
<hansard version="2.2" noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd">
  <session.header>
    <date>2015-11-11</date>
    <parliament.no>44</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>7</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
        <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SODJobDate">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a type="" href="Chamber">Wednesday, 11 November 2015</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-Normal">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-Line">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I have an issue to raise with respect to today's program. Item No. 4 listed on the blue is the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. I raise now, because we do not want to disrupt the orderly proceedings of the day, that briefings for the opposition on that bill have not yet concluded. We certainly hope that we are in a situation where, by the time the bill is brought on—and the time of day it is to be considered is not clear from the program—it is not done so prior to the opposition being ready to commence debate and to determine that the amendments do in fact match up with the bipartisan recommendations of the committee.</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 36 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 23 November 2015. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for the day and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's<inline font-style="italic"> Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of private Members' business.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 10 November 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of private Members' business on Monday, 23 November 2015, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for the protection of certain borrowers who default on the repayment of credit, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Credit Repayment (Protecting Vulnerable Borrowers) Bill 2015</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2015.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Katter</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Privacy Act 1988</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Privacy Amendment (Protecting Children from Paparazzi) Bill</inline><inline font-style="italic">2015</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 November 2015.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Katter</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR COLEMAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the importance of start-ups in driving innovation in the Australian economy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the critical role that start-ups will play in creating the industries and jobs of the 21st century;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that in order to be internationally competitive in the future, the Australian economy must be agile and fast moving;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) welcomes the close engagement between the Government and the start-up community through events such as the recent policy hackathon; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages the Government to further build upon its existing innovation agenda through the implementation of additional policies to create a vibrant start-up environment in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 9 November 2015.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—20 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Coleman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Next Member</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR WATTS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that White Ribbon:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is a male led campaign to end male violence against women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is now active in over 60 countries around the world; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) ambassadors around Australia are working to engage men and encourage them to take a leadership role in ending violence against women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in 2015 in Australia, approximately two women are murdered each week by a partner or former partner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 17 per cent of Australian women have experienced violence by a current or former partner in their lifetime;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) men's violence against women is a symptom of gender inequality in our society; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) social policy initiatives and law reform addressing gender inequality are central to reducing attitudes that support violence against women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 25 November is White Ribbon Day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the white ribbon is the symbol of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) supports White Ribbon and other organisations to eliminate violence against women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 20 October 2015.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Watts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MRS PRENTICE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that Meals on Wheels has a long and proud history of providing ready‑made nutritious meals, as well as a friendly smile and a chat, through its dedicated network of volunteers since 1952;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that Meals on Wheels prides itself on providing 'More than just a meal'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) affirms that the ability of Meals on Wheels to provide meals along with trusted local community outreach is unparalleled, and is worthy of the recognition and continuing support of government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 13 October 2015.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—20 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Prentice</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 SYRIA AND IRAQ CRISIS: Resumption of debate (from 9 November 2015) on the motion of Ms Plibersek:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to support a parliamentary debate during the current sitting on the Australian Government's strategy in response to the crisis in Syria and Iraq.<inline font-style="italic">   </inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">All Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 M RS PRENTICE : To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that BUSHkids is a non government, not for profit community organisation which offers a range of free allied health services to children and families living in rural Queensland;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that in 2015, BUSHkids celebrates its 80th year of service to the people of rural Queensland;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that BUSHkids relies on generous donations from the general public in order to be able to continue its valuable work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes the launch of Friends of BUSHkids, an initiative to reinvigorate community involvement in promoting and fundraising for BUSHkids services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages all Queensland Members to support the Friends of BUSHkids initiative in their electorate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(Notice given 13 October 2015.)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Time allotted—40 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speech time limits—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mrs Prentice—10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Next Member—10 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR CONROY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that November is Asbestos Awareness Month;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that tens of thousands of Australian's have ongoing asbestos related illnesses as a result of being exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment or through exposure at their home;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the significant impact on the families and friends of Australians who have asbestos related illnesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) congratulates asbestos related illness sufferers, their families and the labour movement for their campaign to win justice and compensation for those exposed to asbestos; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) commits to working towards eliminating asbestos both in Australia and around the world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 October 2015.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Conroy</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. </inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MRS PRENTICE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that many young Australians are environmentally conscious and interested in protecting our precious natural environment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the Government's Green Army programme is providing practical opportunities for young Australians to participate in local environmental projects;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that participants gain practical skills and training that can assist them to prepare for the workforce and improve career opportunities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes that four Green Army projects have commenced in the electoral division of Ryan, and hundreds more have commenced across Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) commends the Government for committing more than $700 million over four years to the Green Army programme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 13 October 2015.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Prentice</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MARRIAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 (Mr Entsch): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 9 November 2015</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 HIGH SPEED RAIL PLANNING AUTHORITY BILL 2015 (Mr Albanese): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 12 October 2015</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MIGRATION AMENDMENT (MANDATORY REPORTING) BILL 2015 (Mr Marles): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 12 October 2015</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>4</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Legislation Amendment (Cessation of Visa Labels) Bill 2015</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r5563">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Legislation Amendment (Cessation of Visa Labels) Bill 2015</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBB</name>
    <name.id>FU4</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Visa labels are placed in passports as physical evidence of a noncitizen having a visa for Australia. They have not been required as evidence of a visa since comprehensive changes to migration legislation were made in 2012.</para>
<para>The 2012 changes dramatically reduced the number of visa labels issued.</para>
<para>In 2014 demand for visa labels was driven down further by way of an increase to the visa evidence charge. In August 2015 only 2,816 visa labels were issued, compared to 100,000 labels per month in 2011.</para>
<para>With demand for visa labels at an all-time low and the success of more innovative methods of evidencing visas by way of digital systems, amendments were made to the Migration Regulations on 1 September 2015 which effectively discontinued the issue of any new visa labels.</para>
<para>Consultation with industry has been ongoing for years about these changes. The amendments in this bill are the final step in the transition to 'label-free' visas.</para>
<para>The changes are in line with the Australian government's digital agenda to make services more accessible and efficient for the clients by providing them with reliable digital alternatives.</para>
<para>From a regulatory reform perspective, the changes will result in savings for businesses and individuals as a consequence of not having to pay for visa labels. It is estimated that the total regulatory saving per year following the cessation of visa labels is $2.89 million. The use of digital services is more sustainable into the future with the increasing demand for immigration services.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r5537">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>5</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HALL</name>
    <name.id>83N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to continue my contribution to this debate, a contribution I started last night. The Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015 has been put to the parliament and the people of Australia as a simplification of the safety net. This simplification involves abolishing the existing original Medicare Safety Net and extending it in a new Medicare Safety Net.</para>
<para>Labor has some real concerns about these changes and the impact they will have on thousands of Australians. Although the bill lowers the threshold level at which a patient's out-of-pocket expenses qualify them for access to the safety net, the amount a patient receives back—the amount all Australians receive back once they reach the safety net—is reduced. So Australians will be receiving less. Labor is concerned about the impact these changes will have in a number of areas. I will touch on that a little later.</para>
<para>The Turnbull-Abbott government do not support universal health care. Each and every day in this parliament we have seen them attack Medicare. Their lack of support for universal health care is evident from their attempts to introduce a GP tax—and now they are introducing a GP tax by stealth by freezing the rebate—and through their shifting of costs. This legislation is shifting costs from the government to the individual. This means, as I have already stated, it is going to increase out-of-pocket costs for every Australian who reaches the safety net. It will have the greatest impact on those on fixed and lower incomes—and that is what we find with just about every piece of legislation that this government introduces into the parliament. They are shifting the cost to those who can least afford it. This legislation will have the greatest impact on those who are least able to pay.</para>
<para>We have acknowledged that the new Medicare Safety Net has lowered the threshold for all patients, as I have already stated—but there are specific concerns. Those specific concerns relate to a number of areas. One is people who are having treatment for cancer. It has been very graphically described and identified that people with malignant melanoma are facing out-of-pocket costs of up to $7,400, and that cost is $8,000 for Australians having radiotherapy for prostate cancer. When a person is having intensive psychotherapy their out-of-pocket costs will skyrocket. An online petition has even been run in relation to that. Looking at IVF, there are inputs and costs for women who are undertaking fertility treatment.</para>
<para>The original Medicare Safety Net was set at $440.80 from January 2015 and it provides an additional rebate for out-of-hospital services when the sum of the difference between the MBS fee and the MBS rebate reaches a threshold. The Medicare benefit payable to the patient is $156 once a patient reaches that safety net and it is increased to 100 per cent of the scheduled fee rather than 85 per cent. Under the new scheme, the threshold will increase to $638 for concession card holders and $2,000 for all other singles and families.</para>
<para>This safety net was introduced in 2004 and it has helped a number of people over the years. On this side of the House we have real problems with legislation that is changing it and increasing the out-of-pocket costs for Australians. I am going to refer to a source that I do not usually use—that is, the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline>. The <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> on 31 October identified:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Nearly 800,000 Australians with high medical bills will get back less from the Medicare safety net when they visit GPs and specialists under controversial changes.</para></quote>
<para>Note the words 'controversial changes'. Also, the article identifies that it will hit the chronically ill, pregnant women, cancer patients and anyone who uses the system to help with their out-of-pocket expenses. Let us get this straight: the people who will be impacted on the most are the sickest and those people who can least afford it. The net payout for specialists will see out-of-pocket expenses increase from $88 to $94 and out-of-pocket costs for non-bulk-billing GPs will rise from $7.60 to $19.47. Cancer patients and new mums who rely on the safety net will once again have a greater out-of-pocket expense. At a time when you are really sick or having a baby, to have to have these exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses is unconscionable.</para>
<para>It is interesting to note that one of the most common complaints I receive in relation to private health insurance and medical bills is about the out-of-pocket expenses that patients incur. The safety net has assisted and will, to a certain extent, assist people who have large out-of-pocket expenses.</para>
<para>What this is doing is going to make it harder. And what it can lead to, too, is people getting sicker—because if you cannot afford to have the treatment what do you do? You go without it. Women needing IVF treatment and cancer people can face up to $15,000 out-of-pocket expenses, and cancer patients will have their out-of-pocket costs for lifesaving radiation treble, up to $12,000. These are figures I am taking from the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline>, which is a paper that is generally supportive of changes that this government would introduce. I really think that the government needs to actually consult with a few people, a few organisations—maybe even consult with the AMA, because the AMA is not at all supportive. Brian Owler from the AMA was very, very critical of this change to the safety net.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hutchinson</name>
    <name.id>212585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of everything the government does!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HALL</name>
    <name.id>83N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I notice the member on the other side of the House very vocally supporting these changes. Well, I do not think they will support it back in your electorate, member for Lyons. I think that your constituents will be quite disappointed that you have supported these changes. Brian Owler said that the sickest and the most disadvantaged Australians will be hit the hardest by changes to the Medicare safety net arrangements. As a doctor, he knows. As head of the AMA, he knows the impact that these will have. Professor Owler said that the AMA opposes the changes because they wind back the safety net, and they are going to lead to increased costs to hospitals and health care.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Hutchinson interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members will stop interjecting across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HALL</name>
    <name.id>83N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was really interesting. I listened to the member for Barker last night, and he was consumed with talking about efficiencies. Health care is not about efficiencies; it is about providing affordable health care. Those on the other side of this House are very much into efficiency but very short when it comes to looking after and providing services to people. These small government people believe that Medicare is something which should be removed, and as such they water it down to only support the most disadvantaged. This legislation is bad legislation. It is ill-thought-out legislation. It is legislation that has been developed without proper consultation. It is also legislation that we on this side of the House cannot support. But we do acknowledge that there is always room to look at changes around the safety net. But these are bad changes and they are done without proper consultation and they need to be condemned. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUTCHINSON</name>
    <name.id>212585</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute to the second reading debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015. I will respond to a number of the points that the member for Shortland raised. I did not sense in her contribution, though, any real vigour for the case that she was prosecuting. It probably goes to the point. I will specifically try and direct my comments to my electorate—which is an electorate that, in terms of statistical areas, is a remote and outer regional electorate—and the benefits that the changes that are being proposed in this legislation will bring to communities around my electorate, but, more broadly, to the state of Tasmania.</para>
<para>The point I should make, first of all, is that this is responding to two independent reviews, that it involved broad consultation with a range of stakeholders and the public on its impact on provider-changing behaviour. I note the member for Shortland's comment that health care should not be about efficiency. In my world, I think we need to have efficiencies. We should in every sector of the economy, including health care, look for where there are efficiencies to be gained. This is exactly what this piece of legislation does. Those on the other side make much about the notion of fairness. This legislation provides more access to more people. I will go a little further into exactly who those people are and the reason why I chose to speak on this legislation in respect of my own electorate.</para>
<para>It will also reduce the inflationary effect on charges that occur within the current arrangements, which are indeed complex and which have been a hodgepodge of additions and changes over a number of years, by introducing capping across the board of those services that reach the caps. The benefit of these changes is, indeed, simplification of three systems, essentially into one system. This will have benefits not only for providers, who find this a very complex situation to navigate, but particularly also for consumers, who find it a difficult system to navigate. This is not only for those who reach the threshold; the benefits of this legislation will ultimately be for all users of the Medicare Benefits Schedule through the health system.</para>
<para>If we go back to first principles though, of course, we do want—and I think that all of us in this place support this notion—a universal health system that is accessible to all but affordable, particularly affordable for those most vulnerable within our community. The independent reviews showed that the EMSN—the Extended Medicare Safety Net—was indeed structurally flawed, that there had been considerable leakage of government benefits towards providers' incomes rather than reduced costs for patients.</para>
<para>Like everything, I guess, in this whole business of government it is always about balancing the important services that our medical professionals—be they general practitioners, be they allied health providers or others—with the costs that are passed on to patients. The highlighted point here in the independent review was that the leakages were overweighting the benefits to the providers at a cost to the patients and consumers. It also highlighted that around 55 per cent of these benefits were going to the top 20 per cent of Australia's most socioeconomically advantaged, with the least advantaged 20 per cent receiving less than 3½ per cent. That is where I will drill down a little further as time allows to the circumstances that exist within my electorate of Lyons.</para>
<para>The question might be asked: who will benefit from the changes that are being made and the simplification that is being introduced? The new Medicare safety net will indeed be one that is more progressive. The thresholds for people without concession cards are reducing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Hall</name>
    <name.id>83N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I seek to intervene. I have a question I would like to ask the member.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the member for Lyons willing to give way?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUTCHINSON</name>
    <name.id>212585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As a newcomer I would defer to her experience every day, Mr Speaker!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Hall</name>
    <name.id>83N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Lyons how many people in his electorate will be impacted by the changes to the Medicare safety net, and what he intends to do to have their voices heard here in Canberra.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUTCHINSON</name>
    <name.id>212585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>These are fine questions from the member for Shortland. If she intends to stay in the chamber, I will address those questions. As I mentioned, the reason that I chose to speak on this bill today is that the changes that are being made will benefit lower socioeconomic groups, particularly those in an electorate such as my electorate of Lyons.</para>
<para>As I was saying: who will benefit? The thresholds for people without concession cards are being reduced from $2,000 to $700 for singles, and $1,000 for families, and for concession card holders from $638.40 to $400. It is expected that more than 53,000 additional people will receive a safety net benefit under these arrangements. On the notion of fairness: I cannot quite grasp how that is unfair. For concession card holders, in particular, more than 80,000 more people will receive benefits than under the current arrangement. Member for Shortland, this is fair. This is good.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Hall interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Shortland will cease interjecting, as will the member for Ballarat.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUTCHINSON</name>
    <name.id>212585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This will benefit, Member for Shortland, not the people in North Sydney; it will benefit the people in New Norfolk and it will benefit the people in Beaconsfield and it will benefit the people in Sorell.</para>
<para>The bill replaces, as I mentioned, all the existing Medicare safety net arrangements with one new Medicare safety net. The existing Medicare safety net arrangements include the extended Medicare safety net, the original Medicare safety net and the greatest permissible gap. The current arrangements are confusing for patients and make it almost impossible for them to calculate rebates. The existing Medicare safety net arrangements are complex and regressive and, as I mentioned in my initial comments, have an inflationary effect within those providers.</para>
<para>The new Medicare safety net has been carefully designed to respond to issues raised by the reviews that I have also mentioned, and there has been consultation with stakeholders and the public more broadly. It is expected that more than 53,000 non-concession card holders and 80,500 more people on concessional benefits will benefit. Unlike the extended Medicare safety net, the amount of out-of-pocket costs per service that count towards the threshold will have a limit. They will be capped. The amount of safety benefits paid per services after the singles or families threshold has been reached will also have a universal limit.</para>
<para>As I mentioned, the electorate of Lyons is, according to the statistical area, an RA3—it is an outer regional area of Australia—and an RA4. It is a mixture of those. Let us look at where the current payments are going—and I will quote these figures on a per patient basis, because I think that highlights it best. Under the current arrangements, $1,535 per patient is spent on those people living in RA1, major cities of Australia. For RA3, outer regional Australia, only $156 per patient under the current arrangements is spent. Per patient for RA4—I know, member for Ballarat, this is not something familiar to you; these are people living in regional and remote areas of the country—it is $55 per person. This is why this is important. This is why in the electorate of Lyons this will have benefit.</para>
<para>Just to demonstrate for those opposite who may not realise, if we look at the socioeconomic indexes for areas, the SEIFA data cube, admittedly from 2011, and the decile distribution—the member for Shortland will be interested in this, and I congratulate her on staying for the remainder of my contribution—in the electorate of Lyons there are 299 statistical areas, SA1s. Twelve areas have not qualified. But if we look at the deciles and we look at the first decile, which reflects the most socially disadvantaged people within our community, 70 out of the 299 reside in that first decile. Another 63 reside in the second decile, 62 reside in the third decile, 42 in the fourth decile, 31 in the fifth decile. I am halfway through. If we go to the other end, there are two that sit in the 10th decile, in other words, in those most advantaged communities.</para>
<para>By contrast, the electorate of Ryan, for example, is completely the opposite, where 170 out of 350 reside in the 10th decile, and there is only one in the first decile. This is the fundamental thing. The money, from these changes, will flow to those people in the most disadvantaged communities around Australia. That, to my way of thinking, unless I am missing something here, is a notion of fairness. If the member for Ballarat, the shadow minister, is standing up for those communities, like the member for Ryan or the member for North Sydney when a new one is elected, if that is what she is doing, because that is where the members of the AMA are advocating—that is fine by me. I have no issues with that at all. That is entirely up to her.</para>
<para>All the good doctors that I know—my old man was a GP many years ago; he is no longer with this—were people that committed their lives to, first and foremost, delivering good and proper medical services to those people. When my father died, one of the proudest moments that I remember was when people came up to me at his funeral and said that, for many years, they had paid him in vegetables and jams and those sorts of things. And let me remind the member for Shortland that he was no soft touch. It was only when he understood people to be in circumstances where they did not have the wherewithal to be able to pay that he did those things for. Those are the good doctors that exist around the country.</para>
<para>But this bill is about fairness for those who are least able to afford. This is about fairness. This is about more access for more people. This is about reducing the inflationary effect that exists under the current arrangements. It is around introducing capping across the board. The benefits of the changes will result in a simplification of three systems into one. It should be supported by those on the other side that supposedly stand up for the most vulnerable—but apparently not.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Throsby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill we are debating today, the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015, concerns the Medicare safety net. It is a bill which gives effect to a range of measures that were first announced in the 2014 budget, and here we are nearly a year and a half later. We have to ask ourselves why it has taken so long. Perhaps it is because the government has been so preoccupied with issues of their own, and has been so preoccupied within the health portfolio in dealing with the fallout from the disastrous GP tax, that they have not got around to other measures that were contained in that ill-fated budget.</para>
<para>Thanks to this bill, what we see is a cut to the Medicare safety net, which totals some $270 million. The new, so-called simplified safety net will hit the pockets of vulnerable members of the community, and I will explain exactly why. Before I do that, it is probably worth talking about some of the background of this because, as I said, the bill concerns the Medicare safety net—something not well understood, not only in this place but also in the general community.</para>
<para>The original Medicare safety net was set at around $440 from 1 January this year and it provides a rebate for Medicare card holders. It provides an additional rebate for out-of-hospital services when some of the difference between the Medicare benefit schedule fee and the Medicare rebate reaches the threshold in any given calendar year. After qualifying for this Medicare safety net, the Medicare benefit payable increases to 100 per cent of the scheduled fee, rather than the usual 85 per cent. For example, the scheduled fee for attendance with a consultant psychiatrist of more than 45 minutes but not more than 75 minutes is $183.65; the Medicare benefit payable to patients is $156.15—that is, 85 per cent of the fee. Once patients reach the original Medicare safety net, the benefit payable increases to 100 per cent of the scheduled fee rather than 85 per cent of the scheduled fee.</para>
<para>So that is the original Medicare safety net. There are two thresholds under the extended Medicare safety net: $638.40 for Commonwealth concessional cardholders, including those with a pensioner concession card, a healthcare card or a Commonwealth seniors card, and those who receive family tax benefit part A. The second is that $2000 safety net for all other singles and families. This extended safety net was introduced in 2004 and it covers about 80 per cent of out-of-pocket costs once the above-mentioned thresholds have been reached. Benefits are paid in addition to the Medicare rebate and in addition to any benefits that are received under the original Medicare safety net.</para>
<para>In 2009 Labor introduced changes to the extended Medicare safety net that allowed the Minister for Health via a legislative instrument to determine that specific MBS items have their extended Medicare safety net capped to a specific amount. This is an important point: it goes to the argument that Labor has not been active in this space and that Labor is not willing to put in place reasonable measures based on a fairness principle which help to constrain the growth in healthcare costs at the same time as meeting out-of-pocket cost pressures, particularly on the most vulnerable Australians—because in 2009 we did exactly that. Our decision followed two reports that highlighted excessive fees—one of those reports being commissioned by the former government—being charged by some doctors and other practices to take advantage of the extended Medicare safety net. Specifically, the benefit was capped on all obstetric services, some assisted reproductive technology services, cataract services, the item for hair transplantation and varicose vein surgery amongst other MBS items.</para>
<para>There is also a maximum permissible gap and this is the greatest permissible gap, or GPG, which predates the original Medicare safety net and the extended Medicare safety net. It is defined in section 103(3) of the Health Insurance Act and requires that the difference between the Medicare benefit schedule fee for an item and 85 per cent of the Medicare benefit must not be greater than a specified amount. In other words the GPG is a rule that sets a maximum gap dollar amount and it is indexed on 1 November in line with the consumer price index. In 2015 the GPG is set at $78.40. It is important that we have some context around the matters that are before the House today. I will go to some other context in a moment, but let's go to some specific issues within the bill.</para>
<para>The government is keen to point out that the bill lowers the safety net threshold for all patients—a point that was made just now in the house by the member for Lyne.</para>
<para>But the devil is always in the detail, because the bill does two things that the government has been very quiet about. Members opposite who have engaged in the debate have not actually pointed to the second thing that the bill does. First, it places restrictions on the out-of-pocket costs that contribute to a patient reaching the safety net in the first place. They like to argue that they have brought the finishing line closer to the starting line, but what they do not tell you is that they have increased the handicap. They have added additional weights on the racers so it is harder to get to the finish line in the first place.</para>
<para>Under existing arrangements, all out-of-pocket costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services count towards the threshold, with the exceptions of those issues that I raised earlier. But under the proposed changes restrictions are imposed on which out-of-pocket costs can accumulate towards reaching the safety net. What this means, in practice, is that the amount that counts to the safety net is equal to 150 per cent of the MBS fee minus the rebate, not the full out-of-pocket cost. So somebody who sees a specialist and is charged $150 previously had an out-of-pocket cost of $77.25 go towards the safety net. But under the new regime just $55.55 will go towards the safety net. This is going to make a huge difference over time, particularly when you consider that one of the greatest areas of usage for the extended Medicare safety net was GP consultations. The most common form of medical interventions that most of use is a visit to the GP. The second greatest, after GP consultation, for people accessing the extended Medicare safety net was specialist consultations.</para>
<para>On top of this, the amount patients receive back once they reach the safety net is also reduced. So not only is it harder to reach that finish line; the amount you get back is reduced as well. It will be capped at 150 per cent of the MBS schedule fee, less the standard MBS rebate. It is a double whammy that will impact on Australians who can least afford it. But there is another issue here, and I was expecting to hear about it from the member for Lyons over here, who is the son of a former GP and represents one of the most disadvantaged in Australia. Perhaps we will hear from the good Dr Gillespie on this shortly. There is a double whammy on this, and it goes to something that has not been uttered much in this debate. That is the impact of the Medicare rebate freeze. The impact of the Medicare rebate freeze is to ensure that over time people receive less and less from the Medicare system when they see their GP. We know that there is already an extensive gap between the scheduled fee and the Medicare rebate fee. I should put that another way: the Medicare schedule fee and the AMA recommended fee. In fact, the Medicare Benefits Schedule is about half the AMA recommended fee for a normal GP consultation.</para>
<para>So, if you think about the impact of these two strategies, what you have is low-income Australians—in fact, all Australians—being hit with a pincer movement. They are being hit with a pincer movement because on the one hand they are going to see less and less rebate from the MBS system for visiting their GP, and it is going to be harder and harder to reach the MBS safety net. And then when you do reach the MBS safety net you are going to get less back through the safety net rebate. So it is actually a double whammy, one that members opposite are not very keen to talk about for obvious reasons. I heard the member for Lyons in his contributions talk about the fact that in his electorate those on lowest incomes were going to be protected, that they were not going to be impacted by these changes. Well, I have got news for the member for Lyons: that is not what is going to happen. And I will explain why in a moment. But let us just assume for a moment that he is right. I know the demographics of his electorate in regional and rural Tasmania quite well.</para>
<para>I know that the practices that work there often are dealing with very fiscally tight environments. The economic viability of many of those regional and rural practices is challenged. So the only way that medical practitioners, be they GPs or specialists operating in the electorate of the member for Lyons, are going to do what he says—and that is protect the poorest and the vulnerable—is to cross-subsidise the costs within their practice. That is, they will pass on the growing costs of running a medical practice, whether that be in rural and regional Australia or elsewhere, to those people within that practice area who the GPs or the specialists believe can pay.</para>
<para>We know that will happen because we know that is happening right now. We know that it is happening right now, so the double whammy effect is actually a triple whammy effect for members such as those that we have just heard from. The only way the practices are going to be able to maintain their economic viability and protect—as the member for Lyne suggests that they will—those vulnerable members within those practices is to pass on additional costs to middle-income earners within his electorate. So, far from him being able to stand here and argue that they are going to be protected, we say with good evidence that that is not going to be the case.</para>
<para>We know that what it means in practice is that the amount that counts to the safety net is equal to 150 per cent of the MBS fee minus the rebate, so not the full out-of-pocket amount. Let us give an example. Somebody who sees a specialist and is charged $150 previously had an out-of-pocket cost of $77.25 go towards the safety net. Under the new regime, $55.50 goes towards the safety net. So we know that it is a double whammy. We know that it is a typical coalition trick, where they are giving with one hand and taking with the other. We know that the most vulnerable in our community are going to be impacted. We know that all members of the community are going to be impacted.</para>
<para>We are particularly concerned about the impacts that these changes are going to have on radiation oncology patients, on patients needing ongoing access to psychiatrists and on patients accessing certain IVF services. In particular, Labor is concerned that radiation oncology patients who had previously been bulk-billed will see significant new out-of-pocket expenses. According to one example, a patient with a malignant melanoma receiving radiation treatment could face new out-of-pocket expenses of some $7,400.</para>
<para>I ask you to contemplate this because we have experience in my own family of the impact on somebody once they are diagnosed with a disease such as malignant melanoma. They are no longer working. The income of the entire household is disrupted by this because the carer often has to give up their job to look after them well. So, at the most crippling time in the household's lives, they are going to be whacked with new out-of-pocket costs of up to $7½ thousand for radiation oncology.</para>
<para>This is just one example. I have cited in my contribution to this debate many other examples. Is it any wonder that the entire medical community is up in arms about these proposals? They add to the other misguided, misdirected and unfair health policy proposals that have been brought to this place by this government, and they should be rejected.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to be here talking about the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015 because it goes to the heart of a very important part of the delivery of health services, and that is the Medicare safety net. I would just like to clarify a few things before the member for Throsby leaves. I am the member for Lyne, L-Y-N-E. The previous speaker from the government side is the member for Lyons, which is in Tasmania. I reside on the North Coast and the member for Lyons resides in Tasmania. There was a lot of argument put in there where Lyne, L-Y-N-E, my wonderful electorate, was pronounced 'Lin' and confused with Lyons. Just for the record, I have not spoken yet. I am now rising to speak for the first time.</para>
<para>This bill replaces all the existing Medicare safety net arrangements. As we know, there have been several iterations of the original Medicare safety net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net. This will roll them all into one Medicare safety net. There are changes; I will put on the record that there are changes. Whenever anything changes there are always people who are used to the current regulations and the current system, and if they are not in a public health institution it changes a lot of the economics of it. I understand that. The people who it will change the economics for as well are, obviously, the patients. But as we can see from some of the things I will bring to the table, there will be an increase in the coverage rather than a decrease in the coverage.</para>
<para>The main change is in the way that the Medicare safety net threshold is reached. It is changed by a new calculation, which both the member for Ballarat and the member for Throsby have outlined. There is a reason for why that has been changed, and that is what I would like to bring to the House's attention first of all.</para>
<para>The original Medicare safety net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net were designed as a safety net for the patients. They were not meant to be an open-ended lack of ceiling for medical and provider charges. There have been observations from previous changes that tried to address this, that the system had the phenomenon of a higher upfront provider fee reaching the threshold and then ongoing fees being picked up by the government purse.</para>
<para>Because of this very generous system, which was honest in its intent, some of the private providers—individual medical and surgical providers, or commercial providers—did not have that market feedback, because the purchaser was not going to bear the consequences of a higher fee. That is what the government observed in the reproductive technology space, before it changed the guidelines some years ago for the way it worked. So we do have to put a ceiling on what the government can pay—that is the existential problem that we find ourselves in. The government has a fiscal problem, and so we have to do this in a way that benefits most people. In that particular instance, we want the services to continue but we want people not to have high fees and to have a safety net.</para>
<para>Rather than having no incentive to control fees, which is what was observed—where we had the high up-front fees and the Medicare safety net picked up most of the subsequent gaps in fees—we are changing the way this is calculated to have 150 per cent of the Medicare fee, minus the rebate, going to the contribution to reach the Medicare safety net. That is significantly different, but the thresholds have been lowered. For people without concession cards, that threshold is being dropped from $2,000 to $700 for singles and $1,000 for families. And for concession card holders it is being dropped from $638.40 currently, down to $400.</para>
<para>Contrary to what the member for Throsby was alluding to, the department has worked out that it is expected that more than 53,000 additional people will receive a safety net benefit under these new arrangements. For concession cardholders in particular, 80,000 more people would receive benefits under that system than under the current arrangements. The number of non-concessional card holders receiving benefits will actually reduce. It is changing the mix of who would be attracting the benefit.</para>
<para>There are some other observations that have been collected, because the government is the ultimate payer for all of this and they have to look at costs. In my electorate of Lyne, we have a wonderful radiation oncology provision. We have the North Coast Cancer Institute, which has a couple of linear accelerators and specialist radiation oncologists as well as very large numbers of specialists both in the centre of Port Macquarie in my electorate and in the electorate north of me at Coffs Harbour in Cowper. The average per capita fee charged through the Medicare safety net now for an individual is $4.68, whereas in the metropolitan centre south of me in the Eastern Suburbs in Sydney the average is about $57 and on the North Shore area it is $59. So there is a difference in charging practices, and I might make some personal observations about why this is. It is not all about the phenomenon I mentioned at the start of this speech about medical fees chasing the safety net dollar. In a lot of metropolitan areas, many years ago, there were publicly provided radiotherapy centres and a lot of the complex stuff happened just in public hospitals, but with the expansion of the capability of the private sector a lot of the public sector providers have not expanded and the private sector has grown.</para>
<para>The economics of running private provision of health services, whether it is a private hospital, radiation oncology or complex IVF, are different to where the same technology is delivered in a public hospital, because in a public hospital or a public facility the state government is contributing to a lot of the capital works and to a lot of employment of the technical staff, and the superannuation payments and leave payments are all on the state government tab; whereas, if you are a private provider, you have to build your own facility, buy your own equipment, employ your own people and run it all out of the HPG grant for the equipment and the item number for the professional services. That is all bundled into staffing as well as the medical or surgical fee as well as running the facility. There are going to be greater fees; it is just a question of arithmetic and economics. What we do not want is what I was alluding to before, which was observed many years ago: where, because it was virtually open-ended—not totally but virtually—there was not that feedback between a medical fee and the patient bearing the cost of it, because there was this very generous open-ended Medicare safety net.</para>
<para>We have to be wise with our taxpayer dollars because there is a limited amount of them, and, when you make changes, some people will be very upset. It is a very difficult situation. But, on the balance of things, 53,000 more people accessing the Medicare safety net is a very powerful figure. It should make it more available and not less available. I will put on record now that I understand that for some people in some situations, depending on where you are going, through these changes there will be more out-of-pocket costs. But if that is the cost of keeping our whole system sustainable, it is an unfortunate consequence. It is really important that people have access to health care, and that is what the private providers are providing. In the public system, like we have in the North Coast, there is a significant wait. But to go to Newcastle, before there was the North Coast Cancer Institute, you could be waiting for many, many, many months for your radiotherapy and you would just be on a queue. Newcastle was overwhelmed with people coming from the Hunter and from the north-west of the state. So the North Coast Cancer Institute has filled that. But as I pointed out, a lot of the capital works was from government grants; the state government is contributing to it. But the fees that are charged on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the other payments for the equipment and the building are supplementary to what they get from the state and federal governments out of other pockets of money. That is part of the reason the per capita draw on the Medicare safety net on the North Coast is vastly cheaper than what it is in the metropolitan centre where a lot of those other factors are at play.</para>
<para>Overall, it is a very significant change. We do want to get access to health care, particularly these very highly technical things. I do not want to second guess what every different situation is going to be, but when you look at it in total I think most people will have a more sustainable system, and more people will be able to access the Medicare safety net. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAKER (10:01): It being 10 o'clock, the chair will be resumed at the ringing of the bells.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10:01 to 11 : 50</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I begin by acknowledging that today is Remembrance Day, and I give thanks to all of those people who served, died, suffered or made sacrifices so that we could all live freely and in peace.</para>
<para>In speaking on the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015 I support the comments made by the member for Ballarat and the amendment that she has moved to this bill. Before I talk about the substance of the bill, for the benefit of anyone listening to this debate and who is not familiar with the safety net system we have in place, I just want to briefly describe it.</para>
<para>Medicare sets out a schedule of fees known as the Medicare Benefits schedule, or MBS. Medicare rebates 100 per cent of the scheduled fee for a general practitioner and 85 per cent for a specialist. The patient pays the difference between the practitioner's fee and the rebate. Frequently, fees charged by medical practitioners are higher than the scheduled fees. Presently, there are two safety nets for people with high medical costs: the original Medicare safety net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net. Once a patient qualifies for the original Medicare safety net, which they do so by reaching a threshold, the Medicare benefit is then increased from 85 per cent of the scheduled fee to 100 per cent.</para>
<para>That the original Medicare safety net is calculated on the gap amount being the difference between the Medicare benefit received and the scheduled fee is part of the equation. However, even once patients reach the original Medicare safety net and they are therefore rebated 100 per cent of the scheduled fee, if their practitioners charge more than the scheduled fee they will still have out-of-pocket expenses, which is the difference between the Medicare benefit and the practitioners' fee. Once an annual threshold of out-of-pocket costs is reached, patients qualify for the second safety net—that is, the extended Medicare safety net, or EMSN as it is otherwise known. The extended Medicare safety net covers 80 per cent of the out-of-pocket costs from this point onwards, although it is subject to some caps for specific MBS items.</para>
<para>With that explanation, I want to turn to the substance of the bill. This bill gives effect to the 2014-15 budget measure referred to as 'simplifying the Medicare safety net arrangements'. It effectively replaces two safety nets with a single safety net. Whilst the safety net would have a lower threshold for all patients, and therefore perhaps more patients will have access to it, the amount of out-of-pocket expenses that count towards it is also lower. The amount covered once patients reach the safety net would also be lower.</para>
<para>Although a simplification of the system would be welcome, the fact that these changes provide savings of almost $270 million over the next five years makes it clear that the government's objective is not just to simplify the system but to make cuts to the health system of this nation. The objective is also to use those savings made by the government in order to fund the coalition's Medical Research Future Fund. The government have put themselves in this position because, when they first announced the Medical Research Future Fund, it was to be funded by their GP tax, or the GP co-payment as it was referred to. As we all know, and as history now shows, the GP tax was rejected by Australians because it was unfair. So it seems that the government are now looking for other mechanisms in order to pay for the Medical Research Future Fund and, indeed, are looking for other cuts they can make to the health funding of the nation in order to do so.</para>
<para>It also makes little sense to fund research for future cures at the cost of deterring people from seeing their GP and possibly, in turn, making them sicker right now. It is the same argument that was used when we—I believe quite rightly—argued that increasing doctors' payments would simply put off the medical problem, in turn making it worse and ultimately making it a higher cost to society. This bill does a very similar thing. It effectively says that we are going to take away money today from people, who will not be able to afford certain treatment, and then in turn put that into future research, which might help society. But the truth of the matter is that it is asking one sector of the society to pay for the benefits that another receives.</para>
<para>If the government also believe that some practitioners are rorting the system by exploiting the lack of price sensitivity due to most of the costs after reaching the EMSN being paid by government, they need to provide evidence of that. When Labor made changes to allow caps on specific MBS items, it did so on the basis of two independent reports which made the case for change. We have seen no similar reports with respect to the changes that have been proposed by the government in this legislation.</para>
<para>In summary, this legislation abolishes the original Medicare safety net and the extended Medicare safety net. It creates a single safety net system, but it also cuts nearly $270 million of funding from the safety net—in other words, $270 million of funding that would otherwise go to Australians who are in need of health services. The truth of the matter is that those changes will affect thousands of Australians, and affect them for the worse. Although the bill lowers the safety net threshold for all patients, restrictions on out-of-pocket costs that contribute to a patient reaching the safety net are introduced, and the amount that the patients receive back once they reach the safety net is also reduced. Indeed, we have seen evidence that these changes will severely impact on oncology patients, on patients needing ongoing access to psychiatric treatment, and on patients accessing IVF services. For some of these patients, the costs are likely to increase by tens of thousands of dollars. These are not minimal increases; these are amounts of money that for some people will be out of reach. For those people, it may well be a choice between getting the treatment and not getting the treatment, and I suspect that in most cases, if they had a choice, they would want to get the treatment.</para>
<para>In turn, it also creates a medical system where people who can afford medical treatment will get it and those who cannot afford medical treatment in this country will miss out—a system similar to what they have in the USA and a system that we in this country, for the last 40-odd years, have been able to say is not the right way to go. We have a universal health system in this country which has served the Australian people very well and has ensured that all people, regardless of their income, have access to reasonable medical services in this country. This is starting to break down that system. For a Prime Minister who continuously talks about fairness and creates a perception that he understands the struggles of low-income Australians, this legislation goes entirely in contradiction to the perception that the Prime Minister tries to create. There is nothing fair about making it more difficult for lower income Australians to get the medical help they need, and all this measure does is to increase the widening gap between the rich and poor of this country.</para>
<para>Not surprisingly, the AMA, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists have all come out with concerns about this legislation. They have good reason to come out with concerns about this legislation, because they know full well, as the front-line service providers, the impacts that it will have on their patients, and they know full well that people who might need psychiatric assistance will not be able to access it. We have seen it time and time again. We hear debates in this place time and time again about mental health issues in this country and how the costs of mental health are also escalating year by year. We are going to do nothing to reduce those costs by cutting out services or by making services more difficult to access by the very people who need them.</para>
<para>It is likewise with oncology treatments. I have spoken to people in my own electorate who found the cost of oncology treatment to be already excessively high. People have come into my office and talked about the possibility of going overseas to where health costs might be a little lower in order to access the treatment that they need. These are people who do not have spare money and people who are actually struggling to find the money they need just to pay for the services that they desperately need. To make things harder for them is, I think, one of the most heartless and cruel things we can do. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you have come across such families in your own part of the world. The stress and trauma caused by some of these serious and severe illnesses is something that we would not wish upon anybody. Yet through this legislation I believe we are making their situation much worse.</para>
<para>It is also, in my view, bad public policy to bring in this legislation. I say that for this reason: not getting medical treatment when it is needed ultimately leads to more serious medical conditions later on. I do think there would be a doctor out there who would say that if you need to go to a doctor, do not worry about it; just put it off. The more you put it off the more likely it is that the situation or condition will deteriorate. When it does the costs of treatment become much higher. Indeed, if the situation deteriorates to the point where the person is admitted to hospital, again the costs escalate. It is not good public policy to have short-term savings which in the long term add to the health costs of the nation. It simply does not make sense. It may well be that this government, in order to create those short-term savings, is prepared to transfer the costs onto state governments which would perhaps wear the bulk of the costs with respect to the hospitals, or directly onto the families themselves. Again, in both cases, whilst it might get the government out of its budget mess, it does not do anything to reduce the overall costs to society of managing health in this country.</para>
