, as acknowledged by the earlier speakers. I grew up in country Queensland, in a town called St George—a typical Queensland country town where the boys played footy and cricket and the girls played netball and softball. When I saw my sisters Debbie, Kerry and Megan play netball—sometimes on ant bed courts and dusty courts—not everyone wore shoes where I grew up, but people always played competitively. My sisters have the same imposing height that I have, so they were all centres. That would shock the member for Lalor, I am sure. Dr Chalmers 37998 I hope they were fast! Mr PERRETT HVP They were pretty fast. I did not play netball out in St George. It was much later, in 1992 when I was living in Brisbane, that I actually joined a netball team called the Sacred Cows. I have to admit that I only joined this indoor netball team for one reason—that is, to meet girls. That is where I met my wife. Ms McGowan 123674 A netball romance! Mr PERRETT HVP Yes, a netball romance. In fact, we have been married 20 years next month, so netball has been of great service to my family that is for sure! Netball has come a long way since the dusty courts of St George and is now the territory of elite athletes like Laura Geitz, that girl from Allora who is leading the Diamonds and the Firebirds and who trains 20 hours a week and delivers body-crushing hits in a non-contact sport out on the netball court. The athletes like Laura are stronger, faster, fitter and, obviously, a hell of a lot taller than my sisters. Netball Queensland, which is based in Moorooka where I live, tells me that there are around 52,000 participants in Queensland alone, and that number is growing. Around 300,000 people are involved in putting those netballers out on the court—the volunteers, officials, administrators, fans, parents and that growing Queensland Firebirds membership. Netball is a significant vehicle for the engagement of women and girls—as touched on by the member for Lalor in her speech—in sport as well as social, health, economic and workforce agendas. I would like to particularly acknowledge Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, and his great contribution to that when he was with the Australian Workers' Union. In this way, netball offers outstanding benefits for engagement, delivery and celebration around women's issues and achievements. This year has been a great success on and off the court for netball in Queensland. The Queensland Firebirds became the most successful team in ANZ Championship history. They won the 2015 ANZ Championship grand final with that incredible comeback against the New South Wales Swifts. The Queensland under 17 state team were crowned national champions following an undefeated run through the tournament, and the Queensland under 21 state team claimed bronze at the national championships. I am sure they will improve on that in years to come. I am proud to have the mighty Firebirds based in my electorate of Moreton. The ANZ Championship has done much for women and netball in both Australia and New Zealand. I should also acknowledge the Commonwealth Bank for the great work that they did in the years before that. Now with netball as a semi-professional sport in both countries, with increased television coverage and increased rates of pay for these very professional players, athletes at this level must commit to a high performance training and competition program, despite studying full time or working part time and in some cases also raising families. Netball is a semi-professional sport now, with a salary cap that is just a fraction of what is available in the male sporting codes. I would like to see that changed. I know Netball Queensland is a determined advocate of securing elite female athletes the same opportunities as their male counterparts to pursue a professional sporting career. I am proud to say that the Queensland Labor government, under Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk—not a bad netballer herself in her time—has announced a new $30 million 'home of netball' in Moreton. This centre, to be made up of eight indoor courts, will be created at the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre, or the old QE2, at Nathan and it will do well. It will become the Firebird's first permanent training base. Up until now they have relied on using the facilities of schools around Brisbane. What an extraordinary position for such an elite state sports team, to have to go from school to school begging for training grounds. So, thank you to Annastacia Palaszczuk for getting this state-of-the-art facility. The centre will also be used for junior player training and for Queensland and Australian netball carnivals, because Queensland, a very decentralised state, will be reaching out to people from Torres Strait right down to Coolangatta, Carnarvon, Cunnamulla and everything in between. Well done Annastacia Palaszczuk, and go the Australian Diamonds. 19:22 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay I would like to start today on this wonderful bipartisan motion we have here from the member for Lalor about what a wonderful opportunity it is to talk about netball and the Netball World Cup, which will be held in Sydney. I would also like to comment on all the wonderful scarves we see in the chamber today about 'go the Diamonds'. A lot of people know about Western Sydney and they think it is the home of rugby league. But do you know what? There are more people playing netball. Netball is the number 1 sport in my region. In fact, rugby league comes in third. The Netball World Cup is a wonderful competition. It is an opportunity to see the world's best netballers show their amazing feats of athleticism as they attempt to fight it out on the netball court for ultimate glory and to be the supreme netball team in the wold. This wonderful championship will be taking place at Sydney Olympic Park this month. The world cup occurs every four years, with the top 16 netball nations competing to be the best. Australia has a terrific record, having won 10 of the 13 world cup competitions. Netball is a wonderful opportunity for so many women and young girls to learn all the wonderful things that teamwork is all about. I love hearing stories from my electorate about big, tough blokes like Mark Geyer being out there on a Saturday serving wedges of oranges to their daughters and cheering as hard for their daughters on a Saturday at the netball as they are for their boys that afternoon on the other field at Jamison Park. We have 32 asphalt courts at Jamison Park. It is a wonderful facility. We need only a few more, about four more, and we would have one of the bigger facilities in the state and continue to offer more championships. It is wonderful to see the annual walk past and it is wonderful to see the participation of families from right across the district, getting into their local netball team. I am also proud to have delivered $90,000 to the Penrith District Netball Association to help upgrade their canteen facilities, and for shade, so that when families are off getting their food and refreshments for their long day at the netball they can do so in the shade and have good, clean facilities to get their food from. The success of netball continues to grow in Western Sydney. It is wonderful to see that the Penrith Panthers are going to join the New South Wales Premier League. The New South Wales Premier League is made up of eight teams. The Penrith Panthers will be a team combining the Penrith, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury netball associations to form one team. I would like to congratulate the Penrith Panthers rugby league team for their sponsorship of the netball team, to ensure that netball continues to be a wonderful success right through our region. I also would like to congratulate new Panthers coach Lisa Beehag, Penrith Netball president Joy Gillett, Blue Mountains president Jenny Walker, Hawkesbury president Tracy Chalk, Ron and the Penrith Panthers for an exciting opportunity that will continue to help many young netballers in Lindsay achieve success on the court. To add to the celebrations, Penrith local Paige Hadley will take the court in the world cup. Paige is a phenomenal young woman. Paige has overcome adversity from a severe knee injury to make it back to the national team. In speaking to Paige, she has said, 'I feel honoured and so privileged to be part of this once in a lifetime opportunity to play in my home town. I am proud to come from the west, in Penrith. Western Sydney has provided me with amazing sporting opportunities, and without these, and the support of my local community, I would not have been able to achieve these honours.' Netball is Australia's leading female sport, and the Netball World Cup aids in helping to celebrate women in sport. For many women netball provides a fair, safe, inclusive, respectful and supportive environment, and I commend Netball Australia for promoting these positive attributes of the sport. They are also pivotal for developing and promoting positive women in sport, as well as good role models for future generations—a player like Paige, who, even in the darkest days of her injuries, was still out there supporting young players. I have just a few last comments to make: go Panthers, go the Swifts, go the Diamonds and go Paige Hadley. 19:27 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise this evening to proudly support the motion brought forward by the member for Lalor, and I welcome the contributions to the debate so far from members from both sides of the House and the crossbenches. It is important that we do take time to recognise and congratulate the important role that netball plays in our national status and psyche. Water-cooler discussion often lends itself to what is happening in the world of sport, and, almost exclusively, it ends up focusing on what is happening in men's sport. Because of blanket media coverage, we all know that the Australian men's cricket team just lost the Ashes to England, but few would know that the women's team is currently leading England 4-2 in their respective series. We also know that Australian cricket captain Michael Clarke will retire from international cricket at the end of the Ashes series. But, again, few would know his female compatriot's name let alone her status as Wisden's inaugural Leading Woman Cricketer in the World. For the record, our current women's captain and best player in the world is 23 year old Meg Lanning. So I am most definitely pleased that we have a woman's sport, team and league that is getting much-deserved recognition and attention—on television, in the papers, at water coolers, in this parliament and everywhere. I am pleased to note that in recent days even the Prime Minister has been tweeting about the Aussie Diamonds and the World Cup. While I welcome the Prime Minister's support for the Diamonds on social media, I remind government members opposite that media coverage of women's sport in Australia has suffered greatly as a result of the $250 million in cuts to the ABC, forcing the national broadcaster to abandon their coverage of women's soccer, basketball and other sports. At a time when just 8.7 per cent of TV sports news coverage is devoted to women's sport, this cut was particularly telling. Elite women athletes provide strong role models for women of all ages and from all walks of life. A reduction in media coverage, which is already grossly unequal to the coverage of men's sport in Australia, has further removed such positive role models from the public eye. The television broadcasting of women's sport is an integral part of the ongoing development of women's sport in Australia. While I am not suggesting that maintaining or improving media coverage of women's sports will be a panacea for all inequalities that exist, reducing it is certainly not the answer. On this point, I acknowledge both Network Ten and Fox Sports for their coverage and support of the women's Netball World Cup and also their support of a number of other women's sports. Netball is the nation's leading participation sport for women in Australia and has over 1.2 million participants nation-wide. The local competition in my electorate of Newcastle, which I have had the honour of opening on a number of occasions, has more than 4,000 players, with hundreds more supporters, family members and volunteers joining players at the courts every weekend during the netball season. It is women like Dell Saunders, who has given more than 60 years of service to the Newcastle Netball Association, who keep these local competitions thriving in our communities across generations. Newcastle is home to a strong and active netball community, and the Newcastle netball community was particularly chuffed this week when our city had the honour of hosting Australia's netball team, the Diamonds, for their final pre-tournament preparations. They spent four days finetuning tactics and teamwork in our city before heading to Sydney for the world cup, which commenced over the weekend. Vice-captain of the team Kimberlee Green told the local press that four days in Newcastle had been the ideal preparation for the 'rigours of the world cup'. This Friday I will join the member for Lalor, along with some of our other parliamentary colleagues, in Sydney to play in the parliamentary netball world cup, so I am hoping that a little of my hometown spirit rubs off, ensuring that we are all indeed prepared for the rigours of the parliamentary world cup. I look forward to joining my colleagues from the Australian, New South Wales and New Zealand parliaments to promote and encourage participation in sport for people of all abilities with a view to improving fitness, health and enjoyment. I wish Australia and the teams taking part in the women's Netball World Cup all the best for the remainder of the tournament, and hope that everyone in this place wishes my teammates and me the best of luck for our matches on Friday. I thank the member for Lalor, who is such a strong advocate for netball, for moving this motion in the parliament today, and pass on my congratulations to all parties involved in the sport of netball in Australia. Go the Diamonds! 