<para>I see this legislation as simply another piece of the jigsaw of the Turnbull government's plans to dismantle Australia's universal health system that has served this country well for some 40 or 50 years. I say that it is part of the jigsaw because to date we have seen more than $60 billion cut from Australia's public hospitals, attempts to increase the costs of medicines through changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the government's ongoing GP tax through its MBS freeze, which represents a cut of some $2 billion from Medicare. That is $2 billion through that freeze, so that doctors have no choice but to ultimately pass those costs on to their patients. So the patient ultimately pays, but it is a cut being made by the government. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars cut from public dental health programs, mental health and Indigenous health programs. We have seen $370 million cut from preventative health programs around the country. Indeed, I have a letter in my office right now from concerned people in my electorate who are worried about the impact that $370 million cut will have to the front-line services they are providing in my part of the world. Again, these are real cuts which are going to have an impact on the health and welfare of the nation. This latest round, where we see another $270 million of cuts being introduced under the guise that it is about simplifying the system, is simply another part of the overall package of measures that this government has for reducing the health costs to government by cutting funding to health programs around the nation.</para>
<para>I will conclude on this note: there are few things in our country that people care about more than health. Indeed, when you talk to people about what matters most to them, the issues which inevitably come to their minds and which they refer to are health and education—and for good reason. Without having good health systems in place we cannot attend to the health needs of the people who need them. Without good health, life is made very difficult. It is likewise with education—if you have a good education it gives you an opportunity to get on with life. Cutting funds to health and education, I believe, is a retrograde step for any country to do. Indeed, we should be doing the opposite because if we do we will have not only a healthier nation but also a more productive nation. With these comments I repeat that I support the comments of the member for Ballarat. We do not support this legislation and we will be supporting the amendment put forward by the member for Ballarat.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015. I note that it is a measure that was announced in the 2014 budget. Two years later, the government has finally decided to bring the amendment forward for us to consider.</para>
<para>It is important to reflect on the purpose of the Medicare safety net in any discussion around changes to the Medicare safety net. It was introduced in recognition that some patients need greater access to medical services—especially vulnerable groups, like those with serious and costly medical issues—at different times in their lives.</para>
<para>Having looked at why the Medicare safety net was introduced, I think it is fair to say that the member for Ballarat was very clearly suggesting that Labor has no problem with reforms in this area if they are going to be helpful but that in this scenario the government has gone about this by introducing a very blunt measure without clear justification. The introduction of the Medicare safety net was around particular groups of people who needed particular financial support to access high-end medical costs. The changes, therefore, need careful scrutiny. Labor has a problem, at the moment, with any evidence that that scrutiny has been careful. We have issues with the fact that we have not seen the evidence—nor have we seen evidence that these measures will address the issues, because it has not been fully explained.</para>
<para>At the time of the 2014 budget, the government argued that existing safety net arrangements were complex and difficult for both patients and practitioners to navigate and that this measure would simplify these arrangements. I am hearing a theme over the last two years: you say something is complex, you say you are going to simplify it and, before we know it, we have got a cut in front of us. So simplification has become a cut as far as this government is concerned, and I think this legislation today is another example of that. Again, it is a cut, the savings of which will not go back into the health system from this government—not in any meaningful way that is going to support patients and Australians in our health system.</para>
<para>I stand with my colleagues on this side to oppose this $270 million cut that has not been explained properly nor has evidence been presented to justify or rationalise it. Over the last few days, we have seen that theme come through. Prime Minister Turnbull has a knack of adding complexity when he claims to be simplifying things. We have seen that this week with cuts to the family tax benefit supplements being proposed under the guise of simplifying things at the same time as we are having a tax debate with a suggestion of a 15 per cent increase to the GST. The Prime Minister says that that will be fair, because in the process there will be compensation built into the system. So we are going to take cuts to the family tax benefit under the guise of simplification, talk about a 15 per cent GST rise and have a compensation process put in place—simplification? What we end up with is a complex system.</para>
<para>We are seeing a government that is confused: confused about what its ends might be and what the reasons for these cuts are. They are confused, because they continue to talk about deficits then introduce cuts and, all the time, they are stripping funds away from important areas like the health system. So simplifying things is the rhetoric; complexity is what we end up with.</para>
<para>Whilst acknowledging that the new Medicare safety net has lower thresholds for all patients, this bill restricts out-of-pocket costs that can accumulate towards the threshold and thus restrict the benefit payable once patients reach the safety net. The bottom line is that we are looking at a $270 million cut per year and, in the end, the people who will bear the brunt, or the cost, of that are patients. Again, it is a cut dressed up as simplification.</para>
<para>It is not just Labor saying this; specific concerns about these changes have been raised by fertility groups, radiation oncologists and psychiatrists, especially those providing psychotherapy services. We are hearing from those stakeholders specific examples: for instance, a radiotherapy patient with a malignant melanoma is facing new out-of-pocket costs of $7,000—this is where we get down to the human element where simplification is actually adding complexity; a radiotherapy patient with prostate cancer could face new out-of-pocket costs of $8,000; victims of sexual abuse and people with serious mental illnesses no longer have access to psychiatric services and are being priced out of that process; and IVF private patients, who currently face out-of-pocket costs of $4,000 per cycle, could now face the full cost of treatment, if these changes proceed, which is likely to be $10,000 to $15,000 per cycle.</para>
<para>We need to look carefully at the human cost of what these cuts will deliver and, when we look at those costs, it is natural to ask, 'What is the justification, the rationale, behind this? Where is the evidence that this is a good idea? Where is the evidence that it's going to make things simpler? Where is the evidence that it's going to improve the system?'</para>
<para>The sector, like us, are concerned that the government's changes could adversely affect some of the most needy—those with chronic illnesses, pregnant women, cancer patients. What is being exposed with this legislation in front of us today is that the glamour of the new Prime Minister and his government is fading, just like his predecessor. He is ignoring the health experts. He is ignoring the sector. You could go so far as to say that it is just another example of trying to Americanise our health system—a demonstration that the substance has not changed of this government, just the style.</para>
<para>Labor will not be supporting the $270 million changes to the Medicare safety net, because of the impact such a move will have on people in the community. If I look at my community in the electorate of Lalor—and remember that this was a 2014 budget measure that was brought in, the budget that was a cut-and-slash budget without thought or care for the people on the ground. If we put it into that context, there wasn't a huge amount of commentary on this measure when it was originally announced, because of course we were all very concerned about the other health measure—the GP tax—that was going to impact, particularly in a community like the one I represent. Remember: it was the biggest broken promise from before the last election.</para>
<para>In that context, when you look at this piece of legislation, you have to look at the impact of all of the things that this government has tried to do and what its agenda has been in the health space. In my community in the electorate of Lalor, the notion of the GP tax was extraordinarily cruel.</para>
<para>The electorate has 95 per cent of GP consultations, which are bulk-billed, and what has been exposed over time is that this government was hell-bent on a GP tax, but is really hell-bent on reducing bulk-billing rates in this country, and reducing the neediest's access to a doctor without out-of-pocket expenses. We know that that is still the intent, because we know that this government has not reversed the indexation freeze on the Medicare rebate, and until actions like that start to come from this government, we know that there is still intent on the same long-term agenda.</para>
<para>What are the impacts in my electorate of this potential change? In the electorate of Lalor, chronic illness is high. We have high rates of obesity, high rates of diabetes and high rates of heart disease. Chronic illness is high, which means the impacts of these will be high on those people. And we have a lot of low-to-middle-income earners, people who have worked hard all their lives, and perhaps have not been able to afford the highest health care, and they will now be further penalised through these proposed changes.</para>
<para>The government needs to go back to the drawing board on this piece of legislation. This government, that is the Abbott government dressed up as the Turnbull government—less lycra, probably; more leather, possibly—has the same insidious intent when it comes to Australia's health system. That is what this is demonstrating today. The measures from the 2014 budget that have been put in a cupboard are now being wheeled out, and this time they are being wheeled out with Mr Turnbull at the front. This legislation demonstrates clearly that the government has not changed, and I stand with my Labor colleagues to oppose it because, as the member for Makin said not a few minutes ago, it is a government that is still hell-bent on short-term savings and ignoring the long-term costs. It is a government that wants to make changes that are cuts, which are clearly slashing the health budget in this country without any thought to what the long-term health costs will be.</para>
<para>We know that if people are not going to the doctor, if people are not seeking the health care they need in the early stages of illness, that the costs go up and up, and of course they become extreme once someone reaches hospitalisation. We have a government hell-bent on short-term savings, not providing a rationale for the changes that they seek to make nor a rationale or explanation as to how these changes will solve an issue that they say they found but have not provided evidence for. I say to those opposite: 'Show us the evidence that this is needed. Show us that this $270 million cut is needed. Show us that it will help with the supposed issue, and show us the evidence that these changes will address those issues.'</para>
<para>The member for Ballarat has been incredibly diligent in her role in opposition of taking the forensic view of the changes being proposed by those opposite to our health system. In her work, she has exposed that, time and time again, we have seen changes being proposed to our health system that will undermine the basic universal nature of our healthcare system, that will undermine particularly low-income people's ability to access the health care that they need. This is just one more example of that today. Labor will suggest amendments, and we stand opposed to the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015 as it stands and as it was brought to this chamber today. I know that people in my community are now very wary of any changes this government tries to make to health, because they are feeling on the ground the impacts of the changes they have already made by regulation—the GP tax through the backdoor. They are feeling those changes now as local doctors move to change their business model to ensure that they will still be in business to see patients in response to the indexation freeze. This government has a trust issue when it comes to the health space, and I think the people of Lalor will support Labor's opposition to this piece of legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015. This bill is the result of the Abbott-Turnbull government's infamous 2014-15 budget. Who could forget it? Who could forget that budget? I remember the booklets being handed around in Moreton before the election—the Real Solutions booklet, with the photo of the coalition's frontbench; Malcolm Turnbull sitting in there smiling. That budget completely repudiated what was in the Real Solutions booklet, and the promises made by the leader of the coalition—surely the most blatant case of false advertising that anyone has seen.</para>
<para>Lionel Hutz would have more chance of arguing the false advertising case against the Abbott-Turnbull government than when he sued against the movie <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic"> N</inline><inline font-style="italic">ever</inline><inline font-style="italic">E</inline><inline font-style="italic">nding </inline><inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tory</inline>. It is unbelievable—all the promises contained in the Real Solutions booklet were completely thrown out by the 2014 budget, and this piece of legislation is a direct result of it.</para>
<para>It is put forward by the government as a potential saving of $270 million. Of course, if there is a saving to the government it must also mean that there will be a cost to someone else. That is the reality of economics. We know with this government that the cost is always to be borne, sadly, by those in Australia, who are the most vulnerable, and this legislation before the chamber is no different.</para>
<para>Medicare is one of the great legacies of the late Gough Whitlam, and I particularly acknowledge him today, on the 40th anniversary of his dismissal by the Queen's representative Kerr. Medicare, introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in 1975, was originally called Medibank and was renamed Medicare when it was reintroduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1985. In the nine months after Medibank/Medicare was implemented on 1 July 1975, the staff increased from 20 to 3,500, and 81 offices were opened. Medicare today is accepted and loved by all, particularly on this side of the chamber, as Australia's universal healthcare scheme. It ensures that all Australians can access our world-class healthcare system.</para>
<para>The savings from this bill arise from changes to the Medicare safety net by the Abbott-Turnbull government. The Medicare safety net can be a confusing system to navigate, so I will just give a brief description by way of background. I want to preface this brief description by taking people back to a <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> interview on 6 September 2004 with the then health minister, a bloke called Tony Abbott. The interviewer, Ticky Fullerton, asked:</para>
<quote><para class="block">TICKY FULLERTON: Will this Government commit to keeping the Medicare-plus-safety-net as it is now in place after the election?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TONY ABBOTT: Yes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TICKY FULLERTON: That's a cast-iron commitment?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TONY ABBOTT: Cast-iron commitment. Absolutely.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TICKY FULLERTON: 80 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses rebatable over $300, over $700?</para></quote>
<para>Tony Abbott replied—and this should be underlined and put in bold:</para>
<quote><para class="block">TONY ABBOTT: That is an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment.</para></quote>
<para>That was the minister for health, as he then was, in the lead-up to the 2004 election, when the member for Adelaide was elected, on a tough day for Labor. Medicare was a big issue in that election campaign, but we saw the health minister make that rock-solid, ironclad commitment, and then—by March the next year, I think it was—he did a backflip. So he had form. We should have realised, when it came to the 2013 election, that the commitment that was made before the election was not going to be something that he would hold true to. And we saw that with the 2014 budget.</para>
<para>There are currently two safety nets in operation: the original safety net, which applies to all Medicare card holders; and the extended safety net, which has two limbs, one applying to concession card holders and families eligible for family tax benefit part A, which has a lower threshold than the second limb, which applies generally to all Medicare card holders. The two safety nets operate quite differently. Under the original safety net, once the threshold of $440.80 has been met, the patient would receive 100 per cent of the schedule fee for out-of-hospital services. Under the extended safety net, once the threshold of either $638.40 for the concessional threshold or $2,000 for all other Medicare card holders is met, then 80 per cent of out-of-pocket costs will be covered. At present, all out-of-pocket costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services contribute to the safety net threshold. I repeat: at the moment, all out-of-pocket costs contribute.</para>
<para>Under this cruel bill, the out-of-pocket costs that contribute to the threshold will be capped at 150 per cent of the MBS schedule fee. On first inspection, this bill appears to be the patient's friend. But the devil is in the detail. It does decrease the safety net threshold and, ordinarily, that would create savings for the patient, but, because this bill also places restrictions on the out-of-pocket costs that contribute to the patient reaching the safety net, this makes the task of reaching the threshold more difficult for the patient. These changes will have a huge impact on thousands of patients in Moreton—from Chelmer to Kuraby, from Fairfield to Oxley, from Annerley to Willawong and every suburb in between. Sadly, the amount that patients receive back from Medicare after they reach the safety net will also be reduced.</para>
<para>The Australian Medical Association, not exactly a left-wing organisation, are very well placed to comment on the effects of this bill and how it will impact on their patients, and they have criticised these cruel Turnbull changes. Professor Owler, the President of the AMA, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The new Medicare Safety Net arrangements, together with the ongoing freeze of Medicare patient rebates, mean that growing out-of-pocket costs will become a reality for all Australian families, including the most vulnerable patients in our community.</para></quote>
<para>Professor Frank Jones, the President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, another organisation that has direct connections with the implications of this bill, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… coupled with the indexation freeze, the legislation will actually increase the cost of care to vulnerable groups. Safety net thresholds will increase by CPI annually while rebates are frozen.</para></quote>
<para>Both of those organisations—the College of GPs and the AMA—have noted how this bill will impact particularly on the most vulnerable. It is revisiting the tactics of the 2014 budget.</para>
<para>This bill will particularly impact upon radiation oncology patients: cancer patients who are undergoing radiation treatment—surely people at a most difficult time in their lives. Those patients have more than enough to deal with without being exposed to more out-of-pocket expenses. By way of example: a patient with a malignant melanoma—which is sadly a reality in Queensland—who is receiving stereotactic radiation treatment could face further out-of-pocket expenses of $7,400. A patient with prostate cancer undergoing volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment could face further out-of-pocket expenses of $8,000. A patient with breast cancer undergoing radiation therapy through a private provider could face a 200 per cent increase in out-of-pocket expenses. These are not incidental amounts that these patients will be faced with. Patients will be slugged with these extra costs at the very worst possible time in their lives, normally also while they are unable to attend work. The last thing these patients need is further stress, wondering how they are going to pay for the treatment that they hope will keep them alive.</para>
<para>Another sector of the community that will be impacted by this bill is patients undergoing IVF. Australia has been at the forefront of IVF research since the 1970s. It has brought joy to many, many households across Australia. The first IVF birth in Australia was in June 1980. It was only the third IVF birth to occur anywhere in the world. I think it was in Adelaide actually, from memory. I would have to check.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Kate Ellis</name>
    <name.id>DZU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was just a baby myself.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Clare</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was you!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Kate Ellis</name>
    <name.id>DZU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It wasn't me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are now more than 10,000 babies born through assisted reproductive technologies each year in Australia. It is estimated that patients who currently pay only $4,000 per IVF cycle—still an expensive decision—will now be slugged with a bill of between $10,000 and $15,000. This is also at a difficult and stressful time in their lives. That is a huge increase in cost, particularly when couples often go through more than one cycle of IVF. That increase could be crippling to a young couple trying to start their family. Imagine their stress if the IVF cycle is not successful. Not only will they be terribly disappointed by their failure to conceive; but there will also be the knowledge that in order to have another chance to conceive they will have to face those huge costs again—another expensive roll of the dice. The President of the Fertility Society, Associate Professor Mark Bowman, claims that this bill will result in 1,000 fewer babies being born every year and an increase in sets of twin, triplets and other multiple births.</para>
<para>The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists also has concerns about this bill. One of their concerns is that people with serious mental illnesses will no longer have access to psychiatric services. They are also concerned that sexual abuse victims, who are currently the subject of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, will also not have access to psychiatric services. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists have warned that these changes will lead to an increase in the incidence of suicide among this vulnerable patient group. There is much at stake for this group of patients and the groups I have mentioned. It is not just about the extra costs of the service.</para>
<para>The existing arrangements provide that all out-of-pocket costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services will count towards the threshold. This bill will restrict the out-of-pocket costs that will contribute to reaching the threshold, making it harder to get to that threshold. Then, once the threshold is reached, there will be further caps on what will be covered. This is a cruel policy. The purpose of the safety net—the very essence of what the safety net is about—is to ensure that when a person faces a large amount of out-of-pocket health costs in one year they will be protected.</para>
<para>This purpose underlines the basic principle of Medicare—that every Australian should have access to the highest quality of medical care, regardless of their capacity to pay. That is what Whitlam was about when he introduced the bill in the first place. I know Fraser overturned it, but then the Hawke government brought it back in and it has been accepted by John Howard and by every Labor Prime Minister, obviously, but even by Tony Abbott. But now they are even undermining that universal healthcare principle. The most vulnerable patients are the ones that will suffer because of this legislation. Those with cancer, couples undergoing IVF, people with serious mental illnesses and victims of sexual abuse are the ones who will be hit hardest by the financial impact of this bill.</para>
<para>This government was elected on the promise of 'no cuts to health'. That was the commitment given by the leader of the coalition before the last election. That promise did not last past their first budget, and now we are seeing it made even worse. There was the GP tax, $57 billion in cuts to hospitals; and now this $270 million in 'reforms' to the Medicare safety net. This bill is nothing short of a cut to public health. In real terms it will mean massively increased out-of-pocket costs for some people—and, as I said, particularly those who are most vulnerable.</para>
<para>I know from my constituents that people value the Medicare system and care about protecting it. Just yesterday one of my constituents posted on my Facebook page this comment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As an older woman, I say leave us alone. My husband is fighting cancer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We both paid our taxes, medicare levies, and for 54 years my husband struggled to pay for private health. Why? Cos he believed, like many in our age bracket, that we were protecting our family's welfare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">You have no idea of 'struggle'.</para></quote>
<para>This bill will hit the most vulnerable in our society the hardest. For that, I condemn the Abbott-Turnbull government. People battling with cancer treatment deserve more. People struggling to start a family with the assistance of IVF need to be considered, particularly with the benefits that will come to our society as birth numbers decrease. People who are victims of sexual abuse and people suffering from mental illness do not need this.</para>
<para>Could this bill be any more cruel? I ask the health minister to reconsider this piece of legislation and I ask the Turnbull government to reconsider this bill. I will not be supporting it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KATE ELLIS</name>
    <name.id>DZU</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today not just to speak against the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015, but also to urge everybody to stand up against this legislation. I urge those members opposite to not blindly follow their executive in walking down this pathway which will lead to cruel outcomes for the Australians who rely upon our health system and who will face the consequences if this piece of legislation is allowed to pass.</para>
<para>We have heard that this is about finding savings; it is about finding savings in our multibillion dollar health system. The government has brought forward this piece of legislation because they seek to find what on paper is $270 million in savings. That is the bottom line when you look at it in black and white. But we know that in finding those savings they will be impacting the lives of thousands of Australians, they will be impacting the families of thousands of Australians and they will lead to cruel and short-sighted consequences of this legislation, which we must stand up against.</para>
<para>I would urge those members opposite to have a look at what the consequences of this bill passing the parliament would be. I note members before me have spoken in detail about a range of different consequences. I would like to particularly focus on the impact on one group of Australians that the passing of this bill would have—that is, the group of Australians who rely upon access to IVF in order to have the families that they have always dreamt about.</para>
<para>What we are talking about is the impact of this bill on thousands of people. We know, for example, that the use of assisted reproductive technologies, such as in-vitro fertilisation, has steadily grown in Australia. According to the most recent Australia and New Zealand assisted reproduction database, 12,000 babies were born in 2012, following assisted reproductive treatment in Australia and New Zealand. That is 12,000 babies and 12,000 families.</para>
<para>We also know that, according to the Harvard Medical School, one study of 200 couples seen consecutively at a fertility clinic found that half of the women and 15 per cent of the men said that infertility was the most upsetting experience of their lives. Harvard also noted that many individuals who experience infertility experience emotions common to those who are grieving a significant loss. They are struggling with the loss of the ability to procreate. Frustration, anger, despair, loss of self-confidence and loss of self-worth are common emotions, and this can put pressure not just on those individuals but on the relationship in the first place.</para>
<para>We know this because of Harvard research but we also know this because every one of us in this place represents couples who have sought IVF in order to have their families, in order to get the children that they have dreamt about. I know through constituents that I represent, through local residents and also through friends who have accessed IVF just how stressful that experience can be. From speaking to them I know about the pressure, the emotional strain, the anxiety that is put on couples who want nothing more than to be able to have the baby that they will love and cherish but have been unable to do so.</para>
<para>The piece of legislation currently before the parliament would mean that these couples could see the cost of a cycle of IVF increase from $4,000 up to $10,000 to $15,000 per cycle. That is according to the Fertility Society of Australia. We know that this would put inordinate financial strain on many parents who are desperate to have children. Members opposite should consider: if you are going to rise in this place, if you are going to speak in support of this bill, if you are going to use your vote to support this bill and blindly follow your minister and Prime Minister as they seek to find $270 million in savings, you should be prepared to stand up and explain to the couples that you represent, to the parents who are desperate to have a child that, because of your actions in supporting this legislation, those families may have to make the sacrifice of trying to scrounge to find $10,000 to $15,000 in order to access a cycle of IVF, that those families may have to deal with not just the emotional stress, not just the anxiety of not knowing whether or not a cycle is going to be successful but also the financial burden, the additional pressure that comes from knowing that, if that cycle is not successful, they may not be able to afford trying again. Members opposite, if you are prepared to stand up and support this bill, you should be prepared to look those would-be parents in the face and say you are willing to sacrifice their dreams of having a family because this is a government too lazy to do the work to find more sensible savings. You should be prepared to take responsibility for the fact that many families may not ever be able to access a cycle of IVF because of the financial burden. That is something that members opposite must absolutely consider if they are even contemplating supporting this bill.</para>
<para>We know the financial considerations. According to the Fertility Society of Australia, one in six couples in Australia and New Zealand suffer infertility—that is one in six of the constituents that I represent and one in six of the constituents that every member of this parliament represents. IVF private patients currently face out-of-pocket costs of around $4,000 per cycle. We know that success rates vary dramatically. Many couples need multiple cycles of IVF. The emotional strain builds up but the financial burden also builds up. At the same time, there will be many individuals for which IVF will not be successful, and these families have to deal with the grief, the stress and the sense of loss that comes with that as well as, if the government has their way, the out-of-pocket expenses, which can skyrocket as a result of this bill.</para>
<para>I give this information because, as with any legislation, it is important that every member of this House has a look a the real-world impacts of the bills that we are debating. It is not acceptable for members of this parliament to just blindly line up behind their minister and not accept personal responsibility for the consequences of this bill for Australians who want nothing more than to have a child, who want nothing more than to be able to access IVF in order to build the families that they have dreamt about. We know that bulk-billing IVF clinics are not widespread. We know that many couples turn to private IVF as their only option. It is each and every one of these families that will be impacted as a result of this piece of legislation.</para>
<para>If that were not bad enough, the government has simply not even bothered to do their homework to justify why these cuts are necessary. When Labor was in government, we made changes to the safety net. We are not for a moment coming into this parliament and trying to argue that the safety net is perfect or that we do not need to look at making changes, but we absolutely come into this parliament and say that you have to do your homework and make sure that you know what the consequences of those changes would be. When Labor made changes to the safety net, they were supported by two independent reports—thorough studies of what the situation was and what the situation would be as a result of the changes to the safety net. This government comes into this parliament and proposes this legislation which would impact families trying to access IVF, which would impact cancer patients across Australia and which would impact patients who desperately need access to a range of psychiatric services. They do so without having done any of the independent studies; without having gone out and made the case; without having laid out what the consequences of this bill would be, who would be impacted and by how much they would be impacted.</para>
<para>I say that, as a parliament, we need to stand up and say, 'That is not good enough.' As a parliament we need to stand up and say, 'We will not deny Australian families access to IVF services when the government is too lazy even to do their homework and to outline what the impact of that would be.' As a parliament we must stand up and say, 'It is not good enough to rip away people's dreams of having a family when we have a minister who cannot even make the case and who cannot even stand up and outline the data about what the impact of these cuts would be.' This is lazy legislation; but, worse than that, it is legislation which will impact on some of the Australians who most need access to our health system and who would be denied as a result of this.</para>
<para>We know that the Australian Medical Association is opposed to these changes. Their president has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The new Medicare Safety Net arrangements, together with the ongoing freeze of Medicare patient rebates, mean that growing out-of-pocket costs will become a reality for all Australian families, including the most vulnerable patients in our community.</para></quote>
<para>We know that the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has also warned about the impact of these changes, especially in the context of the government's GP tax and through its ongoing freeze of Medicare indexation. The president of the college, Professor Frank Jones, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… coupled with the indexation freeze, the legislation will actually increase the cost of care to vulnerable groups. Safety net thresholds will increase by CPI annually while rebates are frozen.</para></quote>
<para>Some may argue that the government have not had a chance to make the case and to look at what the impacts would be. So desperate is their need to find this $270 million in savings that they need to get this piece of legislation through, without having done the simplest of homework. But those who try to argue that should consider that this is not a new initiative. This is not from this year's budget. This is legislation that stems out of the 2014 budget that this government introduced. Since 2014, the government have had the opportunity to look at what the impacts would be and to make sure that there were not going to be any negative consequences for the Australian families who need access to the health system the most. They have failed to do so. They have failed to make the case, because this is a government that is so arrogant that they think that they can just make a decision and not even consider who it will be affecting and what the consequences of it will be.</para>
<para>I want to make it very clear to this parliament, as many of my colleagues have outlined, that we are deeply concerned about the impact this legislation will have on cancer patients. We are deeply concerned about the consequences that we know psychiatrists across Australia have pointed out. But we are also deeply concerned about the fact that this is a government that would wander into this parliament and introduce legislation which will have a profound impact on whether Australian couples have children, whether Australian couples can make the families that they have dreamt of. We are deeply concerned that they would do something so massive, without having done their homework, without having produced the data and without having made the case.</para>
<para>I urge each and every member of this parliament: if you are not prepared to stand up and say directly to the parents who need access to IVF that you are happy for them to be slugged $10,000 to $15,000 for each and every cycle of IVF that they may need, then you need to stand up and vote against this legislation. It is as simple as that. If members are prepared to support this legislation, they are prepared to support one of the cruellest sacrifices that this parliament could make Australian families do.</para>
<para>We know that this is a government who looks for savings and who looks to rip money from the Australians who need it the most. But is this a parliament that is going to support us ending the dream of Australian couples to start a family, because the government is too lazy to do their homework, to come up with considered policy and to make sure that they find $270 million amongst the multibillion-dollar health system, without ripping it directly out of the pockets of the patients that need it the most? I urge each and every member of this parliament to stand up and vote against this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we have heard from so many speakers, on this side, particularly, the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015 is really a bill that came out of the government's 2014-15 budget measures and is really about looking for savings. It is about how we can cut money out of the health system, rather than how we can improve health services for Australians and make some savings while we are at it. We do have some serious concerns, as people on this side have outlined, about the impact of these changes on thousands of patients.</para>
<para>The Medicare Safety Net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net are important parts of the health system in Australia, because they are for vulnerable people who have chronic illnesses, who are suddenly diagnosed with a particular illness, or who have some injury or accident and in that particular year their health costs blow-out and their out-of-pockets are really high. This is about ensuring that they can access health services and are not actually having to make the very difficult decision to say, 'I cannot have this health treatment because I cannot afford it.' That is what the safety nets are there for. That is why they were introduced. They are there to protect vulnerable people who have a particular illness, a chronic illness or an injury or who have had an accident in a particular year and may not be able to afford access to health services during that 12-month period that they reached their safety net or their extended safety net.</para>
<para>I know many constituents in my electorate to have met this Medicare Safety Net or the Extended Medicare Safety Net from time to time; I know other constituents in my electorate who regularly meet it every single year, because their out-of-pocket costs are very high indeed. Interestingly, the Senate did a committee report recently on out-of-pocket health costs in Australia. They are a really serious issue. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that in Australia, in 2011-12, $24.3 billion was paid in out-of-pocket expenses by patients, by Australians. That is an average of $1,000 per capita in Australia. So every Australian at the moment, on average, is paying about $1,000 in out-of-pocket costs for health care at the present time.</para>
<para>The Medicare Safety Net, of course, is mostly for out-of-pocket hospital expenses that have an MBS item—going to visit your GP, your specialist or your consultant. What the government is trying to do with this bill is just make a saving, as I said earlier, but the consequences of this saving and the people that it will affect are those people that need the services the most. As we have heard, they are patients who have been diagnosed with a cancer or a malignant melanoma, they are radiotherapy patients who have been recently diagnosed with prostate cancer, and they are victims of sexual abuse. They are also people with serious mental illnesses who will no longer be able to have access to psychiatric services. And, as we have heard so eloquently from the member for Adelaide before me, they are IVF patients who will face much higher costs if these changes go through the parliament. At the moment, out-of-pocket expenses are around $4,000 a cycle of IVF. That could go up to $10,000 to $15,000 per cycle, depending on where they are and the types of fees charged by their consultants.</para>
<para>This legislation will impact on some very vulnerable people. As an example, for radiotherapy patients who have been diagnosed with some cancers: we are talking about additional out-of-pocket costs of $7,000 to $8,000 per patient. When you have just been diagnosed with a particular cancer and you are trying to seek radiotherapy, the last thing you want to think about is how you are going to pay for the radiotherapy that you need to extend your life or, hopefully, have your tumours shrink, have your tumours go away and be able to have a very full and fulfilling life. The $8,000 per patient for radiotherapy is a very significant amount of money.</para>
<para>As I said, the Medicare safety net was introduced to assist and support vulnerable people so that they could access health services without having to worry about how they are going to pay for them. The country that we live in, Australia, is about a fair go for everyone, and I am sure that nobody in this place really wants people to be making decisions about their health based on what they can afford to pay. It is not the Australian way and it is not what Australians genuinely would support in the community.</para>
<para>These measures, as I said, were part of the 2014-15 budget. That budget also tried to make other health savings. You need to look at the health system in totality when you talk about better access to health care, better services for Australians and making savings. As we have heard, the issue with this bill is that the government has been lazy about the way that it has gone about it. The government is just trying to make a saving without looking at the impact on the broader health system or at other ways in which the Medicare safety net could be adjusted to provide some of those savings.</para>
<para>Of course, it was in the 2014-15 budget that we saw the GP co-payment proposal come from the government. Not once, not twice but three times we heard from the government that the GP co-payment was going to be introduced. It was only through pressure from people on this side standing up—like we are standing up in this debate today—and saying, 'No, we are not going to support that', 'That is not okay', 'The Australian public will not agree to this,' and, 'The Australian public never voted for this,' that we actually managed to get the government to back down on the GP co-payment. The reason, of course, that we had problems with the GP co-payment was that it was again about restricting access to health services that people need. It was about vulnerable people who may be making decisions about accessing health services based on whether or not they can afford it. That is not the Australian way, as I said previously. It is not the Australian way to say to people, 'You can only access health services if you can afford to pay for them—if you are wealthy enough.' That is not the country in which we live in today, and it should not be the country that we live in into the future.</para>
<para>Of course, with the freeze on the Medicare rebate for seeing a GP, we still have a GP co-payment by stealth from the government. We still have GPs in Australia with notices in the GP clinics saying that they may have to increase their charges or charge a gap rather than bulk-bill patients. They are saying that, because, of course, the government has frozen the rebate for three years, even though we know that health costs will increase over that period. We have had the AMA and GPs all over Australia coming out and saying that this will have an impact on patients accessing health services. They are still telling stories, of course, of when the 2014-15 budget first came out and a whole heap of people cancelled their appointments at the GP because they thought that the GP co-payment was already in place. So we know that it will have an impact on people accessing critical health services that they may indeed need.</para>
<para>We also know that primary health care is one of the cheaper ends of the health system. We know that if people see appropriate primary health carers at the correct stages of their illness or disease that can actually stop the hospital admissions that may occur. We know that we may be able to save more money further down the track by having patients seen on time and by getting doctors to see their patients. What we do not want in this country is those patients saying, 'I'm not going to access the GP, I'm not going to go to my specialist and I'm not going to go and have this radiotherapy treatment, because I cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs,' and that is what some of the changes in this bill will do. Some of the changes in this bill will see out-of-pocket costs increase for patients right across the country, particularly in those areas of radiotherapy, psychiatric services and IVF.</para>
<para>Last time we were in government, we made some changes to the Medicare safety net. We did look at some of the excessive charging that we thought was happening with consultants, and we did look at some changes to the Medicare safety net and, indeed, the extended Medicare safety net. We made some decisions based on evidence. We had two reports to us before we made those decisions. We had two reports looking at the consequences of the decisions that we were making, and that is not the case with this bill. The government are merely saying, 'We want to make savings in health system, so we are going to just cut some things and put caps on them in the extended Medicare safety net, because we can and because we want to make savings in the health portfolio.' That is the only reason the government are proposing these savings. They are not doing it because they want to provide better health services for patients. They are not doing it because they think that there is some systematic issue in the health system. They have not provided any evidence to suggest that that is the case. Certainly, to date, I have not seen any evidence at all from the government about why they are going down this path.</para>
<para>We have not had the health minister explain properly to people why the government have made the decisions about these particular services that we are talking about and why they have made the to decisions to cap what gap payments can be. We have not heard anything from the minister other than, 'We have to make savings.' The minister has not gone out and done her homework about why the Medicare safety net and the Medicare safety net need adjusting. She has not done her homework in terms of access to health services. She has not done her homework in terms of the consequences to some of these patients who may need critical care—either for radiotherapy patients or IVF patients that want to have a family. She has not looked at what impact this will have on those patients and those services.</para>
<para>The IVF issue, as the member for Adelaide talked about, is a really critical one for those couples who need IVF support to have the family that they dream of and to have the family that, for many years, many of them have been trying to have. It is traumatic and very difficult for couples to go through IVF cycles. Imagine going through those cycles of treatment knowing that every time you do so your out-of-pocket costs could go up from the current $4,000 to $10,000 to $15,000. It is a very significant impost on those couples who are having to make those difficult decisions about their families and their future families. They are very difficult decisions indeed—as I said, they are already under a lot of strain and no doubt are already emotionally in a difficult place trying to make those decisions.</para>
<para>This bill has not been thought through properly. This bill should not be supported. It is one of those government changes in the 2014-15 budget that tried to make massive cuts to the health system in Australia without the consequences for patient care being thought through. The government did not think about the consequences and the effect of the decisions that they were making in terms of the greater Australian community. They were not thinking about those people who have chronic conditions, those people who are ill—the elderly, those people who have an accident or an injury who might need to access health services in a particular year with the extended safety net and the Medicare safety net. As I said, there were various proposals for GP co-payments and there is the current GP co-payment by stealth. All we have seen from this government is a whole heap of savings in health. We have not seen any suggestions about how they are going to improve access to health services in Australia; all they do is talk about sustainability and what they mean by 'sustainability' is cuts. That is all they mean—cuts, cuts, cuts and more cuts. They are not talking about improved health outcomes for Australians, they are not talking about better access to health care, they are not talking about people being able to access health services when they need them and access health services in a way that will stop them having to impose further costs on the health system. They are not looking at preventing hospital admissions or any preventative health measures that could be in place. All we have seen from them is cuts. They just want to continue to cut—they want more out-of-pocket expenses for patients, for Australians, particularly for those Australian who are already sick and vulnerable and who already require additional assistance from government in many cases through the safety net and the extended safety net.</para>
<para>There is no way that I and members on this side of the House can support the bill, although I understand we will be referring it to a Senate committee so that some of the people who will be adversely affected by the bill—some of the experts and clinicians, some of the consultants and specialists in these areas—can put evidence before the Senate and before the parliament in the hope that those on the other side might listen and might look at other ways of making savings in health that improve access to health services and make savings at the same time. They could do some work and get some evidence and that is why we are going to refer the bill to a Senate committee—to see if some of that work can be done by the Senate given that the government does not seem to want that evidence before the parliament before the bill is voted on. I am proud to support the amendment but not the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill and in particular in support of the amendment by the shadow minister, the member for Ballarat. I am proud to have been here listening to my colleague the member for Franklin outline exactly why this bill should be rejected and the proposals contained in the amendment should be supported. I am proud to be standing with my Labor colleagues against changes that would adversely affect vulnerable people often at a particularly vulnerable time in their lives. The member for Franklin stressed the main theme here, which is that there may well be a policy case for change but the changes in this bill do not meet that challenge. The evidence has not been brought to bear. The evidence is not before us. This is particularly important in respect of this bill because the provisions contained within it cannot be assessed in isolation from the wider challenges in health care—wider challenges compounded by the attitude of this government through both of its budgets.</para>
<para>This is an opportunity to look at the Labor approach to health and the Labor approach to policy reform more generally. This government has a new Prime Minister who is very keen to talk up reform, but he is very reluctant to talk about what this reform is in aid of. We see this in the tax debate, where mellifluous sentences are strung together and there is much grandiose rhetoric but no real sense of what it is all in aid of—it is reform for reform's sake. Similarly we see 'sustainability' as a weasel word in the government's approach in respect of health—in respect of health generally and specifically in respect of some of the challenges this bill is said to respond to. We hear a lot about sustainability, which is of course code for cuts—cuts being the lazy approach to reform. There is a lot of talk about sustainability but no talk, really, about ensuring appropriate access to health care, much less talk about the real challenge here, which is improving the health and wellbeing of Australians.</para>
<para>I guess this lazy ideological attitude to public policy reform goes to the heart of the debate on this bill. As the member for Franklin very eloquently and effectively set out, we see assertion where we should have evidence—assertion in the place of evidence underpinned by a deep ideological preference for the private over the public. While it is important to acknowledge that there is a policy case to have a rethink about how the safety nets operate, there is much more work to be done if we are to take the government and the Minister for Health at their word on the intention of this legislation. These are issues that are so important to the people I represent. Universal health care is the most significant issue raised with me by my constituents, many of whom signed petitions in response to the various proposals of this government to introduce a GP tax. Universal access to health is of vital importance to the communities I represent and this legislation fundamentally damages that great principle, the foundation stone, of the modern Australian social compact. We should be slow to take government members at their word about this simplification process and in respect of some of the equity arguments that have been advanced in support of the bill. The reasons go to the detail of the bill, but also to its proper context.</para>
<para>We cannot see this legislation in isolation. It has to be considered in respect of this government's overall attitude to health. I talked briefly about the various proposals we saw for a direct GP tax, which has now been replaced by the GP tax by stealth—the rebates freeze, which represents a $2 billion cut to Medicare. And this sits with a $60 billion cut to public hospitals—that is a $60 billion cut, along with deep cuts to vital preventative health programs, along with the abolition of vital agencies such as the Australian National Preventive Health Agency, and along with cuts to public dental programs, cuts to mental health, cuts to Indigenous health, attempts to increase the cost of medicines—I could go on. But we are seeing a systemic attack on universal health care in Australia. This was exemplified by the recent attack by the minister on the principle of community rating; an exemplar of the privatise-at-all-costs, social Darwinist attitudes that underpin the deep policymaking preferences of those opposite.</para>
<para>In essence, we are talking here about cuts to the very notion of universal health care; the preference being—unstated, of course, and unargued for, unfortunately—to privatise health care in Australia. These were not arguments put to the Australian people before the election. In fact, the opposite arguments were put by the former Prime Minister in the Griffith by-election. These are not arguments which are advanced in the context of this debate. But this deep ideological suspicion of Medicare informs so much of the government's attitude. Liberals have been consistent in opposing universal health care in Australia for 40 years. Initially, they were up-front about this: they were up-front about it in the seventies, which saw the dismantling of Medibank; through the eighties, Prime Minister Howard was very up-front about his views on Medicare. Since then, Liberal party members have stopped talking directly about these views, but by their actions they give the lie to their stated commitments to Medicare. They are less honest about their views about Medicare and universal health care now—but, as we have seen over the last two years, this does not change the substance. This does not change the effect—the effect in this place but also, more importantly, the effect on people's lives and the potential effect on health care outcomes, driving us towards an even less equal society.</para>
<para>While all the talk of sustainability fills the rhetoric of government members, let us not forget for a moment that our universal health insurance scheme provides us with healthcare costs that are relatively low by OECD standards, while providing universal coverage. And obviously, there are major contrasts with economies like that of the United States in that regard. There are real fears that this approach to health care could lead to higher healthcare costs, for all the talk of sustainability. And this is not to consider the vital role that our universal healthcare system has in maintaining an effective social wage, in being a vital bulwark against inequality, both in an economic and in a broader wellbeing sense.</para>
<para>Looking at that context, I turn to the bill itself. I note that right across the healthcare sector we see very, very strong opposition and deep concern about the provisions in this bill. Strong comments such as those that have been made by Brian Owler of the AMA should be taken seriously. Of course, no-one here is suggesting that stakeholders should individually drive any reform process. But when concerns are voiced so seriously, they deserve to be taken on board. That has not been done. As well as the AMA, a variety of specialist bodies have also spoken out to express their concern. It may well be that these concerns could be addressed by a proper reform process. I think it is useful to reflect on the 2009 process considered by the former member for Gellibrand, Nicola Roxon, when she was Minister for Health and Ageing, where an evidence case was built in response to a stated problem. Here we have nothing of the sort. And, while simplification is generally a good thing in public policy—and clearly our rebate system and the safety nets that attach to it are complex and difficult to understand—simplification is not an end in and of itself. A single safety net is, I believe, a fine aspiration—but surely it is a means to providing effective access to health care at lower cost, and to health and wellbeing for all Australians, particularly in light of the sorts of circumstances we dealing with here, when individuals are faced with extraordinary, one-off events that can impose great financial pressures at very difficult points in their lives.</para>
<para>Again, let us think about the first principles that underpin this: we are trying to provide that form of insurance and, in doing so, maintain the principles of Medicare and the principles of universal health care which just about everyone in this parliament espouses, at least on paper. And, when we are mindful of these first principles, let us also think about the adverse consequences that we believe could arise from this bill, that have not been adequately dealt with by the minister or government members, maybe unintentionally, but which are adverse nonetheless. We have very serious concerns about these impacts. At a general level, we are concerned about the introduction of restrictions on the out-of-pocket costs that contribute to a person reaching the safety net, and about the reduction of amounts received back after the safety net is reached—noting, of course and only to be fair, the lowering of the safety net threshold. But let us be clear about this: some patients would be reaching the safety net sooner, but that is would be in the overall context of a $270 million cut, which makes it very clear that savings are to be made—that is, the savings claimed by restricting out-of-pocket costs that can accumulate to reaching the safety net and additionally by placing further caps on what is to be covered. There may be good reasons for some of these caps—I am sure there would be—but that case has not been founded in evidence. It is merely something that we are asked to take on trust. That is something we should not do with this minister or with this government.</para>
<para>Going beyond the general to some of the specific areas of concern that were touched on by the shadow minister in her contribution, very effectively and in some detail, and by the member for Franklin before me: we should not treat lightly the impacts on specific cohorts of patients; particularly, as I said earlier, at vulnerable points in their lives. I think about radiation oncology patients, and I think about those accessing psychiatric and IVF services, and I will touch on them briefly. These are important matters that deserve reconsideration by the government, through—ideally—acceptance of the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat, or through the Senate committee process. What we are really talking about here, stripped of the rhetoric, is a cut giving effect to cuts of $270 million to the safety nets through the abolition of the current safety nets and their replacements. These safety nets exist to serve a simple and important principle. It is all very well for the minister in her second reading speech to talk about the problems and the current arrangements, which this legislation is said to attend to. She is right to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The current safety nets are complicated and confusing.</para></quote>