19:32 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon It is always good to hear women's sport being discussed in this place, and it is particularly significant to see this motion on netball before the House tonight. A few weeks ago representatives from Netball Northern Territory met with me at my electorate office to talk about netball. The fantastic ladies in the Territory Storm, which is the Northern Territory's netball team, face some significant hurdles in engaging with the national competition. The team represents the entire Northern Territory, so some of the members live in Alice Springs, which is some 1,500 kilometres away from Darwin. In the 2013-14 financial year NT Netball received $30,000 in federal funding and $50,000 from the Northern Territory government. At first this may seem like a lot of money, but let us do some comparison work. The Territory Storm participates in a seven-week national competition every year. This means the team will have to travel to another capital city three or four times a year. In airfares alone the girls rack up around $50,000 annually—and this is before they have paid for their coaches, for the facilities, for match and training venues or for any of the thousands of expenses associated with a sports team, such as insurance or uniforms. Compare this, if you like, to the Northern Territory Thunder. I am a big supporter of the Northern Territory Thunder—I need to say that from the outset—but let us compare the funding the Northern Territory Thunder boys get in comparison to the Territory Storm girls. The Territory Thunder get $800,000, compared to $80,000 for the females. It does not seem exactly right. I do not begrudge the Thunder's success; they are an awesome team of football players. They are a dedicated and professional group who work to the best of their ability and go up against some of the best in the country—but so do our Territory Storm. While the Thunder has attracted high-profile sponsorship and government funding, the Territory Storm are struggling to keep their heads above water. I want to use this opportunity to congratulate everyone involved in the ANZ cup on their success. I also want to use this as my soapbox to press for proper funding for Northern Territory netball, for the Territory Storm and, more broadly, for women's sport. In many fields of life, including sports, academics and vocational training, we talk about creating pathways. A student who is struggling in school needs to be able to see a way forward. It keeps them motivated; it keeps them engaged. In sport it is the same. For the boys and girls playing sport in the Northern Territory, having an elite team to aim for will keep the kids involved. It will keep them healthy and active. It will teach them the skills of teamwork and self-discipline. The Territory Storm is the elite pathway for girls playing netball in the Northern Territory. Every dollar we invest in women's sport creates a dividend for society as a whole. My friend Shelley who has taken over as the executive officer for Netball NT deserves a medal. I want the netball players in the Territory to know that we will be taking up the case for the Territory Storm here in Canberra. I cannot guarantee that we will be able to get all the money but I can guarantee that people will start to hear about the Territory Storm and the need for extra funding for the Territory Storm. I urge all members of this place to look at the participation rates for women and girls in sport and to look at the steep decline in those rates compared to those of men. Women's sports should no longer be the forgotten cousins of the men's leagues. Look at the Diamonds and the role models they have provided. I think they are fantastic ambassadors and that there are women from the Territory Storm who could one day be Diamonds. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 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. Small Business 78 19:37 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion by the member for Forde, which outlines some of the things the coalition did in the last budget in our small business package. I would particularly like to raise comments on some of the government policies made by one M Latham, a former Labor leader and former member for Werriwa, in an article titled 'Big is best', which I think is perhaps the most misguided, foolish and ignorant article I have ever read. In it the former Labor leader calls small business: … a pack of blank-faced losers serving up kebabs and pizza slices in greasy food halls and shopping malls. He goes on to say: … smallness is despised as inadequate … He goes on to cite examples of why big is best: the Big Banana, the Big Pineapple and the Big Peanut, which is perhaps quite poetic for one M Latham. He also goes on: Small businesses, in effect, are the garden gnomes of the modern economy—purely ornamental and totally dispensable. Well, we saw how dispensable they were! Sadly, that was an attitude that was held by that side of the parliament when they were sitting in government, for when they were in government 519,000 jobs were lost in the small business sector. An opposition member interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Under the policies of your side of the government, 519,000 jobs were lost in the small business sector. The small business sector share of private sector employment declined from 53 per cent to 43 per cent under your policies. For those that believe in the ideology that big is best, there are a few things that I would like to point them to. Firstly, there is a beast called pig No. 6707. This was conceived in a laboratory in the US Department of Agriculture in the 1990s because they believed that it would be best if they could make the pigs bigger and bigger. But what they produced was 'a beast that was excessively hairy, riddled with arthritis and cross-eyed; too lethargic to stand, let alone mate'. The delusion that big is best is one of the reasons why the socialist economies of the old Eastern Bloc failed. They did not understand the importance of innovation. Those that believe that big is best should perhaps look at the problems with what is called island gigantism, where the size of animals on an isolated island, shielded from the natural competition, increases dramatically compared to the size of animals on the mainland. Examples are the elephant bird of Madagascar, the moa and the giant gecko of New Zealand, the giant rabbits of the Mediterranean and, of course, the famed dodo bird. Without effective competition, as soon as more competition was introduced these things were simply too big and they failed and became extinct. I would put to you that our business sector here in Australia is in danger of falling to the evils of island gigantism. We have seen many sectors of our economy where people have the ideology that big is better. We have seen our industries grow and grow to where we simply have oligopolistic industries in almost every sector of the economy. This is not because bigger is more efficient; it is because of the way that government have set up the laws. We have seen that the rule of law—such an important factor in a productive economy—in this country is broken. A small business in a legal dispute with a larger business simply cannot win because it cannot finance the legal cost. We have seen the broken market for retail rents in this country where, because of government interference in the market and zoning laws to protect large retailers, there is the most distorted market where a large retailer will be paying two to three per cent of their turnover in rent while a smaller retailer will be paying 20 to 25 per cent. We have seen it in our failed competition laws. We have allowed anticompetitive price discrimination to take hold across the board. I think this one M Latham, the former Labor leader, gives it away when he talks in his article about his concern regarding the decline of union membership, because Labor knows in those large companies it is much easier to line up the workers—line them up in lines—and sign them up to union membership. It was an appalling, terrible article by the former member for Werriwa. (Time expired) 19:43 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I rise to speak in this debate after what can only be considered a very bizarre contribution. It was certainly different. I enjoyed the excursion into biology and I am glad to see someone on the government side supports Darwinian evolution. I do sometimes wonder about the science based credentials of the coalition government. Leaving that aside, the main critique of the previous member was around the supposed change in composition of employment under the last government. Let's look at the absolute facts. The absolute facts are that under the last government nearly one million jobs were added to the economy during the period of the global financial crisis. Quite frankly, I do not care whether the jobs are created in micro businesses, small businesses, SMEs or big businesses. We just need to grow jobs in this country, and we have to put in place the policies that support job growth. So their argument is ridiculous, because it is about jobs growth. The last government added nearly one million jobs. What we are facing now, by contrast, is a significant jobs crisis. We have 800,000 unemployed Australians. That is the highest number of unemployed Australians since 1994, which was after a significant recession. We have an unemployment rate of 6.3 per cent—the highest in more than 12 years. Even more worrying, we have 186,000 long-term unemployed Australians. That is the highest number ever, and the ratio of long-term unemployed to unemployed total is 25 per cent—the highest ratio ever recorded. We also have an underemployment rate of 8.5 per cent, which contrasts very badly with the peak of seven per cent in the 1990s recession. We have an under-utilisation rate of 14.7 per cent, which is also very worrying, and we have a youth unemployment rate of 13 per cent, with 20 per cent in the Hunter. Just imagine that for a minute: one in five young people in the Hunter Valley who are looking for work cannot find a job. We are risking a generation of lost young people. This is the issue we are facing. Last month we saw a decline in absolute hours worked of 432,000 hours. That is a very worrying trend when we are not in a recession. That is the job scenario we are facing when we are debating this issue of support for small business. I support small business. My colleague, the member for Rankin, is passionate about supporting small business—absolutely passionate about it—but let us not forget the context of this debate. The context of this debate is a jobs crisis and a small business package that comes on top of a gutting of industry and innovation policy—an absolute gutting. We have seen $2 billion cut out of innovation and industry policy by this government. We have seen a $500 million precincts program cut that would have grown innovative small businesses working with applied researchers. Most egregiously, we have seen a cut to the $300 million venture capital fund. I cannot think of many better ways of supporting innovative small businesses than by helping them access venture capital in the Australian market, which is quite immature. We have seen a $2 billion cut in industry and innovation policy. We have also seen a $1 billion cut in training and skills formation funding by this government. They might have this small business package over there that everyone welcomes, but there is a sleight of hand—there is a pea and thimble trick—where over here they have cut $2 billion from industry and innovation policy and a billion dollars from training and skills. What is the end result of this? We have seen the annihilation of the automotive industry—50,000 direct jobs gone and another 200,000 indirect jobs on the chopping block. We have seen the defence industry decimated. I look forward to the member for Hindmarsh's contribution—he has been missing in action—on the decline of the South Australian industry. It takes more than just nodding your head behind Prime Minister Abbott. It takes more than being a head nodder to deliver for your state, and he has failed to deliver for South Australia, just as this government has failed to deliver for all Australians. I welcome support for small business. I welcome anything that grows Australian businesses, but let us set it in the context of a jobs crisis, a long-term unemployment crisis, an under-utilisation crisis, a youth unemployment crisis, and the gutting of industry and innovation programs and training programs. Let us support small business, but let us not do that at the expense of supporting every other business in this country. 19:48 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh As the member for Charlton introduced defence shipbuilding, I will gladly speak on that. He was asleep last week, like his previous government and colleagues were asleep during six years of government, because we know they did not commission a defence shipbuilding project. They did nothing for six years. What did we do last week? We announced a $39 billion project for Future Frigates. There were patrol boats. I am glad to let the member for Charlton know about this magnificent announcement—this commitment to the defence shipbuilding industry and 2,500 jobs to be sustained in a continuous shipbuilding project program. It is what the people of Australia in the defence shipbuilding industry have demanded, and we will deliver. I thank the member for Forde for this motion and I commend him for his support and advocacy for small business. As we know, small business is the life blood of Australia. We know that 96 per cent of businesses in Australia are small businesses—it is 98 per cent in my state. This government is committed to ensuring that small business thrives. We know that when small business thrives there are more jobs. I look forward to the member for Rankin's contribution after mine. I am hoping that he utilises his background in economics to talk about how the tax cuts and the tax incentives from the last budget will help economic growth in Australia. Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr WILLIAMS 249758 It would be good to see you endorse our policies, Member for Rankin, rather than make excuses. Right now, in South Australia we know that we have the highest unemployment rate and the federal government has done something about this in the federal budget, as well as with the defence shipbuilding announcement. But it is not only with that it is also with the NBN, with nation building projects and with more money for advanced manufacturing for those manufacturers that have a bright future. We have already seen green shoots in our economy. We know that since being elected that we have seen more than 330,000 jobs created. While it is taking longer for South Australia to turn around the economic challenges, we are optimistic about the future with the defence shipbuilding announcement and others. It was the shot in the arm that our economy needed; it was the shot in the arm that the defence industry needed Australia wide. We have heard Andrew Bellamy of Austal; we have heard BAE Systems—they are all very positive. Mr Frydenberg FKL And only we could deliver them. Mr WILLIAMS 249758 We will deliver them, Member for Kooyong, and we have had a great response from the defence industry about this significant commitment—a unique commitment for a defence shipbuilding program. Earlier today we heard of the benefits of the free trade agreements from the minister for trade and how they are helping the economy. In terms of jobs of the future, let us look at where there are opportunities. We know that with the Medical Research Future Fund—in health care and aged care there will be close to a 20 per cent increase in that sector. Likewise, in education there will be significant job increases, and also in technical services, accommodation, food, retail and trade. There are many companies in my electorate that already excel in the areas of technical services—like Fugro and Thermo Fisher to name two. Both of these companies provide highly technical services to products around the world, with research and development being a key part of what they do. We know that our R&D expenditure can increase—it is a little over two per cent of GDP—and we are looking at new ways that industries can research and utilise government programs to develop their sectors. Zen Home Energy Systems and Tindo Solar are two such companies that over the last 10 years have set up in the renewable sector, in this growing energy market. And on the weekend it was announced that Heliostat have entered into an agreement with an Indian solar company, which could result in many new jobs for South Australia. Heliostat has also received a federal government grant, as we look to support research and development for major renewable energy export opportunities. Even though there have been highly publicised job losses in South Australia, the small businesses that I have spoken to over the last five weeks and also since the budget have been extremely positive about the initiatives. They are getting on the front foot. They are investing and expanding. They are going to employ more people and have a go. Whether it be education services, retail or hospitality their commitment is impressive. I commend them and wish them all the best. They know that government is setting the foundations for a better economic future. I commend the motion to the House. 19:53 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It is always really pleasing to see the member for Hindmarsh have a great time in this House, because he will not be here for long. If the people of Hindmarsh want someone who actually cares about jobs and small business, we have got just the guy. What is his name? Steve Georganas. He is coming after you! It is good to see the member for Hindmarsh laughing, because he will not be here long. You are here for a good time, not for a long time, Member for Hindmarsh. It is great, as always, to follow the great member for Charlton. One of your colleagues, the new Speaker, did me a great favour today—the great privilege of mixing me up with the member for Charlton! He said that we looked alike. We have since agreed that he can be Arnold Schwarzenegger and I can be Danny DeVito when it comes to the Twins! It is a real privilege to be mixed up with the member for Charlton. But, more seriously, the member for Charlton knows what he is talking about when it comes to jobs in our community and, indeed, right around our country. He makes a lot of sense when it comes to jobs. He was right to point out that, for the first time in more than 20 years, there are more than 800,000 people unemployed in our country, which the Assistant Treasurer thinks is funny. But 800,000 people unemployed for the first time since 1994 is no joke whatsoever. The unemployment rate is higher today than it was during the global financial crisis. As far as I am concerned, instead of laughing, those opposite should hang their heads in shame. The reason I am so pleased to support this motion on small business is that small business is the hope of the side when it comes to creating jobs in our community. As I told the assembled crowd at the Logan Chamber of Commerce Business Awards a couple of weeks ago we salute and we cherish small business for one reason above all others and that is that they create jobs in our communities. In my community and the communities of the member for Charlton and the member for Bendigo, small business is doing a great job: creating jobs. At the awards night, I had the pleasure of sponsoring the Emerging Business Award, which was won by the M1 Business Centre. I want to take this opportunity to, again, congratulate Alicia, Tanayha and Brooke. Two of them were there to accept the award. I sponsored the Emerging Business Award because it takes guts to go out and set up a small business, to take the risks. There are of course rewards but there are many risks with setting up a small business. The rewards are shared broadly when it comes to creating jobs, as I said, but they also create prosperity and more innovation. All of these things that, I think, both sides of the House can agree on are important. Unlike the member for Hughes—who also happens to be the Deputy Speakernow— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Very awkward! Mr Conroy interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 An unusual twist; it is a bit awkward, as the member for Charlton says. However, I have not deluded myself into thinking this Abbott government— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 I am sure you will not reflect on the chair. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Of course not, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not deluded myself into thinking the Abbott government have been unquestionably good for small business. They destroyed confidence with that first budget; that is a fact. You can see it in the various business surveys. They originally abolished the instant asset write-off—a policy that I was proud to work on, with the member for Charlton and others. They knocked off the accelerated depreciation of motor vehicles. All these things were very damaging for confidence, investor confidence and small business confidence in our community. So when the member for Hughes and his colleagues go around patting themselves on the back for their small business policy, let us not forget that they are celebrating reinstating Labor policy. When the member for Hughes was up that end of the chamber, rather than at this end of the chamber, he was talking about these disastrous socialist Labor policies. These are the policies that the government have just copied in the most recent budget and they want to be congratulated for it. They abolished them, they reinstated them in an inferior form and they now want to be congratulated for this triumph of public policy making by reinstating the policies that the member for Hughes, in the last half an hour, described as disastrous. Their political approach to small business, the way that they have created such uncertainty in the small business sector and the economy really says it all. That is especially true, I think, when it comes to green businesses. In my electorate there is a small but growing band of renewable energy and green businesses, which are small. They will one day be big, because they understand something that the government does not and that is that renewable energy is a tremendous source of jobs and investment into the future. I want to support those renewable energy companies—those green companies—in my electorate, particularly the smaller ones. Labor has a wide-ranging approach. We will deliver the NBN. We will support small businesses in the renewable sector. We will lower the small business tax rate to 25 per cent, down from 30, and we will develop a culture of innovation in this country, because we want an economy that is powered by the aspirations, the creativity, the ideas and the hard work of all the small businesses which make our economy stronger than it would otherwise be. 19:58 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Tonight I rise to strongly support the member for Forde's motion. There is no doubt that small business has been and continues to be the enduring focus and priority of this government. I am particularly conscious of the challenges and opportunities for small businesses in the far north where our economy includes tourism; agriculture and food; mining; manufacturing, especially shipbuilding and maintenance; marine services and sea freight; and commercial fishing and general aviation services. More recently, we have seen a very significant increase in arts and also in some of the very successful fashion designs. In the Cairns region there are over 23,000 registered businesses, with 63 per cent located in Cairns itself. Micro to small, and small to medium businesses, account for 85 per cent of Cairns' commerce and the vast majority of jobs. They are a vital contribution to the growth regional product in Far North Queensland, of $12.3 billion or 4.6 per cent of Queensland's gross state product. Coming from a region where small business is the engine room of our economy, the measures outlined in the government's 2015 budget are certainly game changers. Our Growing Jobs and Small Business package is the biggest economic recognition of the sector in Australia's history. I would like to outline, if I could, a few of the key measures. With the lowering of the corporate tax rates from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent for small businesses with annual turnovers under $2 million, small businesses will face their lowest company tax since 1967. Up to 780,000 companies around Australia are going to benefit from this measure. The government will also provide a five per cent tax discount to unincorporated businesses with annual turnover of less than $2 million from 1 July 2015. In addition, we will provide accelerated depreciation arrangements for small businesses and primary producers. All small businesses will get an immediate tax deduction for any individual assets that they buy costing less than $20,000. This is a significant increase in the threshold and massive gain to cash flow for small businesses. The local feedback to these measures has been very positive. In the Cairns Post in May 2015 there was a comment that: The alliance of Cairns Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Tropical North Queensland and Advance Cairns welcomed a 1.5 per cent tax reduction as a win for employers and job seekers. The Cairns Chamber of Commerce CEO, Deb Hancock, is quoted as saying: All those kinds of initiatives count when you’re considering growth and expansion and putting on new employees, so that will be a saving that people can apply. On the same day, Cairns carpenter Stephen Sondergeld said that he was pleased with the prospect of lower taxes for small business. This aspiring builder and employer is currently undertaking a certificate IV in building. He said gaining such a qualification is a significant investment, and that the government's immediate implementation of lower taxes was certainly a good sign. It is not just about taxes, though. We are encouraging start-ups and entrepreneurship to fuel investment for jobs in the future. We are certainly cutting red tape so that businesses can focus more on growing and developing new ideas. We are also helping job seekers into work. We are also putting in place a youth employment strategy. While we are on the issue of helping small businesses, there has been a lot of scaremongering from Labor about changes in penalty rates. The Productivity Commission is not recommending any change to overtime, all-night work or shift penalty rates. The Productivity Commission has asked that the Fair Work Commission take into account some further evidence with respect to Sunday penalty rates in some service industries. The government will carefully consider the final report on any recommendations. Ms Chesters 249710 Shame! Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Let me tell you, as it stands at the moment in the tourism industry when you see cafes and others that are having to shut on public holidays and Sundays, the employer gets nothing out of it whatsoever because they cannot afford to open their doors. I think that this is a win not only for small business but also for those people who are relying on that employment. It is much better for those businesses to operate and employ people on those days rather than be forced to shut their doors and go broke because they are not able to do it. Mr Frydenberg FKL And young people too! Mr ENTSCH 7K6 They are all young people. Lots and lots of young people. I think if there is a good case for sensible and fair change this will be clearly outlined and will be taken to the next level. From a personal view, I certainly support change in weekend penalty rates— (Time expired) 20:03 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Like the other speakers in this House, I too am proud to support the motion that is before us, because it is an endorsement of former Labor government policy—policy that I was very proud to support when it was rolled out. This was good, solid Labor policy which acknowledged the important role that our small businesses play and which gave them the incentives to invest and grow. Can you imagine the shock upon the election of a government that pretends to be the government of small business—they pretend to be the party of small business—when they rolled back these reforms? In their first budget they smashed them and they slashed them. They argued that they were worthless reforms. They backed down on good reforms that helped small business. In my electorate, like most electorates, there is a strong network of small businesses. In Bendigo and in regional Victoria, we have a lot of small businesses working hard not just to employ people but also to provide the goods and services that our communities need. On this year's budget night, the government realised the error of their mistakes and reinstated the Labor reforms—the Labor government reforms. We are quite proud to stand here tonight again to put on the record that we supported them when we were in government and we support them again today, like we did on budget night. The fact is that the Labor Party is the party for small business, and the Labor Party has always been the party for small business. We resent the fact that those opposite stand up and claim to be the party of small business. They are not. They have never employed somebody in small business and spoken to them about a fair wage. They have never grown up in a small business and known what it is like to sacrifice your Saturdays and Sundays to work. They have never really owned a small business. They try to claim that they do, but really they are here to champion only one end of town—that is not the small business end of town and that is not the people who work for small businesses; that is just the Canberra end of town and that is just the big business end of town. I am one of those people who proudly stands before you to say I grew up in a small business. I grew up in a second-hand furniture store which today probably would not exist, because of cheap imports that have been dumped on our market. I worked on Saturdays. It is where I learned how to count money. Our family really looked forward to Sundays, because Sunday was the day off. We were in a tourist area. We were on the Sunshine Coast, and we would close on Sundays. It was the family day. Mr Frydenberg FKL It was your choice, though! Ms CHESTERS 249710 That is exactly right. We closed on the Sunday and that was the day on which we celebrated as a family and we made that choice. Businesses today still have that choice. But what I resent about what this government is doing, and what I resent about what the Productivity Commission is doing, is that rather than taking on a debate about reform or about the Fair Work Act they are trying to hide behind a few regional small businesses and behind cafes. They are trying to make the debate about a start on workplace reform not in this parliament, not at the big business end of town and not in the Fair Work Commission. They are trying to make it in the small cafes in regional communities. They are trying to say, 'This cafe will open if we cut penalty rates.' They are trying to say, 'This small retailer will open if we cut penalty rates.' It is just not true. It is wrong that the government continue to use small business, bully small business and make small business a puppet, saying, 'This is why we are pushing reform.' It is wrong that the government are doing this—just what small business in my electorate are saying during this debate. Some speakers on this motion have mentioned Defence procurement, and I am proud to stand here and say that Bendigo—Josh, are you listening?