<para>But this is not the whole story, quite far from it. The shadow minister, the member for Ballarat, has said that Labor does not say the present arrangements are perfect and nor do we resist reform in this area, especially to improve targeting one of the issues purportedly this bill is to deal with. But we take a considered and respectful approach to this challenge—as we did under former Minister Roxon in 2009, as this government continually refuses to do and as our proposed amendment would provide for.</para>
<para>In the time remaining to me I will touch briefly on the specific areas of concern that I believe warrant a proper response. The member for Franklin ended her speech in touching on the issue of couples and individuals accessing IVF. Again, we need to take very seriously the concerns that have been raised by fertility services providers when they suggest, reasonably at face value, the costs per cycle could more than triple to between $10,000 and $15,000. This is a matter that we should give very serious regard to and think about the circumstances of those people considering IVF and how we should restrict access to that. These are debates that we should have through the front door not through this sort of default system. There have been some serious concerns raised by psychiatrists on the potential impacts on the patients they provide vital support and care for. The commentary of their professional leaders touch on issues like the cohorts of potential patients like the victims of child sexual abuse, which is a matter that is of importance and concern to all of us in the context of the royal commission. I suspect these impacts may be unintended consequences of the legislation but they prove the point. Similarly, radiation oncology patients who were formerly bulk-billed would be very seriously affected and their household budgets stretched—huge stresses and huge strains on people who are at a very, very challenging time in their lives.</para>
<para>In wrapping up, Labor accepts that there is a case for review, there is a case for change, but it should be founded in the evidence, it should be founded in first principles, and it should also be founded in a broader discussion about our approach to health. These provisions cannot be isolated from the broader settings of health policy and the broader decisions of this government, but this bill—through its hasty introduction and lack of consultation—will compound difficulties in the health system rather than alleviate them. The bill should be rejected and the amendment of the member for Ballarat supported.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think Australians are rightly proud of our health system. Labor's reforms in government saw 11,000 more doctors, 26,000 more nurses, and more doctors in the bush. It was Labor that built Medicare, it was the Hawke and Keating governments which sustained it and supported it, and we had to rescue it when we came to power in November 2007. Under the stewardship of the member for Warringah as the then health minister, bulk-billing rates were as low as 67 per cent. We attained record GP bulk-billing rates of over 82 per cent by the time of the fall of the last Labor government in September 2013. We invested more money. We invested $20 billion extra in our hospitals and that funding would have continued up until 2020 but for the election of the coalition government.</para>
<para>I do recall seeing that blue book with the smiling visages of the member for Warringah, the member for Wide Bay, and the now Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth. They were smiling sweetly about their plan, the dog-eared plan—the blue book. It looked a bit crusty by the end of the campaign. It was going to set out what they were going to do. When I had a look at this particular legislation, I thought: 'What were they actually going to do on health?' So I pulled out and dusted off the Fiscal Budget Impact of Federal Coalition Policies, which was released a couple of days before the election. I went to section 5.0, Coalition's Health Policies. They were going to strengthen GP practice—well, that has really gone down very well with the GP co-payment proposals in various iterations and the 'GP co-payment by stealth' as the President of the AMA, Brian Owler, talks of. They were going to double practice incentives and invest in regional and rural teaching infrastructure, and a whole range of things such as investing in medical internships and boosting front-line health care and research.</para>
<para>I wonder how that front-line health services boosting is going on with the $60 billion in cuts to health and hospital services. There were a whole range of things. I went down from 5.1 through to 5.17 and the Net Budget Impact—Health Policies as $344 million out to 2016-17. I went through it again to see if I could find a GP co-payment in there anywhere, or a change to the safety net in terms of Medicare, and I could not find it anywhere. In fact, it is not to be found anywhere because the coalition, before the 2013 election, said absolutely nothing whatsoever about this. In fact, the member for Warringah, the then opposition leader, was very quick to say there were going to be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions. So the people trusted the coalition when they came to power that they would support Medicare, that they would not make front-line health services harmful and that they would not undertake cuts in relation to hospitals and the kind of care that Australians expect. Why? Because under the previous Labor government we had invested in medical workforce training, shorter times had been achieved in terms of waiting times for emergency and we brought in a Growing Up Smiling package, a kids dental package which was a revolution in terms of what it was going to do. But this government coming to power seemed to break all of that. We had the disastrous budget in May 2014, where they said that Medicare was lacking in sustainability in the health service. They then undertook cut after cut after cut but they did not direct it towards the system, or the sector whatsoever; they directed it towards a future fund.</para>
<para>Research is good. Who could seriously argue that putting money into a medical research fund is a bad thing? Of course we think it is a good thing. We ultimately supported it. But this government undertook cuts everywhere and, in the end, did not put any money back. We saw more than $60 billion cut from Australia's public hospitals. There was an attempt to increase the cost of medicine for every Australian, including through the unfair changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.</para>
<para>Labor are very proud of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, because we built it; we founded it. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has been helping millions of Australians each year with the cost of essential medicines. We are very proud of it and we support it. We championed bulk-billing rates. We got them to record highs. We were helping to keep the health costs of Australians lower and helping working families nationwide. But the coalition came into power not saying anything about what they were going to do in terms of the changes they made in the May 2014 budget. They have made it much harder for families to get the kind of health care they need. Families are forced to use their credit card rather than their Medicare card.</para>
<para>What are the government doing here? What are they arguing? They are arguing that the Medicare safety net is primarily utilised not by low-income earners but by middle- and high-income earners. Through this legislation, although the government is introducing a new Medicare safety net with a lower threshold for patients, there are restrictions on some out-of-pocket costs that accumulate towards that threshold, and the benefits payable once patients reached the safety net are also restricted. Why are they doing that and on what basis are they doing it? Is there any empirical evidence whatsoever to support this? How will this enhance the health of the country and the health of families? Will it help in terms of their health costs?</para>
<para>We know that if you take $270 million out of the government contribution towards the health system someone will have to pay. It will be families who will pay. They will pay more. Legislation for family tax benefit cuts came before the chamber yesterday and will be looked at I think today or tomorrow. The impacts on the family tax benefit part A supplement leave 14,715 families in Blair hundreds of dollars a year worse off and the cuts to the family tax benefit part B supplement hit 13,041 families in Blair.</para>
<para>When we made changes to the Medicare safety net in 2009, we did so based on empirical evidence, based on reports done by the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation. We released those reports and, on the basis of empirical data, we looked at what would best make the system sustainable and what would best help families. So we are not opposed to better targeting and making changes; we are opposed to making it harder in the name of simplification. The government is proposing to simplify Medicare safety net arrangements, and that was indeed the theme of their 2014 budget.</para>
<para>You have to look behind the rhetoric to see the impact. This simplification results in an adverse impact on thousands and thousands of patients. It does the three things I mentioned before. It lowers the safety net threshold for all patients, which in and of itself sounds good, but it restricts the out-of-pocket costs which contribute to the patient reaching the safety net and it reduces the amount the patient receives back once they reach the safety net. So on the surface it looks fine, but there is a sting in the tail.</para>
<para>Speaker after speaker on this side of the chamber have talked about the impact on radiation oncology patients—those suffering from cancer, whether malignant melanomas, prostate cancer or breast cancer. The government is simply not listening to the sector. It is certainly not listening to the AMA. My colleagues on this side of the chamber have quoted Brian Owler, President of the AMA, on numerous occasions. As he has said, the new Medicare safety net arrangements, together with the ongoing freeze of Medicare patient rebates, mean that growing out-of-pocket expenses will become a reality for all Australian families, including the most vulnerable patients in our community. The AMA is not an affiliated union to the Australian Labor Party. The AMA is an organisation that is very independent and that is quite prepared to give both sides of the chamber a hit up the chin if it wants to. It is quite prepared to tell both sides they have got it wrong. This is not, as the government suggests, about taking away from wealthy families. In fact this is going to have an impact, as the AMA said, on the most vulnerable patients in our community. It does not have the support of the Royal Australia College of General Practitioners either.</para>
<para>This will have a big impact on my electorate, where bulk-billing rates have hovered between 88 per cent and 92 per cent in the last year or two. So will the GP co-payment by stealth that has been inflicted by this government. That will rip $1.3 billion out of Medicare over the next four years. The amount that we are talking about today is a small amount but it will have an adverse impact on families. If there is a rebate freeze, it will have an impact on the profitability of GPs. A study done by the AMA and the <inline font-style="italic">Medical Journal </inline><inline font-style="italic">o</inline><inline font-style="italic">f Australia</inline> has found that by 2017-18 the shortfall will leave GPs $8.43 worse off, forcing many doctors to charge patients who are currently being bulk-billed, and resulting in increased gap payments for other patients. On top of the freeze the government is imposing there is another whammy on vulnerable families. In relation to the GP co-payment, which they were talking about before, they could not work out whether it was going to be $7 or $5—there were various iterations. According to the data, it would have had an impact of about $4.7 million on families in the Blair electorate.</para>
<para>The legislation before the chamber is not good legislation. It will have an adverse impact. Let us look at the current arrangements. Under existing arrangements, all out-of-pocket costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services count towards the threshold. Once a patient reaches the extended Medicare safety net, 80 per cent of their out-of-pocket costs are covered for out-of-hospital Medicare services.</para>
<para>This is not good legislation. The government should have a look at itself and withdraw the legislation. That is why Labor is opposing it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>27</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chisholm Electorate: Just One Day Program</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURKE</name>
    <name.id>83S</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to raise awareness for a terrific new initiative from International Needs Australia called Just One Day, which was launched in my electorate at Surrey Hills Primary School and is scheduled to commence in 2016. This is a program run by the same people who have been running the very successful Just Like Me? global education workshop across greater Melbourne for the last three years which is aimed at teaching children about other cultures and their similarities and differences between themselves and children in developing countries.</para>
<para>Just One Day builds upon the advances made by the Just Like Me? program by challenging primary school children and their families to live basically for just one day—at both at school and at home—by eating basic food like rice and vegetables while sitting on the floor, using water carefully and, yes, even turning off all the screens. The money raised by this venture will be used to keep kids from poor countries in school. The Just One Day program is delivered free of charge and will complement Australian curriculum requirements to educate our children to become global citizens.</para>
<para>Students will take part in workshops based on the real-life stories of children in developing countries and participate in whole group discussions. This will help students develop an understanding of the hardships experienced by children living in poverty and gain empathy in the lives of others. One part of the program is to understand how difficult it is for people to actually get water. They have to balance a bucket on their head and most of the students find this incredibly difficult. This fantastic program teaches students in a hands-on way about global poverty, helping to develop our children into globally aware citizens while fundraising, while fundraising vital funds to assist poor kids in developing countries. I encourage all schools to participate in this incredibly worthwhile venture.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macedonian Trade Delegation</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Sunday, I was honoured to welcome a Macedonian trade delegation as part of their visit to promote bilateral trade between Australia and the Republic of Macedonia. It is great to see the delegation reaching out to Australian businesses and setting up joint ventures, especially in the manufacturing sector; and that they received a civic reception at Liverpool City Council hosted by Councillor Peter Ristevski. The trade delegation is being led by Prelip mayor, Marjan Risteski. Prelip is the ancestral home to most of the migrants from Macedonia who have made Liverpool, in Sydney, their home.</para>
<para>The delegation is made up of: Risto Najdoski, president of the Prilep chamber of commerce; Alberto Georgievski, CEO of Imperial Marble, which exports the extremely rare commodity of white marble; Valentin Ristevski, from Vitaminka, which already distributes its food products in both Coles and Woolworths; Zvonko Georgievski, a CEO of the Macedonian meat industry who is looking to source meat from Australian farmers; and Sasko Samardzioski, CEO of a Prelip beer company looking to establish a local distribution firm. Special thanks go to my very good friend the Macedonian ambassador Vele Trpeski for organising the delegation's visit to Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McEwen Electorate: Deepavali Festival of Lights</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Hindu, Sikh and Jain communities in my electorate of McEwen came together to celebrate Deepavali at the Buttercross Park at Mernda late last month; and it was vibrant and inclusive. Tom Joseph, the president of the Mernda and Doreen Multicultural Association was a key organiser of the Deepavali festival and I would like to thank him along with some of the volunteers who helped me on the day—people like: Guri Singh, Narrinder Garg and Manoj Kumar.</para>
<para>Deepavali is the Indian Festival of Lights, meant to signify victory of light over darkness, of knowledge over ignorance, hope over despair. Deepavali is also recognised as a festival of peace. On the international border between India and Pakistan, troops on either side of the border exchange traditional sweets in recognition of the occasion. This exchange is synonymous with Tom Joseph's and MADMA's goal for the Deepavali festival—that is, to provide an opportunity for cultural exchange and understanding between Indian and other Australian communities.</para>
<para>Traditionally a five-day event, the Deepavali festival was held on Saturday in late October, and drew a large crowd from the Mernda, Doreen and surrounding communities. Approximately 8,000 people attended the Deepavali festival and experienced live entertainment, including a variety of dance styles, both traditional and modern, a band, community markets, food stalls and carnival rides. There was a fireworks display to mark the end of the celebration. Tom and MADMA were fantastic hosts. Their goal was to ensure that every person attending the Deepavali festival experienced the colours, flavours and fragrances of India, and they definitely achieved this.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr JENSEN</name>
    <name.id>DYN</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On this Remembrance Day, I would like to pay tribute to the many memorial services being held across my electorate of Tangney. Of those holding services today, I acknowledge the invitation that the Applecross RSL extended me and wish them well on this solemn day. Tangney is well served by RSLs, with sub-branches in Applecross and Riverton. Today, more than any other day, it is right, proper and timely to pay my respects, for the selfless service that these men and women have shown and continue to show both on the battlefield and in civvy street.</para>
<para>This day has a special personal meaning for me because my grandfather, who was alive until I was 14, served on the Western Front in the World War I, and my uncle served in North Africa in World War II. I well remember stories that they told me and certainly the gentle manner that they had following those wars and the great humility that they had despite their service and what they had seen. Today, I acknowledge both of their service and the service of all those that have served in all wars.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Shipping</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to express my concern for the workers who currently crew MV <inline font-style="italic">Portland</inline>, a ship operating around the Australian coast, between Victoria and Western Australia for Alcoa. Alcoa have advised that they will sell this vessel and replace it with a foreign ship employing foreign workers. This will result in a loss of 40 direct jobs and is completely consistent with what the legislation that is now before the Senate says would happen. It said this, in its own explanatory memorandum:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Many of the operators currently operating under the Australian General Register would likely re-flag their vessels in order to compete with the foreign operators who enjoy the benefit of comparatively lower wage rates. Australian seafarers jobs would be adversely affected as Australian operators are re-flag from the Australian General Register. Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers (paid under EA rates) with foreign seafarers (paid under ITF rates).</para></quote>
<para>The modelling also showed that there was no inclusion of costs and the potential loss of Australian seafarers jobs in the legislation. We said this would happen as a result of the government's legislation. In advance of that legislation being carried, a temporary permit has been granted by the department against the existing legislation. This is an outrageous decision.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>O'Neill, Mr Michael</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr IRONS</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Michael O'Neill of South Perth passed away recently. He was born 3 March 1946 and passed away 24 October 2015. I recently attended his funeral. Mike worked on my campaigns in 2007, in 2010 and in 2013. Michael was originally from New Zealand and with that Anzac spirit today, it is convenient that I mention him. He actually worked for the ANZ bank and became the WA state manager many years ago. Following his time in Western Australia, he, like myself, chose to live in the beautiful state of Western Australia. Michael was a fanatical sport lover and he dearly loved the All Blacks—he would have been wrapped that they won the World Cup.</para>
<para>Mike filled many roles in the community and he worked tirelessly for community groups. One of the roles he filled was as Treasurer at the local golf club for many years. Michael also sat on many boards, including Gindalbie. He also acted as a mentor and one of the most famous people he mentored was Jenny Morris, who was captain of the successful Australian women's hockey team, which won gold in Atlanta and in Sydney.</para>
<para>He is survived by his beautiful wife Jan and son Darryl along with Darryl's wife and two grandchildren. I know in Mike's funeral program he had some quotes from Abraham Lincoln. Being a good conservative, one of the things I know he would love to me say here is: you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich; and you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Newcastle Electorate: Education funding</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week I had the pleasure of attending Gonski week celebrations at Kotara High School. The week before, I joined with teachers and parents at New Lambton South Public School to see firsthand the positive impact that Labor's Gonski funding is having on our local schools. Teachers told me that smaller class sizes meant they got to spend more time with students, and that intensive literacy and numeracy programs that they have been able to put in place were having enormous benefits for students and ensuring that students are all equipped with fundamental skills to set them up for life.</para>
<para>My school communities understand very clearly that properly funding our education system is not just a line item in the budget; it is actually an investment in Australia's future. The school communities are, of course, deeply concerned about the impact of this government's cuts to education and they have every right to be feel betrayed by the broken promises of this government when it walked away from funding years 5 and 6 of Gonski. It is estimated that, across my electorate of Newcastle, schools will be more than $195 million worse off because of the cuts over the next 10 years, cuts that will impact on every child in every school. It is the right of every Australian to access quality education, regardless of background, circumstance or location. It is the cornerstone of our social and democratic traditions and the key to our economic success. Labor introduced the Gonski reforms. We are committed to a sector blind needs based funding—</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Saunders, Capt. Reginald Walter</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we remember the contribution of all those who served Australia in war and conflicts, in particular we will remember today the contribution of Indigenous Australians who have taken up arms to defend this country. Later this afternoon, the Australian War Memorial will rename a gallery after Australia's first Indigenous commissioned officer, Capt. Reg Saunders.</para>
<para>Born in my electorate of Wannon, at Purnim, he was from a military family whose members served in both the Boer War and the First World War. At the outbreak of the Second World War, Reg Saunders enlisted on 24 April 1940 and was sent to the Middle East where he saw action in North Africa. After this, he was part of the failed Greek campaign. On the island of Crete, Saunders saw the allies defeated and was forced to hide from the German forces for 12 months. After his escape in 1942, he rejoined the Australian force in New Guinea where his actions and bravery were noticed, and his commanding officer nominated him for officer training.</para>
<para>A great soldier and leader, Reg would see further action after World War II in Korea before coming back to Australia to finish his career as a liaison officer with the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. He was appropriately awarded an MBE in 1971 for his service. It is fitting that he and his story are remembered and commemorated permanently in our War Memorial today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Monash, General Sir John, GCMG, KCB, VD</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On this Remembrance Day, I am pleased to add the voice of Indi to the push for one of Australia's most endearing and enduring war heroes, Sir John Monash, to be posthumously promoted to the rank of Field Marshal. The former Nationals leader Tim Fischer has long supported this cause. I joined Tim at an event in Flowerdale in my electorate where a show of hands of more than 80 people showed the vast majority were in favour of this promotion. Direct support was given by Jim Osborne, the then president of the Rotary Club of Yea, Steve Joblin, Secretary of the Flowerdale Men's Shed and John Brown, President of the Flowerdale Community House.</para>
<para>I note that the Jerilderie Shire Council adopted the Jerilderie proposition in late October and I congratulate my electorate neighbour, the member for Farrer, Sussan ley, on behalf of her constituents for agreeing to take this proposition to the Prime Minister for consideration. It would be proper and fitting to mark this promotion on the 100th anniversary of Monash conducting the first Anzac Day service in the field, which occurred near the Suez Canal on 25 April 1916. The support that the Prime Minister has already shown is encouraging and I urge him, on behalf of my electorate and others in the this House today, to give serious consideration to this proposition for April next year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capricornia Electorate: Domestic Violence</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When it comes to domestic violence and family custody issues, Central Queensland has some appalling statistics. The Capricornia police district reports the highest rate of domestic violence in Queensland. Sadly, North Rockhampton is among the worst of these areas. According to Rockhampton police, the rate of domestic violence here is 141 per cent higher than the state average. And, alarmingly, the incidence of domestic violence in Central Queensland has risen by about 20 per cent since last year.</para>
<para>To compound issues associated with DV, which include custody disputes and family law cases, Rockhampton has very limited access to a Federal Court judge. That is why I am fighting to have a Federal Circuit Court judge permanently based in the city, to service all of Central Queensland including Rockhampton, Mackay, Gladstone and Emerald.</para>
<para>Recently I hosted the federal Attorney-General in Rockhampton to discuss the issue with the Central Queensland Law Association. The association reports that Central Queensland has a population of 321,000 people. In contrast, Cairns, with 163,000 people, has a permanent Federal Court judge. Frustrated CQ lawyers report it can take two years to get family law cases finalised. I want to reassure the people of Capricornia that I will continue to fight for a permanent Federal Circuit Court judge to be based in Rockhampton.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Edwards, the Hon. Graham, AM</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MacTIERNAN</name>
    <name.id>L6P</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my great pleasure to acknowledge on Remembrance and Dismissal day a great Western Australian who has shown extraordinary courage, resilience and leadership in military, political and civilian life. My good friend Graham Edwards, AM, was declared WA's Senior Australian of the Year on Saturday. Great lost both legs to landmine while on voluntary service in Vietnam in 1970. He refused to be defeated by these injuries and became a powerful advocate for both the proper treatment of veterans and that disabled. Graham also showed that he would not be defined by and confined to those issues. He championed the principles of fairness and opportunity for all and was elected as a Labor member to the WA Legislative Council in 1983. He served as minister for racing, gaming and sport and then as police minister, and was hugely respected for his work in those portfolios.</para>
<para>When I first entered parliament he was the Labor leader in the Legislative Council, and I so appreciated his wise advice. He then went on to serve in this place as a most popular member for Cowan for nine years. Graham is the President of the WA branch of the RSL, where he is leading that branch on the tough, but important, journey of renewal and modernisation. Graham, congratulations on your latest gong.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The last shot of World War I was fired on Monday, 11 November 1918. Three hundred thousand Australians went to the Great War: 60,000 died and 156,000 were wounded or taken prisoner. On the first anniversary of the armistice, in 1919, one minute's silence was instituted as part of the main commemorative ceremony.</para>
<para>The Flanders poppy, which many of us are wearing here today, became accepted throughout the allied nations as the flower of remembrance. The red poppies were among the first plants that sprouted from the devastation of the battlefields of northern France and Belgium. Folklore suggests the poppies were vivid red from having been nurtured in ground drenched with blood.</para>
<para>The 11th of the 11th was the day the Great War ended. It was meant to be the war to end all wars. It was a day to remember what had passed, to show our appreciation and to celebrate peace. After the end of World War II in 1945, the Australian and British governments changed the name to Remembrance Day to commemorate all war dead. Unfortunately, there have been many wars since the Great War, and today many conflicts are ongoing.</para>
<para>As I and many of my colleagues paused for a minute's silence in Canberra today, I thought about the many men and women in my electorate who have served. I would like to thank the people who laid wreaths on my behalf at services across the electorate of Hinkler. In particular, I thank my wife, Alison—who continues to put up with me—who laid a wreath at the Bundaberg service today, and Peter Carey, who laid a wreath at the service in Hervey Bay at their new memorial.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ella-Duncan, Ms Marcia, OAM</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to congratulate the inspirational Marcia Ella-Duncan on her recent induction into the Australian Netball Hall of Fame. A proud Aboriginal woman and descendant of the Yuin nation, Marcia began her netball career as a nine-year-old at the La Perouse Netball Club in our community. She went on to become the first Aboriginal netballer to represent Australia at a senior level, the first Indigenous scholarship holder at the Australian Institute of Sport and a recipient of the Medal of the Order of Australia. Marcia played 18 tests for Australia in 1985 to 1987 and won a silver medal at the 1987 Netball World Cup in Glasgow.</para>
<para>Currently Marcia is coaching coordinator for the Randwick Netball Association and chair of La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council. Marcia is also a member of Netball Australia's Indigenous working group. It is fitting that on the day that she was inducted into the Netball Hall of Fame she presented Netball Australia's Reconciliation Action Plan, aimed at increasing the participation of young Indigenous netballers at a grassroots level. A true blue product of our local community, Marcia is an inspiration and continues to work and provide inspiration for young Indigenous people in our community. On the behalf of our community, Marcia, congratulations and thank you for the work that you do in our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Groom Electorate: Employment</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr IAN MACFARLANE</name>
    <name.id>WN6</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly I wish to acknowledge and thank all of those who have served and some who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom that we enjoy in this country. It is befitting that this House was suspended today in remembrance of the great sacrifices, particularly of the First World War. Those of us who have travelled through regional areas are more than aware of the toll that it took in regional and rural communities where some of their best and bravest did not return from those battles.</para>
<para>I also wanted to speak today about a new innovation that is occurring in Toowoomba: the Vanguard Laundry. Vanguard Laundry is not going to be any ordinary laundry. Apart from being highly sterile and perfectly able to handle all sorts of medical waste and laundry, it is going to be manned by people with a mental disability. The clubhouse in Toowoomba run by Luke Terry has promoted this idea. They have put forward a proposal which is currently under consideration by this government, but it has already attracted almost $1 million in support from the local community. This is the sort of thing that Australia should do more of: find opportunities for people with mental disabilities to be able to make a contribution, not just to hold stop start signs on roads, but to actually work in industries where they are making a contribution to the economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Schools</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night I attended the Australian Primary Principals Association launch of its Charter on Primary Schooling here in parliament house. I once again acknowledge the critical role primary school staff throughout Australia have in creating a future for children and the sometimes undervalued role that they have on a child's formative years. When I visit any of the primary schools in my electorate I am always most impressed by the level of care and commitment for each child displayed by staff, with staff often going well beyond what is required of them. As the principals say in the brochure issued last night:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Primary schools teach our children and contribute to our nation's future. They embrace the responsibility of giving children the academic and social foundations for leading fulfilled and enriched lives. In our school communities, each child's identity and culture are celebrated; personal responsibility is encouraged and expected; and, the knowledge and skills are gained to become independent and lifelong learners.</para></quote>
<para>I think that statement sums up the important role that they play.</para>
<para>I take this opportunity to thank the staff of all the primary schools in the electorate of Makin, which I represent, schools which I not only visit on a regular basis but keep in touch with by reading their newsletters, for all that they do to ensure that the children that they are given custody and care of are given the best start in life that they can have.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fanning, Mr Lochlann</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand to acknowledge the remarkable contributions of a young man who just happens to be my godson, a young fellow by the name of Lochlann Fanning, 20 years of age, who has overcome incredible adversity in his time. Some 10 years ago, he had a horrific horse accident while out riding with his mother, Anastasia, and sister, Isabelle. He fell. He was wearing a helmet. He spent a number of weeks in an induced coma and some seven months later was released from the Royal Children's Hospital in Brisbane. He suffered relatively severe physical disabilities but no mental disabilities.</para>
<para>As a result of that, <inline font-style="italic">Queensland </inline><inline font-style="italic">Country Life</inline>, the country magazine presented weekly, did an article on him last week. It just made me proud of what he had achieved. It reminded me, when we are down here in this place, of how important family should be to all of us.</para>
<para>Lochlann, to you: for what you have done in overcoming serious disability, I applaud you for the tenacity and for the strength that you have shown in getting on with your life. Lochlann has worked for the last three years at the Gracemere saleyards. I would encourage any of those listening and all in the gallery: if you are ever in Central Queensland at the Rockhampton Gracemere saleyards, pop in and say hello to Lochlann. He will be easily distinguished, as he is a character. He has just finished his final year of accountancy with an accountancy practice in Rockhampton, and I wish him the best in life.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dismissal</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year we lost a great Australian. We lost Gough Whitlam. In the outpouring of grief came true acknowledgement of the vision and achievement of his government. Today marks 40 years since the Dismissal, a black day in Australian history, a day when an elected government was removed from office by the Governor-General.</para>
<para>We have heard a lot of faux outrage in recent times when government members have moved to change leaders and therefore prime ministers, but 40 years ago today is the only time that a government and a Prime Minister have been removed from office. And yet, 40 years later, the Constitution that allowed the Governor-General to dismiss the Whitlam government has not been revisited in any restorative way.</para>
<para>These events breathed life into a debate about our place in the world, about our relationships, about how we could truly take our place in the world as an independent democracy, confident and proud of who we are and our institutions. On this day, remembering the events of 40 years ago, I call on members of this House to work together for an Australian republic and for an Australian head of state.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macarthur Electorate: Carrington Centennial Care</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MATHESON</name>
    <name.id>M2V</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to congratulate 23 wonderful employees of Carrington Centennial Care, a remarkable aged-care facility in my electorate of Macarthur, who have served Carrington and the local community over a significant period of time. Their long service to Carrington is a great testament to the loyalty and professionalism of the staff and their dedication to the residents in their care in this high-quality, loving and caring environment.</para>
<para>I congratulate Cathy Bank, Michelle Boyd, Simon Crowley, Naomi Delaney, John Dockerty, Linda Edwards, Cheryl Heaton, Lina Lefoe, Mark Lefoe, Natalie McMahon, Brenda Mullins-Jackson, Michelle Nolan, Katherine Perkins, Danielle Rauchle, Suman Singh and Angeles Walsh for 10 years service. I also congratulate Veronica Holmes, Janet Iler and Leanne McIntyre for 15 years of service; Mary Ellen Davis, Rosanna Green and Michelle Hanratty for 20 years service; and Thomas Lo for 30 remarkable years at Carrington Centennial Care.</para>
<para>On behalf of Camden and the people of Macarthur, I thank you for your care and compassion for Carrington's residents over the years. Your outstanding work has given countless families in Macarthur the peace of mind of knowing that their loved ones will be extremely well cared for in a peaceful and loving environment.</para>
<para>I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the board and management team at Carrington on their clear vision in getting Carrington to where it is today and ensuring that it continues to be one of the best aged-care facilities in the country for years to come. As we all head towards our golden years, I could not think of a more wonderful group of people to look after me in the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dismissal</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Forty years ago, as has been written, on this date Australia was plunged into a singular Australian crisis. It is a date seared into the soul of every Australian living at the time. It was a constitutional crisis that no-one could have imagined or could ever imagine happening again. The democratically elected Whitlam government, which had sought and won two elections on its program within three years, was deliberately and maliciously blocked from carrying out its mandate by a conservatively controlled Senate. Through a conspiracy engineered by the Liberal-National opposition, an unelected, unaccountable representative wielded unwritten power to sack a Prime Minister. That decision, that disrespect for the democratic rights of the Australian people, will rightly stand condemned for all Australians.</para>
<para>But what I do want to do on the 40th anniversary of the Dismissal is congratulate the current Leader of the Liberal Party, the chief spokesman of the Liberal Party, for acknowledging on behalf of the Liberal Party that Sir John Kerr should not have behaved in the way he behaved. I thank Malcolm Turnbull for finally, on behalf of the Liberal Party, acknowledging the inappropriate conduct of what happened that day. In the sense of our Constitution, it failed a fundamental test that day, and this will live forever in the memory of this nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bass Electorate: Cottage Bakery</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NIKOLIC</name>
    <name.id>137174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge Lily Cornish from my home town of Launceston, who did work experience in my office recently and helped me to write this speech. Through Lily's assistance I am able to highlight the achievements of a quality bakery in my electorate of Bass, which has recently taken out top honours at the Baking Association of Australia's 2015 Tasmanian awards. Cottage Bakery is a Scottsdale institution owned by Mary and Murray Partridge. They won an impressive 16 Baking Association awards last month, including two major trophies: the Ian Freeberg Shield and the Terry Proctor Memorial Trophy.</para>
<para>Murray bakes the bread, and his team, comprising brothers Steven and Danny Lodge and Stuart Burr, bake the many other delicious offerings at the bakery. When visiting Scottsdale, I always stop at the Cottage Bakery, where great coffee, food and service are guaranteed. Who could ask for more? The love and passion that Mary and Murray have for their small business is easy to see. That is why I featured Cottage Bakery in my Shop Small, Shop Local campaign this month. By supporting small businesses like Cottage Bakery, we stimulate the business cycle and help the creation of local jobs. In fact, Mary and Murray are currently on the lookout for another full-time baker.</para>
<para>Congratulations to Scottsdale bakery on this well-deserved achievement, and thanks again to Ms Lily Cornish for her help with this speech.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>33</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we have observed Remembrance Day at the War Memorial with the Leader of the Opposition, the Governor-General, the Presiding Officers and, of course, our visitors—our guests—the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. We honoured, as we do every year, the sacrifice of the men and women who served our country in all wars and who are serving our country today. It is an opportunity to express our deep respect and love as a nation for those brave Australians who gave their lives so that we should have the freedom and opportunities we enjoy as Australians today.</para>
<para>This year's Remembrance Day marks the 100-year anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, 70 years since the end of World War II and 50 years since the escalation of our commitment to the conflict in Vietnam. Today is also a day to remind ourselves that this story of sacrifice and duty is not only to be found in the pages of history but is also being forged by today's Anzacs in the Middle East and around the world.</para>
<para>We honour the veterans and the current servicemen and women, including 33,500 Australians who have served in Afghanistan, 25,000 Australians who have served in East Timor, 19,500 Australians who have served in Iraq, 8,400 Australians who have served in the Solomons and 1,300 Australians who have served in Bougainville, and many others besides. We must never forget the dedication, the valour and the love of country—the love of our values—and the preparedness to make the supreme sacrifice in their defence by all of those who have served us, understanding and acknowledging our debt of gratitude for the horrors they have endured on our behalf and the pain and sorrow experienced all too often by their families.</para>
<para>They serve our nation to preserve our nation's values, and it is because of our values that we must care for them when they come home. The brutality of war can lead to lifelong scarring to the mind and soul, as well as physical injury. In days gone by—in the days of the First World War—it was called 'shell shock'. We now know that the strongest can confront the debilitating impact of post traumatic stress disorder. We know that many of these disorders that cause profound hurt and damage to the veterans involved are very difficult to identify, and that there have been—many would say—delayed advances in identifying and treating this.</para>
<para>I want to commend the Department of Veterans' Affairs for its focus on the psychological wellbeing of our returned servicemen and women as they transition into post-deployment life. In my own electorate of Wentworth I have seen the great work of many groups, including the North Bondi RSL Sub-Branch and Soldier On, in providing vital support networks for our veterans. It is the least we can do as a nation, as a society and as friends and family for those who loved our people and our values so much that they put their lives on the line. We are in debt, and always will be, to these brave Australians in ways that can never be repaid.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we pay our respects to the honoured memory of all those who have served in our country's defence forces: young men who lost their lives 100 years ago in a desperate scramble through heavy enemy fire up impossibly steep cliffs on a Turkish peninsula that most had never even heard of; we remember the thousands who fell as fast as rain, interred beneath white crosses and red poppies in the foreign fields of the Western Front; and those buried at sea in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans, and in the North Sea.</para>
<para>We salute every generation of service: through swirling sand and unforgiving mud; in skies over Europe; in jungle dark in Malaya, New Guinea and Vietnam; in the biting winter of Korea; in the baking sun of Afghanistan and Iraq; and in the cause of peace in Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific. We remember all who came home wounded or bearing the hidden scars of war. We think of their families and loved ones who endured the long and lonely nights, fearing the worst.</para>
<para>The world would learn far too quickly that 11 November, the end of 'the war to end all wars', merely marked the beginning of a fragile and fractious truce. The trials of those two decades between the two wars were more than some nations and some people would bear. As our greatest wartime Prime Minister, John Curtin, said when he opened the Australian War Memorial in 1941:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Not all came through with courage enough, and faith enough, to stand the shattering onset of another war and to know what they must do.</para></quote>
<para>But Australia did come through. We did so, Curtin said, in large part because we kept alive the great traditions of Anzac without vainglory and without distortion. We kept faith with the citizen-soldier tradition which owed more to courage in the face of adversity than to imagined glory and sweeping victories. We kept faith with those who lost their lives in Australia's name. We kept the promise at the heart of who we are as a nation:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the going down of the sun and in the morning</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will remember them.</para></quote>
<para>But the lesson of the last century—from the challenges of soldier settlements to the shameful treatment of many who came home from Vietnam—is that the cost of war does not end when the guns fall silent. We owe those who served us more than praise. 'Lest we forget' has to mean more than just the respect of history; it must be matched by meaningful support for our veterans and for their loved ones.</para>
<para>Post-traumatic stress disorder is an ongoing challenge which in many ways remains unmeasured and poorly understood. Today one in 10 Australians who are homeless is a veteran. Surely we are a better nation than this, and those who have risked their lives for our country deserve so much better. Veterans' Affairs do a good job. There are many remarkable organisations, from the RSL to Homes for Heroes—founded by Geoff Evans—who are doing great work. But it is up to us in this place to offer a better deal for our diggers—in particular the new generation returning home from Australia's longest war, in Afghanistan. Today, let us who do not serve remind ourselves of the duty that we owe. On a day defined, appropriately, by courage and sacrifice, let us find the courage to live up to that duty. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>34</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources will be absent from question time for the remainder of the week, as he is travelling to Korea, Japan and China. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf.</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>34</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Knott, Mr Peter John</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House of the death on Thursday, 29 October 2015 of Peter John Knott, a member of this House for the division of Gilmore from 1993 to 1996. As a mark of respect to the memory of Peter Knott, I invite all present to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable members having stood in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>34</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The problem with the GST … is that it affects households with lower incomes … because they will spend a larger proportion of their income on goods and services that are subject to the GST.</para></quote>
<para>Given that the Prime Minister will not rule out increasing the GST, will the Prime Minister please explain exactly what items will increase in price by 15 per cent, what compensation will be provided, and to whom?</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Grey!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yet again it is <inline font-style="italic">Groundhog Day</inline> in the House of Representatives as far as the opposition is concerned. The opposition continues to assert that the government has a policy which it does not have. Since March we have been engaged in a national discussion about the economy, about tax reform, and the opposition asked us a question about a policy which it asserts we have when in fact it knows we do not have it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Rule it out.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Watson, unchastened by yesterday's catastrophe, calls out, 'Rule it out.' He is coming back for more. He is so resilient. I believe Australia should be a resilient modern economy, and I give the member for Watson that: he is resilient at least.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dreyfus</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And agile.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sadly, however, he is not very agile, and he is certainly not very enterprising, because if he were more enterprising he would be able to come up with some better questions.</para>
<para>The simple fact of the matter is this: our government is focused on growth. We are focused on jobs. We are focused on ensuring that our economy enables our people and their businesses to achieve all that they seek, to take advantage of the greatest opportunities that have ever been available to us, due in no small measure to the extraordinary efforts of the Minister for Trade and Investment, who is now back in the parliament, the hero of international trade negotiations. He has flung open the doors of the biggest markets in East Asia. He has negotiated, and the parliament has approved—there was a scare campaign run against the ChAFTA; that seemed to subside, and I am glad it has subsided. It was, like most of the opposition leader's scare campaigns, not particularly scary, but nonetheless it was intended to scare. I have to say I know his friends spent a lot of money on advertising, and it was very misleading, but at least it is money they cannot spend trying to get him elected Prime Minister, so that is one thing to be said for it.</para>
<para>What we have now are the greatest opportunities ever available to us, and the question for us—for all of us—is: what can we do to make the tax system raise the money we need but work better to support Australian businesses? That is the discussion we are having. We had a lot of talk about it yesterday. I gave some good answers, I think, in explanation. They were not even listened to by the opposition, but we will keep going at it. The opposition should not worry about that. We are committed to growth and to jobs and to a stronger Australia.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Butler interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Griffith is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NIKOLIC</name>
    <name.id>137174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the importance of strong leadership in generating jobs, growth and confidence? What action is the government taking to secure our prosperity?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question, and I recall very recently visiting his electorate and those of his colleagues, the other two of the 'three amigos' in Tasmania, and seeing the extraordinary optimism in Tasmania about the opportunities given by these free trade agreements. I can say that every sinew of this government is working as hard as it can to deliver a stronger and more prosperous future. We are not interested in reform for reform's sake. With all due respect to the member for Fraser, we are not interested in getting the plaudits of economics professors. What we want to see is jobs. We want to see exports. We want to see investment. We want to see confidence. We want to see businesses proud to be Australian and convinced that their government is getting on with the job.</para>
<para>Can I say there is clearly a growing sense of optimism in the land today. Today's Westpac-Melbourne Institute index of consumer confidence shows that for the first time since May optimists outnumber pessimists. Consumers are becoming more optimistic about their future conditions, and that is good. The Australian Institute of Company Directors has also reported today on a two-year high for positive sentiment.</para>
<para>So the confidence in the government is being reflected in the confidence in the economy. That will result in jobs, it results in investment and it results in a stronger economy. For the sake of the Treasurer, I can say that a stronger economy will result in stronger revenues to deal with the deficit we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition and his friends from when they were in government.</para>
<para>I will be leaving tomorrow for overseas. I will be leaving for the G20 summit in Turkey. That is obviously the meeting of the world's 20 largest economies. The focus of the G20—led by the outstanding leadership of the former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, in 2014—was on growth. Since the Brisbane summit there have been stronger headwinds in the global economy. The OECD, as honourable members would know, because I am sure they all read the OECD reports very carefully—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You gave a press conference saying he was hopeless!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know my friend over here does.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Rankin will cease interjecting!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am trying to move you up. There is a real risk that one day, when you are as old as me, you might get back into government. We want you closer there, because at least you can add up and you could, at some point, revisit the rationality of your youth and come back. Growth and prosperity—that is our focus.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. When he was the opposition leader he criticised the then Prime Minister as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Rudd could have put that to rest and said, 'No, there won't be any new taxes on the family home.' But he has not ruled that out, so that is a legitimate concern.</para></quote>
<para>In the interests of holding the Prime Minister to his own standards, since the Prime Minister will not rule out increasing the GST to 15 per cent, why will he not answer the legitimate concerns of millions of Australian families?</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Champion interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Husic interjecting—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is very important, as you get older and as you move from job to job in this place, to learn something. I have to tell you: the rule in, rule out politics are for yesterday. That was yesterday. It was as unproductive when I was asking your side to rule in or rule out as it is when you are asking me to rule in or rule out. The truth of the matter is that you know as well as I do that you could be—or the honourable member could be—engaging in a debate about growth. I assume that everybody in this chamber wants our grandchildren and our children to have better jobs and greater opportunities. We want our economy to grow. Are we not all on board for that objective? You would think so.</para>
<para>We are seeking to do that and we have a lot of measures for it. I have mentioned the free trade agreements. We will be releasing very shortly—in a few weeks, in fact—an innovation statement that will drive stronger innovation. We recognise that the tax and savings and transfer system is very complex. It is absolutely very complex. And so we initiated in March a discussion about that. We talked about the merits of different taxes—how some of them put more of a brake on the economy than others and how some of them have been overtaken by technology and need to be amended.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are a Prime Minister, not a professor!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>These are all very valid issues. We sought, for example, to address the base erosion and profit-shifting problem both locally, through the measures to deal with the digital economy, and internationally, through the work at the G20 and through the OECD.</para>
<para>In the course of that work we have confronted these issues rationally and we have talked about them, seeking to inform the debate. And what do we get from the Labor Party? Just the old politics. There is no plan there. There is no plan to deal with the $55 billion black hole that they have created. There is no plan to deal with the debt they left us with. There is no plan to drive growth or to drive better jobs. They have no plan. They just keep on going back to the same old politics that have failed for so long. The opposition are like the Bourbons—they have forgotten nothing and they have learned nothing.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Macklin interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting!</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House will cease interjecting! The level of interjections is far too high; members know that. The member for Wakefield interjected repeatedly through that answer. I lost count of the number of times—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was seven!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You were warned twice yesterday and you are warned now. I do not want there to be any surprise—the next time you interject you will be leaving the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is building a stronger and more sustainable budget? How important is the government's budget repair strategy to economic growth and jobs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for La Trobe for his question, and I commend him on his great advocacy on the Monash Freeway.</para>
<para>The government is establishing a strong platform for jobs and growth in our economy by backing Australians who are out there working, saving and investing every day, and simply wanting a system of support that backs them in the decisions they are making. Australians are responding positively to this, as the Prime Minister has just said, in what Bill Evans described today as 'a cracking result' on the Westpac Melbourne Institute Index. We now have more optimists than we do pessimists about our economy in this country. That is a good thing, and that is backed up—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Turnbull</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are more optimists than pessimists in the chamber!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are more optimists than pessimists in the chamber, too, the Prime Minister reminds me. The optimists about the economy are on this side, and those on that side are full of negativity. They are all in the blues on that side about our economy because they cannot see the opportunities that are there, that Australians can see, and that is why they are responding.</para>