—makes the Bushmaster. We are proud of the fact that we manufacture the Bushmaster. Mr Frydenberg FKL Good on you. I am proud of it. I am proud of it. Ms CHESTERS 249710 There are 120 small businesses that feed into the manufacture of the Bushmaster. And we are ready to get on and build the Hawkei. But why won't this government secure those 120 small businesses and sign the Hawkei contract so that those small businesses can continue to secure work, going forward? This government, if it were serious about small business, would have a genuine defence manufacturing policy where contracts were signed that saw work tomorrow, not in a decade's time—tomorrow. If this government were serious about small business, it would own up to the fact that this is good Labor Party policy that it is adopting here today and it would actually do right by small businesses, rather than dividing them from their workers. Debate adjourned. Gastroenterological Disorders 84 20:08 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) chronic gastroenterological disorders affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians; (b) inflammatory bowel diseases affect 61,000 people, including 28,000 suffering from Crohn's disease and 33,000 with ulcerative colitis; (c) inflammatory bowel disease often develops between the ages of 15 and 30, but it can start at any age; increasingly it is being seen in children; (d) it is estimated that 120,000 Australians have the functional gut motility disorder gastroparesis; and (e) gastroenterological disorders require urgent attention; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) address funding to patient support, medical research and treatment in gastroenterological disorders; and (b) consider the call by the University of Western Sydney to establish an Australian Translational Gastroenterology Centre to:    (i) facilitate community awareness of gastroenterological disorders across Australia through community workshops, seminars and symposiums;    (ii) promote support for gastrointestinal disorders at hospitals and primary health networks across Australia;    (iii) develop a gut tissue bank for research;    (iv) initiate and maintain a patient registry of gastrointestinal disorders; and    (v) support local strategies to enhance treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in rural and remote areas and in Indigenous populations. Through this motion, I seek to raise awareness of gastrointestinal disorders, including Crohn's disease, all of them commonly known as 'gut disorders'. These are diseases of which many people are largely unaware, but, for the hundreds of thousands of Australians who suffer these illnesses, and for their families, they are very real. The people affected generally suffer in silence due to the perceived stigma associated with these disorders that obviously can also involve the disturbance of basic bodily functions. Crohn's disease causes inflammation of the full thickness of the bowel wall and can occur in any part of the gastrointestinal tract. I have become acutely aware of Crohn's disease ever since my grandson Nathaniel was diagnosed with it two years ago. Crohn's, along with being on the autism spectrum, is a lot for this 13-year-old to handle. Inflammatory bowel disease often develops in people between the ages of 15 to 30, but it is increasingly presenting itself in children. Essentially, gastrointestinal or GI motility is responsible for digestion—the movement of food from the mouth through the oesophagus, stomach and intestines and bowel, all of which can feature in gut disorders. The GI motility clinic at the University of Western Sydney regularly sees children and young people with non-specific gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. The effects, particularly on young people, can be quite debilitating, impacting their education and stopping young people from fully enjoying social activities during their formative years, as well as affecting their prospects of employment. The annual cost of managing inflammatory bowel disease is substantial. A recent study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the total cost to the community is in the vicinity of $100 million annually. Much of the cost can be attributed to delayed diagnosis as well of suboptimal medical therapy, whereas the loss of economic productivity attributable to inflammatory bowel disease in Australia is estimated to be over $360 million. I would like to pay tribute to the researchers, clinicians and advocates who are working hard to increase awareness of these diseases in the community and who are helping sufferers of these debilitating diseases. In particular, I acknowledge Dr Vincent Ho, Director of the GI Motility Disorders Unit at the University of Western Sydney, along with his colleagues Elie Hammam and Jennifer Greer; and, from Crohn's Awareness Australia, Josie Furfaro, Sam Romeo, Angelo Romeo, Melina Gerace and Cathy Gullo. I also take the time to acknowledge the Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Western Sydney, Professor Annemarie Hennessy, for her strong support for research and treatment of gut disorders. I would like to share a poem written by a very special young woman in my electorate, Ashley Allum, herself a sufferer of a disorder known as gastroparesis, but she is a very committed advocate for fellow gut-disorder sufferers. She wrote: Over three years ago my life had changed, Just like that, my diet had to be drastically rearranged. Felt like a cold that comes on real quick, Just woke up one morning feeling incredibly sick. No words can describe how this feels, When all I can eat are very small meals. To go from feeling healthy to oh so sick the next. This unknown illness seems to have everyone completely perplexed. Pain, nausea and fullness too, These are the words that describe my illness to you. Others less fortunate than Ashley often go undiagnosed for years, as there is a distinct lack of awareness about chronic gastroenterological conditions, even in parts of the medical community. I praise the work conducted by UWS and I support their quest to establish a patient registry as well as a centre that would serve as a gut-tissue bank for the purposes of research. Such a centre would allow national collaborative research between clinicians and scientists on this issue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 I thank the member for Fowler for raising this important issue. Is the motion seconded? 20:14 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I second the motion. I thank the member for Fowler for bringing this really important motion to the parliament. I must say that I am disappointed that there is no member from the other side speaking on this motion. Maybe they did not understand quite what it was about but this illness or this gut disorder affects hundreds of thousands of Australians and it impacts on their life in so many different ways. The member for Fowler has a grandson who has Crohn's disease. Crohn's disease is a very debilitating disease. People do not know how they will feel from one day to the next. I think it is really important that we as a parliament get our heads around diseases such as Crohn's disease, colitis and all the other gastrointestinal diseases that affect people's lives. A person living with a gastrointestinal disease has to struggle each day to live a seminormal life. For instance, they struggle with their education. It impacts on their ability to study and achieve at school because in so many instances they miss an inordinate amount of school. They have trouble participating in sport, once again because they do not know how they are going to feel from one day to the next. It really does affect them. As far as work is concerned, people that have Crohn's disease or have any severe or significant gastrointestinal disorder miss work. I have had constituents come and talk to me about the impact that it has on their employment and the way they have had to struggle to maintain employment or to actually have any sort of employment whatsoever. It even impacts upon a person's social life. I had a constituent visit me a couple of weeks ago. She had to cancel a previous appointment. She said: 'I am terribly sorry but I could not come last week because I have Crohn's disease and I was having a really bad day. I could not leave the house.' Many of these bowel conditions actually impact on a person's ability to do anything. Crohn's disease is a common inflammatory bowel disease. Crohn's disease causes inflammation in the bowels of people who are living with it. The inflammation can be anywhere along the digestive tract. Just imagine how this impacts on a person's ability to lead a normal life. The symptoms can be abdominal pain, diarrhoea—which is one of the effects that people find most difficult to live with—fever and weight loss. It can affect people of all ages and I think the member for Fowler touched on that aspect of it. Ulcerative colitis is a type of inflammation of the bowel and it develops in the large intestine. Symptoms include, once again, diarrhoea and internal bleeding—all things that make a person nervous about leaving home, all symptoms and effects that really impact upon a person's life. There are many other gastrointestinal disorders, such as diverticulitis, but they all impact on a person. More research is needed. We need to get behind it in this House. I am pleased to see Dr Gillespie here in the House and I know that he is an expert in this area. I am pleased to see the government is supporting the motion of the member for Fowler because it is an excellent motion. 20:19 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak about this very important issue of inflammatory bowel disease. The two common forms are Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. I would like to say that I support this motion in general, although I might modify some of the subpoints and bring to the House the fact that some of these issues are already being addressed. In general, I think this is an excellent motion and deserves support. I congratulate the member for Fowler and the member for Shortland for saying what they have said. Unfortunately, inflammatory bowel disease is a common disease. It is just that people do not talk about it when you see them at the pub or at a cafe. You do not walk up and say, 'I have got this chronic condition with my guts that leads to a great deal of morbidity and a lot of drug treatment, and often surgery.' It is not a thing that you talk about publicly. But it is out there and I have spent the last couple of decades of my medical life treating people with this distressing condition, which fortunately now has much more effective treatments available. The federal government and previous governments before this coalition government have supported and continue to support the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease through the Medicare Benefits Schedule, which supports rebates for endoscopic procedures for assessment by specialist surgeons and gastroenterologists and through a general practitioner who are all part of the treatment team. It also supports the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the specialised drugs and the biological agents, which have been game changers in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease—namely, infliximab and adalimumab. Also, the radiological investigations now are so much more advanced such as PillCams, which are microscopic cameras that you swallow, and MRIs that define fistulas and abscesses, which are an ugly part of Crohn's disease. The motion calls on support for a couple of initiatives. The University of Western Sydney is establishing a translational gastroenterology centre. That seems like a good idea, although there are a lot of other research institutions already trying to do translational research. The concept of focusing it in one new dedicated centre deserves consideration. Like all things, it costs money. At the moment, our role is to manage money wisely. There is also a tissue bank, for the genetics of inflammatory bowel disease, and a patient registry of inflammatory bowel disease has been organised out of Melbourne. Many practitioners do report to it, particularly in the paediatrics space. If there is some way of coordinating all these data collection points into an Australia-wide databank, that would existentially be a great idea because it is these tissue banks and genetic banks that the researchers can look at to pick apart the puzzle of inflammatory bowel disease. There are many genes involved in inflammatory bowel disease, not just one, and tissue banks and data accumulation are gold for researchers. Many countries, for example in Scandinavia, have huge nationalised databanks. We have a hybrid system where we have private practitioners treating it, we have academic centres treating it, we have salaried people treating it, we have surgeons treating it, we have gastroenterologists treating it and we have immunologists treating it. If we put all that data together, it can only help the relentless quest for knowledge about what genes actually trigger it and what cofactors trigger those genes to activate and manifest the disease in people. There are many good points in this motion. It is rare that I get something that is right up my historical alley. I have worked in the corridors of power in other areas, and it is refreshing to see that people in this House are taking an interest in a specific disease that is not really sexy. As I said, most people keep this disease at home, or just between their doctors and themselves. I support the motion. 