<para>That platform for growth and for jobs in our economy has many components. One of those is a stronger budget. A stronger budget is one where you get control of expenditure. You have to control expenditure to manage a budget, not—as those opposite would do—simply seek to raise taxes to ensure that revenue is higher than expenditure. On this side of the House we believe in getting expenditure below revenue, and that is what we have been doing. There has been some $64 billion in expenditure savings since we were elected. Spending growth under this government has fallen from over three per cent—what we inherited—to 1½ per cent. The deficit is reducing at a rate, on average, of around half of one per cent of GDP each year, and that is what we remain on track to deliver. From next year onwards, the net debt as a percentage of GDP will be falling.</para>
<para>That is what is happening on this side of the House. On the other side of the House, there is a very different path. If we had continued the trajectory of Labor's spending in government over this budget and the forward estimates, it would be to the tune of almost $80 billion in additional expenditure. This is a government that is controlling our expenditure but it is not just that: as the Prime Minister was just saying, they have learnt nothing on that side of the chamber. The shadow Treasurer has said this: 'We have a clear fiscal rule of more saves than spending.'</para>
<para>But, as we learnt yesterday, they turned a $4.7 billion save on the family package into a $500 million save, thinking it could actually pay for $3½ billion dollars worth of expenditure. It is worse than that: because they have some $60 billion in commitments that are out there and only $5 billion to pay for them. He said last night: 'You raise an extra dollar, you can only get to spend it once.' They have spent it 12 times. That is not the approach of this side of the House. We are controlling expenditure to ensure a stronger budget.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if the GST was jacked up to 15 per cent and extended to fresh food, what would the price impact be on the average grocery bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member has asked me to do a calculation. If the honourable member has a view on what the average grocery bill is, presumably under the component of fresh food, that is a point that she can make. She can release her modelling.</para>
<para>I would say this to the honourable member: all of us understand both the benefits and the advantages and disadvantages of—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>a consumption tax. The honourable member's great hero, Paul Keating, advocated one as long ago as 1985. The advantage of a consumption tax is that it does not distort economic activity, because it applies across the board. Of course that is why the argument always is: to broaden the base and, when you can do so, lower the rate. The honourable member understands that.</para>
<para>The problem with a consumption tax is that it applies to everybody, regardless of income: so if the person on a very modest income goes to buy a bag of groceries, they pay the same amount as a wealthy person in GST who buys the same bag. So that is the point.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member says she knows that. If knows that, why does she ask these questions that can only lend themselves to such an obvious answer?</para>
<para>So that is why—given that taxes of this kind, while very efficient, are not progressive in the way income tax is and therefore can be called regressive—there always have to be levels of compensation, adjusting tax, pensions and other transfer payments. And of course this was what was done by the Howard government in 2001.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is what the Labor government did in respect of the carbon tax, which was also a very broad tax, because it applied to a kilowatt hour of electricity, regardless of whether the purchaser was rich or poor. Obviously, it had an impact on lower-income families relative to higher-income ones. That is why there was compensation.</para>
<para>The critical thing for our government, and I can assure honourable members, is that any changes to tax, however it is done and whatever measures—and we have got a very interesting and well-informed debate going on but, sadly, the opposition is not in it—are undertaken, they must be fair. That is to say that the burden of taxation has to be borne—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hotham is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>as it always has been, by those—or the majority of it—best able to pay for it. So fairness is key. It is an absolutely essential design element.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon Minister Bess Price MLA from the Northern Territory government. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PALMER</name>
    <name.id>LQR</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it time the government did something about house affordability? Will the government support the Palmer United policy for home buyers to elect at the time they purchase their home to either accept the exemption from capital gains tax when they sell their home or that all their repayments for home loans are tax deductible? To expand home ownership, stimulate our economy, create jobs and greater economic activity will boost government revenue and deliver prosperity for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Fairfax for his question. What the honourable member is canvassing, as I understand it, is this proposition: at the moment, as we know, home interest payments on your own home are not tax deductible but the profit on the sale of a home is free of capital gains tax. What the honourable member is suggesting is that there should be an alternative whereby interest payments were tax deductible but the sale on the house would be assessable to CGT in the normal way as though it were any other asset.</para>
<para>While the honourable member did not mention it, others who have canvassed this type of alternative have said that the householder, the resident, would bring to account as income notional rent—so they would be treated for tax purposes as though they were renting that house so they would have notional rental income against which they would offset their interest payments, and so it would be treated in the same way as an investment property.</para>
<para>That proposition, which has been made before by others—but eloquently here in the House of Representatives by the member for Fairfax—is one that stands in stark contrast to anything that has come from the Labor Party. This is actually a suggestion.</para>
<para>I am not in a position to say that the government would accept it or favours it, but it is an idea. It has been made before. It is something that should be considered, and so there you have a party with only one representative in the House of Representatives actually making suggestions about tax reform and tax change, and whole ranks of the Labor Party are unable to do anything. So I say thank you to the member for Fairfax. He has shown at least that he wants to play a constructive role in this important debate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trade</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs GRIGGS</name>
    <name.id>220370</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister please explain to the House the importance of trade agreements in stimulating much-needed investment, and how this will help transform areas like Australia's north, including my electorate of Solomon?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBB</name>
    <name.id>FU4</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Solomon, who helped host 350 Australian and overseas investors in Darwin over the past few days for the Northern Australia Investment Forum. I also express my gratitude to other members on both sides of the House, who helped in that promotion of investment over the last few days. The forum was a major success. We saw 250 very prominent investors with big cheque books from over 20 countries join us for the few days, and all had the opportunity to consider well over a 100 investment-ready projects across the north—Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.</para>
<para>It is a historical fact when you deepen trade relationships, new investment inevitably follows, and of course the free trade deals with Japan, Korea and China, and the TPP have significantly deepened our trade relationships. This helps to explain the extraordinary level of interest in investment at the forum and in many other circles over the last year. One presentation at the forum I thought powerfully demonstrated what is in it for Australia from such foreign investment—this question is often asked, and I think it even has been asked this week in the House. I refer in particular to Mitsui Australia's CEO, Mr Takahashi, who told us that Mitsui established its first office in Sydney in 1901, Federation, and that in the 1950s and sixties Mitsui were involved in the coal industry, and were a pioneering investor and marketer for many coal projects, including Queensland's first export coal, Moura—its mine currently called Dawson—where they funded exploration works, invited partners to organise a JV, marketed the coal to Japan, and went on to many other mines. In the sixties and the seventies, they did the same for the iron ore industry, investing in Mount Newman and Robe River. In the seventies and eighties they again pioneered, developing Salt and LNG. They were, again, at the early stage of another major development for our country.</para>
<para>Mitsui has been a powerful force at the beginning of our two biggest mining exports now—iron ore and coal—and our biggest energy export LNG. Today, they are also involved in Australia in machinery, infrastructure, chemicals, food, resources and many more. Foreign investment has been a very huge power in driving innovation and growth over all of our history.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out increasing the cost of medications for pensioners by applying a 15 per cent GST to health?</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Dutton interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for immigration will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question, and I refer to all of my answers on this subject this week.</para>
<para>A government member: Groundhog day.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a bit groundhog day, and it is increasingly challenging to give the same answer. The honourable member must understand—when the GST was introduced, it was never intended to be extended to pharmaceuticals, as you know, and the reasons for that were very cogent. The honourable member should understand that if we are to have a well-informed debate, where people feel free to make various proposals for or against particular measures, then it is important that the government not make the same mistake that the Labor government did when they effectively ruled out the entire Henry tax review after keeping it in a secret locker for the best part of six months after it was delivered.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Macklin interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Jagajaga is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What we are seeking to do is to have an open debate. My intuition is that the honourable member does not think that the GST should be extended to pharmaceuticals—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms King</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Or health.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Ballarat has asked her question. The member for Ballarat will not interject.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She should set out why she does not think that, and that would be—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Butler interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Griffith will cease interjecting—is now warned. The members on my right will cease interjecting. I think it was the member for Lyons, whose voice I recognise. Thank you for the confirmation, member for Herbert. The member for Ballarat on a point of order, and will state the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms King</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have pointed out why I think it is bad to introduce the GST.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I asked the member for Ballarat to resume her seat on at least four occasions. She will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Ballarat then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister can choose to conclude the answer if he wishes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have completed my answer, Mr Speaker.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia. Will the minister update the House on the government's $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and the importance of building key economic infrastructure in the north? How will this benefit constituents in my electorate of Leichhardt?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question and acknowledge his passionate support for his electorate and his instrumental role, together with Senator Macdonald, in developing the northern Australia white paper—and the warm embrace he gave me recently when I visited his electorate, which ended up on the front page of<inline font-style="italic"> The Cairns Post</inline>! The Turnbull government is absolutely committed to the development of northern Australia. It has 40 per cent of the nation's landmass and five per cent of the nation's population but contributes 11 per cent of the nation's GDP and has a huge endowment of resources. But what it needs more of is key economic infrastructure, across water, communication, transport and energy.</para>
<para>That is why the government recently released, at the fantastic Northern Australia Investment Forum organised by the member for Goldstein, the eligibility criteria for our $5 billion concessional loan Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The key criteria are that this needs to support economic infrastructure with a public benefit which has multiple users. This is not about crowding out the private sector. It is about a partnership with the private sector and with state and territory governments. The Commonwealth will commit up to 50 per cent of the projects' debt, and there will be commercial discipline imposed on the loan recipients, because this will be patient capital provided by the federal government leveraging off its balance sheet. It is on top of the $1.2 billion worth of initiatives that were contained in the white paper.</para>
<para>When I visited the member for Leichhardt's electorate, in Cairns I attended a forum organised by Advance Cairns and the chamber of commerce and I visited the airport there, which is the seventh-largest international airport in our country, with five million annual passengers. I discussed with the operators a potential upgrade to that airport of up to $1 billion, to create an aviation enterprise precinct which brings together engineering, freight and logistics and aeronautical services. Also raised with me was the Nullinga Dam proposition, which has been put forward by the Queensland government as a potential NAIF project, which could provide water security to people in the region.</para>
<para>The development of northern Australia is critical to this country's prosperity. It is a long-term endeavour, not just for five, 10, 15 or 20 years but well beyond that. It is a bipartisan endeavour, and I thank the member for Brand and the member for Lingiari for attending the recent forum in Darwin. This is ultimately a national endeavour, because, when the north of Australia prospers, the rest of Australia also prospers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Liberal government already has plans for $100,000 degrees, so will the Prime Minister rule out increasing the cost of going to university even more by applying a 15 per cent GST to education?</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Nikolic interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Hutchinson interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bass and the member for Lyons will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member wants us to provide details about a policy we do not have. I think I have answered this as best I can several times—these rather will-o'-the-wisp questions. But I think the honourable member would be assisted by the Treasurer responding on this occasion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is right: we have heard a lot of hypothetical questions about policies the government does not have, but there are plenty of policies on the other side that they will not even explain. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was a minister, agreed with the Prime Minister without even knowing what she said, and now he wants to ask questions of us about policies we do not have! He remains confused.</para>
<para>But what we are not confused about is the some $59.6 billion in expanded spending and commitments that those opposite are out there with—some $60 billion. There is some $3.6 billion in savings and revenue measures that they proposed when they were in government and they now oppose when they are in opposition. There are savings and revenue measures that have been proposed by the government that they are now blocking—that is some $5.4 billion. This is spending Labor say that they must restore from the savings that we have been able to achieve—some $33½ billion; a further $1.1 billion in budget savings that Labor say—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Husic interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. That is his final warning. The member for Sydney on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point of order—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for immigration will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No-one will ever say that about you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney will come to her point of order or she will resume her seat. I am waiting to hear your point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is on relevance. This is about a GST on education. Are you going to talk about a GST or education?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney will resume her seat. The Treasurer has the call.</para>
<para class="italic">Mrs McNamara interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Dobell will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know that the member has problems with geography, but she obviously also has problems with policy, and the problem with what she has asked is: there is no GST on education. There is not one, so you are off in fantasy land. But what is not a fantasy is that they continue to frustrate the government and block savings—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and they continue to say to the Australian people that they do not want to spend more than they save, but that is what exactly what they are going to do—some $59.6 billion worth of commitments they have over and above what is in the budget and forward estimates of the government, and they have, to pay for it, $5.1 billion. That is it: $5.1 billion of savings and revenue measures to account for almost $60 billion worth of commitments. They are spending their savings and revenue 12 times over. They have learnt nothing while they have been in opposition, nothing about their sins in government and the sort of fiscal mess they got themselves tied up in. And they have the gall to come in here and ask questions about policies that do not even exist.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the current operations of the Australian Defence Force, as we commemorate the day that the guns fell silent on the Western Front in 1918?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Canning for his question. On this day of sombre remembrance, I acknowledge his service as a member of Australia's elite Special Air Service Regiment. Its barracks are in my electorate of Curtin. As I pay tribute to the member for Canning for his patriotism, I know that this House extends its gratitude to all former and current Defence personnel.</para>
<para>This year Australia commemorates the Anzac Centenary, marking 100 years of our nation's involvement in World War I. On this day, the eleventh of the eleventh, Australia remembers all those past and present who perished or who have suffered for Australia's cause in all wars and armed conflicts.</para>
<para>It is fitting that on Remembrance Day we acknowledge that over 2,200 members of the Australian Defence Force are currently deployed on operations around the world. Members of our ADF are engaged in the battle against Daesh in Syria and Iraq on the ground and in the skies. In Afghanistan we continue to rebuild that nation. Our personnel are on the seas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans as well as in the waters making up Australia's maritime border.</para>
<para>Members of the Australian Defence Force are fighting to keep Australia and our values and our way of life safe and secure. This is why Australia has committed to the international campaign to combat Daesh in Syria and Iraq, with one of the largest troop contributions in the US led coalition. We cannot address the threat of terrorism either abroad or at home unless we attack it at its source. In Iraq, the Australian Special Operations Task Group is providing advice and assistance to the Iraqi security forces. The combined Australia-New Zealand task group, an Anzac task group, is training Iraqi army forces. Australian RAAF aircraft are conducting combat missions, including air strikes, over Syria and Iraq to blunt and constrain the operations of Daesh and to cut off its capacity to sustain attacks in Iraq from its bases in Syria. As recently as Monday of this week, the ADF took part in coalition strikes against targets in Syria and Iraq, resulting in the destruction of several Daesh tactical units and fighting positions.</para>
<para>On this Remembrance Day we reflect on the service of those who put their lives at risk to keep Australia safe and secure and to uphold our values as a free and democratic society. I thank the member for Canning for taking this opportunity to ask this question.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer previously described compensation for the carbon price as a 'money-go-round'—basically they tax it all and then they hand it back out. Can the Treasurer explain what will happen when the government jacks up the GST?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Captain Keynes for his question. The K-man of Australia politics.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, the opposition has been asking questions that are hypothetical. What the government is engaged in is an adult conversation with the Australian people, who are showing confidence in a government that has a clear plan to grow jobs and to grow the economy. That is what the debate is about. The debate is about growing jobs and growing the economy. This side of the House has a very strong record when it comes to ensuring that we have a better tax system for Australians, a better tax system that rewards Australians and backs Australians who want to be out there working and saving and investing.</para>
<para>We know that the last time there were genuine changes to our tax system it was the Howard-Costello government. What I remember is that those opposite when they had the opportunity did not reverse any of the changes that were introduced by the Howard-Costello government. I do not remember them going to an election and saying: 'No, we're going to put the wholesale sales tax back in. We're going to put those bed taxes back in. We're going to put the financial institutions duty back in. We're going to put back in all those stamp duties that were abolished as a result of the tax system changes that were introduced by the Howard-Costello government.' The debits, the taxes, the stamp duty on leases—all of these. I do not remember them, when they came to government, reversing the income tax cuts that were introduced by the Howard-Costello government, that were the product of tax changes. I do not remember them reversing any of the compensation measures that were put in place.</para>
<para>In fact, on this side of the House when we came to government while we did give the ultimate compensation on the carbon tax by abolishing it, we actually kept the compensation—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Perrett interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>mechanisms in place, which was good news for pensioners and those on fixed incomes.</para>
<para>So on this side of the House we have the form on tax system changes that leave the Australian economy better off and leave Australians better off, and ensure that our economy can grow. This is what this debate is about. It is about: how do we have a better tax system that encourages growth and jobs in our economy? On this side of the House we have a record of delivering on those results. On that side of the House, nothing. There was nothing.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Butler interjecting—</para>
<para>We have doorstops of tax reform. That is all they ended up being: doorstops in the offices of those sitting opposite that produced absolutely nothing, because they did not engage in a serious dialogue with the Australian business community, with the welfare sector, with the public more broadly. What they did is they just gave up; they had nothing to do with it. They just kept spending and spending and spending, year after year after year. As I said before, if we had stayed on the same trajectory as their spending when we came to government, the cost to the budget and the budget and forward estimates would now be $80 billion more.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before I call the member for Watson. There are a couple of things I need to do. The member for Griffith continued to interject after being warned. She will leave under 94a.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>43</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects, representing the Minister for Communications. In Apollo Bay and Skenes Creek in the Corangamite Electorate there is a big problem with free-to-air television reception after the move to digital. Some residents have lost their reception altogether for days, which is unacceptable. Can the minister update the House on what the Australian Communications and Media Authority is doing to urgently fix this problem?—and thank you for the plug!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bowen</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The member for McMahon cannot make a point of order when the minister has not uttered a word. The member for McMahon will resume his seat or he will be sitting down in his office. The minister has the call.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Husic interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Chifley then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Corangamite for her question and I congratulate her for her unstinting commitment to her electorate, her never-ending advocacy on behalf of her constituents. She will use whatever medium is available to her. She will use every medium, and we congratulate her for her diligent advocacy on behalf of the people of Apollo Bay and Skenes Creek.</para>
<para>It is a regrettable fact that the people of Apollo Bay and Skenes Creek are facing some significant reception issues as a consequence of the move from analog television to digital television. This is a matter over which the member for Corangamite has been advocating strenuously on their behalf for some time. The regional broadcasters, including WIN, Southern Cross and PRIME, have been in dialogue on these issues. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has conducted a study of the issue. They have installed equipment to monitor the quality of television signals that are received by people in this area and they have done technical studies to work out the options for broadcasters to improve their services.</para>
<para>The television broadcasters have advised the government, I am pleased to inform the House this afternoon, that they intend to finalise a technical solution to improve television reception in Apollo Bay and in Skenes Creek by early 2016. Of the two key elements of what they have advised the government, one is to install what is called a microwave link, which will carry the signal to the local transmitter and will be more resilient to interference than the current network configuration. The other thing they have done, again in consultation with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which has responsibility for spectrum allocation, is to agree between the authority and those broadcasters that they will move to a different spectrum allocation which, again, will be considerably more resistant to interference issues than the current arrangements.</para>
<para>I want to congratulate the member for Corangamite for her dogged and tenacious pursuit of this issue. The government is working with the broadcasters to deliver an improved outcome. Of course, constituents can also engage with a television antenna specialist to ensure that their antenna is optimally configured, and that is always a wise step to take, but there are things that only the broadcasters and the Communications and Media Authority can do.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Mitchell interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen has been warned. That is his last warning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are working with them to do that, and that is thanks to the tenacious advocacy of the member for Corangamite. She is to be congratulated for delivering for her constituents.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Perrett interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the member for Moreton that he has been warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Payments</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MACKLIN</name>
    <name.id>PG6</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to an email to the minister from a woman called Michelle from Foresters Beach. Michelle writes: 'I work full-time and I am a single parent of a 10-year-old and a 17-year-old. Your cuts will hit families like mine, and it's offensive to hear you selling the families package by demeaning recipients of these tax benefits as being unwilling to work.' Why does the minister think it is fair to take thousands of dollars from the pockets of hardworking families like Michelle's?</para>
<para class="italic">Mrs McNamara interjecting—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Dobell is warned. I could not hear the question because of the interjections of the member for Dobell, the member for Bass and the member for Herbert.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Whiteley interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Braddon will cease interjecting. I have asked him twice.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are some significant challenges that the government faces in both paying for sweeping reforms to child care and returning the nation to surplus. We are doing that in the way that we think is most reasonable and fair. It is a very challenging set of circumstances. The member for Jagajaga, who asked the question, has a conception of fairness which is interesting. When the member for Jagajaga was in government she removed 77,000 single mothers from parenting payments who were previously grandfathered. Those single mothers lost $150 a fortnight—$4,000 a year. That happened without any sufficient warning and without any reinvestment of the $685 million that was saved from that measure. In government the member for Jagajaga considered that that was fair.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Owens interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Parramatta is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was in the context of the need to return to surplus. We now know that members opposite have agreed at least to some part of the $4.7 billion worth of savings which they have turned into $500 million worth of savings. That part of the savings that they have agreed to does not relate to means testing. That part of the savings that they have agreed to is the cessation of family tax benefit B to coupled families—not on any income test basis. I will read the email from Michelle which I have not yet seen. Michelle is a person who, yes, we have said, will be subject to a scaling down of family tax benefit B payments when the youngest child turns 13. Members opposite think that is unfair fair, yet they think it is absolutely fair for a coupled family in precisely the same financial circumstances to have their FTB payments removed down—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Macklin interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the member for Jagajaga that she has been warned.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why is it fair in government to remove 77,000 single mothers from one payment to the next?</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gorton is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why is it fair for a family in exactly the same circumstances who happen to be a coupled family than a single parent family to be moved from one style of payment to the next?</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>All this occurs in the context of the fact that we have to find ways to pay for sweeping reforms to child care.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Kate Ellis</name>
    <name.id>DZU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Where are they!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Adelaide and the member for Lalor. The member for Adelaide is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> The savings that you have left us with pay for 14 per cent of the $3.5 billion that we need to make those much-needed reforms. You have turned $4.7 billion of savings into $500 million. You saved enough by agreement with us to pay for 14 per cent of the necessary reforms to child care. You think it is fair in government to move single parents from one payment to the next, causing them to lose $4,000. You think it is fair in opposition to have less for coupled families but not less for a single family in exactly the same financial circumstance. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>G20 Turkey</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAUNDY</name>
    <name.id>247130</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My constituency question is to the Prime Minister. As you are aware, Prime Minister, in my electorate of Reid, I have a large Australian-Turkish community. Gunes Gungor, from the Australian Turkish Advocacy Alliance, has asked if you could please outline the government's objectives for the G20 meeting in Turkey and how our bilateral ties with Turkey will be strengthened as a result?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left! A number have been warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just as Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world, there is no electorate represented this House that is more multicultural than the electorate of Reid.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member for Reid represents a diverse range of Australians from many different faiths and many different cultural backgrounds. He does not just talk about multiculturalism, he lives it. He absolutely lives it. He is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Friends of Turkey and, of course, right in the heart of his electorate is the magnificent Auburn Gallipoli mosque, the biggest mosque in Australia. It reflects, of course, the shared heritage between Australia and Turkey, because both our countries' foundation stories were written on the Gallipoli Peninsula. It is a remarkable thing: two or three nations—if you include New Zealand, three nations—had their national stories founded at Gallipoli and that is why the bonds of friendship, despite the horror of the war, are so strong between Australia and Turkey. The honourable member, just on Monday, spoke in this place to commemorate the passing of the great Turkish leader, the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.</para>
<para>The G20 is the pre-eminent forum for global economic cooperation and Australia, as the most recent G20 host, has been pivotal in focusing the G20 on the goal of maintaining strong, sustainable and balanced growth, and on job creation. We need to maintain the G20's attention on promoting future global growth through innovation, through structural reform and through infrastructure, rather than simply looking backwards at the global financial crisis, which of course was, naturally, such a focus some years ago. I will be working at the G20 with other leaders, including President Erdogan, our host, the President of Turkey, to open up global trade, to see better financial regulation, to deal with base erosion of profit-shifting more consistently, and to promote more infrastructure investment.</para>
<para>Honourable members should remember that the infrastructure hub for the G20 is located in Australia, in Sydney. Above all, we will be working to harness the global economic opportunities given to us for innovation superpowered by the internet and technology. Every nation is talking about innovation. Every nation is focused on technology—regrettably, the opposition show no interest in that at all.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MACKLIN</name>
    <name.id>PG6</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month, I received an email from a grandparent carer, Rita Beckman. She wrote, 'I feel highly insulted by the condescending attitude of the Minister for Social Services.' Rita will be 78 when her granddaughter turns 13, when she will face cuts to family tax benefits. She writes, 'I do not wish to complain as I love having this little girl in my life, but how can anyone possibly think an employer would take me on.' Will the minister now drop his unfair cuts to grandparent carers? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the member for Jagajaga is aware, the welfare bill that we had 10 years ago was about $83 billion. It is presently $154 billion. And just to give some sense of scale and context—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Isaacs and the member for Sydney.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The income tax take in Australia is about $196 billion, so about 80 per cent of everything that is brought in from income tax moves out on welfare. Family tax benefit A and B, together, represent close to $22 billion worth of expenditure every year in the federal budget. The family tax benefit system is the fourth most expensive federal program.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The bottom line with family tax benefits is that if you are unwilling to exercise some kind of restraint—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have asked the member for Sydney to cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>in expenditure of the fourth largest piece of expenditure inside the federal budget—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the member for Adelaide that she has been warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>if you are unwilling to make reasonable restraint there to pay for things like child care—to make some contribution to returning the nation to surplus—then you will find yourself in a position where you have, in essence, said you have no plan whatsoever for fiscal consolidation.</para>
<para>As the Treasurer has pointed out today, what members opposite have is a hint of further savings inside the family tax benefit system. They will investigate further savings. They will not tell anyone what they are. They know they must be made. When they were in government, they took enormous amounts of money out of the family tax benefit system.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They are pretending in opposition that they will not be faced with the same challenging set of circumstances. The member for McMahon acknowledges that the same types of decisions that this government finds challenging but must make responsibly, they would have to make if they were in these circumstances. The member for McMahon has said, 'We will go to the next election with an alternative vision for the nation, with detailed policy commitments and with savings proposals which will ensure—'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Macklin</name>
    <name.id>PG6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. We are asking about grandparent carers.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Christensen interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Dawson will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And again, with respect to a question on savings the government has made, the member for McMahon has said that they will come 'with savings proposals which will ensure that our election commitments are funded and that we have plan for a sustainable budget.' He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Not all these savings proposals will be universally popular or will necessarily win us votes.</para></quote>
<para class="italic">Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Adelaide, that is your final warning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What is fascinating about that statement is that when you look over the list that the Treasurer had raised earlier, there is an enormous number of spending proposals, there is an enormous number of proposals to say 'no' to savings proposals that we have offered—indeed, to say 'no' to savings proposals that those opposite previously offered. But when you look through the list, the reason why it is difficult to find an unpopular savings proposal that those opposite have come up with is that it is impossible to find a savings proposal that they have come up with. After two years, there is one savings proposal.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My constituency question is to the Minister for Health, Aged Care and Sport. Minister, I have been contacted by Snow Addison of Hervey Bay in regards to substantial increases in the cost of private health insurance. Can the minister please inform the House what steps the government is taking to address the rising cost of private health insurance premiums, particularly for seniors?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hinkler for his question and reflect on my visit to his constituents and on their very strong concerns about affordability when it comes to health spending—something we have front and centre of everything we do.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have asked the member for Sydney to cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear continually from consumers like Snow about the rising cost of their private health insurance. In fact, in premiums tend to rise at double the rate of inflation, over seven per cent a year. What consumers tell me is that they are not confident that they are getting value for money. So our focus is on what we can do to provide a product, in consultation with everyone who has an interest in private health insurance, that meets their needs.</para>
<para>We have released a modest online survey—met with howls of protest from the opposition. My comment to the Labor Party would be: why are they so afraid of us asking consumers what they want and what they think? This online survey has already attracted thousands of responses, not hundreds of responses but thousands of responses.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney is now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I encourage everyone who is now becoming aware of this consultation to have their say. It is so important when we consider last year 500,000 Australians dumped or downgraded their private health insurance and the numbers who have health insurance is flat lining. People are disappointed with the product, they are wanting us to do better and we can. I want to make this point: who benefits from private health insurance? The answer is that every single Australian benefits because a strong private health insurance sector supports a strong public health insurance sector so it is important for every single Australian that we have our say and we take interest.</para>
<para>In response to more silly scare campaigns from Labor, I want to make two points: we are not moving to an American-style managed care system and we are not moving to a UK style risk-based private health insurance system. We are doing neither of those things. What I am interested in, on behalf of the people of Australia, is a private health insurance product that looks after them, that meets their needs and, overall, provides very good care in hospital, not some of the junk products that we are seeing, not some of the lack of transparency where consumers are saying, 'I do not understand what I have signed up for and I'm disappointed that is not meeting my needs.' We invite everyone, Labor especially, to join us in this very important consultation built like everything we do in the health system around the consumer, the patient and the carer.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Turnbull</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Committee</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>47</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received advice from the Chief government whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Mrs Prentice be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the role of smart ICT in the design and planning of infrastructure.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health and Aged Care Services</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government's plan to increase the cost of health and aged care for Australians</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave of the House to allow the member for Blair to take responsibility for the starting of the MPI.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government well and truly has people who are engaged with the health system and aged-care system in its sights. The couple of days ago the Prime Minister was asked by the Leader of the Opposition on 9 November, if he would rule out a GST on rent and on nursing home payments. He flick-passed the ball to the Treasurer and the Treasurer told this place, 'The government is considering all options.' Aged-care services are critical to those older Australians who have saved hard for their retirement and who have contributed to the economy, the community and society which we call Australia. It is important that they have certainty. They have had no certainty from this government because in their first budget they tried to change the indexation in relation to pensions to effectively reduce the value of pensions and the capacity for older Australians to provide their housing, their food, their groceries, their health services, and their dignity and certainty in retirement. Fortunately, this place and the other place saw a bit of sense and stopped the government from undertaking that. But as I travelled around the country, attending pensioner forums and forums for older Australians, I saw the umbrage that was taken by older Australians. You saw that on the faces of those opposite and the Treasury benches, because they knew very well that older Australians were very unhappy. And they will be if the government proceeds with any plan to put 15 per cent GST on aged-care services and health services, because the government did not tell the public about any such plan when they travelled around with the blue book before the last election.</para>
<para>When it came to their costings, on the fiscal implications on coalition policies before the last election, released only a couple of days before the election, they said nothing at all about a 15 per cent GST. In fact, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, actually made the point that there would be no cuts to health and no cuts to education. He made it crystal clear that the GST rate would not change at all under him. So they get in, and what do they do in their first budget? They attack pensioners and attack our older Australians. And what have they done with respect to health services in this country to make it harder to increase the cost on older Australians and families across the country? We have seen more than $60 billion cut from Australia's public hospitals, and we have seen attempts to increase the cost of medicine for every Australian. We have seen $370 million cut from preventative health programs, thereby increasing the cost of health services to all Australians. The government's ongoing GP tax through its MBS freeze has been implemented.</para>
<para>They are trying to get this in a position where Australians pay more when they go to see the doctor. We know that when the former Prime Minister was minister for health the bulk-billing rates were only 67 per cent. When Labor left office the bulk-billing rates were 82 per cent. We are very proud of the fact that Labor has always supported Medicare. We always have. We have always supported the universality of Medicare, but those opposite opposed it year, after year, after year. When John Howard was the Leader of the Opposition he had a Damascus road conversion experience before 1996, but they have always set about trying to undermine the universality of Medicare, so a person's credit card was more important than their Medicare card. That is what they have always tried to do. Now the cuts are well and truly at every level of the health system.</para>
<para>In relation to aged care, you can imagine the costs to our older Australians and the impact on older Australians, because aged services come in a variety of different ways. They happen in residential aged-care facilities where a person has to consider paying what they call a RAD—a refundable accommodation deposit—or a daily accommodation payment, or indeed a combination of either to get into a residential aged-care facility. Then they have to pay for the care in the aged-care facility. Or when they are in their home they have to pay home care in relation to that. Imagine the cost with the GST in relation to that. Imagine the cost if you were in your home and you had to pay a GST on the services that you get to help you stay in your home. It would be a tragedy for those people. You are talking about services of transport, palliative care, dementia services, re-ablement and wellness programs, all of which help older Australians to stay fit, healthy and in their homes. But if there is a 15 per cent GST, imagine the cost to older Australians. Imagine the cost in vulnerable areas.</para>
<para>Think about those Australians living in remote and regional areas, because the costs will be even more because the access to services and the market is more limited. For a start, you might only have one provider in a country town who provides that. But there is another kind of service that millions of Australians have access to and many Australians really appreciate: the aged-care services of the Commonwealth Home Support Program: Meals on Wheels and what we used to call HACC. Imagine the cost of that if the government decides to put 15 per cent GST in relation to that.</para>
<para>The government has got to answer this because when they were in opposition they kept on asking us to rule things in or out all the time, but all of a sudden they are not prepared to do this. Older Australians need certainty, stability and they need to know that they can live their lives without this uncertainty hanging over them. I call on the Prime Minister. The minister there at the table, she should rule this in or out today so that we know exactly what is happening with respect to health and aged-care services in this country.</para>
<para>Members of the government and the backbenchers on marginal seats either put up with the arguments and the troubles and the travails they had to sell an unpopular policy when the government was trying to change the pension down to CPI increases only, instead of a percentage of male total average weekly earnings, or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index—whichever is the greater. They would have seen a massive reduction, if the government had got that through, in terms of the pension.</para>
<para>Imagine going to those forums they have—and we all do it—before elections and trying to justify a 15 per cent GST tax on aged-care services or in health services. Imagine the impact it is going to have on the residential aged-care sector. We have seen cuts and we have seen the government make it harder in terms of the aged-care sector. There is no aged-care workforce strategy in place. We know how hard it is in terms of residential aged care. We know how difficult it is. And the government has made it more difficult because of their complete lack of making sure that the My Aged Care website and the hotline operates properly, so there have been delays and confusion.</para>
<para>Whether I have gone to the Metro North Brisbane PHN meeting or have been in Bendigo or I have been in Adelaide or in my own electorate, in Ipswich, every single time, wherever I have gone to meet with aged-care providers, to meet with pensioners and seniors groups, there has been criticism. There has been criticism from seniors. The National Seniors have not been happy with it. COTA has not been happy with it. We know that doctors have not been happy with it.</para>
<para>The government have made it more difficult for older Australians because of their failure in aged care. In the last budget, they cut funding with respect to aged-care workforce development. How are we going to get older Australians the service they need? How are we going to get that residential aged care or home care or Commonwealth Home Support Program if we cannot get the workers to work in that area? It is going to make it more costly for older Australians.</para>
<para>The government have a stock take that they have had for over 500 days. They promised the stock take of the workforce issues in aged care in the country, but they have not released it. This is a stock take of their own Commonwealth government funded programs. They still have not released it. That is a shame. They should be doing the right thing. They should be doing an aged-care workforce strategy and working with the unions, working with the sector. They should be working with LASA, ACSA and COTA. They should be working with the guild. All of this should be undertaken because the cost in the aged-care sector if they do not do this will adversely impact older Australians, even without a GST.</para>
<para>They should also be looking to restore the funding for dementia that they cut. We know that in the last budget they changed the terminology from ACSIHAG to 'dementia and aged-care services' and cut $20 million out of the funding in discretionary grants. That makes it more difficult to get the services that people need.</para>
<para>The government generally have had a fairly bipartisan approach to aged care. We did the heavy lifting and the hard yards on Living Longer Living Better when we were in government. But the government have really made it more difficult because they have taken their eye off the ball in aged care, and the decisions they have made have made it more difficult in the sector. Health has been the same.</para>
<para>The government have a lot to answer for. They can rule this in or they can rule this out. In the aged-care sector, the Commonwealth contribution to aged care in this country is about $15.8 billion annually. It is a massive part of the portfolio and the expenditure of government. Imagine the cost in the sector if the government brings in a GST. Imagine the cost and the loss of jobs. Imagine the loss of care. Australians deserve better in health and aged care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance today. The member for Blair has done very well, stepping in at short notice with the member for Ballarat's speaking notes. I am not sure if she would have made any additional points at the dispatch box. The fact that the opposition spokesperson for health is not in the chamber now is in part due to her hysterical intervention during question time, directed at the Prime Minister, about a question which was ridiculous. I might come back to the essence of her question and listings that we are making on the PBS compared to listings that Labor never made on the PBS.</para>
<para>But this matter of public importance is flawed from the outset. I will read it out again:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's plan to increase the cost of health and aged care for Australians.</para></quote>
<para>My very strong point today is that the government does not have a plan to increase the cost of health and aged care for Australians. The government does have a plan—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Neumann</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're ruling a GST out, are you? You're ruling a GST out. That's great.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Blair, I listened politely to your remarks, and I think you should do the same for mine. The government does not have a plan to increase the cost of health and aged care. Of course we do not. We have a lot of plans and a lot of policies in health which I talk about continually and I will touch on today. Labor have not so far produced a single plan, although there was one hint in mental health—an important area that I will not politicise in this place—which simply said that Labor would respond to the National Mental Health Commission review of mental health within 100 days after regaining office, if indeed they do. That is the closest that I have seen to any policy.</para>
<para>As ministers in the government have said continually during this question time, last question time and the question time before and will continue to say, there is no plan to introduce the GST on health. There is no plan to make the spending of our vulnerable Australians more challenging than we know it already is. However, there are plans and there are policies to do what we said we would do: build, reform and improve the system for the benefits of consumers and patients and carers. When you run your policy ideas and what you are going to do past that really important test—not the political test, not the unions test, not the programs test, not the Canberra test, not the stakeholder test, but the test: 'Who is this for?'—then you know you are on the right track.</para>
<para>We are not afraid to ask the difficult questions, and we are not afraid to meet the challenges that we face. A year before we left office, we, the federal government, gave in public hospital funding to the states $8 billion. Now that figure is $16 billion. The year before we left office, the cost of Medicare, the cost of the MBS, was $10 billion. Now it is $21 billion. So the costs of the two biggest components of our healthcare system have doubled in 10 years. No government worth its salt with a responsibility for the future sustainability of the nation's spending would sit on its hands and do nothing.</para>
<para>This appears to be what the Labor Party is asking us to do—whipping up hysteria. This has nothing to do with whether there is a GST on what. This has nothing to do with that. This has everything to do with Labor's timid holding pattern when it comes to policy. That is where we see them in private health insurance. Who would have thought that Labor would be saying, 'Don't touch private health insurance'? They did, when they were in office, to the tune of $3.5 billion. They certainly attacked private health insurance. The lesson I learned from that is that you fiddle with the rebate and you get trouble; if you look at improving affordability for consumers over the long term with good ideas, you get sensible policy reform. So Labor are in this timid holding pattern, afraid to take off with a new idea and afraid to land with anything sensible, just saying no.</para>
<para>I might refer the member for Blair to some comments from his senior shadow minister, the member for Ballarat, who said in February this year, in a moment of honesty—which we appreciate—that Labor would be kidding itself if it did not realise that there were areas that needed to be cut and there were cuts that needed to be made, and no area is exempt. No area is exempt. So they are the announcements that we are getting from Labor, but they have not translated into one single policy idea.</para>
<para>The member for Blair and speaker after speaker—and I know that other members have, because we are dealing with the Medicare safety net bill that is going through the House now and, obviously, I will have more to say about that when we sum up on the bill—have talked about the freeze on Medicare rebates. I just want to remind members opposite that it was Labor who started the freeze on MBS rebates. It was Labor who froze the indexation of the MBS and it was the then Labor health minister, the member for Sydney, who made remarks to this effect, 'Oh well, doctors earn a lot of money—maybe $350,000 a year on their billings through Medicare—so they can suck it up. It's okay.' I really would urge Labor members not to forget that the place they have come from and the place where they pretend to be are in fact very different.</para>
<para>I would just remind members of the House and members of the public listening to the broadcast of what this government is doing, compared to the complete inactivity and policy-free zone of Labor. The figures I mentioned indicate that health spending in these two important areas has doubled. I might add that another area of spend for the government is the PBS—the listing of medicines. I will come back to the member for Ballarat and her crazy question to the Prime Minister focusing on additional cost for medicines, because we are listing twice as many medicines—or we are listing medicines at twice the rate—as Labor ever did. There were two interesting examples, which I am not going to detail, where the then Minister for Health received advice to list medicines following their passage through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Patients were waiting—and I do not want to invoke desperate patients to make political points; I would never do that—and the minister of the day said 'No'.</para>
<para>That so angered members of the Liberal and National parties that on coming into government in 2013 we said that we would not do this, that we would make sure where new drugs pass safety and efficacy, and where they make sense to list, that we would not delay. Obviously, there is a negotiation at that point, where the government and the Department of Health negotiate with the pharmaceutical supplier. It is a very positive negotiation, and I want to thank those who engage in that, because they do it for the benefit of the patients. But at that point, government has a responsibility to list.</para>
<para>So we have already demonstrated this. The last drug we listed was Iclusig, a drug for chronic myeloid leukaemia. It was listed last week. Its actual cost is $66,000. If you are a concessional payment you access that for $6.10. As another example, who can forget Keytruda—a breakthrough drug for melanoma? The actual cost for treatment is $100,000. The cost, if you are a general patient—like the member for Blair and me—is $37. Who can forget all of the listings that we make every month in the interests of Australia's patients?</para>
<para>So when I say to members opposite that we are not afraid to ask the tough questions, it is not just about, 'Oh well, that's what we would do.' It is about asking, 'How do we make the Australian health spend as efficient and effective as possible?' Because we want to do these things; we want to list new drugs. The member for Blair made a comment about dementia—I am not sure where that came from. We had a $200 million commitment for dementia research when coming into government, and we have just announced $45 million for dementia research—cures for dementia.</para>
<para>Yesterday, I announced $630 million of research grants. I think that 840 researchers will benefit from those research grants. I have talked about the listing of medicines and I have talked about the approach we are taking to reform the MBS in order to list new procedures and new items, and to pick up contemporary clinical practice—what happens in doctors' surgeries every day. I will never apologise when members opposite ask, 'Why have you 'cut' this program?' Sometimes, yes—shock, horror!—we take a save from a program. It is a responsibility of government to ask, 'If we have scarce dollars'—increasingly scarce because of the situation left to us by Labor—'how should we best spend them, remembering to keep those dollars as close as possible to the patient?' We remember the patient's needs and we remember that it is all about the consumer. It is not about anyone else: first and foremost it is about the consumer.</para>
<para>The really crazy rationale coming from Labor is this: that Kevin Rudd went into the investment funds that Peter Costello created attached to the Future Fund—one of them was called the Health and Hospitals Fund. It was in fact capital; it was an investment fund. They ran that down by 75 per cent—putting money here and putting money there, promising state governments this and never really checking that the money produced the results that it needed to. And then they come in here and ask us why we have not maintained the same level of spending. It is patently ridiculous!</para>
<para>Please, Labor Party: go away, come up with some good policy and engage in the debate.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I say to the minister: your party has been in government now for over two years and it is time you took responsibility for the position of this government's financial mess.</para>
<para>I want to begin my contribution with a quotation:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He who has health, has hope; and he who has hope, has everything.</para></quote>
<para>The quotation encapsulates how good health is at the heart of our very being. Indeed, I can think of no other area of public policy that matters more to people than good health policy, because when a person has poor health little else matters to them or to their family. That is why this government's attacks on Australia's health system and aged-care services—the funding cuts that we have seen imposed and the attempts to Americanise our health system—are not only bad public policies but will ultimately be rejected by the Australian people.</para>
<para>They will not be treated as fools, as they have already shown. They can do their own sums and they will not be seduced by the Prime Minister's continual rhetoric about fairness. I say, with respect, that all we hear is the Prime Minister coming into this place day in and day out, talking about how he wants everything to be so fair. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing more unfair than imposing additional costs on people who cannot afford the health care they need.</para>
<para>It is not a matter of what the Prime Minister actually says; it is more a case of what he does, and that is what we should be looking at. When you look at what he does, he was part of the government that came in two years ago, and more, and brought in a whole raft of changes with respect to the health system of Australia.</para>
<para>I want to turn to the American system, just for a moment, because that is clearly where this government is heading with respect to our system in Australia. It is a system where those who can afford health care are looked after and those who cannot afford it miss out. We know that when you miss out that you cannot afford the health costs, because if it is a serious health issue those health costs can run into tens of thousands of dollars. In the US, they spend about 18 per cent of their GDP on health costs across the country. Most of it comes from the pockets of individuals. Yet life expectancy in the US is much lower than it is in many other developed countries, including here in Australia, where we spend around nine per cent of GDP on health yet we have a much longer life expectancy, as do most other advanced countries, who spend about the same proportion of their GDP. The point I make about that is that the American system does not work and does not give you the health outcomes that are required, and indeed the flip side is true: Australia is not expending such an exorbitant amount on health costs that we need to make the drastic cuts that this government wants to push through.</para>
<para>We now know that on top of the health system that this government wants to dismantle—and we have seen cuts of $60 billion from the public hospital system, $370 million from preventative health programs, $2 billion with respect to the MBS freeze on GPs, and other cuts to mental health, Indigenous health and dental programs and so on—the government is looking at introducing a 15 per cent GST across the board. The government will not deny or admit any of that, because it keeps talking about the fact that we have to have a conversation about it, but the fact that it is not denying it means that it is part of its plan and something that it wants to consider. If a 15 per cent GST is introduced, just as it affects the lower income families of Australia in every other sector, it will particularly hit the lower income families of Australia when it comes to health.</para>
<para>Amongst those that are in the lower income bracket of Australia are older Australians, and we have just heard the member for Blair talking about that and highlighting just how this will hit older Australians very hard. I have spoken to older Australians in my own electorate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Neumann</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was there.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. The member for Blair was there. We had a forum, and I can assure members opposite that their concerns are real and they can do their sums and they know what is happening to them. When the minister says that the changes that are being made by this government are all for the better, can I say to her: if that is the case, why is the government under so much pressure and criticism from just about every medical sector out there in the community? The fact remains that the changes that this government wants to introduce, including the changes to do with the private insurance scheme whereby your health will determine the costs you pay, are simply not going to be worn by the Australian people. You cannot improve a health system by cutting costs, and cutting government expenditure on health care can only lead to increased costs to the public and to older Australians.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to associate myself with the comments made by Minister Ley. It certainly is bold of the opposition to stand here today and talk about health and ageing. It absolutely galls me to witness the member for Ballarat and the member for Blair attempting to hoodwink Australian people through scaremongering on a range of fronts and not being truthful in the comments that they are making. It is behaviour that is becoming typical of Labor. Their signature scaremongering has become boring and predictable, and we saw that in question time today. I am livid that they are standing here today and attempting to deny the Australian people, including the people of my electorate, their right to have a say.</para>
<para>We on this side of the House have proven time and time again that we want to take a consultative approach to health and ageing. Under Minister Fifield, for example, we called for feedback on Commonwealth aged care advocacy services to assure older Australians and their families and carers about their rights and responsibilities when accessing aged-care services. Now, under Minister Ley, an online survey has been released that asks consumers for their views on private health insurance and how they think it can deliver better value for money.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Neumann interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Blair may want to intervene and interject, and that is fine, but be truthful in what you say to fellow Australians. Unlike Labor, the Turnbull government does not fear the collective voice of the people we represent. We speak to mum and dad voters of Australia about their health and their health care and believe that private health insurance is a fundamental part of our health system. The fact of the matter is that Australians dumped or downgraded half a million all-inclusive private health insurance policies after Labor's $3.5 billion worth of cuts to private health insurance, including cutting $2.4 billion from the government's private health insurance rebate; linking the indexation of private health insurance rebate to the consumer price index, cutting $700 million; and cutting $389 million from the private health insurance rebate for people with policies that are also paying the lifetime health cover loading. Ultimately this forced up premiums for 10.6 million Australians with hospital cover, leaving them angry and confused.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Ballarat, you know what you have done. The member for Ballarat and the member for Blair are out of touch with mainstream Australia when the member for Ballarat implies that private health insurance is for the rich. Five point six million Australians with private health insurance have an annual household income of less than $50,000, and 3.4 million have an annual household income of less than $35,000. Labor's cuts to private health insurance only saw these people experience further cost-of-living pressures during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years of chaos.</para>
<para>At the end of the day, Labor's track record when it comes to health and aged care speaks for itself. It is ironic that the member for Blair refers to dementia support when Labor's flawed dementia and severe behaviours supplement had to be ceased last year after they incompetently budgeted $11.7 million and, in the first year of operation alone, costs blew out to $135 million, and it was not sustainable.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Neumann</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Under your watch. Under your watch it blew it out.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The assistant minister has the call. The member for Blair!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike those opposite, Minister Ley and I have consulted with the aged-care industry to design a response team approach that will deliver support for residents with dementia and operate within the original funding envelope.</para>
<para>Labor promised health reform and failed to deliver. They promised a plan to fix hospitals and failed to deliver. They promised to slash elective surgery waiting lists and failed to deliver. In fact, the COAG Reform Council found that the average national waiting time for elective surgery increased under the Labor-led government. Under those opposite, bureaucracy ballooned while public hospitals, private health insurance, dental and other areas faced cuts.</para>
<para>While those opposite are standing here today crying crocodile tears over health reform they could not deliver, we are getting on with the job of ensuring everyday Australians have access to a 21st century healthcare system that is affordable and sustainable into the future. I hear the member for Blair saying it is not true, but when you read the COAG reports that were tabled and have a look at the reports that were provided by state and territory governments—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>it was evident, Member for Ballarat, that you had failed in your healthcare delivery approach. The 'no blame' healthcare report under the Rudd government also failed to deliver the outcomes that Australians were expecting, and again you are scaremongering. Stop it. You are creating fear.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As fans of <inline font-style="italic">Yes Minister</inline> know, you can get any answer you want from a survey depending on how you frame the questions. When Sir Humphrey asks Bernard if he thinks teenagers need more discipline and leadership, he agrees that national service is a good idea. But when he is instead asked if it is dangerous to arm teenagers and teach them how to kill, Bernard finds the idea of national service frankly horrifying.</para>
<para>So when a government that has sought at every turn to undermine Medicare launches a survey which attacks two of the fundamental foundations of our healthcare system—community rating and universal access to healthcare—we know precisely what is going on here. When the survey asks whether private health insurance should be allowed to cover GP consultations, it is important to spell out precisely what this option would mean: the undermining of universal access to healthcare—the fundamental principle of Australia's Medicare system.</para>
<para>As the former secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health, Stephen Duckett has pointed out, our existing high rates of bulk billing act as a lid on prices:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If patients with insurance face no out-of-pocket costs, GPs might feel they can safely increase their fees for half the population—those with health insurance—with no impact on demand for their services.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">As well as charging insured patients more, GPs might decide to charge uninsured patients more, or reduce the number of services that they bulk bill. So the second impact of the change would probably be to reduce access to care for the uninsured.</para></quote>
<para>So this is a policy that will drive up fees and cost the health system more, while making it harder for people to see their doctor.</para>
<para>The survey makes clear there is another agenda here as well. That is to prop up private health insurance by scrapping community rating and enabling health funds to risk rate members according to age, gender or health condition. And with the lead-in to the question which suggests that people over 70 are a huge burden to the health system, it is pretty clear this is about charging older Australians more for their health insurance. Brent Walker, a health fund actuary with 40 years experience, says that this policy is 'nonsense' and warns:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Health funds in New Zealand risk rate and when you turn 65 the premiums almost double, by the time you are 70 you can’t afford health insurance in New Zealand.</para></quote>
<para>National Seniors has described the consequences for older Australians from risk rating as 'diabolical'.</para>
<para>The survey, of course, also asks if health premiums should be priced according to gender, which, according to Mr Walker simply means higher premiums for women of child-bearing age. Finally, it asks if different premiums should be charged according to a person's health or their health risk factors. This goes way beyond smoking, because when you scrap community rating and say that people should pay more on the basis of their health risk, where do you draw the line? Should people be charged more because they are overweight? What about ex-smokers, those who have three glasses of wine instead of two or those with Fitbits who do not register 10,000 steps a day? And, much more seriously, what about people with a family history of cancer or heart disease?</para>
<para>Just as important are the questions the survey fails to ask, such as whether to continue the current means testing of the private health insurance rebate, which the minister has repeatedly suggested she would like to reverse. I would look forward to seeing the $3 billion hit that would have to the budget contained in MYEFO.</para>
<para>The minister dismisses our concerns by insisting that this is just a modest survey, as if this were some sort of university exercise rather than the Commonwealth government and the Minister for Health conducting this sort of survey. It is an absurd proposition. You do not ask these sorts of questions, as a Commonwealth Minister for Health, in this loaded fashion unless you already know what the answers are. I will not be surprised if the minister uses this survey to give private health funds what they have been pushing to achieve for some time—an entry into general practice and a start down the path of risk rating. The only question is of course what she is going to want in return. It is a push poll designed to undermine Medicare and to benefit private insurers at the expense of consumers. It should be called exactly what it is.</para>
<para>The minister is trying to say that this is all Labor's fault. She has made no mention of the fact that a lot of the downgrading of insurance product has occurred at the instigation of private health insurers themselves when they tell people their products are no longer available. This survey is an absolute fraud.<inline font-style="italic"> (Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there is an upside to the member for Ballarat's bad behaviour in question time it is that we only got a five-minute contribution instead of a 10-minute one. Once again, we are hearing a shrill and churlish contribution from the shadow minister for health. It was a nice bookend to the old regular, the member for Blair, who can mount a scare campaign with the best of the rest of them. It was interesting to listen to the member for Blair criticising the aged-care schemes that were actually put in by his own government.</para>
<para>There are two things I do know about older Australians, Member for Blair. One is that they can be easily frightened about their future security and health needs by a scare campaign, as we are seeing now. The other thing about older Australians is that they want to leave their country in a better state for their children and grandchildren than they had for themselves.</para>
<para>What we saw under the Labor government was that their approach to aged care and health care was to dress the Prime Minister in a set of scrubs and march him around the countryside over a couple of months with photo opportunities in operating rooms and emergency rooms. They came up with a plan that basically raided the savings of the Australian people. What we have now with the current Turnbull government is a government that is actually governing and managing healthcare, aged care and the finances of this nation with an eye to the future. The previous government acted like a mob of squatters that had moved into the House and squandered the assets without any real thought to the long-term sustainability.</para>
<para>Today we are talking about: how are we going to manage health care and aged care in a sustainable fashion to ensure that we have got a system in place for the baby boomers in 20 years time—when Australia reaches its maximum capacity to care for older people—that will still be viable and relevant to the country at that particular time?</para>
<para>So there is no doubt that aged care and health care are significant factors, and we have got members here—and the member for Makin had his contribution as well—who talked about the needs of older Australians. Those opposite were the ones who were hell-bent on introducing a carbon tax that had the older people in my electorate too frightened to turn on their air conditioners in summer and their heaters in winter. Our Meals on Wheels volunteers were finding people under the doona in the middle of the day, because they were not going to turn on the switches in their houses.</para>
<para>We need to manage this issue in a responsible fashion. It does not mean forking out money hand over fist, raiding the savings of this nation and making our children and grandchildren pay for our own care. We need to make sure that we set this country up so that we can leave it sound, stable and viable in the future. What we have seen with the health minister's survey is: consultation with the public to engage with what the people of Australia really think, and need and act accordingly.</para>
<para>Once again, we have seen a matter of public importance brought on by members of the opposition—and indeed aged care and health care are matters of public importance. If you survey the members of my electorate, aged care comes up as the No. 1 issue. Therefore it should be treated with a level of responsibility and respect for the people who are very much relying on this system. It should not be seen as a tool to scare people with bogus claims about increasing GST or a whole heap of other things that are not actually on the table; we should be dealing with this and the facts in a sensible manner.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been riveted by this debate—riveted in the sense—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Simpkins</name>
    <name.id>HWE</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You weren't here for most of it!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike you, I actually can use the television. Whilst watching the debate, I was transfixed by the stupidity of the arguments coming from the government. Because not once did they seek to defend their position while the opposition was calling them to account. The member for Hasluck said disparagingly, 'All you are are critics. All you do is criticise. You come on and scaremonger.' Goodness me! Let me just ask you a very simple question: if the Prime Minister at question time could not discount increasing the GST to 15 per cent, why shouldn't we be saying to the Australian people: you should be concerned about it? Why haven't you ruled out the GST?</para>
<para>Let me ask you a question, member for Hasluck: in my community, the issues that emerge are very, very important. On the prospect of a GST increase, Stephen Duckett from the Grattan Institute said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… allowing insurers to cover GP visits could undermine universal access to healthcare—the fundamental principle of Australia's Medicare system.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If health insurers could cover GP visits, they may pay doctors more than the Medicare rate, changing the market dynamics … That would be inflationary and it might have a flow-on effect to people without health insurance who will be expected to pay.</para></quote>
<para>On the question of the GST, Professor Owler, President of the AMA, said that 'placing the GST on health services'—including services to the aged—'would hurt the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in the community'—and I might say the sickest and the people I am most concerned about it.</para>
<para>Let me just ask you this question: if the government is not intent on increasing the GST across items, including food; increasing the GST on petrol; and including the GST on health services, why doesn't it discount it? Why doesn't it say to the Australian people: 'Don't worry about it; we're not going to do it'? Because the Australian people have got every right to ask that question.</para>
<para>In my own communities in the Northern Territory, the sickest, poorest and most remote Australians live in my electorate. The people with the lowest socioeconomic outcomes in Australia—the people I am concerned about—are the sickest. They are 3.7 times more likely to have chronic kidney disease. They are 3.3 times more likely to have diabetes than other Australians. And what you are proposing to do, potentially, is increase the GST on health, food and other essential items, broadening the base and increasing the rate. Australians who live in remote communities know what you are about and, if you are very serious about this, you should say to the Australian people: 'Yes, we're going to do it' or 'No, we're not.'</para>
<para>Stop this game of saying: 'We don't have a policy.' We know you have got a policy; you just won't articulate it. We are articulating it for you, and you express concern about it. When we say you are going to increase the GST by 15 per cent and broaden the base, you should know this: those with the most acute rates of chronic disease, diabetes, heart disease, trachoma are the people who are going to be the most adversely affected by your ridiculous proposals on the GST and the ones worst affected by the changes you have made to health.</para>
<para>The $60 billion cuts to hospital services—who do they impact most on? Let us just ask that simple question. I walk around my electorate, I drive around it, I fly around it and I talk to great Australians but, by God, they are poor and some of them are very sick—and they are sick and tired of what is going on with this government. They know what is being proposed by the government in terms of a GST; what the government has done in terms of cutting health expenditure, including hospitals; and the $160 million out of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.</para>
<para>How do you say to people that you have not cut health expenditure when your own budget papers show it very clearly that you have? Why would you say to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: 'Don’t worry. We'll just cut $160 million out of preventative measures.' For the sickest Australians, prevention is the most important issue, and you have cut $160 million out of their budget. Any reasonable Australian understanding what has been going on here would agree with us. You need to be condemned for what you are doing. The Prime Minister needs to get up here and, instead of obfuscating, tell the Australian people of what he really thinks as opposed to what he wants us to think.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This MPI topic is a very serious and complicated matter, and should be treated as such. Government administration of health is one of the most important policy responsibilities that we carry. Health policy should never remain stagnant, as health technologies, treatments and testing, and therefore disease management constantly change.</para>
<para>Commonwealth spending on Medicare has more than doubled from $8 billion in 2004 to $20 billion today, yet we raise only $10 billion from the Medicare levy. Ten years ago, the Medicare levy covered 67 per cent of the cost of Medicare, but now it covers only 54 per cent. This is why this government is conducting a once-in-a-generation review of the Medicare Benefits Schedule as part of our plan for a healthier Medicare. This review is looking at all of the more than 5,700 Medicare items, with a view of ensuring they are clinically contemporary and effective. This is the kind of rationale, sensible policy making that those opposite are too lazy and too short-sighted to achieve in the six years they had in government. The review is led by clinicians and supported by allied healthcare practitioners and consumers.</para>
<para>As the minister has already stated, the pause on indexation of MBS rebates will remain while the government works to reform the Medicare system and identify waste and inefficiencies through the MBS Review Taskforce and the Primary Health Care Advisory Group. As an article of good faith, the Minister for Health is open to a future review of the indexation pause as the work on reform progresses.</para>
<para>In contrast, Labor failed to deliver on their big promise of health reform. At the 2007 election, Labor promised a plan to fix hospitals and, if that was not achieved by mid-2009, that a referendum would be held to seek to take financial control of Australia's 750 public hospitals. In 2008, the Labor government promised to slash elective surgery waiting lists, yet the COAG Reform Council in its report on health care found the average national waiting time for elective surgery increased from 34 to 36 days between 2007-08 and 2011-12. It also found the waiting times of the 90th percentile—those waiting longest—increased from 235 days to 251 days.</para>
<para>The Labor government announced three supposed historic health reform agreements. Each was watered-down version of the previous one. Bureaucracy ballooned, while public hospitals, private healthcare insurance, dental and other areas have faced cuts. Average staffing numbers for the whole portfolio increased from under 5,000 in 2006 to over 6,300 in 2011, an increase of 27 per cent. The previous Labor government announced $1.6 billion reduction in public hospital funding and cut $3.5 billion from private healthcare insurance, forcing up premiums for over 10.6 million Australians with hospital cover.</para>
<para>The electorate of Bennelong is fortunate to be the home of the majority of Australia's pharmaceutical companies, innovative businesses that employ thousands of people and industry that invests its weight in research and development and that comprises one of our nation's largest non-mining export products.</para>
<para>Recently, I was delighted to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to tour the AstraZeneca manufacturing facility in North Ryde—the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing export facility in this country. Guided by their new managing director Paul Spittle, the Deputy Prime Minister and I were amazed at the massive size and scale of the manufacturing of asthma medication, primarily for export to a growing market in China. It was hard not to recall the work that I did with AstraZeneca and many other Medicines Australia companies shortly after I was elected in 2010, as the Labor government made unprecedented changes to the convention on how governments list medicines on the PBS, in direct contradiction to the memorandum of understanding they had signed with the industry just several months earlier.</para>
<para>Of course, they were very happy to pocket the nearly $2 billion in savings committed to by the industry as part of the agreement. Several months later the Gillard government refused to list a number of medicines on the PBS that had been recommended by the independent PBAC, denying patients timely access to new medicines that had been independently assessed as safe and cost-effective. After substantial political pressure and a Senate inquiry— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HALL</name>
    <name.id>83N</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yet again, we are debating the government's abject failure in the area of health and aged care. It has a unique approach to health care—cut the services and charge more. Its approach to health care is to make Australians pay for everything that they get, whilst at the same time reducing those services. The Turnbull-Abbott government has been an abject failure in the area of health. We have had one health minister who was described as the worst heath minister in Australia's history, and now we have another health minister who is really making a hash of it. This government's approach to health care is all about efficiencies. It cuts but it does not, at any time, put in place any new services.</para>
<para>An MBS review? Yes when we were in government we undertook reviews. We support MBS reviews, but what you do is replace old technologies with new technologies and not put the money back into the budget bottom line. This government has one consistent approach to health, and that is to attack it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Zappia</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To cut it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HALL</name>
    <name.id>83N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes—cut, cut, cut, cut. As much as I hate to stand up in this place and say this, this government does not—and I emphasise 'does not'—support universal health care. It has an ideological commitment to the privatisation of health. It wants to see a health system that is the same as the American health system, a system where those people that can afford to pay get the absolute best health care that they can possibly have, whilst those people who do not have as much money, do not have as many resources, go without. The sick and the poor get sicker. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace when you have a government that wants to make Australians provide for their own health by paying for it with their credit card, not with their Medicare card.</para>
<para>This week we have seen the Minister for Health sink to a new low, with the private health insurance survey. It is nothing but push polling and an attempt to end community rating and instate risk rating. Shortland electorate is an older electorate, with lots of older Australians. I see the shadow minister for ageing here, and he understands the issues that are confronting older Australians. They are constantly under pressure, and of course we have got the GST lurking in the background—will it be applied to aged care; will it be applied to health? The government will not rule it out. We have problems with aged care. It has been such a failure. They have removed the dementia funding—all gone.</para>
<para>I will get back to this dreadful health survey. It looks at whether older Australians should have to pay more. I can tell you that the people in Shortland electorate are not wealthy, but they have had health insurance all their lives. For them to be hit with an increase is unacceptable. Talking about obesity, I had a constituent contact me this week saying, 'Obesity is not a lifestyle choice.' He called that attitude disgusting and dangerous. The AMA President, Brian Owler, condemns this government for this survey and the actions it is taking—many actions. And the National Seniors are disgusted with it. The one thing I have to say is that this government does not understand health. It does not get health. It does not get aged care. It does not understand how important it is and that it is a role of government to deliver it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance and to help smash the myths perpetuated by those on the other side. We on this side have got a lot to say, especially about health care in the bush. We on this side continue to be on the moral high ground when it comes to health, with the Turnbull government increasing funding to WA hospitals by 27 per cent over the next four years. This is an increase of $469 million, a mammoth increase by anyone's judgement. In my patch, rural, regional and remote areas received about one-third of the total Medicare Benefits Schedule benefits paid across all of Australia in 2014-15. So it is unfathomable why those sitting opposite try to attack this government on health. One would think they had nothing better to do with their time.</para>
<para>In the 2015 budget, the government increased funding to a number of health initiatives and services. The government boosted funding to the Royal Flying Doctor Service to the tune of $20 million over the next two years. This brings funding across the forward estimates to over $137 million, which is a huge boost to my electorate of Durack and regional Australia. We announced the redesign of the General Practice Rural Incentives Program to better support delivery of medical services in rural and remote communities. We are also creating a new Health Workforce Scholarship Program, including rural return-of-service obligations to boost the rural workforce. We also announced new and amended MBS listings to assist rural and remote Australia. A couple of examples are new MBS items for targeted interactive radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer and for remote monitoring of patients with implanted cardiac devices, which will eliminate travel for routine matters. These commitments build on the 2014 budget commitments, which include $40 million over four years to create more inter training opportunities in private hospitals in rural and regional areas and over $52 million for infrastructure grants to support the teaching and supervision of the rural and regional medical workforce. Since I was elected as the member for Durack just over two years ago, the government have announced a number of health initiatives in my area alone. I am particularly proud of the new cancer centre which will open in Geraldton in the near future and the headspace which is coming to Geraldton—and I am currently talking with key stakeholders in the Pilbara to get one in that region as well.</para>
<para>It is Labor's 'year of the big idea'. This is the best they have got today. One would say that is a bit of a joke. I would say it is more of a year of negativity. Talking of Labor ideas, I noticed with sheer horror—yes, horror—the recent Labor announcement of a proposed $10 billion in infrastructure projects. I noted that these were all in cities. None were in regional Australia, so Durack would miss out should we have those opposite holding onto the reins. It is yet another example of how those on the other side do not know what the needs of rural and regional Australia are and, if they did, they would not care about them. They illustrated that with that announcement.</para>
<para>I note the latest—not so scary—scare campaign, about a 15 per cent GST, that Labor have been trying to execute, unconvincingly. As our Prime Minister has said ad nauseam, any change to the tax system must be fair, and any increased burden will be borne by those best able to pay for it. The future prosperity of Australia is not just about reforming one type of tax or taxes, full stop. What we require is a review of the whole range of taxes, including company tax, and to acknowledge and do something about bracket creep. These are the things we need to talk about. But we on this side are up to the job. You know what else we are up to—we are up to looking after the health sector, because it is in very safe hands.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r5537">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill before the House, because, whilst we may have a new Prime Minister in this parliament, the bill we are in fact debating here today, the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015, is certainly further proof that, despite a new face, there are many things that remain the same. Here we see evidence of that same unfair, callous approach that has existed since this Liberal government was elected and certainly in this area of health.</para>
<para>The bill implements the unfairness that originated with the 2014-15 budget. It gives effect to those budget measures. 'Simplified Medicare safety net arrangements' was very much a theme, if I recall, of that budget as well as this government's general approach to the health portfolio. When we talk about simplifying measures, what that really meant was cuts to the safety net of some $270 million.</para>
<para>We have seen cuts across every part of the health system in these last two years. The Abbott-Turnbull government has taken more than $60 billion in cuts from Australia's public hospitals, including some $155 million from hospitals in my region. It includes attempts to increase the cost of medicines for every Australian, including unfair changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme safety net. It includes $370 million in cuts to the preventive health programs, programs that we know are vital to getting Australians' health back on track. There is the abolition of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency and Health Workforce Australia. Those are two huge issues that are looming in this nation that this government has taken the razor to.</para>
<para>There is the government's ongoing effort to implement a GP tax in one guise or another. This is, I believe, the fourth reincarnation of what has always been a very bad public health policy that this government simply refuses to put to rest. So let's try GP tax version 4 now, through the perpetual freeze of the MBS, which represents a cut of some $2 billion from Medicare. We are of course seeing cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars from public dental health schemes, another incredibly critical service that people in my electorate of Newcastle have voiced their concerns about to me on many occasions. There are cuts to the general practice training programs and there are cuts to mental health—and, most alarmingly, cuts to Indigenous health programs.</para>
<para>How this government intends to meet its close-the-gap targets is a mystery to most people outside of this parliament. If there is a failure to meet those targets, you can rest assured that my colleagues and I on this side of the House will be holding this government to account.</para>
<para>The cuts are really deep and they are at every level of health. The bill before us today, the so-called 'simplified' safety net, involves abolishing the existing original Medicare safety net and the extended Medicare safety net. Labor is opposing this bill, because we have serious concerns about the adverse impact these changes will have on thousands of unwell and vulnerable Australians.</para>
<para>While the bill does lower the safety net threshold for all patients, restrictions on the out-of-pocket costs that contribute to a patient reaching the safety net are introduced, and the amount patients receive back once they reach the safety net is also reduced. In particular, Labor is concerned about the impact these changes will have on: radiation oncology patients, patients needing ongoing access to psychiatrists, and patients accessing IVF services. I would like to spend a little time now highlighting some of the concerns I have around detrimental impacts that these changes will have for radiation oncology patients—people with cancer.</para>
<para>Radiation oncology patients, who had previously been bulk billed for elements of their treatment, will now see significant new out-of-pocket expenses. Cancer is an issue that touches so many Australians. In my region of Newcastle and the Hunter we have quite high rates of cancer. There are very few families in my electorate who are not touched in some way by this disease.</para>
<para>If you look at the rates of prostate cancer, for example, there are about 20,000 Australian men diagnosed every year, including 1,200 in the Newcastle and the Hunter region. Around 3,000 of those men die from prostate cancer every year, including about 160 in the Hunter. That is a lot of men to be losing on an annual basis.</para>
<para>When we look at the melanoma rates, there are around 11,000 Australians diagnosed with melanoma every year, including 600 in the Hunter-New England region. It is the second most common cancer in the Hunter, behind prostate cancer. There are very high rates in our communities. We have way above average rates of melanoma. Indeed, the Cancer Institute New South Wales figures show the Hunter ranks fourth highest in the state.</para>
<para>And then, of course, there are the disturbing figures around breast cancer. Five hundred and fifty women are diagnosed with breast cancer in the Hunter each year. It is the third most common cancer in the Hunter. These patients are now forced into increased out-of-pocket expenses. According to one example, a patient with a malignant melanoma receiving stereotactic radiation treatment could face new out-of-pocket costs of some $7,400. A patient with prostate cancer receiving volumetric modulated arc therapy could face new out-of-pocket costs of some $8,000. Similarly, a patient with breast cancer being treated by private providers might see a 200 per cent increase in their out-of-pocket expenses for radiation oncology. These are massive imposts on people who are very unwell, feeling especially vulnerable and already have so much to deal with.</para>
<para>Due to the debilitating nature of these illnesses—not to mention the incapacitating effects of the treatments that people have to undergo—many cancer sufferers are unable to work and earn an income for prolonged periods of time often extending into remission. Having to come up with thousands of dollars to meet extra out-of-pocket costs is not something that anyone experiencing cancer should have to undertake.</para>
<para>There is barely a week that goes by in my electorate where I do not have an invitation to attend a fundraiser for a family who are doing it tough and trying to raise money to complete their medical treatment. There are examples of morning teas, trivia nights, film screenings and, increasingly, crowdfunding. That is before these additional cuts come into play. That is before these additional out-of-pocket expenses kick in. It is an enormous financial burden already for people undergoing prolonged treatments for cancer.</para>
<para>I have an example of a young man in my electorate suffering terminal brain cancer. He is not eligible to go for a disability support pension. There is no financial support available for him while battling this illness. Additional thousands of dollars to add to an already hefty bill is the cruellest of cuts from this government. These are people who do not have a treasure trove of savings to call on. Nobody makes plans for a cancer diagnosis; it is a very unexpected matter for most people to have to deal with. This additional burden, as I said, is just one of the cruellest consequences of the bill before the House today.</para>
<para>Health professionals agree that the impact of the changes proposed in this bill will negatively impact their patients. The Australian Medical Association is opposed to these changes. The President of the AMA, Professor Brian Owler, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the new Medicare Safety Net arrangements, together with the ongoing freeze of Medicare patient rebates, mean that growing out-of-pocket costs will become a reality for all Australian families, including the most vulnerable patients in our community…</para></quote>
<para>The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners have also warned of the impact of these changes, especially in the context of the government's GP tax through its ongoing freeze of Medicare indexation. The college's president, Professor Frank Jones, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… coupled with the indexation freeze, the legislation will actually increase the cost of care to vulnerable groups. Safety net thresholds will increase by CPI annually while rebates are frozen.</para></quote>
<para>Concerns have also been raised by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Cancer groups and others have also raised consistent concerns about the thousands of patients that will be adversely affected by these changes.</para>
<para>Breast Cancer Network Australia Chief Christine Nolan said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Many women are dismayed to learn that despite paying years of private health insurance premiums, they cannot claim for radiotherapy costs from their private health fund unless they are in hospital during their treatment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These women must rely on the Medicare Safety Net to maintain their costs for radiotherapy at a reasonable level. Breast Cancer Network Australia is concerned about any proposed changes to the Safety Net that may increase treatment costs and add to the financial burden of a breast cancer diagnosis.</para></quote>
<para>In these last few minutes I would like to take a look at some of the detrimental impacts these cuts will have on patients needing ongoing psychiatric care. Psychiatrists, especially those providing psychotherapy services to very vulnerable patients, have warned the government of the very serious impact on patients they care for. Dr Shirley Prager, the President of the Association of Practising Psychiatrists, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am very concerned about the impact the new Safety Net proposals will have on patients who need long-term ongoing mental health treatment as these patients will find their health care with a psychiatrist increasingly unaffordable. If the new Safety Net is legislated a significant group of high need patients who require consultation with their psychiatrist more than once a week will lose the appropriate level of support provided by the current Safety Net arrangements. Many of these patients are poor and unable to work as a consequence of illness, and the intensive psychiatric help that they urgently need to re-build their fives will be lost under the new Safety Net.</para></quote>
<para>Dr Prager has also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I believe that patients who need to access a psychiatrist in these circumstances will suffer significant and increased financial hardship, or may, very frequently, be forced to give up much needed treatment to the overall detriment of their own personal health and well-being. The consequences are potentially disastrous.</para></quote>
<para>Again, in my region, many people have revealed, for the first time, through the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the terrible trauma that they have experienced in their lives. They are now seeking some assistance in their healing process; those people are reaching out for our help. The cuts that we see in this legislation before the House tonight really go to denying those people the very treatment they need to complete the healing process.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAYES</name>
    <name.id>ECV</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, we are seeing some of the core values of the Liberal Party well and truly on display as they continue their relentless attack on disadvantaged Australian families. We probably should not be all that surprised, given that in the lead-up to the 2013 election—maybe that is not the right way to say it—or rather on the night before the 2013 election, remember the promise made: there will be no cuts to health. They did go on to say there will be no cuts to education and a number of other things as well, about which many people around here have had their head down ever since. But the truth of the matter is, having said that, they formed government and, in doing so, one of the first things they did was slash $60 billion from the Australian health budget, from Australian hospitals. They cut straightaway. It was not just the opposition who were jumping up and down about that. The leaders of Liberal state governments wasted no time. New South Wales Premier, Mike Baird, said, 'This was a kick in the guts to all Australians.' This is not something that should be seen as a government-versus-opposition issue; this is something that should be seen as an issue of great importance.</para>
<para>This legislation is of such great importance that I would have thought, on a piece of legislation like the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015, the government would offer more than three speakers. Only three speakers were brave enough to come into the House and try to defend their position on this legislation before us today. They are taking $60 billion from Australia's public hospitals and $370 million from preventative health programs, and they are imposing an ongoing development of their GP tax through the MBS freeze, which represents a $2 billion cut to Medicare. This is hardly consistent with what they said the night before the election: 'There will be no cuts. Trust us.' I think the Australian population's view of politicians' promises has probably been largely gauged through the rather black joke that has been played on them by this government. The bill that is before the House tonight, if passed, will give effect to that first and most infamous Liberal budget of 2014 and their budget measure to 'simplify the Medicare Safety Net arrangements'. This will cut approximately $270 million from the Medicare Safety Net.</para>
<para>At a time when we should be looking at healthier lifestyles in this country, we now have a government, and certainly a health minister, that is instead working to do the complete opposite. Under the existing Medicare Safety Net arrangements, there are two safety nets: the Original Medicare Safety Net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net. The Original Medicare Safety Net provides an additional rebate for out-of-pocket hospital services when the sum of the difference between the MBS fee and the MBS rebate reaches the threshold in any calendar year. From 1 January 2015, the annual original safety net threshold is $440.80. The extended safety net provides for additional rebates for Australian families and singles who incur out-of-pocket costs for Medicare-eligible out-of-hospital services. There are two thresholds under the Extended Medicare Safety Net which are indexed by the CPI on 1 January each year. From 1 January 2015, the annual Extended Medicare Safety Net threshold is $638.40 for Commonwealth concession cardholders, pensioners on concession cards, health care cards, Commonwealth senior cards and people who are on family tax benefit A.</para>
<para>By the way, there are 17,000 people on family tax benefit A in my electorate. I have often said that my electorate has much to be proud of in terms of being the most multicultural electorate in the country. The colour, the vibrancy and diversity of it is something that we have many, many celebrations for, and it is something that we can all revel in. But there being 17,000 families in family tax benefit A is probably indicative of the fact that my electorate is not rich. My electorate has a high degree of disadvantage. As a matter of fact, my electorate also has a very high degree—it is overrepresented, in fact—of families living with disability. So this is something which very much goes to them. In addition to those thresholds I just spoke about, there is a $2,000 threshold for all other singles and families.</para>
<para>Under the Liberal government's proposed new arrangements, there will only be one safety net. It will be called the Single Medicare Safety Net and it will be for out-of-hospital services. Under the Single Medicare Safety Net, it will be $400 for singles with a concession card or families with a concession card; $700 for singles with no concession card or families receiving family tax benefits part A—like those 17,000 families I spoke about in the electorate of Fowler—and $1,000 for families with no concession card. Leaving concession card holders aside, the average household income in my electorate is a tad over $50,000. So, again, that paints the picture: my electorate is an area of significant need. It is regarded as a low socioeconomic area. These thresholds will now clearly impact on many families and on many families of great need. This is a direct attack on them, particularly as, on the night before they entered the ballot box at the last federal election, they were told that there would be no cuts to health.</para>
<para>The new Medicare safety net will be at a lower threshold for all patients. But it is of concern, quite frankly, that it will restrict the out-of-pocket costs that contribute to a patient reaching the safety net. The threshold amounts will be reduced. What patients receive is going to be very much impacted. A great change is going to be foisted upon the chronically ill, pregnant women, cancer patients and anyone who is in the medical system and using it extensively. Over 800,000 Australians will be slapped with higher medical bills and out-of-pocket expenses worth over $600 a year, after receiving the standard Medicare rebates. This is not including the out-of-pocket costs for non bulk-billed GP visits, which will rise from $7.60 to $19.45 and will not be covered as out-of-pocket expenses.</para>
<para>In particular, Labor is concerned about the impact that these changes will have on radiation oncology patients, on patients needing the services of psychiatrists and on patients accessing IVF services. For instance, a patient with a malignant melanoma receiving stereotactic radiation treatment could face new out-of-pocket costs in the vicinity of $7,400, while a patient with prostate cancer accessing volumetric modulated arc therapy could face as much as $8,000. Similarly, a patient undergoing breast cancer treatment through a private provider might see a 200 per cent increase in their out-of-pocket expenses for radiation oncology. Significant concerns in relation to fertility services have also been raised by various providers, with some reporting that patients could face costs of between $10,000 and $15,000 for an IVF cycle, which is above the current average of $4,000.</para>
<para>Under the existing arrangements, all of the out-of-pocket expenses for hospital Medicare services count towards the threshold and, once a patient reaches the threshold of the extended Medicare safety net, 80 per cent of their out-of-pocket expenses are met. However, under the changes which are part of this bill, the amount a patient will receive will be capped at 150 per cent of the MBS schedule fee, which, quite frankly, is significantly less than the standard MBS rebate. These growing out-of-pocket costs will become a reality for many Australian families, including those most vulnerable individuals in my community. When you are living on around $50,000 a year and raising children, you do not expect to be kicked in the guts—as Premier Mike Baird referred to it—on matters of health and education—matters that really go to your normal day-to-day life. Sure, there are many other things that can be argued in this place. But when it comes to the most vulnerable, the last thing you want to be doing is making decisions as to whether or whether not you access medical services, particularly when there are kids involved.</para>
<para>This brings me back to what I said earlier: only three people on the government's side have decided to stand up in here and support and justify this legislation. Only three people were brave enough to get the call from their whip to say, 'This is a duty that you must deliver upon.' While my electorate has significant pockets of disadvantage and many, many challenges, the truth is that many of the people over there represent very similar electorates. Are they going to go back, look people in the eye and say, 'When I had a chance, I didn't do anything about stopping this. I just went along with the wave of $60 billion cuts to education not knowing that this was going to impact on people of need in my electorate'? There comes a day of reckoning for this stuff. This is not a game for economic rationalists. Here we purport to represent, openly and honestly, people in our communities. We bring their concerns here and we stand up for their rights and their liberties; we stand up for their families. What I can see here is that there is only one side standing up for Australian families and Australians who are looking after their families in respect of health, education and many other things. In respect of health, there is only one side here that is standing up to these cuts.</para>
<para>I am sure that this is one of those issues where the numbers will be crunched and this will go through, but this is a piece of legislation that should be remembered. This is an issue that every member in this place—the whole 150 of us that have the honour of serving our electorates—should have a view on. It should not just be left to Labor MPs to come out and say how it is going to affect people in our electorates. The government have the majority here; as I say, they can crunch this through, and they probably will. But they also need to look people in the eye and tell them, 'When we had a chance, we proposed doing nothing about protecting the interests of families when it comes to health.'</para>
<para>This will have a deleterious impact on health in our communities. It will cause people to decide whether they will access their doctors, in the full knowledge that there will be out-of-pocket expenses involved and that they may have to sustain those expenses. That is the last thing we want Australian families to have to do. People do a great job looking after their families, and in turn those families are the backbone of our community.</para>
<para>This legislation is all about communities—it is all about how we support our communities. Labor does not support this bill and will call for it to be referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee to provide the opportunity for all stakeholders to express their opposition to these proposed changes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
    <electorate>Wakefield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is always a great honour to follow the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Fowler. It is good to be with the member for Hasluck—he recently had a promotion, and that is a good thing for the country. He made a bit of history. We all hope that his wise counsel is heard in the health department and in the health ministry, because the truth is that the Abbott-Turnbull government's record on health has not been very good at all. From day one, from their first budget, we have seen an assault on Medicare—$60 billion of cuts to public hospitals, to doctors and nurses; $2 billion worth of cuts in preventative health and health flexible funds, things like drug and alcohol counselling. This is at the same time as the government runs an ad campaign on ice addiction, the problem with that ad campaign being that there is no hotline number, there is nowhere to ring, there is nothing to do. It simply makes people aware that there is this terrible problem in our communities. They are doing this pea and thimble trick because while they are running this ad they are cutting drug and alcohol counselling. We know what they did with the GP tax, which was of course a cascading tax—$7 every time you went to the doctor, $7 every time you got a scan or a blood test. It was a cascading tax: seven times seven times seven times seven. We know that they have cut money in Health Workforce, in preventative health care. This year alone we have 3,000 nurses graduating but they cannot get graduate positions in this country. It is a terrible waste of human potential—and a terrible waste of Commonwealth taxpayers' money in educating them in the first place.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Scott interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have got the bite from across the chamber. I knew that eventually one of them would own up and try to defend this government's miserable record of destroying Medicare, hammering Medicare, ripping apart Medicare. The Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill is just another instalment. What does it tell us? It tells us that this government has not changed one bit on health. There is a new salesman, and he describes to us everything about health—here are all these options, here are the benefits of one and the detriments of another. That is what we get every question time—Lord Muck, the Prime Minister, at the box telling us all the positives and negatives of every argument but never owning up to what the government is actually doing. If you look at what the government is actually doing in this bill, it is a game of three card monte. It is like all these kinds of games you might play in politics—but the person that they are trying to game is the citizen, the health care consumer. Here we have a health care safety net bill that cuts the safety net by $270 million. Who is that going to affect? As the member for Fowler told us, it is going to affect people on low incomes—poor people, not just in Labor electorates but in electorates all over the country and especially in rural and regional Australia where we know health care is not only very important but also harder to access because of the tyranny of distance in this country.</para>