20:25 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman It is always a pleasure to speak on health related matters in this chamber. We need to remember the health sector is now the largest employer in the country, the fastest growing area of social spending and in particular, as we start to recognise diseases such GIT-related conditions—something that has not been a health priority—we need to look more carefully at whether we are giving appropriate emphasis to them. Of course speaking after a gastrointestinal surgeon is a bit of a challenge, but the eye surgeon will give it a red-hot go. I should say that through my medical training I missed a couple of days of lectures, and I probably missed the lecture on gut and that may have left a permanent scar on my medical training. But I do not think I would ever swap my profession for Mr Gillespie's—nonetheless, adding to his speech will be challenging. In essence, of course we support issues like those raised in this motion, but we are also mindful that we do have, in the end, to rely on a research system that is based on merit and we need to be able to assess the quality of research and fund it accordingly. Any move where we begin to carve out money and commit it to particular disease groups does have some effect by redirecting money from potentially more productive causes. In the end we can only rely on experts to tell us the research that has been proposed by those who have the highest impact in the field, those who have the strongest records in the area and those who are doing the most promising research. That is one area. The other one, of course, is just looking after patients. Gastrointestinal disease is something no-one wants to talk about. Self-evidently, there are 120,000 people suffering functional gut motility disorders in this country but how many people have you met in the street who have come up and told you exactly what their symptoms are? It is very hard to get men, in particular, and older men, to talk about this area of medicine. My training from the 1980s was predominantly about deciphering whether gastrointestinal disorders were just functional problems—sometimes we are born with a gut that causes us problems—but increasingly we understand the role of diet, we understand the role of behaviour, we understand the role of genetics and we understand the specific immunological impacts of gastrointestinal disease. Let us not forget that we have already seen a Nobel Prize won by an Australian who identified that one of the most severe gastrointestinal concerns was related to a bacteria, after decades of our simply trying to treat it with neutralising compounds and antacids. We have not talked about gastric reflux yet, but an even larger cohort of Australians suffer that and they have been offered very few options either through cutting edge research or investment in patient support. Traditionally this parliament has said that patient support is very much a state-related issue. Well, times are changing and previous governments have seen a greater focus on federal preventative health care. Now the reality is that the feds are in the game, and once you are there you cannot get out of it. We do need to be able to have a specific discussion with leading teaching hospitals around the country about what support we are giving to patients with chronic disease. I do believe that 10 years from now we will look back on the way we have supported people with gastrointestinal conditions and say that we did not do well enough and that providing just a small amount of additional support would have had an incredible impact. The question of impact is a matter for local providers. With a sense of subsidiary, I want to see those decisions made by the primary health care networks. I want to see their performance in managing gastrointestinal disease measured. How can we reduce the recurrent admission of people with gastrointestinal disease, save hospitals money, liberate some resources and refund preventive health care? I do not want to state the obvious, but to fund our health system, like the rest of our social system, we do not just rely on tax—we borrow from overseas, from China and the Middle East, to fund our hospital system. We know that is not sustainable and that has been the core of intense debate in this place. To get the health system right we have to have every lever pushing towards the most efficient hospital and public health system we can build, and we do not have that yet. We are not even close to that yet. Before we start proposing additional spending, I want those who think about public health to confine their thoughts to how we save the money to invest in this area. When a motion like this comes to this chamber I ask where is the money going to come from. The answer has to be more efficient acute care—not paying ridiculous amounts of money to have people in public hospitals when they can be perfectly managed by highly skilled general practitioners. Let us come right back to that GP-centred system. They need to be given all the power they can have to look after their gastrointestinal patients with the resources, the money and the time that that they deserve. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 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. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group 87 20:30 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass I move: That this House: (1) recognises: (a) the release of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (Advisory Group) report, 'Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers' on 13 February 2015; (b) that the Advisory Group, comprised of eight educational experts, was established in 2014 to provide the best possible informed advice and guidance on how teacher education could be improved to better prepare new teachers for the classroom; (c) that the credentials, expertise and contribution of the Advisory Group was of world-class quality; (d) that the Advisory Group conducted its review with consistent impartiality, dedication and objectivity, to the benefit of all Australians; (e) the critical contribution made by this report to optimising teacher development for all Australian schools of the 21st century; and (f) the truly comprehensive and wide ranging nature of the Advisory Group's investigation and subsequent report; (2) acknowledges that: (a) this report is both far ranging and innovative and includes a total of 38 key recommendations; (b) the recommendations have at their core a central unifying element and thread—the educational interests of children, first, foremost and always; (c) current and new teachers should also welcome this report, which will further enable and support both individual teachers and school communities as a whole, in both the foreseeable future, and over the longer term; (d) overall, this report will affect constructively, the lives of a majority of Australians, including most particularly teachers, parents and students; (e) the impact of this report will be impartial in nature, being blind to both the demographic and economic circumstances of teachers, parents and students, alike; (f) this report:    (i) is underpinned by both balance and merit, for example, it readily acknowledges the existence of both current high performing teacher performance and contribution, as well as identifying the need and scope for other performance to be significantly improved, together with a range of mechanisms and strategies to achieve this key objective; and    (ii) will act to further affirm the significance and centrality of school education within Australian society; (g) by improving overall teacher performance, this report will likely support the retention of more students at school for longer, including most desirably, the completion of Year 12 by as many students as possible; and (h) this report:    (i) will exert a long term and positive impact on current and future Australian workplaces and work performance; and    (ii) signals the intended ongoing future emphasis which the Government will continue to give to education and education related matters, for the benefit of all Australians, in an increasingly competitive region and world; and (3) calls on the Parliament to endorse the Government's strong response to implementing this report as both a key milestone and critical policy initiative in shaping Australian school education and performance (for both teachers and students) for the early 2lst century. At the heart of this motion is a desire to ensure that this parliament works to improve educational outcomes in Australia. It is a consistent message from the Abbott government, led by the member for Sturt, and reflects a deep commitment to our Students First policy. The four pillars of that policy focus on areas we know affect student outcomes: increasing school autonomy; ensuring a robust and relevant curriculum; promoting parental involvement in their children's learning; and improving the quality of teachers. This motion reflects that last pillar, directed at lifting the quality and consistency of teaching courses in Australia, because doing so helps provide the world-class education that every Australian child deserves. That laudable outcome explains why Minister Pyne has agreed to the majority of recommendations to improve the content and delivery of teacher courses in Australia, which were made by the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group or TEMAG. This advisory group focused on the need for better integration, quality assurance, evidence and transparency in teacher education and the report's recommendations centre on those four principles. TEMAG noted that there was a high degree of variability in the quality of initial teacher education across Australia. They identified examples of excellent practice—good programs linked to continuous review and improvement. However, they also identified significant pockets of poor practice, where we can and must do better. A clear finding arising from the TEMAG report is the need to ensure we strengthen quality programs in relation to initial teacher education. Providers of that education must work assiduously to improve the preparedness of new teachers. The TEMAG recommendations are practical, achievable and have the real potential to make a real impact on quality of teachers and student outcomes in Australia. There is an old saying that 'strategy without resources is illusion'. That is why in the 2015-16 budget, we are providing $16.9 million over the forward estimates to support the implementation of the government's response to the TEMAG recommendations. I will briefly highlight four key initiatives: first, establishing stronger accreditation processes for teacher education courses; second, ensuring a rigorous selection process to assist in determining applicant suitability for teaching; third, providing an assessment framework to ensure all teacher education graduates are classroom ready; and, fourth, having a national research effort into the effectiveness of initial teacher education and workforce data to back it up. We believe our efforts will make a real and positive difference to the training of our teachers and to the effects they achieve in the classroom. One key component of our response includes a literacy and numeracy test for initial teacher education students, which Minister Pyne announced on 28 June 2015. A pilot literacy and numeracy test for initial teaching students is available from this month for up to 5000 students across seven capital cities and two regional locations. In testing key aspects of an aspiring teacher's literacy and numeracy, we help higher education providers, teacher employers and the general public to have confidence in the skills of graduating teachers. I am very pleased to report that the first round of 2500 tests to be held later this month is already fully subscribed. Students are keen to do this test, because they want to graduate with the best possible preparation for the classroom. I am also pleased to inform the House that a further 1200 students are on the waiting list for the second round of 2500 tests to be held in September. The test will help them identify their own literacy and numeracy capabilities and where they might need to improve. It is an important step to ensure that teaching graduates can step more confidently from university into the classroom. Over the next two years, the government expects to see the majority of our response to the TEMAG report implemented and the foundations for change in initial teacher education established. Unlike some previous reviews of initial teacher education, the practical and implementable solutions presented in this report create a significant point of difference. Success as always will require all parties to work together—governments, universities, systems, schools and our colleagues across the chamber. I acknowledge in particular the positive comments from the member for Port Adelaide in supporting this program. Our approach is affordable, implementable and focused on the urgent need to deliver enduring, practical policies that improve our education system. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Is the motion seconded? 20:35 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I second the motion. 20:36 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth There are quite a number of things that I agree on with the Minister for Education about education and teacher training. We certainly share a view that pedagogy is very important and we share a view that there has been a lack of evidence based teaching in relation to the selection of various pedagogies. I want to commend, as I have done before in this House, the minister's preparedness to fund direct instruction in Aboriginal communities. He has given funding to the Cape York Academy to roll this program out across remote Aboriginal communities, including those in Western Australia. I also support, in part, the principle of school autonomy. It does unleash some potential to do a much better job, but I have to say that it is a bit of a mantra that has been uncritically imported from a very different educational system in the United States. It is perhaps not as significant here in Australia. It is important that we look at teacher education. The evidence from around the world is overwhelming. Study after study tells us that the ability and training of teachers is absolutely critical for us to be able to lift the general standard of education. Research is showing us that the academic ability and the qualifications of entrants are critical in selection of teachers for a number of reasons. It is showing that there is a strong relationship between their scores on verbal ability and scholastic aptitude and their eventual teaching effectiveness. This is what the research is showing us. The minister stalled at the hurdle. We share many of the principles and the views based on research from around the world from high-performing jurisdictions, be it Singapore or Finland, that tells us that the entry levels and the academic ability of students when they enter teacher training is absolutely critical. Minister Pyne, unfortunately, has baulked at the hurdle. He has chosen to appoint Professor Greg Craven from the Australian Catholic University as the person to oversee this review. I have personal regard for Professor Craven, but I have to say that the position of the Australian Catholic University as one of those institutions that is prepared to bolt feed people through its system in its pursuit of Commonwealth supported places is regrettable. We are currently training around twice as many teachers as can get jobs. We are spending over $10,000 per student per year to train people as teachers, and over half of those people are not getting jobs. There are a number of universities that are feeding people through and taking people through with very low ATAR scores or not requiring ATAR scores and using psychometric tests which