<para>What we have here is a so-called simplified safety net. Whenever you hear the word 'simplified' or 'deregulation' and a few of those words, you know who is going to suffer—it is the patient, the person who is supposed to be protected by the safety net and by Medicare. There are a lot of those people in my electorate—people in outer metropolitan South Australia and people in country South Australia. The Rudd and Gillard governments responded to this challenge by having a reform program—we sought agreement with the states and we put in place case-mix arrangements with activity-based funding arrangements for public hospitals, but one of the most important things we did was look at the rates of cancer and the treatment for cancer, and we acknowledged there was a problem. In my electorate, if you wanted treatment, if you needed to get into a chemotherapy bed, you had to drive all the way into the city, whether you were in Elizabeth or in Riverton or in Kapunda, my home town—I am giving the member for Hasluck a bit of a geography lesson about South Australia—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wyatt</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have family there.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He has family there, which is good—he is welcome any time in the Barossa Valley. He can come and visit me; he can drop by. If you go north of there, into Grey, to Redhill or up to Burra, or further up, you will understand just how long people have to drive to get chemo—it is hours and hours in the car to go to Adelaide. We saw that this was a problem and we fixed it. We put chemotherapy beds in places like Clare; we put chemotherapy beds in Gawler. When I was at the opening of the Gawler beds, there was a chap there who had to have blood transfusions for a very rare health condition and he said to me: 'If I could not go every day to the chemo bed in Gawler, I would probably be hospitalised in Adelaide.' That would have been the consequence. So we did not just make investments to stop people having that two-hour drive in the car; we also made those investments to keep people out of hospital—to make sure they get good treatment which will keep out them of hospital. And that is a saving. Every time you keep someone out of a hospital, it is a saving to the taxpayer and, most importantly, to that individual. It keeps them out of acute settings. We know that the more people are in acute settings, the worse it can be for them, and the worse the outcomes.</para>
<para>We on this side were all about making prudent and sensible investments that made health care better in this country. And that is what you have to do, Mr Deputy Speaker: if you want to keep people out of acute settings, you have to spend money up front. It means you have to actually treat GPs with trust and with professionalism, and treat them with dignity—because GPs are at the front line of this stuff. If we want to deal with diabetes, if we want to deal with some of these other things, then we have to make sure that GPs feel valued and we have to make sure that they do not feel undervalued. I have done tours in my electorate going around to GP clinics and talking to GPs: doctors feel very, very aggrieved by this government. And it is not just about the cuts to the GP rebate—cuts which are devastating for clinics out in the country and for clinics in outer suburbs; they are absolutely devastating for bulk-billing. This is just the GP tax regurgitated and put onto doctors—they have put the hammer onto doctors. We have recently had some matters—money sought, returns to Medicare, some issues with claiming of Medicare—that were used in the papers to try and blackguard every GP in the country, implying that GPs are all out to take advantage of the Medicare system. Frankly, that is a serious problem for this government. If you look at <inline font-style="italic">Australian Doctor</inline> magazine, or any of those magazines, doctors feel very, very undervalued by this government. And it is a serious problem because doctors are the front line—for this government or for any government—in dealing with chronic disease. We know that if diabetics go and see the doctor, and if they go and see the podiatrist, they are much less likely to have amputations—which, sadly, we have a great deal of in this country, and they cost us a great deal of money. I cannot really impress enough upon the government the arrangements we need to make, and the investments we have to make in preventive care. And that means valuing doctors.</para>
<para>This bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015 Bill, claims to be a simplified safety net—of course it is nothing but. It is a cut. It is a $270 million cut, on top of all the other cuts, and on top of the tax on Medicare. That is what it is. It is a brutal attack. And it belies all of this government's smooth talking, and its easygoing nature. As I said before, the Prime Minister, like Lord Muck, is coming in and describing every problem in glowing terms, and telling us about what the options are on every single issue, and talking about having a national discussion. That is all well and good. But it is not good when you are launching attack after attack from the Commonwealth benches on Medicare, with the hostility to universal health care in this country. There is absolutely no doubt about it; it is just that the hostility now is masked—masked behind a smile, behind smooth talking, behind fine oration, and behind—sadly—good men like the member for Hasluck. Behind their reasonableness is harshness and viciousness. How else can you explain raising the out-of-pocket costs for a person with a malignant melanoma by $7,400? That is a real thing that this bill is going to do. Or, for a person with prostate cancer who needs volumetric modulated arc therapy—I do not know what that is, but it does not sound pleasant—their out-of-pocket costs are 8,000 bucks. For women with breast cancer, patients will find a 200 per cent increase for their out-of-pocket costs for radiation oncology. Brian Owler said about this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The new Medicare Safety Net arrangements, together with the ongoing freeze of Medicare patient rebates, mean that growing out-of-pocket costs will become a reality for all Australian families, including the most vulnerable patients in our community.</para></quote>
<para>President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Professor Frank Jones, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Coupled with the indexation freeze, the legislation will actually increase the cost of care to vulnerable groups. Safety net thresholds will increase by CPI annually while rebates are frozen.</para></quote>
<para>And what are the consequences of this? Well, for the average IVF cycle, IVF patients could face costs of between $10,00 and $15,000.</para>
<para>All of this is serious stuff. It should not be masked behind fine oratory, or a smile, or knifing a prime minister in the middle of the night and replacing him with someone who is all smiles and all reasonableness. That is going very well at the moment—apparently—but beneath the surface are all these cuts: the same vicious agenda on Medicare, the same vicious agenda on tax—which we will see shortly—and the same vicious agenda on incomes and penalty rates. All of these things are still bubbling away in the community. People hope they will go away. They hope that this government is going to take some new approaches. But that is not what we have seen with this bill this week. How many days in are we, with the new Prime Minister? I have lost count. It is not very long though, since the Prime Minister was replaced—because of popularity. And I have no doubt that the story behind the coup will eventually come out—the viciousness, the betrayal, the backstabbing—will come out and be revealed. The plotters will be there. All I am saying is true. And we all know that the Abbott-Turnbull government will become something else when the popularity diminishes. If that is the way you are going to judge a prime minister, if that is the way you are going to do it, then we know what will happen next. We know what will happen next to the member for Wentworth. It will be the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. We could get a chocolate wheel and just spin it, and get a new defence minister, a new industry minister, a whole new set of ministers on the National Security Committee. But the one thing that will remain is their hostility to Medicare, their hostility for ordinary people being treated with dignity in our community. That is the one thing that you can say will remain, no matter what the personnel changes are in this government. The one thing that will remain is the hostility, the viciousness towards Medicare and universal health care which is a mark of our national character and our decency as a nation. That is the truth.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r5535">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>64</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015. This is a very important bill as we have all seen a whole series of scandals in this area over the past two years. These scandals have been detrimental to students. We have seen so many reports about it that it is very much the case that now is the time to get tough on all of those very dodgy providers who have been exploiting so many vulnerable students. Speakers on this side have stated that, whilst we do support this bill, it does need to go further and the amendments moved by the shadow minister move to strengthen the protection for students.</para>
<para>Labor is calling on the government to appoint an industry-funded National VET Ombudsman and calls on the Auditor-General to conduct an audit on the use of VET FEE-HELP. The shadow minister has also put forward amendments which require the department to write to prospective students with a clear statement on the amount of debt that they are about to undertake and then it requires a student to reply to the department before the debt is in place. This is a very important measure to protect students so that they then know exactly what they are signing up for. Also, Labor will move to refer the legislation to a Senate committee to look at options to cap tuition fee levels for courses covered by VET FEE-HELP and lower the lifetime limit of VET FEE-HELP student loans.</para>
<para>The fact is that, over two years and three different ministers, the Abbott-Turnbull government have really just tinkered at the edges when it comes to the VET FEE-HELP loans. Indeed, they have skyrocketed from $699 million in 2013 to $1.7 billion in 2014. In this time, so many vulnerable students have been ripped off and exploited, and this really does need to stop. This government should stop playing the blame game and be willing to take some action. Labor is calling on the Turnbull government to agree to our amendments and put these stronger measures in place to stop the exploitation of vulnerable students.</para>
<para>The bill seeks to prevent some inappropriate enrolments and debts through a number of ways: firstly, with the introduction of the two-day cooling-off period between enrolment and the application for a VET FEE-HELP loan, so that the course enrolment is no longer confused with the loan application process; secondly, by introducing minimum prerequisites, such as literacy and numeracy, to ensure students can complete the higher level VET courses; and thirdly, requiring a parent or guardian signature before a student under 18 can a request VET FEE-HELP loan. The new requirements for VET FEE-HELP require approved training providers to develop and apply appropriate student entry procedure requirements. As I mentioned, it certainly would make a difference having those in place.</para>
<para>As we have said, there are so many disturbing reports of the very unscrupulous behaviour by some registered training organisations who have essentially preyed on vulnerable students, sometimes signing them up for very large VET FEE-HELP debts. We see it on many TV shows and right throughout the media, and it is very disturbing. In many cases, these organisations have been quite deceptive and manipulative in their dealings on this matter. As recently as yesterday, one of my local papers, the <inline font-style="italic">Echonetdaily</inline>online, had this story titled: 'Scammers targeting Neighbourhood Centre users'. This related to some people who were behaving rather unscrupulously near the Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre. In this story, the <inline font-style="italic">Echonetdaily</inline> said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At least two men have been loitering around the Mullumbimby & District Neighbourhood Centre (MDNC) touting a dodgy online course they claim will 'help people get a qualification and improve their standard of living,' according to centre manager Julie Williams.</para></quote>
<para>Ms Williams, to her credit, contacted the paper so that they could make people aware of what was happening and urge them not to take up these dodgy offers. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These guys aim to get people signed up to a course, assuring them that the costs are covered through the commonwealth government's VET FEE-HELP assistance scheme, and offering a free laptop computer.</para></quote>
<para>The fact is that, no matter what the government might say, this is exactly what is happening on the ground; it was happening yesterday in Mullumbimby in my area. So there are a lot of concerns and we have seen some distressed students sometimes being completely unaware that they have actually even signed up for a particular course. Further adding to their distress is that they often find they have been saddled with a really significant debt. It is particularly unfair and that is why we need to have more action in place than just what the government has put forward.</para>
<para>In these reports we have often seen identified a real problem with people also being misled about the actual debt they will be incurring with the Commonwealth government through the use of VET FEE-HELP. Many of these stories have identified people with debts of sometimes over $20,000 without even finishing a course or even getting a qualification, yet they are saddled with this massive debt. That is why the amendment put forward by the shadow minister is so important: it requires the department to write to these prospective students with a clear statement on exactly what they are going to be signing up for and undertaking so that they know that it will really protect them, because it seems there are so many people who have signed up completely unaware of what they have actually committed to. We keep seeing that exploitation of people. These are people who want to get out there, want to improve themselves, want to get qualifications and want to get a job; but, unfortunately, we have seen too many instances of them being exploited in this situations. So we need to see some action taken to make sure that does not happen.</para>
<para>In looking at the bill, we see that it will further protect students and taxpayers by making it easier for a student who has been signed up for a loan inappropriately to have their debt cancelled and for the government to recoup some of the cost from providers. We also see the introduction of a minimum registration. The trading history requirements ensures that new VET FEE-HELP provider applicants have a proven history of delivering quality training. It is very important in terms of the integrity of the scheme overall and the reputation of the sector to have in place measures like that.</para>
<para>Under VET FEE-HELP students are able to access more than $97,000 in total for most courses offered by eligible registered training organisations. This becomes a bit of a double-edged sword in that it provides access to education and training but can then become a very large incentive or large carrot for some of the dodgy or unscrupulous providers. In fact, some registered training organisations have further confused and compounded the situation through the use of brokers, and sometimes these brokers have embellished or exaggerated the products to sell them. The use of brokers currently allows registered training organisations to sometimes distance themselves from particular brokers who are behaving in such an unscrupulous way. Some of the amendments in this bill take steps to make RTOs accountable for the actions of the brokers that they encourage and engage to sell their products. But, indeed, as we have said, more needs to be done than what the government is proposing in this bill. With the Grattan Institute warning that almost half of all vocational loans will never be repaid, the financial burden on the Commonwealth continues to grow.</para>
<para>The bill will introduce infringement notices and financial penalties for breaches of the VET FEE-HELP guidelines, and the infringement and civil penalties scheme will support the enhanced compliance regime. Since the 2007 extension of FEE-HELP to include the VET sector for approved diploma and advanced diploma courses, many thousands of people have accessed higher education for the first time. At the same time we have also seen an explosion of dubious providers and exploitative practices, like some of those I referred to before, and very large debts, and this has exposed so many shocking and distressing tales.</para>
<para>In addition to the effect of these shonky providers is the concern for the overall reputation of the sector and making sure there are quality providers out there. It is important for all of us to know that there are many outstanding providers in this sector who do a great job. That is why the quality of the sector must be improved, because we are only seeing media reports of the dodgy or unscrupulous providers, and we know there are many good ones out there as well. That is why it is important to clean up this whole sector and make sure we have even greater action and more enhanced roles in terms of safety.</para>
<para>Despite the government introducing new national standards that came into effect in April 2015, the problems with the system are still occurring, as I talked about just yesterday in relation to Mullumbimby in my electorate. Whilst this legislation seeks to address some of the issues around VET FEE-HELP, it does not really go far enough. We need more action. Labor has consistently called for the government to crack down on the problems relating to VET FEE-HELP. The government has taken almost two years to propose legislation that might actually address some of these issues. Labor has also previously called for the Auditor-General to conduct an inquiry into the use of VET FEE-HELP. Over two years and three different ministers, we have seen some tinkering around the edges, but we really need to see some firm and solid action in this area.</para>
<para>Whilst we are talking about training and skills—and it is very important to have a focus on that in terms of younger people gaining opportunities into the future—I want to raise this government's dismal record when it comes to their lack of providing training and skills. In my state of New South Wales, the state government has an equally dismal record. We have seen many harsh cuts by the Abbott-Turnbull government when it comes to cutting programs in training and skills. We have seen $2 billion in cuts to skills funding, including $1 billion in cuts to apprenticeship programs. At both state and federal levels, the cuts that have been made to TAFE have been extremely harsh. We especially see that in regional and rural areas. We see how it impacts younger people and really devastates their opportunities to get decent training. Only recently it was reported that leaked cabinet documents from the New South Wales Liberal-National government showed they wanted to sell off 27 TAFE sites. The document showed that in 21 regional towns TAFE will be closed or reduced through a partial sale. This is really a disgrace when we look at how important TAFE is, especially in our regional areas.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Richmond on the New South Wales North Coast, this included the full sale of Murwillumbah TAFE, and the government have now admitted that is exactly what they intend to do—sell off the Murwillumbah TAFE. In nearby Ballina, soon to be within my electorate, there is the partial sale of the Ballina campus. There has been a huge community outcry in relation to this. The community do not want to see this happening. They know how important our TAFE is. I would especially like to condemn the North Coast National Party for these closures. It shows yet again in regional and rural areas that the National Party just cannot be trusted. As I constantly say, National Party choices hurt. In this case, their decision to sell of the Murwillumbah TAFE and parts of the Ballina TAFE will really hurt our community. TAFE plays an important role in our towns and TAFE means that so many local students can access the education and skills they need. It is especially important in regional areas, where we consistently see high levels of youth unemployment.</para>
<para>In contrast to the action that we see with the National Party and their choices that are hurting regional areas, we see Labor committed to supporting TAFE. We absolutely support TAFE and understand how important it is in providing necessary training. We have said that we will make skills and training a national priority, and we will do that because we acknowledge that young people should be able to access it. A Labor government will back TAFE by guaranteeing that a portion of government funding for vocational education is dedicated to TAFE. We are committed to that because we know it is so important.</para>
<para>When we are talking about skills and training, again for regional and rural areas, one of the cruellest actions of this government is their plans for $100,000 university degrees. It means that younger kids in regional areas just cannot go to university. They cannot afford to get there or to pay these high fees. That is the reality. That is what parents and students tell me all the time. Whilst $100,000 degrees are unfair right across the country, they are particularly unfair when it comes to regional areas and to universities like mine, Southern Cross University. Their funding cuts are massive over a 10-year period and make it very difficult for them to sustain the provision of services without introducing very high fees. The reality under this government is that people will be paying $100,000 for university degrees.</para>
<para>We are seeing these cuts right across the board, whether in terms of university, TAFE or other apprenticeships. We see cuts to many areas of skills and training and to many youth programs as well. I have mentioned before the cuts to Youth Connections, which is a fantastic program. Many young people in my area have used that program. Wherever we turn, we are seeing cuts from this government when it comes to training. We on this side of the House want to see Australian students be able to start training and to finish their training with a quality accreditation. We believe that everyone should be able to access the training, jobs and opportunities of the future. As I have said many times, I do condemn this government for their cuts when it comes to training and I particularly condemn the National Party for their ongoing cuts to education in regional and rural areas. It is devastating.</para>
<para>In conclusion, in terms of this bill, it has taken a number of years for the government to actually take some action and we just have seen so many reports over that time about the shonky and dodgy providers out there and it is time to get tough on them. Whilst there are some measures that I have acknowledged in this bill, certainly the amendments moved by the shadow minister are vitally important, particularly for the future, or potential students as well, and making sure they have certainty and security around their needs in accessing training. We just have to get tough on these dodgy providers. I think it is important to be supporting our amendments to make sure we can take that extra action. Only yesterday, we have seen in my area some very shonky people trying to sign people up. It is only through harsh action and making sure that we have got a very strict regime in place that that will stop. We need to do that—from a number of perspectives—obviously from the perspective of Commonwealth expenditure in this area; first and foremost, it is about protecting our students and that is what we need to be focused on.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Whilst the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015 goes part of the way to tightening the VET system, we believe that it could go a lot further and indeed should go a lot further. I will be supporting the amendments moved by the member for Cunningham in that regard. Those amendments, in particular, do two things that I feel are necessary with respect to what has been going on with the tax system: firstly, that a national VET ombudsman should be appointed to oversee the VET system throughout Australia; and secondly, that the Auditor-General should conduct an audit on the use of the VET FEE-HELP program in this country.</para>
<para>There are two areas of government policy that over the last few years have been extensively rorted. It is interesting that both of them have come before the House this week in different debates. Firstly, I believe the visa system throughout this country has not only been totally rorted; the government has lost control of the visa system that is currently in place in Australia. The second area is with respect to the VET system. With both of those areas, the rorting has been exposed not by government but, rather, by the media and the journalists and who have done their own investigations into those areas and brought to the attention of the government and this House what has been truly going. For those of us who are out there in and amongst our communities, it has been obvious for some time now, whether it is the visa system or the VET system, that something needs to be done. It is encouraging to see that finally something is being done. The truth of the matter is that it should have been done earlier and more can be done.</para>
<para>The figures with respect to the rorting, literally, speak for themselves. We saw a cost blow-out in terms of the HELP loans from about $325 million in 2012 to somewhere in the order of $1.7 billion in 2014. That should have rung alarm bells for the government. We then also saw that only about 24 per cent of students have completed their courses. Again, that should have rung alarm bells, because no student is going to take a loan, get themselves into some sort of debt, and then not want to complete the course that they have taken the debt out for. It just does not make sense. It only makes sense if something shonky is going on.</para>
<para>It is interesting to see that some of the state governments—who have some responsibility in this area as well—have already taken action to try to address the problems. I am aware of actions taken by the Victorian state government and also by the South Australian state government, my home state, where they have become aware that system is being exploited and they are in turn trying to control what has been going and shut down the rorting that has taken place.</para>
<para>The most damning assessment with respect to the rorting comes from the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report, which handed down its report, I believe, only last month. There were some 16 recommendations in that report. I have read each one of them and all of them, in my view, are appropriate recommendations and all of them go to the heart of addressing individual and separate concerns that have been identified within the system. I just want to read their very first recommendation, which I think sums up the issues relating to what has been happening to the VET FEE-HELP loans in this country. Recommendation 1 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that, given the evidence of rampant abuse, accelerating costs, and doubling of bad debt the government launches an immediate review into the operation and regulation of VET FEE-HELP.</para></quote>
<para>That recommendation just highlights the serious state that we have reached with respect to the abuse of the VET system in this country. It is also interesting to note that the number of providers has also escalated in recent years. As of 1 January this year, my understanding is that there were 4,609 registered training organisations in Australia of which 3,440 were privately owned. How there could be so many registered training organisations across the country in itself should be raising questions as to how each of those organisations were accredited, how they got heir accreditation and what courses they were offering. It is bewildering to me. I am surprised, again, that the alarm bells were not rung when there were so many entities wanting to register as registered training organisations. It is heartening to see that much of that is now being contained and measures are being put in place, including some of the measures that are contained in the government's bill, to try and ensure that the rorting no longer continues.</para>
<para>In summary, the recommendations from the Senate committee refer to serious allegations of rorting and profiteering, abuse of the system, shonky practices, poor outcomes for the students who pay for the courses and then do not complete them—even if they do complete them, you wonder about the authenticity of the accreditation that they have been given. Even worse, there was exploitation of students and possibly fraud. I mentioned at the beginning of my comments the question of visa rorting and VET rorting and I believe that in some cases there may even be a link.</para>
<para>I do not have time to go into each one of those recommendations but, if time had allowed, I would have done so because the 16 recommendations in that report actually do address specific concerns that I have noted during my time as the member for Makin and, in some cases, concerns which have been brought to my attention. Indeed, I spoke to a constituent about this matter only in recent weeks, who gave me the name of two registered training organisations and who asked me if I could inquire into their legitimacy and in particular into their mode of operation. In one case, I noted that the organisation was charging somewhere in the order of $16,000 for a course that TAFE was offering for—in round figures—$1,000 or $1,500. That alone is concerning but it should also again have begged the question: how can one entity be charging so much more for what is effectively the same course? The truth of the matter is—and this is only anecdotal evidence—the owners of those the two organisations that the person brought to my attention, in both cases, have literally become multimillionaires in the space of a couple of years. They are not Australian nationals or, if they are, they reside overseas and much of the money that they have made, I am told, was transferred out of the country. It seems that it was an opportunity for those people who wanted to corrupt the system to do so not only to get rich but to exploit students along the way. We have heard many other examples of such practices from other speakers in this debate.</para>
<para>Registered training organisations that have become accredited in recent years have also undermined the viability of the TAFE system throughout Australia. We have seen, as a result of the RTOs coming into the market, TAFE having to shut down courses that were previously offered. We have seen thousands of jobs across the TAFE sector lost and we are seeing some campuses even close. That undermines, what I believe is, one of the core needs of our society—that is, the ability to properly skill up people in this country for jobs that emerge from time to time. Nobody was doing that better than TAFE yet we have seen TAFE totally undermined by the RTOs that have rorted and exploited the system. I am pleased to see that Labor leader, Bill Shorten, has made a very strong statement in respect to our commitment to support TAFE into the future. We understand the value and importance of TAFE, we understand that the TAFE courses are accessible to those people on lower incomes and we understand the need to have a training institution out there that is not only fairly priced but offers the courses appropriate to the needs of this country into the future.</para>
<para>I also want to speak briefly about the role of the national regulator—that is, the Australian Skills and Quality Authority. It is clear to me that the national regulator is under resourced. Perhaps, had the national regulator been properly resourced, much of the rorting that we now hear about may not have occurred. But it is important, if we are going to continue allowing RTOs into this country, that the regulator must be properly resourced, have sufficient powers and ensure that those people who apply for a registered training organisation licence are not only fit to do so but do not exploit the system.</para>
<para>I now turn to the question of prosecutions. In fact, recommendation 7 of the Senate committee's report suggests that prosecutions of those who have rorted the system should be pursued. Firstly, prosecutions should be pursued and severe penalties should apply if anyone is found to have rorted the system. Secondly, the message needs to be made absolutely clear not only to registered training organisations but to anyone who contracts services that are paid for by the government that if they are going to rort the system, it is not acceptable. Thirdly, we need to do what we can if at all possible to recover funding that has been paid to some of these organisations if it can be found that they received that funding by fraudulent means. That needs to be pursued, and I hope the government does that as part of its ongoing management of the VET system in this country. We need to have a VET system in which the community has confidence. No-one is going to enrol in a VET course if they believe that the certificate they get, at the end of the day, is not worth the paper it is written on. Again, that means that we need to ensure that the RTOs who are accredited are reputable and are doing the right thing.</para>
<para>Whilst there has been a lot of criticism about RTOs in this country, it does not apply to all. There are many good RTOs in this country, in particular the industry run registered training organisations, who quite often are very clear about the training that is required by the students that go through their courses, know exactly what skills the employers require, and structure their courses accordingly. Some of those training organisations in my own home state, I believe, do an excellent job and indeed they ought to be supported but, as I say, they are predominantly what I call the industry registered training organisations.</para>
<para>I do not know how many of the registered training organisations, of the 4,600 that I referred to earlier, are individually owned. I suspect that in many cases it is probably the same people running two different entities—maybe using someone else as a front for them. I would not be surprised at all if it is a system that has been manipulated in that way. I would hope that if anyone is found to have corrupted the system in any way, or to have run a shonky training organisation, withdrawing their licence does not leave them any opportunity to reapply under a different name, or a different company name, and then allow them to continue to go on with the rorting of the system that by then they would have almost perfected.</para>
<para>The last point I make is this: I am aware that there has been a hotline and people are encouraged to call in and dob in and anyone who is doing the wrong thing. My concern, with respect to the hotline, is that many of the people who have been drawn into the VET system under the rorting that I and others have referred to, are not the sort of people that are likely to ring the hotline. In many cases I suspect that they have very little interest in the system. They have signed their name onto a sheet of paper somewhere without even knowing what they have got themselves into, and they are totally unaware of the exploitation that was done using them as part of the racket. With those comments, once again, I support the amendments moved by the member for Cunningham.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the bill and the amendments moved by the member for Cunningham. This is an important area of public policy because it deals with how we equip our future workforce with sufficient skills to, firstly, enable them to have good, decent, quality jobs and, secondly, ensure that we grow our economy and remain a successful nation and a successful society.</para>
<para>It is a very important area that, I would argue, over the recent years has not been attended to as well as it might have been. There is no doubt that the decisions that have been made, both federally and at the state level, have not always served vocational training well. This matter, of course, goes to reforming the VET FEE-HELP area, but I think it is important, just in by way of context, to talk about how important vocational training is and about the absolute need to reform this area. The acquisition of the skills that are required to properly match the emerging demand in our rapidly changing labour market in this country is critical. There could hardly be a more important thing to be discussing today. This is something that Labor wants to see improved, and that is why there are amendments being moved by the shadow minister. Certainly I believe that Labor, when last in government, undertook some very significant reforms after close examination. Whether through the Bradley <inline font-style="italic">Review of Australian Higher Education</inline> or the Gonski review on education, there was very significant work undertaken after proper examination of the deficiencies of our education system. What I think we need to do further is to properly examine vocational training. We have got to get this right because there are too many deficiencies with the system. I think many of the speakers who have contributed to this debate have outlined those deficiencies.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that very significant rorts have existed within the system. It is fair to say that the vocational education sector has exploded as open market policies and the rorted loan scheme have fuelled mass enrolments hidden from regulatory scrutiny. So says John Ross in today's <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline>, where he quotes Martin Riordan, chief executive of TAFE Directors Australia, who is very significant contributor and expert in the field. Mr Riordan said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Private, for-profit providers have collectively exploded as an industry, with the data showing they now deliver to two-thirds of the vocational education and training student population.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">More than half of the federal funding for VET and VET FEE-HELP has been allocated to providers without the scrutiny and data disclosures required for other commonwealth programs.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Ross further stated in the article:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Until now, the government had tallied only publicly funded vocational education and training. This included training by TAFEs and the other institutions—including private and community colleges, and training arms of companies—that had managed to secure government contracts. Under this approach, there were fewer than 1.8 million VET students counted last year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The new report, released yesterday by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, is the first to capture privately funded training as well as public. It found that 4,600 providers around Australia—including 2,865 private colleges—attracted 3.9 million enrolments last year. This compared with fewer than 1.3 million students at universities.</para></quote>
<para>Given the explosion in these areas and given the lack of standards, particularly amongst many of the private providers, the government needs to take action to improve this sector to ensure quality training for people, particularly young people, who are entering these courses, and to ensure that the training is of a sufficient standard to enable people to find work. I think it is fair to say that we need a sector that is more sensitive, as I said earlier, to the emerging areas of demand in our rapidly changing labour market. We do not believe this has been undertaken too well by this government, and there needs to be a lot more done.</para>
<para>That is why, whilst we support the bill, there are amendments, and I think there are even further amendments that need to be debated. Labor is calling upon the government to appoint an industry funded national VET ombudsman and support Labor's call for the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of the use of VET FEE-HELP. Labor also proposes an amendment in detail requiring the department to write to the student with a clear statement on the amount of debt that they are about to undertake, requiring the student to reply to the department before the debt is raised.</para>
<para>We have too many students either in debt—which is bad enough—or even unaware that they have accumulated a debt, because of the way in which the government have mishandled this whole area. We know what they did when they came into office. Despite our very strong reservations and protestations, they removed the support for providing tools for apprentices, and they introduced a loan scheme which would appear now to have left vulnerable thousands of students who are in debt up to their eyeballs. These are young, vulnerable Australians accumulating a debt which in many cases they are not even aware of. For that reason, the government deserve a heavy censure.</para>
<para>We need to see an improvement here. The member for Cunningham has been vigilant in articulating Labor's position in respect of these matters because we are going to stand up for those young people in particular who may not have ever entered into a loan arrangement before and who have found themselves vulnerable as a result of the failure by the government to properly provide support for them and the proper advice required when someone so young may be entering into a very, very significant debt by way of a loan.</para>
<para>The bill we support. It does not go far enough. We call upon the government to accept the amendments that are being proposed by the opposition in order to redress what are clearly significant problems within the sector. It is my view that there have been some very bad decisions in this area, such as the former Victorian government ripping out hundreds of millions of dollars from TAFE in Victoria. It happened in Queensland—I think it did—under Campbell Newman. It has happened at a cost for those young people who lost their opportunities to acquire skills they needed to enter the labour market.</para>
<para>We have an unemployment rate of young people in excess of 14 per cent. That is 16- to 24-year-olds. For teenagers it is even higher, and for some parts of Australia, of course, we are seeing unemployment rates north of 20 per cent—25 per cent and more in some parts of Australia—partly because these young people do not have the requisite skills to enter the labour market. We do know that the labour market is changing. There has been the disappearance of entry-level work as a result of a number of factors, including technological change. Also, those older workers who may have been made redundant in some sectors of our economy are competing with young people for jobs that were hitherto usually occupied by young people. There is a combination of reasons why it is harder for young people to enter the labour market. Certainly one of the problems is the failure to deliver proper, quality training to them and provide sufficient support so that not only do they acquire the proper accredited training but they also complete that training—they complete their apprenticeships or their certificates.</para>
<para>Further, there is no doubt in my mind that the experiment of having a sort of laissez-faire attitude towards the provision of training—which does pre-date this government; I am not going to attack the minister for that—has led to some really substandard providers being in the system. I think many reputable private providers agree with us and would agree with the government if they were to say that we need to clean that up. There have been too many shonky providers, too many bottom feeders, who have been exploiting young people. In some cases they have even been involved in gaming immigration. This sort of behaviour, this conduct, needs to stop. It brings this country into disrepute. It brings our vocational sector into disrepute. Most importantly, it really does undermine the future prospects for too many young Australians, and we need to do better for them.</para>
<para>This is a bill we can support, but there are some very significant and genuine amendments that the government should be acceding to. If they are absolutely fair dinkum about wanting to provide quality care and they want to ensure that young people and participants in the vocational sector generally are not to be exploited then I think they will listen carefully to the opposition and to the compelling arguments by members on this side, in particular the member for Cunningham, and accept these amendments because they will improve the bill. Upon enactment, it will improve the law, which will strengthen the sector, which will make it harder to exploit young people and participants in the vocational sector generally. It will clean up much of the problem that we need to clean up in order to have a first-class vocational sector.</para>
<para>As I say, there has been great work in recent years with the Bradley review and with the Gonski review. I think we need a closer examination of this vital sector for our economy. This legislation could be a start, particularly if the government accedes to the amendments being proposed by the opposition. I support the bill and in particular support the amendment moved by the member for Cunningham.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HARTSUYKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In summing up, I would like to thank those who have contributed to the debate on this very important bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015, and to thank the opposition for their constructive attitude and contribution towards our efforts to ensure that we have a high-quality VET sector.</para>
<para>The Australian government introduced this bill because we are determined to uphold the integrity of the VET sector and, in particular, VET FEE-HELP. We want a strong VET sector that helps students to develop the skills that they need for the jobs of today and to adapt to the work of the future. And we want students to be able to access VET FEE-HELP so they can undertake quality training that helps them into a job or helps them to develop their careers.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the changes introduced by the former Labor government have allowed unscrupulous VET FEE-HELP providers to flourish at the expense of students and taxpayers. As we have heard during the debate, this has seen students enrolled in courses that they did not want and lumbered with a debt they did not need. It has cast a pall over the entire VET sector and unfairly tarnished the reputation of those VET FEE-HELP providers who are doing the right thing. This bill is necessary to address Labor's failure with regard to VET FEE-HELP and to restore the public's confidence in VET FEE-HELP.</para>
<para>The government has acted swiftly to stamp out unethical practices amongst those providers doing the wrong thing. In March this year, Minister Birmingham announced a suite of eight reforms to enhance protections for students and taxpayers. The first of these commenced on 1 April 2015, when the use of inducements by providers and their agents was prohibited—no more laptops or cash for signups. Further amendments were implemented by the government on 1 July 2015. These included making providers accountable for the actions of their agents, requiring written contracts between providers and their agents, requiring providers to list their agents on their websites and prohibiting providers and agents from using particular language when describing VET FEE-HELP, such as 'free' or 'government funded' when we all know that they are not. The changes also removed unfair withdrawal fees and required providers to provide full and accurate information to students before enrolment.</para>
<para>This bill builds on the reforms that came into effect in April and July this year. I note the support of those opposite for the bill, and their intention to refer it and the proposed amendments which they have to the Senate legislation committee.</para>
<para>With regard to Labor's substantive amendment, I can advise the House that the Department of Education and Training is already working on a new electronic application system for VET FEE-HELP loans. This approach will come into effect on 1 January 2017, and will address the concern raised by Labor's proposed amendments. It will set up an opt-in process. Essentially, students who wish to apply for VET FEE-HELP loans will need to register directly with the Department of Education Training. Students will then receive details at an email address of their choice from the department as to where and how to complete their request online.</para>
<para>As part of the application process, it will be made clear to students that they are requesting a Commonwealth loan and that the loan will need to be repaid once their income reaches a certain threshold. This way, the department can ensure that all students receive the same information about VET FEE-HELP loans in a clear and user-friendly manner. Once the student has completed and submitted the electronic form to the department, both the student and the training provider will be provided with a copy for their records.</para>
<para>This will remove the potential for providers to misrepresent VET FEE-HELP loans to students, or to pressure students to sign forms. This process is in train and will be ready to roll out, as I said, in 2017. It will help to ensure that students are very clear about how much they are borrowing for their studies and when and how it will need to be repaid. Additional measures to be implemented in 2016 will also provide students with clear information of their debt by unit. From 1 January 2016 providers are required to provide students with VET FEE-HELP invoices before each census date, clearly outlining the debts to be incurred. Students can withdraw before the census date without incurring a VET FEE-HELP debt.</para>
<para>Providers must also provide students with a two-day gap or cooling off period between enrolling and applying for a loan, further separating study and payment decisions. When seen together, these reforms will have the same effect as Labor's proposed amendments. For these reasons, the government does not consider it necessary to support Labor's amendments, but I certainly acknowledge the spirit in which these amendments have been put forward.</para>
<para>The reforms have been widely canvassed within the sector and have been acknowledged as timely and necessary in order to restore the confidence in the scheme and the sector's reputation more generally. I trust those opposite are assured that the work the department has in train will give effect to its substantive amendment. I am happy to work with those opposite to ensure its implementation is in keeping with the intent of their proposed amendments.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill implements a number of important reforms to strengthen VET FEE-HELP. As I have said on a number of occasions in recent weeks, I am keeping a very close eye on the VET FEE-HELP program and am determined to ensure that the money being provided by taxpayers is directed to quality training that helps people into real jobs. In closing, I again welcome Labor's support for these measures and commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by Ms Bird be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:54]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Mitchell)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>49</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Burke, AE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Danby, M</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Ellis, KM</name>
                  <name>Ferguson, LDT</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gray, G</name>
                  <name>Griffin, AP</name>
                  <name>Hall, JG (teller)</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>MacTiernan, AJGC</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McGowan, C</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Owens, J</name>
                  <name>Parke, M</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Ripoll, BF</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thomson, KJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>81</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Baldwin, RC</name>
                  <name>Billson, BF</name>
                  <name>Bishop, BK</name>
                  <name>Briggs, JE</name>
                  <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Brough, MT</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                  <name>Cobb, JK</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gambaro, T</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Griggs, NL</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hendy, PW</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Hutchinson, ER</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Jensen, DG</name>
                  <name>Jones, ET</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Keenan, M</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Laundy, C</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Macfarlane, IE</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Markus, LE</name>
                  <name>Matheson, RG</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McNamara, KJ</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>Nikolic, AA</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Prentice, J</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Pyne, CM</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE</name>
                  <name>Robb, AJ</name>
                  <name>Roy, WB</name>
                  <name>Scott, BC</name>
                  <name>Scott, FM</name>
                  <name>Simpkins, LXL</name>
                  <name>Southcott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Stone, SN</name>
                  <name>Sudmalis, AE</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Varvaris, N</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Whiteley, BD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Williams, MP</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BIRD</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (11):</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 2), at the end of clause 23C, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Before a *VET provider enrols a student in a *VET unit of study, the VET provider must advise the student that, if the student gives or has given a *request for Commonwealth assistance that relates to the unit or the *VET course of study of which the unit forms a part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) the student will not be able to receive *VET FEE‑HELP assistance for the unit unless the student, before the end of the *census date for the unit, accepts an offer from the *Secretary to lend the student VET FEE‑HELP assistance for the unit; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) the student will be taken never to have enrolled in the unit if the student does not accept the offer before the end of that census date.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (line 10), omit "date.", substitute "date; and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (after line 10), at the end of subclause 45C(1), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (d) before the end of that census date, the student accepts in accordance with clause 45E an offer by the *Secretary under clause 45D to lend the student *VET FEE‑HELP assistance for the unit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If the student does not accept an offer under clause 45D before the end of the census date, the student is taken never to have enrolled in the unit (see subclause 45D(4)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (after line 24), after clause 45C, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">45D Offer of VET FEE ‑HELP assistance</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a student enrols in a *VET unit of study and the student has given an *appropriate officer of the *VET provider a *request for Commonwealth assistance that relates to the unit or the *VET course of study of which the unit forms a part, the VET provider must give the *Secretary written notice of the enrolment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the *Secretary is given a notice under subclause (1), the Secretary must, by written notice given to the student, offer to lend the student *VET FEE‑HELP assistance for the unit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The offer must do the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) set out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (i) the name of the *VET provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) the name of the *VET unit of study; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (iii) the name of the *VET course of study; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (iv) the *VET tuition fee for the unit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) explain how the amount of *VET FEE‑HELP assistance to which the student is entitled is worked out;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) inform the student that the student will incur a debt in respect of any VET FEE‑HELP assistance lent to the student for the unit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (d) explain how the amount of that debt will be worked out (including the effect of subsection 137‑18(2)) and how that debt will be repaid;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (e) explain how to accept the offer, should the student decide to do so;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (f) inform the student that the student does not have to accept the offer;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (g) explain the effect of subclause (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The student is taken never to have enrolled in the *VET unit of study if the student does not accept the offer in accordance with clause 45E before the end of the *census date for the unit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">45E Accepting offer of VET FEE ‑HELP assistance</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      A student accepts an offer under clause 45D to lend the student *VET FEE‑HELP assistance for a *VET unit of study if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) the student gives the *Secretary the acceptance in writing in the approved form; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) the acceptance contains or is accompanied by an acknowledgement that the person understands the effect of accepting the offer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 24, page 11 (line 30), omit "and clause 45C", insert ", and clauses 45C, 45D and 45E,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 26, page 17 (line 11), omit "paragraph 45C(1)(c)", substitute "paragraphs 45C(1)(c) and (d)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 26, page 17 (line 30), omit "paragraph 45C(1)(c)", substitute "paragraphs 45C(1)(c) and (d)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 26, page 18 (after line 9), after subclause 39DH(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), disregard paragraph 45C(1)(d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 26, page 19 (after line 29), after clause 39DI, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">39DIA Civil penalty—failure to advise about accepting offer of assistance</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      A person contravenes this clause if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) the person is a *VET provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) the VET provider enrols another person (the <inline font-style="italic">student</inline>) in a *VET unit of study; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) before enrolling the student, the VET provider failed to advise the student that, if the student gives or has given a *request for Commonwealth assistance that relates to the unit or the *VET course of study of which the unit forms a part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (i) the student will not be able to receive *VET FEE‑HELP assistance for the unit unless the student, before the end of the *census date for the unit, accepts an offer from the *Secretary to lend the student VET FEE‑HELP assistance for the unit; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) the student will be taken never to have enrolled in the unit if the student does not accept the offer before the end of that census date.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Civil penalty:   60 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 30, page 26 (line 22), after "clauses", insert "39DIA".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 31, page 28 (line 1), after "and (2)", insert ", and clause 39DIA,"</para></quote>
<para>I indicate to the House that Labor had foreshadowed these in detail amendments during the second reading debate. I have listened to the contribution by the minister in his summing-up debate in which he referred to some initiatives that the government is pursuing in a similar vein to what was envisaged when I put them in detail amendments forward. However, I am persisting with the amendments in this format for two reasons and I would just like to explain those to the House.</para>
<para>Firstly, as I understand it, the proposition of the minister is not a legislative proposition. It is Labor's view that, given the extreme and damaging nature of the sorts of rorts and behaviour that are going on, it is a stronger and therefore better position to have this new process actually embedded in the legislation.</para>
<para>Secondly, the proposition put by the minister that is being developed, I still think needs another step and that step is envisaged in the amendment. So I understand from the minister's comments that the amendment will not be supported by the government but I would like to indicate that I am keen to work with the minister as that process is developed to perhaps build in some of what we envisage.</para>
<para>The concept behind the amendment in detail for the interests of the House is to address what has become, I think, the key danger point and where the most damage is being done in the VET FEE-HELP sector in particular. In addition, a further intervention needs to happen by government as the provider of the loan that becomes the lone responsibility of the students.</para>
<para>There has been extensive evidence and many media stories of individuals coming to all of our offices from their constituent case load and through much of the research and work by the regulator, ASQA. I note their report was only released in October on their targeted audit of VET FEE-HELP providers, including an indication of their significant concerns about some of the practices that have been going on. Also, of course, most recently we have had the ACCC publicly indicate it was pursuing one legal case but they had foreshadowed more to come.</para>
<para>What happens is that the student gets cold-called, pulled up on the street or in a shopping centre or doorknocked, and these practitioners—I call them that kindly—are targeting the most vulnerable people on purpose. Often they are targeting people who are unemployed, have English as a second language, have a disability and elderly people in community centres—all of these sorts of cases. They are targeting them specifically, because they use high-pressure sales tactics. They get all the forms signed and all the paperwork done—in fact we have heard examples of providers actually filling out the language and literacy tests for people and saying 'Open this email' and telling people what to put into it and so forth. They use a high-pressure, sign-up and do-it-now sales tactic.</para>
<para>It is Labor's view that we need to break the basis of that model for these sorts of practitioners. It must be an opt-in system, and I think that is where the government's indications are in the right direction. Our view is that that that occurs outside that original contact. So the provider gets the paperwork for both the enrolment and the VET FEE-HELP system. They send that to the department. By that stage, the person is free of their iniquitous control and has gone home or wherever. They then get from the department—the government—a notification by whatever means saying: 'You have applied for this loan. This is how much it will be. These are the terms and conditions'—the normal sorts of things a loan provider would do. 'In order to activate this loan, you must now come back and respond to the government that you understand that you wish to activate it.'</para>
<para>I acknowledge that that activation process is probably what is envisaged and what the minister is talking about. I will seek just a few more minutes to conclude my comments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HARTSUYKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for her comments and say to her that we certainly understand the intent of Labor's proposed amendments and concede that what you are trying to achieve is to prevent an unscrupulous provider effectively having the opportunity to look over the shoulder of a person whilst they are filling out this documentation.</para>
<para>The government are happy to work with the opposition to ensure that we put in place a system that breaks or prevents that possibility from occurring ,that has the necessary safeguards in place, as best is possible, to achieve that break in the continuum, so that the person has the opportunity to consider the documentation before them without any possibility for coercion by the provider involved. We are certainly happy to work with the opposition in that regard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BIRD</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for that indication. I will put on the record that we will pursue this particular issue—though I understand the amendment will not get up—to specifically have that capacity for the person to let the sign-up student go, because they cannot take any further action until they submit the paperwork to the department. That is a conversation I am very happy to have with the minister. My concern with this proposal to date from the government is that there does not seem to be any opportunity, as yet, to stop a provider sitting with the student as they log in and do it. That may be something we can address, and I appreciate the intention of working through that.</para>
<para>I honestly believe, and I get the impression the government believe, that a significant part of this potential bad debt—which is debt accumulated by people who never really understood, if they even knew, they were signing up for a debt—is most unlikely to be recouped by the government, and would never occur in the first place if someone has to come back and say: 'Yes, I did understand that debt. Yes, I do want to proceed with it.' They simply will not come back. That is what will happen. They get these sorts of contacts, and go: 'I don’t want that. 'I'm not going to do anything with that.' By not coming back, they deny the training provider the funding in the first place.</para>
<para>All those reputable quality providers, who are out there trying to do the right thing, will manage this sort of system very effectively, and those who are building a business model on the rip-offs—and, sadly, we have to design this system for the ones who intend to not do the right thing—will find this system undermines and destroys their model. I am firmly of the view it will help towards a significant decrease in potential bad debt for governments. I still would like the government to support the amendment because I would prefer it was legislated, but I will indicate that I will continue to work with the minister to build those principles into an opt-in system.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the amendments be agreed to.</para>
<para>The House divided. [18:17]</para>
<para>(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Mitchell)</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Bill agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>50</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Danby, M</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Ellis, KM</name>
                  <name>Ferguson, LDT</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gray, G</name>
                  <name>Griffin, AP</name>
                  <name>Hall, JG (teller)</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>MacTiernan, AJGC</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McGowan, C</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Owens, J</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Ripoll, BF</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thomson, KJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>78</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Baldwin, RC</name>
                  <name>Billson, BF</name>
                  <name>Bishop, BK</name>
                  <name>Briggs, JE</name>
                  <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Brough, MT</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                  <name>Cobb, JK</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Gambaro, T</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Griggs, NL</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hendy, PW</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Hutchinson, ER</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Jensen, DG</name>
                  <name>Jones, ET</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Keenan, M</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Laundy, C</name>
                  <name>Macfarlane, IE</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Markus, LE</name>
                  <name>Matheson, RG</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McNamara, KJ</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>Nikolic, AA</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Prentice, J</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE</name>
                  <name>Robb, AJ</name>
                  <name>Roy, WB</name>
                  <name>Scott, BC</name>
                  <name>Scott, FM</name>
                  <name>Simpkins, LXL</name>
                  <name>Southcott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Stone, SN</name>
                  <name>Sudmalis, AE</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Varvaris, N</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Whiteley, BD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Williams, MP</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HARTSUYKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<para>That this bill be now read a third time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r5174">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
<para>I will take this opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the bill in the form that it is in before us. The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 has returned to the House of Representatives from the Senate.</para>
<para>The measures that the House us now being asked to agree on are at the very least a significant first step in bringing balance back to the workplace relations system. That is, I think, an important initial point. A further important point is that all the measures that were contained in the original Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 were clearly outlined in the coalition's election policy at the 2013 election. We obviously take the view that they were sensible, fair and balanced reforms. They were very well known at the point they went to a full general election.</para>
<para>That bill progressed. The Senate has agreed to a number of the measures in the bill. The government just notes here its appreciation for the positive and constructive approach that was taken by the Senate crossbenchers in working with the government to pass at least some of the measures that were contained in the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 in its full form. Those measures that have been agreed are now being returned in the amended form of the bill.</para>
<para>I just want to make the point, which has previously been made by the Minister for Employment and in the Senate, that the government remains absolutely committed to its election policy and indeed intends to continue discussion with the crossbenchers on the benefits of those measures that were contained in the full version of the bill but which are not proceeding in this amended version. The government looks forward to continuing to work constructively with the Senate crossbenchers to achieve that ultimate goal.</para>
<para>Now I might make a few comments about the changes that have been agreed and that are now before the House. The changes are essentially to the greenfield agreement making process. The effect of the changes is that businesses can now enter negotiations with a greater confidence. The start of a new project will not be at any point held to ransom. The businesses will now have the certainty needed to create jobs to seek investment partners and break new ground on projects.</para>
<para>The Fair Work Commission as a matter of practice will now be able to act as a relief valve and approve a greenfield agreement, subject to it passing all statutory tests, if agreement with the relevant union or unions has not been reached within a set time period of six months. That improved process means that projects will not be held to ransom; there will not be the use of existing processes to achieve only the outcome of delay. That will mean that greenfield projects, which are very important to the Australian economy, can get off the ground quicker and jobs can likewise be created in greater number and quicker.</para>
<para>The bill will also close a loophole. That loophole allowed unions to in effect strike first and talk later. The government takes the very firm view that it is a matter of some common-sense reform to end that process and that that will help to ensure that costly industrial action is not taken prematurely. Employees can still take protected industrial action but bargaining will now need to have actually started first.</para>
<para>Some further notable points about the bill in its amended form before the House are that the bill will also first provide that an employer must not refuse a request to extend unpaid parental leave unless the employee has been given a reasonable opportunity to discuss that request. Secondly, the bill as it is before the House will ensure that the value of unclaimed wages recovered for unpaid workers by the Commonwealth is maintained. These are important changes. Indeed these changes that I have just noted were themselves supported by findings of Labor's own Fair Work review in 2012.</para>
<para>My final comment is that, in making these changes to the Fair Work Act, the government has removed some of the existing impediments to productivity and growth. The reforms will help build a more stable, fair and prosperous future for Australian workers, businesses and the economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to oppose the amendments and put on the record the federal opposition's view on these matters. In fact it has been the case that in the long period that this bill has been before the parliament we have had many discussions. We have had discussions with the government. We have had discussions with the crossbenchers. We have had discussions with stakeholders—employers and unions—to see whether we could find a reasonable accommodation of views in light of the amendments or the provisions within the existing bill or the original bill.</para>
<para>The original bill, of course, was much broader than this particular bill. It went to a whole range of areas, including right of entry, transmission of business and the way in which you might change individual flexibility arrangements in workplaces. The government found, of course, that there was no appetite in the Senate from non-government members to accede to the government's preference to support that particular bill, so the former Minister for Employment failed in his efforts to convince a sufficient number of senators to have that bill pass the Senate.</para>
<para>That is not surprising. Notwithstanding the comments made just now by the Minister for Social Services, I would have to disagree that the bill is a reflection of the commitments made prior to the election. Whilst there were some references to some of the matters and indeed there were references to, for example, enacting legislation consistent with recommendations of the previous government's review of the Fair Work Act, the fact is that the provisions within this bill and indeed the original bill do not reflect the recommendations as outlined by that review that was undertaken by the previous government. It is disingenuous of the government to suggest that the bill's provisions reflected the recommendations that were part of the former Labor government's review. They were in part, but, as always, you have to look at the detail when it comes to such matters. When it comes to industrial relations, you definitely have to look at the detail when it comes to the Liberal government looking to enact change.</para>
<para>We know that because its history is replete with transgressions in this area. One that stands out in particular—and I was in the place at the time—was when the former Prime Minister John Howard walked in after the 2004 election and made a ministerial statement. He made it himself. It was on what he wanted to do—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How did that work out?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It didn't work out particularly well over time! At the time, he was a very excited Prime Minister. He came in and decided to announce fundamental changes—radical changes, I think you could argue—to industrial relations laws in this country that ultimately became pejoratively known as Work Choices. None of those provisions, of course, were in any way communicated to the electorate prior to the 2004 election.</para>
<para>It is fair to say that the government has been so timid in this area because it has been traumatised by Work Choices and so has taken it a little softer, but the intent is always there. The malevolent intent of the government when it comes to attacking working people in this country never ceases to amaze me. That is why I am always sceptical when I hear the government say that, for example, there are to be changes that reflect the expressed commitments made before the election. Of course, when you look at the detail, that is not the case.</para>
<para>With respect to some of the matters, I have to say I agree with the minister that, for example, looking at greenfield agreements is an important matter. That is why I spoke to APO, large mining companies, unions relevant to that particular sector and academics who are experts in industrial relations legislation. We also looked at what we could do to reconcile any outstanding differences wherever possible. We were open-minded and sought to genuinely listen to the concerns of industry and see whether we could find a way forward. Whilst we do disagree with these amendments, I wanted to put on the record the efforts that we made without prejudice to the crossbenchers in order to see if we could facilitate some resolution to these matters.</para>
<para>With regard to greenfields, we understood the concerns of industry about the indefinite nature of greenfield agreements. We understood that there may be a way forward that could provide greater certainty for the mining industry and for industries that use these vehicles for new sites, new investment and, most importantly, new jobs. Therefore, we were open-minded to the submissions made to us in relation to these areas.</para>
<para>As a result, we put to the government and indeed to the crossbenchers within the Senate a mechanism that I think was balanced in that we believed it was a fairer proposition than what was being put forward by the government. Let me go to the greenfield agreements provisions that were in the government's proposed legislation.</para>
<para>The significant legislative change to greenfield agreements would have the effect that this would establish a new process for negotiation of a single enterprise greenfields agreement by extending good-faith bargaining to negotiations of these agreements and provide a three-month negotiation time frame for the parties to reach agreement. An employer would be able to apply to the Fair Work commission for approval of its agreement where agreement cannot be reached with the relevant employee organisation in that period. The existing approvals test under the Fair Work Act would be retained with a new requirement to ensure that the agreement is consistent with prevailing industry standards.</para>
<para>You might have picked up the concern I might have with such an idea: you would call something an agreement when there is actually no agreement. The actual instrument that was referred to in this proposed provision would be a document that was drafted by the employer. Yes, there would be a very limited period of time to seek to have discussions around that document and, provided it passed what is an ill-defined term—the 'prevailing industry standards'—it would go ahead as a ratified industrial instrument where the Fair Work Commission would have no choice other than to approve it irrespective of the fact that it is not agreed and irrespective of the fact that it was entirely written by the employer.</para>
<para>The government's proposed amendments to greenfield agreements, in short, paved the way for employers to essentially negotiate with themselves. That is the fundamental inequity of the provision. The opposition opposes these amendments, because the bargaining process will not be improved by simply removing one party—namely, unions—from the negotiating table, where these amendments give employers the absolute advantage in negotiating.</para>
<para>After an employer agrees to bargain with an employer organisation, the employer at any time could issue notice to commence a three-month notified negotiation period. This countdown clock does not stop once it starts. An employer, in effect, could essentially walk away from the negotiating table and simply wait for those three months to expire and at the end of those three months, having merely looked in the mirror and had a good chat, the employer and only the employer could take a proposed agreement the Fair Work Commission for assessment and approval. Now where is the equity in that? Where is the genuineness in allowing the parties to reconcile outstanding differences? How could it possibly be reasonable that one party to a two-party agreement has the entire authority to determine the outcome if you cannot reach agreement? Is not a very strong position to be in. If you are the other party, you are wondering how much leverage do I have here? You do not have a lot of leverage because all the other side has to do is to say, 'Well, I thought about that, genuinely I have, but I don't think I can accede to that request,' and do that for three months and then, lo and behold, head it off to the Fair Work Commission—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! the member's time has expired—are you seeking to extend?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am indeed. The minister wants to stay here. He is acting on behalf of a very good friend of his, Senator Cash. He wants to hear all of the arguments. I am sure she can actually, in some way, provide support to him in his portfolio.</para>
<para>The fact is it is an unreasonable provision to allow only one side of the bargaining table to have unilateral capacity to determine the outcome of an agreement subject to one ill-defined term—yet to be tested either in the commission or the courts—'the prevailing industry standard'.</para>
<para>It would be reprehensible and, indeed, it would be against the principles that the Labor Party hold when it comes to industrial relations to allow one party to make those decisions. We would not allow that on either side of the bargaining table and yet we have, of course, the Abbott-Turnbull government proposing such a reform and such a change. But as I made clear, I do understand and I have understood some of the concerns that the industry has raised. In keeping with those concerns, we did speak with the government and for a longer period with the crossbenchers to find some alternative position. I want to thank the senators who I was able to engage with. Whilst, ultimately, they supported the government in this regard, I believe I got a good hearing from the senators that I did speak with: Senator Madigan, Senator Muir and Senator Lazarus. I think it was unfortunate that they did not accede to our position. I know that Senator Lambie did not support the government's position but I wanted to speak to her. I was disappointed—I get on very well with Senator Xenophon, I did when I was in government as a minister—but it was unfortunate that we did not get an opportunity speak, because he quite often listens to reason.</para>
<para>The ideas that we were putting forward were reasonable and fair, unlike the government's amendments that are currently before this place. They were fair because they were designed to balance the interests of prospective workers and employers in making greenfield agreements. Remember this, when we are talking about greenfield agreements, there are no existing employees in a position to put their hand up and say, 'I'm not happy with that.' So it is entrusted to organisations of employers to represent their future interests upon being employed.</para>
<para>The opposition, originally, resisted the provisions, but we then sought amendments to retain the government's proposal to apply good faith bargaining to greenfield agreements, so we did I think converge. I do not know, maybe we started this new politics, because I was talking about this even before Malcolm knifed Tony. They allow for arbitration as a last resort using the Fair Act Work infrastructure of workplace determinations—in other words, we understood there needed to be a defined period, so you could not have the matter go on indefinitely. When I spoke with the large companies and others, their bigger concern was this thing could go on indefinitely. That would, of course, lead to uncertainty which would quite possibly make it more difficult to attract investment. What we said is, 'Yes, we're happy to find a time frame too, but'—and this is a very significant difference between Labor and the government—'if there were to be a resolution when the two parties could not resolve the matter, this would allow for arbitration as a last resort by the Fair Work Commission.'</para>
<para>The amendments also encourage bargaining and the making of agreements. The opposition is proposing to keep a time limit on reaching agreement through a notified negotiation period proposed by the government, but extending it from three months to, I think, a more reasonable time frame of six months. We do not think that is unduly long. Indeed, the six months was an idea that emanated from the crossbenchers. They proposed six months to the government.</para>
<para>The Fair Work conciliation powers would also be strengthened in order to ensure that we could have a better role for the Fair Work Commission to play in discussions before any ratification of a greenfield agreement. We did that by enabling the Fair Work Commission—we would have if our amendments had been accepted—to conciliate on their own motion if it is in the public interest to do so. The Fair Work Commission can be proactive <inline font-style="italic">(Extension of time granted)</inline> and play a role before the matter is even resolved by way of arbitration. I think it is also fair to say we would like to see the parties resolve these matters themselves. We invented collective bargaining, something the other side do not like. We support the parties taking the responsibility in determining matters wherever possible but we understand there are occasions in which the Fair Work Commission, the independent umpire, can play a very positive role and we believe that is what would have happened here if our amendments had been accepted. Greenfield agreements will be longer than greenfield workplace determinations, again, to encourage agreement making rather than arbitration—so, again, providing an inbuilt incentive for parties to resolve their differences and make agreement without recourse to a third party.</para>
<para>Finally, bargaining will be encouraged by ensuring that the party who wishes to access arbitration has done their best to reach agreement. The opposition's amendments also provide for the content of a greenfields workplace determination to be decided consistent with the existing laws around workplace determinations. A greenfield workplace determination will, amongst other things, include: terms that have been agreed to by the parties; terms that deal with the matters in dispute; and model terms in relation to flexibility, consultation and dispute resolution.</para>
<para>We believe sincerely that we had put what was a far more reasonable, far more equitable proposition to amend the government's proposed legislation in order to ensure that we could maintain some fairness in the system. We relinquished the position of allowing for this indefinite problem that was associated with some greenfield agreement negotiations. We had a time frame that could be resolved by the Fair Work Commission if required. I should have added too that the greenfields workplace determination must still comply with the better off overall test, and the National Employment Standards, and the Fair Work Commission is required to consider the behaviour of the parties in trying to reach agreement in deciding whether to make a determination in respect of the content of the determination.</para>
<para>We believe that it would have been a far better outcome if the amendments that were being proposed by the opposition in the Senate were accepted in relation to greenfields. We do not support the contention of the minister that the proposal with respect to greenfields is a reflection of what was put to the electorate before the election. We also do not believe it is fair to characterise the current amendments as outlined by the government and supported by the government to be a reflection of the Fair Work review. We think that is not accurate and we would say, therefore, the government does not have the mandate it suggests it has to make changes here.</para>
<para>I think far more fundamentally, even above and beyond the fact that it is not something the government had an imprimatur to do, as they did not make this specific commitment in this way prior to the election, it is just fundamentally unfair that you can have negotiations between two parties and both parties know when they enter those negotiations that one side gets to determine all matters with only one condition, which is the prevailing industry standard. How does that lend itself to good faith bargaining? How can you possibly have good faith bargaining when one side can just sit on its hands and not genuinely seek to find solutions? It is a pretty good position to be in if you are the employer but if you are the organisation representing prospective workers, it is a very weakened position. It is therefore not in keeping with what collective bargaining is about, which is allowing for all the parties to genuinely be in a position on a level playing field negotiating outcomes not only in their mutual interests but also of course in the interests of the people that they represent at the table. For that reason, we have had some significant problems with that.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be put.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Is there a speaker from the opposition?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am not accepting the motion. I am going to keep talking on this matter because it should not be shut down; there are other amendments that have not been referred to yet in the consideration in detail stage.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A vote was taken.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And we said 'no'. We called out. In fact, we suggested you did not have two so I will continue to talk on this bill. The motion was not accepted.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The House has moved on to another matter so we may consider this at another time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So what happened to the motion that was put?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe that it was carried.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But three of us said 'no'.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To assist the House, given that we appear to have had a vote—there should have been a call for a division, and there was not—if you want to go back a few moments we will give leave for that to happen. Then everything that just happened will be in its normal, orderly process. Can I suggest we take that path?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be put.</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAKER (19:15): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [19:05]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Goodenough)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>81</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Baldwin, RC</name>
                  <name>Billson, BF</name>
                  <name>Bishop, BK</name>
                  <name>Bishop, JI</name>
                  <name>Briggs, JE</name>
                  <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Brough, MT</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                  <name>Cobb, JK</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Gambaro, T</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Griggs, NL</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hendy, PW</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Hutchinson, ER</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Jensen, DG</name>
                  <name>Jones, ET</name>
                  <name>Keenan, M</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Laundy, C</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Macfarlane, IE</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Markus, LE</name>
                  <name>Matheson, RG</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McGowan, C</name>
                  <name>McNamara, KJ</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>Nikolic, AA</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Prentice, J</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE</name>
                  <name>Robb, AJ</name>
                  <name>Roy, WB</name>
                  <name>Scott, BC</name>
                  <name>Scott, FM</name>
                  <name>Simpkins, LXL</name>
                  <name>Southcott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Stone, SN</name>
                  <name>Sudmalis, AE</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Truss, WE</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Varvaris, N</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Whiteley, BD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Williams, MP</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Danby, M</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Ellis, KM</name>
                  <name>Ferguson, LDT</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gray, G</name>
                  <name>Griffin, AP</name>
                  <name>Hall, JG (teller)</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>MacTiernan, AJGC</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Owens, J</name>
                  <name>Parke, M</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Ripoll, BF</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thomson, KJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [19:15]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Goodenough)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>81</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Baldwin, RC</name>
                  <name>Billson, BF</name>
                  <name>Bishop, BK</name>
                  <name>Bishop, JI</name>
                  <name>Briggs, JE</name>
                  <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Brough, MT</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                  <name>Cobb, JK</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Gambaro, T</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Griggs, NL</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hendy, PW</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Hutchinson, ER</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Jensen, DG</name>
                  <name>Jones, ET</name>
                  <name>Keenan, M</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Laundy, C</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Macfarlane, IE</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>Markus, LE</name>
                  <name>Matheson, RG</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McGowan, C</name>
                  <name>McNamara, KJ</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>Nikolic, AA</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Prentice, J</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE</name>
                  <name>Robb, AJ</name>
                  <name>Roy, WB</name>
                  <name>Scott, BC</name>
                  <name>Scott, FM</name>
                  <name>Simpkins, LXL</name>
                  <name>Southcott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Stone, SN</name>
                  <name>Sudmalis, AE</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Truss, WE</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Varvaris, N</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Whiteley, BD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Williams, MP</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AE</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Danby, M</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Ellis, KM</name>
                  <name>Ferguson, LDT</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gray, G</name>
                  <name>Griffin, AP</name>
                  <name>Hall, JG (teller)</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>MacTiernan, AJGC</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>Owens, J</name>
                  <name>Parke, M</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD</name>
                  <name>Ripoll, BF</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Thomson, KJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker I would make a very brief statement on indulgence, following up from this morning. The opposition asked the parliament this morning to delay the debate on the citizenship bills until some processes have been completed. I just want to report back to the House that the opposition stands ready for those bills to be brought on at whatever time the government chooses.</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Membership</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That members be appointed and discharged as members of certain committees in accordance with the list which has been placed on the table.</para></quote>
<para>As the list is a lengthy one I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No—read it! We're going to vote for it, we want to know what it is! How can we vote on it? They have not even given us a copy!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a normal procedure where the opposition is provided with a copy of a list. We cannot vote on it and not be told what is in it. That is not a great way of operating!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to the vociferous protestations of the Manager of Opposition Business, and out of a desire to be agile, innovative and flexible, I am please to advise the House of the following changes which are proposed: that Ms Marino, Mr Pitt, Ms Price and Mrs Wicks be appointed members of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts; Dr Stone be discharged from the Standing Committee on Education and Employment; Ms Price be discharged from the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs; Mr Pitt be discharged from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities; Mr ET Jones be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and Dr Stone be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r5537">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome this opportunity to speak on the important issue of health care and, in particular, Medicare.</para>
<para>On today, of all days, not only do we respectfully remember all of our servicemen and women through tributes at Remembrance Day ceremonies right across the nation but we also remember the Dismissal of the Whitlam government on 11 November 1975. As many people are aware, it was Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and a progressive Labor government who led the way for universal health care in Australia through the creation of Medibank, which was the precursor to today's Medicare.</para>
<para>It is with respect to Gough Whitlam's legacy of universal health care that I declare that I oppose the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015. I do not support this bill, because it will have detrimental impacts on more than half the population of the seat of McEwen. The bill proposes a positive on one hand and then takes away with the other. It seems to be the story of this government.</para>
<para>The new Medicare safety net proposed in this bill has lower thresholds for all patients, and that is a good thing. But the kick in the teeth—as there always is with this government—comes with proposed restrictions. The bill restricts the out-of-pocket costs that can accumulate towards the safety net threshold. It also restricts the amount of benefit payable once patients reach the safety net. In the existing Medicare safety net arrangements all out-of-pocket costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services count towards the threshold. Once a patient reaches the Extended Medicare Safety Net threshold, 80 per cent of their out-of-pocket expenses are covered unless the service is one of the MBS items covered by a cap. The proposed changes in this bill will restrict which out-of-pocket costs can accumulate towards the safety net threshold. They will also restrict the amount that patients can receive back by capping it at 150 per cent of the MBS fee less the standard MBS rate. So, after we do the sums for the MBS fee less the standard MBS rate, the patient's out-of-pocket expenses are—surprise, surprise!—higher.</para>
<para>To give you an idea of the impact that these proposals would have on people and families in my electorate, think about this: with this bill, a patient with malignant melanoma faces new out-of-pocket expenses of about $7,400. With this bill, a patient with prostate cancer faces new out-of-pocket expenses of some $8,000. With this bill, a patient with breast cancer being treated by a private provider may face a 200 per cent increase in their out-of-pocket costs for their oncology treatment. With this bill, patients could face costs of $10,000 to $15,000 for IVF cycles from a fertility service. This is well above the current $4,000 cost per cycle, and that is something that I think members opposite should really reflect on before they vote on this. Are they really saying that they think this is fair and reasonable for people who are suffering with breast cancer—people trying to start a family and going through the pain and the indignity of the IVF? I know many people struggle to have children, and the IVF process is not one that is simple or nice, but people do that because they want the opportunity to start a family. So I am asking people on the other side: do you really think they deserve to be charged a lot more than they currently are just for trying to (a) stay alive or (b) have the opportunity to have children? This bill clearly demonstrates the disregard of the Abbott-Turnbull government for patients who need ongoing psychiatric care.</para>
<para>I want you to think about this. Think about how many people you know who may be going through similar situations. They may be treated for cancer related illnesses, mental illnesses, chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart failure or renal failure. You tell me if these people—sometimes forced out of work due to illness—can afford to cover new out-of-pocket expenses and treatment. I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, they cannot.</para>
<para>When Labor made changes to the Medicare safety net in 2009, it was supported by not one but two independent reports demonstrating the policy case for change. The changes we made put caps on specific MBS items identified in the two reports that contributed significantly to the expenditure on the safety net. We are not saying by any stretch that the current safety net arrangements are perfect, and I can see where the Minister for Health is coming from on this bill. Although it is expressed extremely clumsily, I think the same policy intent is there, but the problem with this bill is that it does not even try to target specific items affecting expenditure on the safety net. It is a blanket approach that will have serious adverse effects on patients, and that is not just my view. The President of the Australian Medical Association, Professor Brian Owler, has said that growing out-of-pocket costs will become a reality for all Australian families, including the most vulnerable in our community. The President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Dr Frank Jones—I met with Frank yesterday to discuss the college's vision for general practice and a sustainable healthcare system—agrees with the AMA. Dr Jones says that safety net thresholds will increase by CPI annually while rebates are frozen.</para>
<para>The financial impact has also had consequences for people's emotional and mental health. Dr Shirley Prager, President of the Association of Practising Psychiatrists, has said: 'If the new safety net is legislated, a significant group of high-need patients who require consultation with their psychiatrist more than once a week will lose the appropriate level of support provided by current safety net arrangements. Many of these patients are poor and unable to work as a consequence of illness, and the intensive psychiatric help that they urgently need to rebuild their lives will be lost under the new Safety Net. I believe that patients who need access to a psychiatrist in these circumstances will suffer significant and increased financial hardship or may very frequently be forced to give up much-needed treatment, to the overall detriment of their own personal health and wellbeing. The consequences are potentially disastrous.'</para>
<para>Mr Speaker, you and I both know that six years after the Black Saturday bushfires, which had huge impacts on both our electorates, there are many people still suffering with the trauma that that disaster caused, and putting more stress on them by putting them in a position where they cannot afford to pay for the help and support they need is wrong. It is not on. It is not fair. Many people are still suffering today because of what they faced, and it really surprises me that members of the coalition could be so comfortable in saying, 'Well, that's okay,' because, as you know and I know, these people have gone through an extremely traumatic experience, and they need ongoing help. It has been shown that even today people are still facing the demons they faced on that awful February day.</para>
<para>The outcome of these changes will severely compromise access to the appropriate treatment for a particularly vulnerable group of patients with serious mental illness, including sexual abuse victims, who are currently the subject of a royal commission that was set up by a Labor government that actually set up royal commissions into legitimate concerns in our community and in response to problems.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Christensen interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may laugh, Member for Dawson. It says a lot about your values if you think that that is funny.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Christensen</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're having a go at union corruption. That's what I'm laughing about.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Having a laugh as I talk about a royal commission into people who have been made vulnerable—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Dawson will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think that is really appalling.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen will address the bill.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will not go into a battle of wits with an unarmed man, Mr Speaker, I promise you. These changes, if put into place, will lead to an increase in the incidence of suicides among this patient group. The bill represents a cut of some $270 million to the Medicare safety net. So much for the promise by the Abbott-Turnbull government of no cuts to health! I am here today to tell you that the Australian people are not the bottom line of the accounting sheet. I understand that the argument in this bill means many patients will meet the safety net sooner, but they will meet it sooner in a context where $270 million has been ripped out. These savings are only happening by restricting the total amount of out-of-pocket costs that can accumulate to reach the safety net and then by putting cuts.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>86</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Funding</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAYES</name>
    <name.id>ECV</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I visited a number of local schools in my electorate to celebrate National Gonski    Week and, in particular, to acknowledge the positive difference that the Gonski school funding is making to the education of children in south-west Sydney.</para>
<para>I kicked off this significant week with a Gonski breakfast at Miller Public School hosted by the principal, Bronwyn York, and Mrs Skye Curran. In fact, 51 per cent of the students at Miller Public School are from non-English speaking backgrounds, and many come from families of a low socioeconomic status. Therefore, the school relies heavily on government funding to deliver programs that can assist its disadvantaged students with the development of literacy and numeracy skills.</para>
<para>Through Labor's Gonski reforms, the needs-based education funding program is playing a significant role in ensuring that every child has the support they need to succeed at school and, in doing so, is closing the gap between the lowest and highest academic achievers.</para>
<para>I represent an electorate that is well-known for being multicultural, but it is also an electorate that has a significant proportion of disadvantaged people—many low-income families, families looking after children with disability, single parent families and families of low socioeconomic backgrounds. I recognise the important difference that the Gonski reforms play in providing students with specialised individual support, smaller class sizes and programs that enhance their educational attainment.</para>
<para>I also had the opportunity to visit Marsden Road Public School, which hosted an assembly to celebrate the school's achievements with parents and carers. I met with the principal, Greg Way, who emphasised the potential that could be realised with a full six-year Gonski funding allocation. We know Gonski is delivering results.</para>
<para>At St Johns Park High School, over 90 per cent of the students are from non-English speaking backgrounds and 61 per cent are from backgrounds of lo   w socioeconomic status. Under the leadership of the principal, Sue French, the Gonski funding is effectively being utilised to upgrade technology and to invest in education infrastructure, providing targeted literacy and student leadership programs. The school received three years of national partnership funding before it got its first Gonski funding in 2014. Since the administration of the Gonski program, the school has seen strong academic results, with four times as many students scoring highly in the HSC than in 2013. St Johns Park High School also has a 91 per cent retention rate of its year 12 students. This is an incredible achievement. One can only imagine the difference that the full six years of Gonski will make in ensuring that students are not disadvantaged and that they get the guidance and support they need to reach their potential.</para>
<para>Instead, the Liberal government wants to abandon the Gonski reform to education and impose a $30 billion cut to funding for schools over the next decade. This is an average cut of $3.2 million per school and is the equivalent of sacking one in seven teachers. This cut will hurt students and jeopardise the future competitiveness of our nation. Schools in New South Wales are currently below the Schooling Resource Standard, and too many schools are still not receiving the funding they need to lift the achievement levels of students and to support those who require additional assistance. We cannot afford to let this funding lapse. Every child in every class room needs the support and opportunities that Gonski can give them, and they need access to quality education regardless of background or where they live. This is the cornerstone of our social and democratic traditions and a key feature of progressing our economic future.</para>
<para>I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of Mr Jason Gerke from the New South Wales Teachers Federation, whom I have been working closely with to raise awareness and to take a stance against the government's education cuts.</para>
<para>Education is the best way to break the cycle of poverty, and every child in every school deserves all the support we can give to ensure the best academic attainment. I give a Gonski because I believe in the importance of investing in our future by investing in education, and so should this government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to highlight a major problem inhibiting job creation in North Queensland and to propose a solution.</para>
<para>The Australian Conservation Foundation this week lodged a new court challenge to the approval of the Carmichael mine in north-western Queensland. They have two arguments running, and both of them are vexatious. Firstly, they are arguing that the Minister for the Environment failed to take into account a submission by the Black-throated Finch Recovery Team in the approval process. Secondly, they are arguing that the Minister for the Environment failed to consider whether the impact of climate pollution resulting from burning the coal that will come from the mine would be inconsistent with Australia's international obligations to protect the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef. These are not genuine arguments; they are just a means to frustrate and delay the project in the hope that its proponent, Adani, will walk away, taking jobs and prosperity to another country.</para>
<para>This government—the Turnbull government, the Liberal-National government—wants to see those jobs in Australia. We would rather see the mines and jobs here in Australia than in another country where the environment does not have strong protections or where exploited labour works on those mines without proper health and safety provisions.</para>
<para>In Australia, we actually care about species like the black-throated finch. It was identified and provided for in the conditions that are attached to the minister's approval for the mine, where the applicant is required to secure more than 30,000 hectares of land specifically for the black-throated finch.</para>
<para>The Australian Conservation Foundation's second argument is not only vexatious, but it is also self-defeating. If the extreme Greens insist that the Minister for the Environment consider the impact of this approval based on what an energy company in India may or may not do with coal, then they are shooting themselves in the foot. If the approval is given and it is coal from the Carmichael mine, then the Greens must prove that the emissions from that coal being burnt is going to impact the reef. But if the approval is not given, or if it is overturned by the court and it is coal from another country that is burnt, then the Greens will have to prove that even more emissions will not impact the reef. I say that because the demand in India is there. The coal is going to come from somewhere. It will be burnt in India and, if it is foreign coal, it is going to have a higher ash content and therefore most likely lead to more carbon dioxide emissions.</para>
<para>The Greens cannot argue that black is white—and black—at the same time. I can assure them: India will import coal from somewhere to create the electricity needed to bring 100 million people out of energy poverty. Last week, I visited one of those very power generators. It is located a few minutes drive from the largest coal-importing terminal in the world at Mundra on the north-west coast of India. It is built right next to the port, because it requires 16 million tonnes of imported coal—that is about 100 shiploads—per year to operate. Right next to that generator is another generator, requiring the same amount of coal, and there will be at least two more of these generators to come as India needs to produce a further 4.5 gigawatt hours of electricity in the next five years. Right now they are delivering that coal from Indonesia. When the Carmichael mine goes into operation, it will be higher-quality coal with fewer emissions generated and it will go directly into those power plants.</para>
<para>The Greens consistently argue in this place that more emissions are bad for the environment. So unless they are complete hypocrites, they should be sending congratulatory wreaths of paspalum, hemp and dandelion to the Minister for the Environment for actually approving this mine—and I expect to see members of the Labor Party congratulating the minister for creating industry, generating jobs and economic growth, and backing local workers.</para>
<para>Which brings me to the solution: I believe it is time to cut through all of this nonsense and stop using the environment to hold this project to ransom. We need to ensure that the legal processes of delay driven by these antidemocracy and anticaptitalism—anti-everything—movement are pushed out of the way. I have told the Prime Minister it is time we legislated that this project, the Carmichael coal project, be protected from vexatious legal claims so we can get on with the job of creating jobs. It is time also that Labor heeded the actions of their Queensland counterpart where the Queensland Labor government called in a local government application for a solar farm when the initial approval was legally challenged in the Land Court. In that development, they declared that they were going to call it in, because it would provide a significant economic investment. What would this mine do—10,000 jobs— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Iran Nuclear Deal</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DANBY</name>
    <name.id>WF6</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne Ports</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Undebated by the government is the foreign minister's tilted Australian policy towards Iran. Every Monday, including this Monday, the members for Wakefield and Canberra insisted that the foreign minister come into this parliament and debate her turn in foreign policy.</para>
<para>I remind the House that she proposed an intelligence-sharing agreement with Iran, urged her Western counterparts to cooperate militarily with the Teheran regime and even canvassed in the media the benefits of increased trade and diplomatic representation with that country. These concerns remain and are over and above the considerable and legitimate worries I have about Western—including Australian—enthusiasm for the Iran nuclear deal.</para>
<para>The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a flawed document. Its internal contradictions and lack of clarity are well known. For instance, the one and same document contains the Americans much-touted 'snap back' provision, along with the Iranian position that any reimposition of any sanctions will see Iran free from the obligation to continue undertaking its commitments. Iran put a gun to the head of this deal and, if Iran breaks its word and the US acts by snapping back sanctions, it will free to walk away. Tehran's escape clause is there in black and white in JCPOA.</para>
<para>Recent analysis by Yigal Carmon, the head of the Middle East Media Research Institute, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The JCPOA is best characterised by ... bold prohibitions on Iran that peter out in qualifying terms such as 'unless', 'except if', and the like.</para></quote>
<para>If negotiating the document symptomise craven Western compromise, the pattern is being continued in the deal's farcical implementation. At least the US Congress had a debate on this; Australia has not even had the courage to debate its autonomous sanctions regime and whether they will be withdrawn.</para>
<para>The treaty with Iran gave each party 90 days to obtain agreement from their national parliaments. However, rather than approve the document, the Iranian parliament—known as the Majlis—only approved instructions on how to implement the nuclear deal. We look the other way—the West—and pretend that Iran has agreed. It has not.</para>
<para>Supreme Leader Khamenei of Iran makes all final decisions and he has not endorsed the deal. The closest he came was in a letter on 21 October, in which he said that his approval of the nuclear deal was conditional on the West meeting nine new conditions. So here we have a situation where the supreme leader unilaterally changes the terms of this international agreement. What do we hear from Secretary Kerry, the UK's Hammond, or Germany's Steinmeier? The silence of the supplicant. That is why the US has been so willing to look the other way in the face of constant Iranian efforts to embarrass the West, which I will return to in a minute.</para>
<para>In just the past few weeks, Iran has committed at least two brazen acts in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions that should merit consideration for new sanctions, let alone the abandonment of old ones. The test firing of a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead was boastfully shown on Iranian television. Moreover, we have had the deployment of a further expeditionary force by Iran to support the blood soaked regime of Bashar al-Assad. Forget the US, Germany, Britain or France: does our foreign minister even know about these blatant violations? However, destabilizing Russia's military deployment in Syria may be, it does not appear to violate a UN Security Council resolution. The Turnbull government is just like its predecessor: silent, compliant, abject—new show bag; same contents.</para>
<para>The guts of Supreme Leader Khamenei's changes make his approval of this deal impossible, because one of the conditions is a lifting of sanctions before Iran implements its side of the bargain. This is completely opposite to what was agreed in Vienna by the P5+1. So, while Putin establishes control over the Middle East, we march shamefully past deadlines and agreements—all apparently for nothing.</para>
<para>Under this agreement, Iran had until 15 December to implement its obligations. These include shipping over 9,000 kilograms of enriched uranium to third countries, leaving only 300 kilograms; removing most of its centrifuges and placing them under the lock and key of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and filling in the core of its Arak reactor with concrete. They will need to have a lot of activity in the next month to achieve this A report from Reuters overnight indicates that the tepid moves Iran was taking have been stopped, because they say they are moving too fast.</para>
<para>The big test will come on 15 December, when the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to report on Iran's implementation of its obligations. What will we do when the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran has not complied? I know what we should do, but unfortunately it seems most of the people in the West, including current Australian government will shift and fidget, and find ways of meeting the new Iranian demands— (<inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Calare Electorate: Mining</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOHN COBB</name>
    <name.id>00AN1</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about one of the very good organisations and situations in the electorate of Calare in the Parkes council area—that is, the Northparkes Mine, which is a copper and gold mine. China Molybdenum, a great asset to the Parkes community, employ 325 full-time workers and a first-class mine receiving recognition on a national level. In the last few months, they have picked up a number of awards showing that they are really of world-class standard.</para>
<para>In October, the mines emergency response team won the 2015 Victorian Mines Rescue Competition for the second year in a row. The competition involved 11 teams from across Australia, tested on first aid, fire skills, breathing apparatus, practical and theory. Congratulations to team captain Matt Greenaway and team manger Robbie Owens for leading their team to victory, and also to rookie team mate Matt Allen, who took out the Grunt Award for teamwork and attitude. The team have absolutely proven they are committed to zero-harm operations and are industry leaders in mine rescue.</para>