have been demonstrated to be unreliable indicators of a person’s ability to become an effective teacher. We are literally wasting hundreds of millions of dollars each year training people who are unlikely to become effective teachers. We have such a challenge facing us. When our PISA performance is decreasing and our NAPLAN performances are not what they should be, for us to be wasting so much money putting people through teacher training programs at universities who are unlikely to ever become highly effective teachers is cruel, in my view. We need to change direction here. We need to bite the bullet and say, 'We want to restore prestige to teaching.' Part of that is ensuring we demand a high standard of academic achievement and academic attainment before someone enters into training as a teacher. We are not just missing an opportunity; we are spending so much taxpayer money— (Time expired) 20:41 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I rise in support of the motion acknowledging the release of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group report. I thank the member for Bass for raising this matter in parliament. Having well-trained and knowledgeable teachers is the foundation point for a strong, high-quality education system. Driving positive student outcomes through superior teaching can only enhance and highlight Australia's commitment to and support for our education system throughout the world. This report will go a long way in boosting teacher development to the benefit of all involved in education nationwide. Providing a starting point and the means to move forward and begin the implementation of change, this report is designed to have a positive impact on our children's education. I acknowledge that there are outstanding teachers and support staff who will, no doubt, welcome the report's suggested recommendations, with education outcomes for students at the forefront of the report's focus. Investing in teacher development at the beginning of teacher training is an investment in our ongoing commitment to the provision of quality education in our schools. This is why the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Christopher Pyne, has agreed to the majority of the recommendations—to improve the content and delivery of teacher education courses in Australia. Positive changes from the implementation of these recommendations will directly impact on teachers, both current and future, and our students will reap the benefits. It is important to note a success of this report was ensuring the demographics and economic circumstances of teachers, students and parents were not a negative factor. This report is not pointing the finger at people in their role as teachers. The role of teacher is one of the most important in our community. Teachers play an instrumental role in our children's wellbeing and in shaping the future. This report is about identifying ways to make Australian teacher education a high priority focus and to assist and support improvements in teacher education in Australia. Achieving a balance between the academic and practical skills of teachers in our schools will produce an education system designed to hold a central place in Australian society. This is why, as part of the 2015-16 budget, the government is providing $16.9 million over the forward estimates to support the implementation of the report's recommendations. Schools play a pivotal role in the developmental process of children. In my role I am privileged to visit many schools in my electorate to witness the outstanding work undertaken by dedicated teachers in Dobell. Last week I attended Brooke Avenue Public School and Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College in Tumbi Umbi to experience firsthand how the school community is working with the AVID program. The AVID program aims to instil children with the skills to enable them to achieve goals they might not have thought possible. Part of this program is ensuring teachers have the necessary skills to educate students on how to aspire and progress to attending university. It was great to be advised by the acting principal, Owen Dalkeith, and his dedicated team at Brooke Avenue Public School that already they are noticing a positive difference in the mindset and attitude to learning of students engaged in this program. In my electorate of Dobell the youth unemployment rate sits at 16.4 per cent. We have a year 12 retention rate of only 47 per cent and this is totally unacceptable. With the recommendations of this report being implemented and with continued support by the government I am looking forward to seeing positive changes to these rates. It is important to remember that the quality of teaching starts with those who enter teaching, the training they are provided and the support they receive. It is important that we equip our next generation of teachers with the valuable tools required to achieve high-quality outcomes in both their education and the education of their future students. We are fortunate that in Dobell we have many committed and passionate teachers who consistently strive for the best for their students. The implementation of the practical and achievable recommendations suggested in this report can only expand on the potential to make a real impact on the quality of teaching and student outcomes. The investment of training in regards to teacher development will no doubt improve the quality of teaching overall. I welcome this report and I look forward to seeing the benefits come to fruition in my electorate of Dobell. I commend this motion to the House. 20:46 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to join this debate and, obviously given my history, welcome any debate in this place about national education. I welcome the member for Bass's interest in education and I wonder where the Minister for Education is tonight while we are having this debate. I wonder because I am really interested in what he has to say about this, given that this report basically existed in 2011. Attached to the report is the AITSL Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia 105-page report that was released in April 2011. It is not a surprise that the minister is reissuing things that already exist, work that has already been done, like he is doing with the curriculum review this week. We had an exhaustive, extensive curriculum review. We had consultations across this country in every state with educators and researchers and we came up with a national curriculum. This minister has politicised that national curriculum once again. I remind the House of what former Prime Minister John Howard had to say about it being so important for history to be taught as a stand-alone subject. This is something that our national review found and something that was in the national curriculum that this Minister for Education and his handpicked panel members have decided to scrap without consultation. Prime Minister Howard said that it is quite shameful that in some parts of Australia and in some schools the teaching of Australian history is no longer a stand-alone subject. Well here we are again with the minister from the Liberal Party completely showing disregard for the subject of history in our classrooms. It is not surprising that Minister Pyne has clearly forgotten his history. In bringing this motion forward the member for Bass has demonstrated that he does not know his history—or he would understand the work that has been done in education at a national level across the last decade. But not in this chamber and not on this day. We are going backwards. Let us look at why we are talking about this. Why are we talking about it? We are talking about education because the differences between teacher performance and student outcomes are as variable between classrooms in the same school as they are between schools. We are talking about education across this decade because we have had to address that, we have had to look at it. We had the review and we have got the answers and now we are redoing the work—claiming work done previously. The notion of increasing the potential of teachers going into the profession is an important one, but the work has already been done. Of course we need to ensure that we have national standards—that work has been done before. Of course we need rigor. I welcome that the report sees teaching—and this is critical—not just as academic achievement but also as personal attributes. Too often the debate about teacher performance and teacher education gets boiled down to a lack of subject knowledge. This is simplistic and misleading. Teaching is complex: it requires high intelligence, high subject knowledge, high emotional intelligence, the ability to collaborate, the ability to reflect, creativity, scientific thinking and scientific method. It is just as important that a teacher understands how a variety of people learn particular subject matter as it is that they know about the subject matter. Teachers know this and they are waiting for this government to figure it out. One of the most important things going forward in teacher education that I would like to put on the table in this chamber is not just preservice education but the ongoing education of our teachers in our schools. Improving teacher performance is about purposeful schools, purposeful classrooms and purposeful systems. It is about teachers having scientific method in the classroom reflecting on their performance, reflecting on their student outcomes and getting better and better at the work they do. 20:51 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I am very pleased to speak on this motion and I congratulate the member for Bass for bringing this private member's motion forward. I also acknowledge the passion that the member for Lalor has for education in this place. The member for Bass knows the importance of education. He knows the importance of education to our economy and the importance of education to our society more broadly. He also understands the importance of education to the families and particularly the individuals concerned and the empowering nature of education. He knows many factors impact on students getting a quality education. These include many and varied things such as the autonomy within schools of the principal to make decisions at a local level and not be dictated to by the department, as the case might be. It is also about parental engagement. It is about having parents who are actively involved in the way that the school is run. This has been demonstrated to be an important component. We have talked a little bit about the curriculum and, indeed, the review that was conducted. The work that has been done in that space is important, but the most important factor of all is teacher quality. I think all of us instinctively know this, but the data supports it. High-quality teacher education is a feature of top-performing systems globally. It is a key pillar of our Students First policy. We all can speak from personal experience. I think of the teachers who have been in my life and I still remember the points that they made. I think of Ted Roberts, Caroline Sangston, Fran Morris and Chris Peat. I think of the great teachers who have left a mark and continue to leave a mark on my two boys. I think of Selwyn Church, Mark Webster, Robyn Russell, Nick Clements, John Badenhagen, Scott Watson and Helen Swiggs. Within the electorate of Lyons I have discussed the experience and passion educationalists have for their vocation. Their skills should be recognised. I think of Andy Bennett from Dodges Ferry, Di Guilbert from Evandale, Annette Hollingsworth formerly of Cressy, Robyn Story from Jordan River Services, Phil Wells from Glenora, Ted Barrance from Tasman District School, Lisa Neubecker from Bicheno, Jenny Bryan from Longford, Lee Craw from Perth, Roseanne McDade from Sorell, Jeanagh Viney from Deloraine, Maree Pinnington from Exeter, Sharon Gee from Avoca and Annette Parker from Triabunna. I apologise to those that I missed. The 2015-16 budget has $16.9 million over the forward estimates to respond to the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group report to establish stronger accreditation processes for teacher education courses, a rigorous selection process to assist in determining applicants' suitability for teaching, an assessment framework to ensure all teacher education graduates are classroom-ready and a national research program into the effectiveness of initial teacher education and workforce data. The minister has delivered a timely and decisive response to provide an opportunity to make a real difference to teacher training. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, AITSL, is pivotal in implementing the government's response to the report. The AITSL board's profile has shifted from a representative structure to an expert based board. Seven members have extensive classroom teaching experience and two are currently still working in schools. It is a positive move by Minister Pyne, delivering the right mix of academic and practical skills needed in the classroom. Lessons and outcomes from the advisory group report, Action now: classroom ready teachers, and the subsequent government response are targeted at the identified need to ensure all initial teacher education programs and providers strengthen quality standards to better equip new teachers for a role as important as any in our communities—indeed, the education of our children. Tasmanian high schools, from year 10 to year 12, will need the tools to support the teachers as year 12 becomes the norm rather than the exception. Indeed, we need principal autonomy, parental engagement and a robust curriculum, but most important is teacher quality. 20:56 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the motion about the government's response to the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group's report, Action now: classroom ready teachers. I do so having been a schoolteacher for 11 years. I taught English and geography, but also a little bit of history, science and even religion. I understand the importance of properly trained teachers, of teachers who are capable of inspiring the next generation. Now more than ever, this nation needs them. There are many challenges for teachers in the modern classroom. In the almost 20 years since I left the classroom, there have been enormous changes in society generally and in the way that information is provided in a learning environment. Back when I started, there were chalkboards and Gestetner machines. When I left, whiteboards were an innovation. Facebook did not exist and the World Wide Web was only in its infancy. When I was teaching, a tablet was something you took if you were ill and a notebook was something that you wrote in with a pen. 'Chalk and talk' was the way teaching was described and it had moved on when I left to 'squeak and speak', but obviously it has changed. If I were to re-enter the classroom, I would not know that space. There has been a complete change from the idea of 'the sage on the stage' to 'the guide on the side', using technology. Many teachers who graduated when I did are still teaching. In fact, all of my bandmates that I met at teachers college are still teaching: John Carozza; Brendan Ballinger; Sharon Weir, now Sharon Schofield; and Brendan Logan, whom I played music with regularly. I am sure my former teachers college classmates have adapted well as technology has become available, but they were not trained for the environment that they now find themselves educating in. It is imperative that improvements are made in teacher education. The Action now: classroom ready teachersreport highlights some reasonable measures for improvement to teacher training, but it does not go nearly far enough. There is nothing in that report that will take our education system to the next level for the next century. This, sadly, is a missed opportunity for the government to do real reform to our education system. The Abbott government do not really care about our education system. We saw them promising one thing before the election about the Gonski commitment and delivered something completely different. They talked about improving teacher training at the same time as they ripped $30 billion out of the education system. Queensland will be nearly $7 billion worse off. Think of classroom sizes and the good that could be done. Labor is committed to education reform. For us, Gonski is a policy, not a political tactic. Labor is committed to establishing a STEM teacher training fund to support 25,000 primary and secondary school teachers over five years to undertake professional development in STEM disciplines: science, technology, engineering and maths. Labor has committed to offering 25,000 Teach STEM scholarships over five years to address the shortage of qualified teachers. Recipients of the scholarships will receive $5,000 when they commence a teaching degree and $10,000 when they complete their first year of teaching. That is real reform. That is forward thinking. That is training teachers for now and for the future. We believe in a better next century, not dragging people back to the 1950s. Our teachers have one of the most important jobs—to create our future teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers and leaders. Most of us, if we are lucky, can remember a particular teacher that inspired us to do better, to work harder and to achieve our dreams. To name a few of mine: Annette Picking, Lorna Locke, Sue Pollock, Russell Shoring and, most importantly, Anne Reilly and Linda Noriek. I would like to hope that some of the students I taught over my 11 years of teaching were also inspired in some way. I know that there are teachers in my electorate who are inspiring students every day. Two of the schools in my electorate were named in the top five schools in Queensland from NAPLAN results published last week. St. Aidan's Anglican Girls' School was in the top five from the year 3 and year 7 results, and Sunnybank Hills State School was in the top five from the year 5 results—and many other schools did very, very well. They are wonderful schools with wonderful teachers. We need to support those teachers and all the other teachers, whether their school made it to the top five list or not. We need to arm those teachers with the skills they need now and in the future to continue to inspire. The minister does not get it. The member for Sturt, sadly, I think is a little short on principles and class when it comes to rolling out a real education plan. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 93 ADJOURNMENT Workplace Relations: Penalty rates 93 21:01 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Thank you, Mr Speaker—and I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the office of Speaker. This evening I rise to speak about the recommendations made in the recent report of the Productivity Commission, particularly concerning penalty rates. As much as the Prime Minister is trying to distance himself from the report, let us remember that it was he and his government that directed the areas of workplace relations that would be reviewed, including minimum rates, unfair dismissal and penalty rates. One of the recommendations that clearly stands out is the two-tiered approach, where Australians who are employed in retail and hospitality industries have been singled out and are likely to miss out on penalty rates for Sunday employment. The government is wrong in its assessment that workers in retail and hospitality are less valuable to the economy and not deserving of fair rates and conditions. Penalty rates are there for a specific purpose. Penalty rates are there to safeguard people who are, in many respects, some of the most vulnerable people in these industries and to protect them against exploitation. We do not want the conditions to deteriorate to the level of the United States, where workers in these industries survive on the generosity of others through tips. Consistent with these empty promises from those opposite, there is no guarantee that these cuts will not just be the first of many in respect of penalty rates. To extrapolate: is this now likely to include nurses, firefighters and police? They could be very much next on the list. After all, that is what has been suggested to those opposite in terms of where they need to go in workplace reform. If you need any proof of where those opposite stand on workers' rights, you only have to see their recent comments—that is, the endorsement of the sacking by text message of 100 waterside workers recently. Anyone who believes in justice and anyone who believes in fairness would think that that is just an abhorrence. If we have learnt anything in the past two years, it is that the government cannot be trusted on its promises not to harm Australians. They have gone back, basically, on every promise they made prior to the last election, and their record of protecting workers' rights is absolutely abysmal. We have heard the promises before—promises not to touch penalty rates and not to cut conditions for workers. But these promises came from the same people who, not so long ago, brought us Work Choices! As someone who was in this parliament in 2005 during the original Work Choices debate, I cannot help but get a sense of deja vu. Work Choices turned Australian workplaces on their heads. The coalition attacked people on minimum rates of pay. They made it legal for the very first time in our history to pay people below the award rate of pay. They opened the doors to attacks on penalty rates and overtime. They forced people to sign contracts where they were paid lower than award rates of pay—all under the guise of improving the economy and making us more productive. That is the way they tried to sell that—and there was no mandate when they brought in Work Choices! The true agenda was to create a system governing employment relationships that would place the majority of power overwhelmingly in the hands of employers, while seeking to undercut the functioning system for setting and maintaining fair wages and conditions in this country. The rhetoric is all very familiar. To some extent, this is a clear attempt at a second re-run or the start of Work Choices once again. Once again there is also this sense of the government aiming to destroy the trade union movement, making sure that the profit share of the national income continues to rise while reductions in the minimum wage would mean that the unit cost of labour will continue to fall. There is no evidence that cutting penalty rates will increase jobs or productivity. At a time when wages growth is at its lowest in 20 years, our most vulnerable workers deserve better. I come to this debate with a little experience in industrial relations, having a reasonable understanding of both sides of the employment relationship. Labor understands that business needs to operate efficiently and effectively, because job creation occurs through greater productivity. However, we will rail against legislative provisions that allow and, indeed, encourage exploitation of workers. Lindsay Electorate 94 20:06 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay My electorate of Lindsay is one of great diversity, both urban and regional. We are a place where the country meets the city, the river meets the plains and the mountains—the beautiful Blue Mountains—sit as the backdrop. The region of Lindsay, for a long time, has been one of great agricultural heritage. Suburbs like Mulgoa, Agnes Banks, Llandilo and Londonderry still bear much of these roots today—and, of course, Castlereagh, one of Governor Macquarie's original Macquarie towns. We also have a long history in the equine industry. Our heritage stems back more than a century with Grand Flaneur, winner of the 1880 Melbourne Cup, being raised at Fernhill in Mulgoa. Today we are still home to Bart Cummings's stable, where former Melbourne Cup champions like Saintly still call the region home. We are also seeing a revolution in our farming flats and our turf farms, one by one changing into the hands of some of the world's best thoroughbred studs. One of those is Darley Australia, part of Godolphin in Agnes Banks, set up by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and the highest outfit of its type in the Southern Hemisphere. Last week I visited Darley. It is an incredibly impressive facility, employing in the vicinity of 80 people, be it full time or part time, with many more supplementary jobs and with economic activity coming from this facility. Alongside Coolmore, these organisations produce 50 per cent of Australia's thoroughbred stallions. Darley Australia itself owns half of the country's top 10 sires, and more than 150 companies perform significant business with it. Racing is the third most attended sport in our country. It employs 250,000 people nationally and is worth $15 billion to the economy. Darley are one of our great success stories, but they are becoming increasingly frustrated by mining operations constantly reapplying for licences near their valuable horse operations in the Hunter and, in particular, that of their breeding stock. In particular, there is Anglo American's Drayton South project. After their mine was blocked by the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission last year, there is now a proposal for a condensed mine in the same area. I fully appreciate that the mine proposal is being dealt with at a state level. However, without certainty in the Hunter, it places massive stresses on the operation in Lindsay and the jobs and economic prosperity the operation provides to the region. There is a direct flow-on effect here, and that has the potential to affect employment and growth right across my region and Western Sydney. In Western Sydney alone, the industry employs 5,633 people, 80 of whom are working at Darley directly, but there are many secondary employers, from vets, feed companies, landscapers and curators to people looking after the farming and machinery and maintaining the three tracks they run down at Agnes Banks. In fact, the industry in Western Sydney adds $321.9 million to the economy every single year. Western Sydney produces 76 race meets and 392 races on the latest figures, with 237,411 racegoers each and every year. The point is that this is a vibrant and self-sustaining industry and an industry that is integrated and reliant on all these key regions working together and supporting each other. To quote Henry Plumptre, Managing Director of Darley Australia: 'Western Sydney has a large number of facilities that meet the spelling and pre-training requirements of nearly all major Sydney racing stables.' He continues: 'To illustrate the integrated nature of the industry across New South Wales, Sydney now has a vibrant and sought-after racing industry which attracts both domestic and international investment. The championships held around Easter each year are not just seen by the government as Sydney's answer to the Melbourne Cup but a massive boost for tourism. All aspects of the industry are co-dependent on each other.' I do not want to get into the politics tonight of the Drayton South mining project, but I do want to point out the fallout of this project that we are seeing. (Time expired) Prime Minister 94 21:11 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Today the Prime Minister had two opportunities to take our country towards a more sustainable and a more equal future. He had a chance to announce strong pollution reduction targets that guarantee the safe future for our climate, for our children, for our grandchildren and for future generations to come. He also had a chance to allow a free vote in his party to take us closer to removing discrimination from our marriage laws by allowing marriage equality. He could have taken us from the back of the pack internationally on climate change and he could have helped achieve marriage equality and remove discrimination from our laws in this country. But, instead of using his position as Prime Minister to move us towards a more sustainable and equal future, our Prime Minister has today taken this country backwards. Today the Prime Minister has thankfully signed the death warrant on this government; within a year it will be out of office, because Australians want a sustainable future and equality for themselves and their children and everyone who lives with them. The Prime Minister's pollution reduction target is a recipe for a dead planet. It sets us on track for a world warmed by three to four degrees. The analogy is with the human body. You have a narrow range of temperatures within which it can survive. If you increase it above that, you start putting the body at a huge risk. So it is with the planet. The scientists, and even the Prime Minister today, were saying that they agree we can warm the planet no more than two degrees. Well, everyone who knows what they are talking about is saying that, if every country does what this country has done today under this Prime Minister, we will be on track for a planet of three to four degrees warmer. If you want to know what that means, the scientists cannot find another city on the planet that looks like what Darwin will look like when the planet is three to four degrees warmer. We are entering a world that we have not seen before and we are entering a world that cannot sustain the same number of people that we have got now, and the Prime Minister is signing up. But, more than that, he has today shut down the possibility of a vote on marriage equality. The Prime Minister has sided with a vocal homophobic minority over the loving majority in Australia. The Prime Minister has chosen fear over love. The Prime Minister has said to the young boy in the country town who is struggling to come to grips with who he is attracted to, 'Your love is not as equal as everyone else's.' The Prime Minister has said to the girl at high school who wants to take her girlfriend to the formal, 'We do not consider your love to be as equal as everyone else's.' Never again will I want to hear from this Prime Minister that this is the party of freedom of choice, because what the Prime Minister has said is that freedom to choose stops at the bedroom door and that, if you love someone that we do not approve of, we will treat you like a second-class citizen in this country. He has gone further, and he has said to his own members of parliament, 'Even if you want to exercise the right that you supposedly have as a Liberal member of parliament to vote according to your conscience, we are not going to let you.' So never again will we be lectured by this Prime Minister or this party about the importance of freedom of choice, because when they had the opportunity to stand up for young Australians who want to know that their love is equal, and when they had the opportunity to say people in this chamber can vote according to their heart on one of the most important matters facing so many people in this country today, the Prime Minister said, 'We will choose hate and fear over love.' He will be remembered for this for decades and decades to come. As I have said, this is the beginning of the end for this government. This government said, 'We will choose climate denial over science,' and, 'We will sign up to a death sentence for the planet because climate science is apparently still 'absolute crap.' When he said, 'We would rather appease the deniers than satisfy the science'— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne will withdraw that. Mr BANDT M3C I withdraw to assist you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG Thank you. You were in question time; you heard my ruling. Mr BANDT M3C When the Prime Minister said today, 'We will appease the deniers instead of satisfying the science,' and when he said this evening, 'We are going to choose fear over love,' it was the beginning of the end for this government. Myanmar Cyclone 95 21:16 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Mr Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the chair. I rise this evening to draw attention to a humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in our region and continuing to cause untold damage to an already impoverished and slowly-developing part of the world. Since June of this year, nearly one million people have been affected by widespread flooding and landslides in Myanmar, following Cyclone Komen. Tragically, up to 100 people have lost their lives and more than 1.2 million acres of rice fields have been destroyed, absolutely devastating local communities. As I said, this is a country with a developing economy that has been throttled for many years, in many cases due to poor government policy. So a natural disaster of this scale is ultimately the last thing the people of this long-suffering nation need. I have said many times in this House that I am very proud of my very diverse electorate of Deakin and its various ethnic and cultural groups. One of the most active and engaged of these groups—and one with which I probably have one of the best relationships—is my local Chin community, an ethnic subgroup within Myanmar. Recently, in response to the devastation in that country, I attended an urgent meeting convened by leaders of local Chin community groups, which allowed me to get an appreciation of the on-the-ground situation in Myanmar based on the reports that they have received from family and friends. Frankly, the message was quite grim. They did, though, express gratitude, on behalf of those friends and families in Myanmar, for the assistance that has been announced by the Australian government. Indeed, when word of the disaster came out, I received SMSs, emails and Facebook messages at about 11.30 at night. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I got on the phone with her within about 15 minutes of SMSing her to see if she could speak at such an unsociable time. She was able to do so, and we were, therefore, able to expedite additional aid to assist with the relief efforts. The foreign minister announced that Australia would immediately provide $2 million to the relief effort to help rebuild the devastated country. Additionally, we have since announced that we will work with the Myanmar government, NGOs on the ground and the United Nations to provide family kits comprising kitchen sets, bedding, clothing, mosquito nets, hygiene kits and school supplies to those affected. The feedback that I received from my Chin community leaders assisted us in identifying what it was that was needed on the ground. We have also announced that we will work with Save the Children, CARE Australia and UN partners to provide 300,000 people with temporary shelter, safe drinking water and health care. These additional contributions bring the total level of assistance provided generously by Australia to $3 million, as requested by the government of Myanmar. As I said earlier, I have a very close relationship with the Chin community in my electorate. I appreciate how active they are within my community and what wonderful Australian citizens they have become. I appreciate all of their advocacy to me. I want to thank the foreign minister for acting so quickly and for being so responsive to their calls. I want to name each of the groups that have been speaking to me, meeting with me and giving me a very good understanding of what is happening on the ground. They are the Chin Community Victoria, the Melbourne Mizo Association, the Australian Zo Organization, the Apostolic Pentecostal Church in the area, the Emmanuel Christian Church, the Falam Chin Christian Church, the Chin Evangelical Church and the Myanmar Christian Brethren Assembly. They have all done an outstanding job in advocating for the interests of their friends, families and loved ones who are suffering in Myanmar. I can assure them and I can assure the Australian public that this government will continue to do everything it can to help them on the ground in Myanmar. Renewable Energy 96 21:21 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton Energy production and distribution is very significant to my local economy. Lake Macquarie is, of course, home to the largest power station in the country and a number of operational coal mines. With the Hunter's stake in the future of energy production being high, we must be attuned to the changes that lay in store for the sector. The once state-owned energy sector has largely been acquired by the private sector, and we know the distribution arm is soon to follow. Removing government, and the obligations that go with it, changes the sector and its priorities. But, if all eyes are on the bottom line, what does it mean when the private sector pulls out? AGL Energy, the owner of Liddell and Bayswater power stations in the Upper Hunter, announced in April this year that they would 'take the lead' in the decarbonisation of the energy sector by making a commitment to not build, finance or buy new coal-fired power stations and that they would not seek to extend the life of existing stations. This is not just a commitment to the environment, though that should not be undervalued. This is a major stakeholder in the energy market making it clear that the future of the sector is not in conventional coal-fired power. The future is renewable energy. And the future is now. This is not just a red flag for the energy sector. The move away from fossil fuels will have an impact on coalmining, which is already in transition as a result of low export prices. It is no secret that the burning of coal for energy, without capturing the carbon, is problematic in a carbon constrained world. More than anything, it will be action at an international level that will have the greatest impact on coalmining in Australia. In particular, China's and India's transformation of their domestic energy sector, resulting in declining coal consumption, is a warning for coal exporters. This will accelerate as the world commits to post 2020 emissions reduction targets. Our international counterparts have set reasonable and achievable emissions reduction targets. The US has a reduction target of 41 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030. The UK has a 48 per cent and Germany a 46 per cent emissions reduction target. In comparison, the Prime Minister has set a reduction target of only 26 per cent. Does he believe, in all seriousness, that Australia should aspire to have one of the lowest emissions reduction target of any developed country? Of course he does. This is a man who once referred to climate change with a scatological reference. This is a Prime Minister who tried to decimate the renewable energy target and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. He doesn't like windfarms, just three-word slogans. Tony Abbott is a threat to our future economy in that he fails to grasp the opportunities presented to us by this change. Worse, he is doing a disservice to every worker in the energy and coalmining industries in the country, and in particular the Hunter. Tony Abbott's approach is downright stupid. He has his head in the sand. Under this government's approach, we will become the rustbelt economy of the Asia Pacific. We will see carbon tariffs imposed upon us, and we will be under intense pressure from our neighbours as a result of the government's arrogant post-2020 emissions reduction targets. We need a smarter approach—and there is one. At our National Conference last month, Labor adopted a goal to derive 50 per cent of Australia's energy mix from renewable sources by 2030, in conjunction with an efficient emissions trading scheme. For this to work, we need to do more to embrace the clean energy industrial revolution, and the Hunter is in a great position to take part. The goal is to have prosperous and secure jobs going into the next century. A comprehensive approach must be grounded on an emissions trading scheme, because it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions. Importantly, Labor's policy will also put in place decent structural adjustment policies for affected communities. We are not afraid to have hard and honest conversations with workers, industry and unions about the future of our industries. Governments of all persuasions have undertaken structural adjustment schemes. Some have worked, some have been window-dressing. Good ones provide necessary assistance to communities and businesses to help them adapt to change, to invest in alternative industries on a truly economically sustainable basis. I genuinely believe that my region is up to this challenge. This country once led the world in solar research, and we can do it again. The Hunter can be at the forefront. We have got the best energy workforce in the country. We have got massive transmission and generation infrastructure. We have got great research facilities, including the CSIRO's clean energy flagship and the National Institute of Energy Research at the University of Newcastle. If we do this properly, the Hunter will not stop being an energy hub. We will simply take the necessary steps to move from being a conventional energy hub to a clean energy hub, and we can do this in the interests of our nation and my region. Hume Electorate 97 21:26 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume On July 14, we lost the former member for Hume, Alby Schultz, a dear friend of mine and a tower of strength not only for the people of Hume but for his parliamentary colleagues, his friends and not the least, of course, for his wife Gloria and his family. Parliament will remember Alby tomorrow. I was in Alby's home town, Cootamundra, last Friday. It is to the Cootamundra and Young regions which I want to turn my focus on this evening. With my colleague the Assistant Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, I toured a terrific local enterprise last week. This is one of the best examples of local entrepreneurship that I have seen in years. Cootamundra Oilseeds has been trading for 20 years. It employs close to 30 staff, and only a couple of months ago it commissioned a major new greenfields site. Coota oilseeds is the largest cold-pressed oil producer in Australia and is leading the way in removing tentacles from its processing. It is the only commercially-sized oil producer in Australia supplying chemical-free, extra virgin canola oil. I took Simon Birmingham there to see how the staff are being trained in new state-of-the-art computerised oil processing, with the help of some federal dollars from the Industry Skills Fund. This is an absolutely fantastic business, supporting jobs in the Cootamundra community through innovation and fast-growing new markets. General Manager, Andrew Puckeridge, expects the new plant to double production over the next six months. In his words, 'We want everyone who is here to stay working here, and we want to support this town and so we are upskilling with the help of the government.' Confidence is returning to the food processing industry and their farm suppliers. There has been huge investment from businesses like Cootamundra Oilseeds and state-of-the-art systems. Similarly, abattoirs in Cootamundra and Young have been sinking millions of dollars into new processing facilities. These are all investments coming off the back of our free trade agreements, and these are the very real export opportunities ramping up in my electorate. Hand in hand with free trade agreements signed with our major export markets of Korea and Japan, Hilltop Meats at Young has upgraded its beef slaughter floor, building a new beef boning room, a new refrigeration plant and a new rendering facility, after being shut down for several years. Another industry in Young investing heavily in product plant and research is the cherry growers. The message I am hearing loud and clear is that they need more government targeting of non-tariff trade barriers in Asia to access new markets. We have to give them that leg-up as quickly as possible. I sit on the parliament's Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, which is inquiring into how we best utilise our free trade agreements. For the mainland cherry growers, the protocol in Asia for the treatment of fruit fly remains a huge stumbling block. Many of these countries will only accept fumigation at high temperatures, which damages the fruit, or cold sterilisation via weeks of transit by sea freight. This is just not commercial because the fruit degrades so much after three weeks from the tree. If we actually picked, packed and sent it via air freight, we could be in South-East Asia within 48 hours, as Tasmanian cherries can be already. If we can get key markets in Asia to accept more workable protocols for fruit fly then growers are in an unique position to fly their product in quickly. This is our big advantage over competitor countries like Chile, Argentina, South Africa and New Zealand, which cannot get their product there as fast. The most immediate thing we can do as a government is to get the right focus inside relevant departments. We need to demonstrate the effectiveness and the workability of our proposed protocols, market by market. If we can open up these markets, we know we will see transformative investment in coming years. We know that we can create a fast-growing new set of export opportunities, with untold job opportunities and business opportunities with that. I will continue to focus on making this a reality in the coming months. House adjourned at 21 : 31 NOTICES 98 NOTICES