<para>Obviously, there are always risks involved in mining, but Northparkes Mine go above and beyond to make sure it is at the heart of how they operate, having reached 150 days injury free very recently. The mine has also been recognised as Hard Rock Mine of the Year at the annual Australian Mining Prospect Awards. The award acknowledges exceptional performance across the board, an incredibly prestigious award.</para>
<para>The Northparkes Mine have shown an unwavering commitment to improvement in safety, technology, innovation and community relations, and I can speak with personal knowledge of how good that is. Their involvement in the community has been extensive, including their community investment program. Their stand-out contribution is their volunteer leave program, where workers volunteer their time to the Parkes community, giving organisations and business access to skills they may not have access to otherwise. So far, over 200 people have volunteered over 1,000 hours, sharing their skills with community groups and organisations throughout the central west. Their volunteers provide skilled labour, heavy lifting or even cook for a cause.</para>
<para>In a world first, Northparkes Mine has reached 100 per cent automation in its underground mining operations. This is a first for the mining industry.    Driverless loads run themselves, picking up ore, moving and dumping it. The breakthrough allows the mine to operate continuously 24/7, delivering high daily production at reduced cost. They are truly innovative and have achieved linking industry and science to the ultimate level. They are a yardstick to others in the industry, with their innovation a hallmark of their success.</para>
<para>I must acknowledge China Molybdenum and their 20 per cent Japanese partners. China Molybdenum only took over their 80 per cent of the mine at the end of 2013, with the mine now in its 20th year of operation. These recent achievements attest to their smooth transition, a strong management team and a committed workforce. I commend them on taking out both awards and on reaching full automation underground.</para>
<para>The boss at Northparkes, Steph Lawler, and all those who work there have set a standard that mines in Australia now have to make sure that they match.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lalor Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Term 4 is a special time in schools. As we come towards the end of term 4, particularly for those senior students who are finishing up their exams across the next week or so, it is a time of graduation ceremonies, valedictory dinners and the announcement of dux—it is award season. Across the last two weeks in the electorate, I visited a few schools, and it was Gonski week. So I was pleased to be there from that perspective, but I was just as pleased to be at school award ceremonies across the last week. It gave me an opportunity to catch-up with a few principal colleagues, and to have a chat to them about how things are going in their schools.</para>
<para>Unsurprisingly, in Victoria, the principals in Lalor, who spoke to me last week were ecstatic about what their budgets said for next year—about the opportunities they were going to be able to put on the ground for students in their school communities. They were thrilled that the needs-based funding—the Gonski funding was coming to fruition in their schools. They were full of plans for the way they were going to use that funding to improve student outcomes on the ground.</para>
<para>Lalor is a special place in that it is in a growth corridor in Melbourne, so many of our schools are under extraordinary pressure—pressure that I do not know that many in the chamber quite understand. I received an email last week from a parent, who has a child starting preps next year at Alamanda College. Alamanda College is a terrific school, a wonderful school—still a new school. It has only been open a few years. This mum had a child start preps at the school in its first year, and her second child is going to start next year. She was concerned. She had high praise for the school, for the teachers, for the community, for the principal class and for the leaders in the school, but she was concerned because the school will have 1,200 students next year. This is a prep to nine school—1,200 students. Let me tell you what that translates to. For this mum, that means that her first child entered a new school where there were three streams of preps on the ground, and her second child is going to enter that school next year and there will be 12 prep classes on the ground in that school. As a former principal and a principal who taught in the area, I can tell you what that means. That means recruitment pressures. That means that there is a high chance that many of those 12 prep teachers will be new graduates.</para>
<para>The Gonski funding helps schools like that ensure that they are giving quality in every classroom. The Gonski funding is used to support young teachers in schools where perhaps there are 12 of them teaching preps together in their first, second or third year of teaching. Gonski funding will allow that school to put support in place for those young teachers to support those prep students. They may employ a literacy coach to work with those teachers. They may put a leading teacher on the ground to support those 12 teachers. This is critical funding. This is a high-needs area. It is a school that would attract needs-based funding under the brilliant Gonski model.</para>
<para>I rose tonight to bring that point to the attention of the House, because when I spoke to principals across the week and when I had email contact with the mum who had emailed me about the situation, I was able to say that, for the next two years in Victoria, they are assured of that funding, but, after that, who knows? The answer lies in the hands of those opposite. They have the power to deliver this life-changing reform, this important reform—not just important because it will deliver in the short term but important because it will create opportunity for every child in this country to meet their potential. It is economically important for this country.</para>
<para>We have heard from those opposite that money does not do everything, money does not change everything. Well, come to my electorate, and I will take you to schools where national partnerships funding has made an extraordinary difference—a two-year learning difference—for many, many students. This is an opportunity that this new Prime Minister should grab with both hands. Do not just say Gonski; do Gonski, Prime Minister. Fulfil the promise of the sector-blind, needs-based funding that this country needs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Business Innovation</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to talk tonight about the importance of growing a vibrant start-up culture in Australia. Prior to entering parliament I spent 14 years in and around start-ups. I was both an executive in start-ups and an investor in start-ups on behalf of Australian businesses. In the start-up community, the government's focus on innovation is incredibly welcome. There is no doubt that we need to build a more entrepreneurial nation, and start-ups are a very important part of that.</para>
<para>Creating a more entrepreneurial culture is a critical and complex issue. Our business culture tends to gravitate towards safer options, and we certainly do not embrace failure in the way that, say, the United States does. Most of our top businesspeople aspire to work for a household name. Generally, our best and brightest focus on Martin Place and Collins Street, rather than a little office of their own somewhere. We need to be more entrepreneurial, because the degree of volatility in the economy is increasing at a rapid rate. Paul Kelly said that in politics the 1980s represented the end of certainty as old conventions faded away—and he was right, while the ALP held its nerve, at least for a decade or so. In a similar way, old certainties about industries are changing at a rapid rate.</para>
<para>This is an immense opportunity for Australia. It is now more plausible than ever for Australian businesses to take on the world. But we are unlikely to succeed simply through a heavy emphasis on the big end of town. It is very hard for big businesses to genuinely transform an industry. The risk of trying to do so often outweighs the benefits of reaping the windfalls of a strong existing market position. It is superficial to criticise big companies for taking that approach. They are just doing what they believe is in the best interests of their shareholders. While every big company has a strategy about disruption, history shows us that it is generally the small attackers who really bring it about. We need to be honest: the boldest, most radical, most profound economic changes are rarely brought about by incumbents. They are brought about by outsiders, who have nothing to lose.</para>
<para>In Australia, our business culture is overweight the establishment. Our small market size tends to lead to a relatively small number of players, with high domestic market shares. I believe that, without picking winners, the government can play an important role in creating the right environment for start-ups to grow. This will enable the pursuit of more bold, innovative, radical ideas—and some of those radical ideas will succeed in ways that none of us can foresee today.</para>
<para>The biggest issue that start-ups face is raising capital. Without capital, you cannot do anything. Through the tax system, we can encourage investors to allocate capital to the start-up sector. I believe that a critical area to focus on is capital gains tax. At the moment, investors who invest in start-ups through what is known as an Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership obtain a number of benefits, including a complete exemption from capital gains tax. But this ESVCLP structure is quite complex and not accessible to most investors. As a consequence of this, there are only 24 ESVCLPs registered in the entire nation. In my view, it is unfair that ESVCLP investors get an exemption from capital gains tax in start-up companies, while other investors in start-ups do not. There is no tax incentive with regard to CGT for the average Australian individual or business to put money into a new enterprise. If it does not work, they will lose their money, and, if it works, the government will collect CGT. That CGT will be paid on a start-up investment at exactly the same rate as if a more conservative approach, such as investing in property, had been pursued.</para>
<para>I believe that our laws should include a general principle that investments in start-ups are exempt from capital gains tax. This would be a powerful incentive for investors and could create a new army of venture capitalists. The exemption should not be available simply to sophisticated or wealthy investors. It should be available to anyone who invests in a start-up.</para>
<para>I asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to look into this issue, and I defined a start-up as a business that was less than two years old and had less than $1 million in revenue in the last 12 months. The PBO determined that, if this policy were implemented, the cost to the budget would be $50 million over the forward estimates period. To put it in perspective, that represents 1/34,000th of the circa $1.8 trillion that the federal government expects to raise over the forward estimates period. I believe this is an important proposal. I believe it is proportionate and affordable. I believe it is something that should be pursued, with appropriate balances in place and enforcement through the ATO. I believe this could have a very powerful impact on helping the Australian start-up community to grow.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>91</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <answers.to.questions>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS IN WRITING</title>
        <page.no>93</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS IN WRITING</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Office Space (Question No. 914)</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
          <id.no>914</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of office space leased or owned by the Minister's department(s), (a) where are these offices located, (b) how much space (in square metres) is each office, (c) how much of this space is currently unused, and of this, what is the cost of (i) rent per month, (ii) utilities, including electricity and/or gas, telephone and internet, (iii) office furniture and/or hired equipment, including artwork and plants, and (iv) any other associated services.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The required information to the honourable member's question can be found in the attached document. <inline font-style="italic">Copies of the Attachment can be obtained from the House of Representatives Table Office</inline>.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Communications and the Arts: Ministerial Media Events (Question No. 1354)</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
          <id.no>1354</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, in writing, on 17 August 2015</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for the Arts has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To attempt to provide the level of detail requested would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as this information is not centrally recorded.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister for Justice: Ministerial Media Events (Question No. 1355)</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
          <id.no>1355</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Justice, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Keenan</name>
    <name.id>E0J</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To attempt to provide the level of detail requested would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as this information is not centrally recorded.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Ministerial Media Events (Question No. 1365)</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
          <id.no>1365</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Detail on ministerial media events and photo opportunities is included in the department's response to Parliamentary Question on Notice 1336.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Veterans' Affairs: Ministerial Media Events (Question No. 1367)</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
          <id.no>1367</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015.</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No events or photo opportunities were specifically organised for the media.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Communications: Ministerial Media Events (Question No. 1369)</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
          <id.no>1369</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 17 August 2015</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Communications has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 the following media events were conducted by the Department for the Minister:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Online Copyright Infringement Forum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 9 September 2014.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Lend Lease Darling Quarter Theatre, Sydney.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The details sought about event expenses are not captured within a central database. As such, the Department is not in a position to readily provide the information requested.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) The Australian Government's Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) As noted above, the details of event expenses are not readily available. To provide a cost breakdown would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Telstra and NBN Co Definitive Agreements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 14 December 2014.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Commonwealth Paliamentary Offices, Sydney.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The details sought about event expenses are not captured within a central database. As such, the Department is not in a position to readily provide the information requested.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) The signing of the revised Definitive Agreements between Telstra and NBN Co.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) As noted above, the details of event expenses are not readily available. To provide a cost breakdown would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Digital Innovation Forum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 27 March 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Dr Chau Chak Wing Building, University of Technology Sydney.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The details sought about event expenses are not captured within a central database. As such, the Department is not in a position to readily provide the information requested.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) The establishment of the Australian Government's Digital Transformation Office.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) As noted above, the details of event expenses are not readily available. To provide a cost breakdown would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Mobile Black Spot Programme</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 25 June 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Main Committee Room, Parliament House, Canberra.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The details sought about event expenses are not captured within a central database. As such, the Department is not in a position to readily provide the information requested.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) The announcement of locations to receive new or upgraded mobile base stations and round two funding for the programme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) As noted above, the details of event expenses are not readily available. To provide a cost breakdown would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Employment: Department Conferences (Question No. 1381)</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
          <id.no>1381</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 17 August 2015</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, as provided by her predecessor:</para>
<quote><para class="block">OECD Workshop</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) The Joint Commonwealth, Tasmanian State Government and OECD Workshop was held on 12–13 March 2015 in Launceston, Tasmania.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The total cost of hosting the conference was: $37,553 (GST inclusive). This includes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Meals and incidentals: $2,629</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   Accommodation: $5,650</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Travel (including transport and parking): $8,600</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Conference welcome reception: $5,180</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Other conference operating costs: $15,494 (e.g. catering, room hire, AV and equipment).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Prior to the workshop, a jobs fair was held by the Department on 11 March 2015. Some of the costs outlined above are associated with the jobs fair. Identifying these costs separately would require an unreasonable diversion of the Department's resources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The workshop brought together key stakeholders to investigate and support job creation ideas and initiatives in Tasmania. It focussed on:</para></quote>
<list>Supporting economic and employment opportunities</list>
<list>Addressing the imbalance between job seeker skills and employer needs</list>
<list>How to respond to local issues: collaboration, partnerships and community solutions</list>
<quote><para class="block">The key themes that were identified in the workshop include:</para></quote>
<list>Equal focus on the maintenance of existing jobs and job creation</list>
<list>Developing confidence in the Tasmanian market as globally competitive and an attractive option to local and international investors</list>
<list>Increasing support to Tasmanian businesses in order to drive innovation and flexibility increasing their competiveness in international markets</list>
<list>Ensuring the workforce is adequately skilled to meet existing and future labour demands</list>
<list>Encouraging employers to invest in training for employees to help them achieve their business objectives</list>
<list>Building on existing work and international best practices in order to identify and support growth and investment in sectors where Tasmania has a competitive advantage (e.g. irrigation expansion and flow-on effects to agriculture)</list>
<quote><para class="block">The outcomes from the workshop were reported and discussed at the Joint Commonwealth and Tasmanian Economic Council meeting on 7 August 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Seasonal Worker Programme Biennial Conference</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) The Department of Employment hosted the Seasonal Worker Programme biennial conference on 7–8 August 2014. The conference was held on the Gold Coast, Queensland. Approximately 110 delegates attended day one of the formal conference and 105 attended day two.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition to these proceedings, the Department also hosted three additional activities:</para></quote>
<list>One member of each of the nine counties participating in the Seasonal Worker Programme attended a regional tour of horticulture properties in East Queensland to gain a better understanding of the type of work seasonal workers undertake in Australia.</list>
<list>Bilateral discussions with each of the nine countries on Seasonal Worker Programme issues.</list>
<list>A partner country forum and a separate approved employer forum.</list>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The total sum spent on the Seasonal Worker Programme conference and additional activities was $115,218. This includes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Meals and incidentals: $14,608</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   Accommodation: $32,100</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Travel: $25,609</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Conference dinner: $7,161</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Other conference operating costs: $35,740 (e.g. catering, room hire, AV and equipment).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The outcomes achieved include:</para></quote>
<list>Sharing of programme information with a range of key stakeholders</list>
<list>Promotion of closer engagement between Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste officials with Australian Government officials and Australian industry and employer groups</list>
<list>Providing an opportunity for partners to promote their countries and their seasonal workforce to Australian industry and employer groups</list>
<list>Providing a networking opportunity for approved employers, partner country delegates, academics, banking institutions, government agencies and registered training organisations to discuss and resolve issues</list>
<quote><para class="block">National jobactive Forum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) The National jobactive Forum was held on 27–28 April 2015 at the Park Royal hotel, Melbourne. It was attended by 56 departmental staff and 165 representatives from 62 providers and one industry association.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The total cost of hosting the conference was $113,725. This includes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Meals: $30,000 for the function package, which included morning and afternoon tea, lunch and refreshments for all attendees. More than 200 senior managers of organisations contracted to deliver jobactive and the Department of Employment registered to attend the forum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Accommodation: $19,269 (departmental staff and guest speakers)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Travel: $28,488 (departmental staff and guest speakers)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Networking event: $4,868. The event, which closed the programme on the first day of the Forum, provided the opportunity for providers attending from across the country to discuss jobactive priorities and transition in smaller groups and with officials.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Other conference operating costs: $31,100 (e.g. printed material, room hire, AV and equipment).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The National jobactive forum brought together senior managers from organisations selected to deliver jobactive services and departmental programme and contract management staff to set expectations ahead of the start of the contract period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The forum focussed on jobactive priorities, programme requirements, performance management and transition to the new services.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Social Services: Department Conferences (Question No. 1386)</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
          <id.no>1386</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Social Services has not hosted any conferences during the 2014-15 financial year.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Human Services: Department Conferences (Question No. 1387)</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
          <id.no>1387</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a), (b) and (c) The Department of Human Services does not maintain a central database of this information. It would require an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide information on each conference, meals and accommodation, travel, and social events.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Department Conferences (Question No. 1388)</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
          <id.no>1388</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Information on conferences hosted by the department is not kept centrally. To provide this level of detail would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Veterans' Affairs: Department Conferences (Question No. 1390)</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
          <id.no>1390</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MR ROBERT - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2014-15, the Department of Veterans' Affairs hosted two conferences. Details are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">DVA/ Defence Research Workshop</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This workshop was held the afternoon before the Australasian Military Medicine Association (AMMA) Conference. Travel and accommodation costs for DVA staff attending both the workshop and the Conference are unable to be allocated between the two events.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) On 16 October 2014 at NSW Trade and Investment Centre, Level 47, MLC Centre, 19 Martin Place, Sydney</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Total expenditure: $5,783.68;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i), (ii) and (iii)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Outcomes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A total of 85 researchers attended the research workshop from a range of government, non-government and private sector research organisations as well as several universities across Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The key outcomes of the Research Workshop were:</para></quote>
<list>identification of emerging trends in veteran health;</list>
<list>raising awareness and encouraging interest in the improved usage of government data sources for research purposes;</list>
<list>developing strategies to improve communication between research agencies including government, non-government and academic institutions; and</list>
<list>identification of cutting edge methodologies in health, and the applicability to DVA and Defence in government research programmes.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Peer to Peer Support Network Forum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) On Wednesday 26 November 2014 at the Australian War Memorial, ACT.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Total expenditure: $21, 290;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i), (ii) and (iii)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Outcomes: The forum informed development of DVA's peer support programme model funded under a 2013-14 Budget initiative.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Communication and the Arts: Ministerial Conferences (Question No. 1406)</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
          <id.no>1406</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for the Arts has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister for Justice: Ministerial Conferences (Question No. 1407)</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
          <id.no>1407</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Justice, in writing, on 17 August 2015</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, (iv) travel, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Keenan</name>
    <name.id>E0J</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Human Services: Ministerial Conferences (Question No. 1416)</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
          <id.no>1416</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Ministerial Conferences (Question No. 1417)</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
          <id.no>1417</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Detail on ministerial hosted conferences is included in the department's response to Parliamentary Question in Writing no. 1388.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Veterans' Affairs: Ministerial Conferences (Question No. 1419)</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
          <id.no>1419</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) N/A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) N/A</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Health: Ministerial Conferences (Question Nos 1427, 1428 and 1429)</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
          <id.no>1427, 1428 and 1429</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, (iv) travel, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I did not host any conferences between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Departmental Hospitality (Question No. 1430)</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
          <id.no>1430</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the former Prime Minister, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Turnbull</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Honourable Member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet spent $281,361.35 (GST incl.) on official hospitality and $409,451.03 (GST incl.) on business catering. Costs were paid using both departmental and administered funding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For each instance of official hospitality, the Department is able to provide details on the date, location, function description and total spend, but is unable to determine the cost breakdown for meals, drinks and wait staff without an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. Items costing $10,000 or more are reported through Austender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Detailed information related to official hospitality for the period 1 July 2014 to28 February 2015 has been provided in responses to previous Questions on Notice from the October 2014 Supplementary Budget Estimates PM141 and from the February 2015 Additional Estimates PM166. Detailed information related to official hospitality for the period 1 March to 30 June 2015 is shown at Attachment A (other than items costing $10,000 (GST incl.) or more). In the rare case that entertainment costs are incurred by PM&C, the costs may not be recorded separately from official hospitality.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department records catering costs as ‘Business Catering’. Business catering includes catering for planning days, general meetings, committee meetings and morning and afternoon teas for guests. To attempt to provide the same level of detail for business catering as that provided for official hospitality would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Attachment A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Hospitality—Official Hospitality</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Social Services: Departmental Hospitality (Question No. 1438)</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
          <id.no>1438</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Department's official hospitality expenditure from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 was $434,928.03 (ex GST).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Official hospitality is used for business purposes, when required and may include expenditure on planned events across Australia to recognise important and significant dates such as:</para></quote>
<list>Australia Day Awards</list>
<list>National Families Week</list>
<list>Seniors Week</list>
<list>Mental Health Week</list>
<list>International Day for People with Disability</list>
<list>White Ribbon Day</list>
<list>Donate Life Week</list>
<list>Carers Week</list>
<quote><para class="block">The level of detailed official hospitality information requested is not readily available for the Department. To identify this information would require a significant diversion of resources.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Human Services: Departmental hospitality (Question No. 1439)</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
          <id.no>1439</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The combined hospitality, food and beverage spend from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 is $1,067,530. Included within this amount is expenditure for the provision of tea, coffee and biscuits for community support services such as Financial Information Service seminars and CRS Australia customer meetings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It would require an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide information on each function for which catering and hospitality was provided.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It would require an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide details of the date and location of each function.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It would require an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide details, by category, of the sum spent at functions on meals, drinks, hospitality staff, and other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Departmental Hospitality (Question No. 1440)</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
          <id.no>1440</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The total hospitality/entertainment expenditure for the Department for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 was $212,128 (GST exclusive), including $2,841 made up of 107 events each costing less than $50. Please refer to Attachment A for details in relation to date, location, purpose and cost of each event.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department only captures information on total expenditure. There is no reporting split between meals, drinks, hospitality staff and other costs available.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Attachment A</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Veterans' Affairs: Departmental Hospitality (Question No. 1442)</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
          <id.no>1442</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015.</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister's department in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, the Department of Veterans' Affairs spent $11,001</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(GST excl.) on catering and hospitality. This was predominantly for small purchases of refreshments for meetings and forums involving external parties, in particular ex-service organisations. Information relating to date, location, purpose and cost for each event is not readily available. The time and effort to accurately provide this information would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Ministerial Hospitality (Question No. 1453)</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
          <id.no>1453</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Julie Bishop</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Hospitality and attending and hosting functions form an essential part of overseas visits by Ministers. These services are managed by all areas across the Department including Australian Government Posts. To provide further details would entail a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Ministerial hospitality (Question No. 1458)</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
          <id.no>1458</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, in writing, on 17 August 2015</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for the Arts has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The table below provides details of the (a) costs, (b) purpose, and (c) dates for catering and hospitality paid for by the Attorney-General's Department in 2014-15:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) It is not possible to provide a breakdown of spending on meals, drinks, hospitality staff and other costs as this information is not captured in the department's financial information system.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister for Justice: Ministerial Hospitality (Question No. 1459)</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
          <id.no>1459</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Justice, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Keenan</name>
    <name.id>E0J</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The table below provides details of the (a) costs, (b) purpose, and (c) dates for catering and hospitality paid for by the Attorney-General's Department in 2014-15:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) It is not possible to provide a breakdown of spending on meals, drinks, hospitality staff and other costs as this information is not captured in the department's financial information system.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Social Services: Ministerial Hospitality (Question No. 1466)</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
          <id.no>1466</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Social Services for in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In 2014-15 the Minister for Social Services spent the following on catering and hospitality:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) The sum of $2,705.93 GST exclusive was spent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The functions were for portfolio related events.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Dates and locations are stated below in (d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) For each function:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 July 2014, Canberra</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Meals: $213.18 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drinks: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Hospitality staff: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Other costs: Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25 July 2014, Melbourne</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Meals: $192.00 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drinks: $20.00 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Hospitality staff: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Other costs: Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 September 2014, Canberra</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Meals: $243.64 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drinks: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Hospitality staff: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Other costs: Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 October 2014, Canberra</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Meals: $93.64 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drinks: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Hospitality staff: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Other costs: Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 October 2014, Canberra</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Meals: $907.73 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drinks: $511.20 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Hospitality staff: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Other costs: Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 December 2014, Canberra</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Meals: $79.54 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drinks: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Hospitality staff: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Other costs: Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 December 2014, Melbourne</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Meals: $445.00 GST exclusive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drinks: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Hospitality staff: Nil</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Other costs: Nil.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Human Services: Ministerial Hospitality (Question No. 1468)</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
          <id.no>1468</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) N/A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) N/A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) N/A.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Ministerial Hospitality (Question No. 1469)</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
          <id.no>1469</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Detail on ministerial catering and hospitality is included in the response to Parliamentary Question on Notice 1440.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Veterans' Affairs: Ministerial Hospitality (Question No. 1471)</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
          <id.no>1471</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015.</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) $836.09 in 2014-15</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">*A detailed breakdown of spending relating to part (d) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) is not available.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Health: Ministerial Hospitality (Question Nos 1479, 1480 and 1481)</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
          <id.no>1479, 1480 and 1481</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 17 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Total cost of the one event was $3,510.29 excluding GST;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Middle East Peace Run Documentary Launch;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 23 September 2014, Parliament House, Canberra; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) (i) $1,318.18;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Nil;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Banquet set up and escort $1,454.55; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) Banquet Security $644.15 and Merchant Service Fee $93.41.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It should be noted that these expenses were incurred by the former Minister for Health, the Hon Peter Dutton MP.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ethanol Blend Fuel (Question No. 1483)</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
          <id.no>1483</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 18 August, 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the map in the following link: http://www.bobkatter.com.au/page/attachment/23/2015-world-ethanol-map, showing the number of overseas countries using ethanol: (a) why is Australia not using ethanol; (b) why does Australia spend $25 billion on oil from the Middle East each year, when it could invest this sum on clean renewables in rural areas, generating 70,000 rural jobs and reducing the rate of cancers caused by particulate matter; and (c) why do Australians pay 147 cents per litre for oil, while other countries such as America and Brazil, pay only 75 cents per litre for ethanol.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Frydenberg</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Ethanol blended fuel is sold in Australia and the level of its domestic use is presently determined by consumer demand rather than supply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The Australian Government is committed to a technology and fuel neutral policy that does not specify particular fuels or vehicle technologies for consumers. However, the Government's fuel excise framework presently provides support for alternative fuel domestic sources through lower excise rates than conventional fuels. Australia does import oil and petroleum products from a range of countries, including the Middle East, on a commercial basis to meet consumer demand. In 2014-15, the total value of oil and petroleum products imported by the petroleum industry was $33 billion with 8 per cent ($2.8 billion) being from the Middle East.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Oil and petroleum products are internationally traded commodities. Prices, including those paid in Australia, are determined by the operation of international market forces. Ethanol trade is much more limited and the prices tend to reflect domestic market circumstances. Consequently, it is more appropriate to compare the ethanol blended petrol price in Australia with the price of regular unleaded petrol. The current price differential between regular unleaded petroleum and E10 (ethanol blend) fuel for use by Australian motorists is around 1.5 cents per litre, which reflects the lower excise on ethanol.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Employment Service Providers (Question No. 1485)</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
          <id.no>1485</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGowan</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 19 August 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) What was the total expenditure by the Commonwealth on private employment service providers in 2014-15, and what is the breakdown of this expenditure by (a) service provider, and (b) electorate.(2) On average, what sum was spent on each participant in 2014-15, and did this vary distinctly between metropolitan, rural and regional electorates.(3) In 2014-15, what was the (a) minimum, and (b) maximum, sum received by private employment service providers for each participant, and did this sum vary by location and need; if so, how is "need" determined by the service provider, and is this standard universal across all service providers.(4) How can unemployed people seek recourse if they believe they are not receiving adequate services, including instances where there is a perceived conflict of interest between making a profit and the services provided, and what did this cost the Government in 2014-15.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The total 2014-15 expenditure on the Disability Employment Services (DES) programme for private (non-government) providers was $715 million (GST exclusive). The expenditure broken down by (a) service provider and (b) electorate is set out in Attachment A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The average amount of Commonwealth expenditure per participant for DES in 2014-15 was $3,144 (GST exclusive). Average Commonwealth expenditure per participant by the geographic categories to which electorates are assigned by the Australian Electoral Commission were:</para></quote>
<list>inner metropolitan $3,166.37;</list>
<list>outer metropolitan $3,202.40;</list>
<list>provincial $3,022.42; and</list>
<list>rural $3,133.20.</list>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In 2014-15:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the minimum sum received by a private DES provider for a participant on its caseload was $0. There are a number of reasons for no payments being made for a participant. A common reason is that the participant was only briefly in the programme during 2014-15 before exiting and therefore the provider did not qualify for any further payments during the year for that participant; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the maximum sum received by a private DES provider for a participant on its caseload was $73,912. This included payments of more than $55,000 in approved workplace modifications.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Financial and performance management incentives for DES providers are highly geared towards finding participants job placements of at least 26 weeks in duration. The payments available to providers are not varied based on where a person lives or where the provider is located. Instead, the amounts that DES providers are eligible to receive vary according to the level of disadvantage of the participant, the length and level of service provided to the participant, and the outcomes achieved by the participant. For example, DES providers will be paid different amounts depending on whether the person is:</para></quote>
<list>in the Disability Management Service (DMS);</list>
<list>in the Employment Support Service (ESS) funding level 1;</list>
<list>in the Employment Support Service (ESS) funding level 2;</list>
<list>assessed as having a moderate intellectual disability;</list>
<list>placed in a job for at least 13 and 26 consecutive weeks; or</list>
<list>requiring ongoing assistance and/or workplace modifications while in employment.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Participant need and level of eligibility for a particular service is predominantly determined by an allied health professional, who works for the Department of Human Services, to conduct Employment Services Assessments or Job Capacity Assessments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Participants in DES are encouraged to discuss concerns with their provider in the first instance. Where this discussion does not resolve the issue or, the participant feels they are unable to do so, participants have several avenues to raise a complaint about the delivery of DES, including any perceived conflicts of interest. These are:</para></quote>
<list><inline font-style="italic">The National Customer Service Line (NCSL)</inline> - investigates complaints about DES, jobactive and other non-specific employment service enquiries. The NCSL is managed by the Department of Employment, and handles complaints about the DES programme under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Social Services (DSS). All funding for this service remains with the Department of Employment. The proportion attributable to DES is not identified.</list>
<list><inline font-style="italic">The Complaints Resolution and Referral Service (CRRS)</inline> is an independent service that assists participants to deal with complaints about DES, Australian Disability Enterprises (ADE) and Advocacy Services. The CRRS does this by assessing participant complaints against the National Disability Services Standards. The CRRS is administered by WorkFocus Australia under a contract at a cost of $1.722 million in 2014-15.</list>
<list>The DSS Feedback Line deals with complaints about DSS programmes, which may include complaints about the DES programme. The Feedback line is managed by the Department ' s Feedback and Coordination Team and resourced using Departmental funding. As the Feedback Line covers multiple programmes, it is not possible to attribute an exact cost in relation to the DES programme.</list>
<quote><para class="block">An employment services participant may also take their concerns to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who can also choose to investigate their complaint, including where they are not satisfied with action taken by the NCSL, CRRS and/or the DSS Feedback line.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Table one: 2014-15 Commonwealth DES expenditure by service provider (GST exclusive)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Table two: 2014-15 Commonwealth DES expenditure by electorate (GST exclusive)</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vietnam: Horticulture Imports from Australia (Question No. 1492)</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
          <id.no>1492</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fitzgibbon</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 07 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the suspension (since 1 January 2015) of horticultural imports from Australia by the Government of Vietnam, (a) when can Australian growers expect trade to resume with Vietnam; and (b) when did he last meet with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in Vietnam to resolve this matter.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I announced the resumption of trade in oranges, mandarins and table grapes to Vietnam on 16 July 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This was the culmination of considerable engagement by the Australian Government at Ministerial and officials level to reinstate trade in horticultural imports. This included direct representations with my Vietnamese counterpart, Cao Duc Phat Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, by telephone on 8 April 2015 having previously met with him in March 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Officials within the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources continue working towards the reinstatement of trade in other horticultural commodities. This has included meeting with officials from Vietnam's Plant Protection Department in August, September and October 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, I announced the establishment of an Agricultural Counsellor position in Vietnam on 19 September 2015 as part of the Australian Government's $30.8 million commitment to maintaining and expanding market access for Australian farmers through the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Counsellor will commence in January 2016 and will continue to advance Australia's interests and trading relationship with Vietnam.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Media Heads Pty Ltd (Question No. 1494)</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
          <id.no>1494</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 7 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the $49,500.00 tender (CN3287528) to Media Heads Pty Ltd, (a) what specific services will the contract deliver, and (b) what outcomes will be achieved.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Communications has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Media Heads Pty Ltd will provide radio and video content to promote online security awareness messages during Stay Smart Online Week in October 2015. The theme for the Week is: 'Your business is<inline font-style="italic"> your </inline>business' and primarily targets small businesses to reinforce the importance of implementing sound online security measures to protect their business.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The awareness raising strategy using Media Heads Pty Ltd is designed to complement other activities during Stay Smart Online Week which aim to encourage small businesses to improve their online security practices. Evaluation research will be conducted at the end of October 2015 to determine the level of change and intention to changes practices to improve online security amongst the target audience.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Government Contingent: Torres Strait communities Visit (Question No. 1514)</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
          <id.no>1514</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Social Services in writing, on 7 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the Australian Government contingent that visited Torres Strait communities in Far North Queensland in August 2015, (a) what are the (i) names, and (ii) roles, of each person who attended with the former Minister, (b) can the full itinerary of activities involving the former Minister be provided, and (c) what was the total cost to his department including (i) flights, (ii) accommodation, (iii) ground transport, (iv) meals, and (v) miscellaneous expenses.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Porter</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer provided by my predecessor to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Minister Morrison was accompanied to the Torres Strait by his Chief of Staff, Mr Charles Wann, and Secretary of the Department of Social Services, Mr Finn Pratt.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) A full itinerary of activities is attached. Note that travel to and from North Queensland was on Monday 24 August and Friday 28 August 2015.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The total cost to the Department of Social Services for Mr Pratt's travel was $4354.51 which includes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) $3561.71 flights</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) $376.00 accommodation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) $112.80 ground transport</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) $304.00 meals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SUMMARY PROGRAMME</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Minister for Social Services</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Hon Scott Morrison Visit to Thursday Island and Northern Peninsula Area</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tuesday 25 August 2015</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wednesday 26 August 2015</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thursday 27 August 2015</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Badgerys Creek Airport (Question No. 1530)</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
          <id.no>1530</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Rowland</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 15 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of an article entitled 'Russell Matheson guarantees Campbelltown and surrounds silence from Badgerys Creek airport' by Vera Bertola ( Macarthur Chronicle (Campbelltown), 8 May 2015), (a) were assurances given to the Member for Macarthur that there would be no impact (from aircraft noise at the proposed Badgerys Creek Airport) on residents in that electoral division; if so, on what basis, and (b) will he provide similar assurances to the residents in the electoral division of Greenway.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Truss</name>
    <name.id>GT4</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The proposed airport has a northeast-southwest runway alignment, meaning aircraft would take off and land over the future Western Sydney Employment Area and to the predominantly rural area to the southwest of the site. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released 19 October 2015 assesses noise and other impacts based on indicative flight paths provided by Airservices Australia, Australia's air traffic management agency. The draft EIS is available for community comment until 18 December 2015.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digitalisation of Paper Records (Question No. 1531)</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
          <id.no>1531</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 15 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the $640,860.00 tender to Fuji Xerox Australia for 'Digitalisation Paper Records' (CN3290657), (a) which records are being digitised, and (b) what is the benefit of digitising these records.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) The company is scanning and performing Optical Character Recognition of 62 000 archived corporate files required to be retained under the <inline font-style="italic">Archives Act – 1983.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) In addition to meeting its obligations under the Government's <inline font-style="italic">Digital Transition Policy - 2011</inline>, digitisation of its archived physical records reduces the department's accommodation footprint and enables electronic textual search of archived records.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dentsu Mitchell Media Australia (Question No. 1534)</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
          <id.no>1534</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 15 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the $81,252.86 tender to Dentsu Mitchell Media Australia for 'SSO Week Media and Advertorial placement' (CN3290428), (a) what are the details of the placement, including (i) location, and (ii) frequency, and (b) what is the relevant policy area.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Communications has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) As part of Stay Smart Online Week activities advertorials will be placed in relevant industry specific magazines to raise awareness about the importance of sound online security practices that small businesses should adopt to protect their business.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Industry Magazines:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Online Media:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Magazine advertorials will appear once only in each of the eight magazines. Online media will run during the period specified in (a) (i) Online Media above.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The Stay Smart Online Programme is a whole of Government initiative which is run through the Department of Communications and the Arts, Consumer and Content Division.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Indian Ocean Rim Association (Question No. 1540)</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
          <id.no>1540</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the Indian Ocean Rim Association Dialogue held in Perth on 6 September 2015 (a) how many (i) delegates, (ii) Ministerial staff, and (iii) departmental staff, were in attendance, (b) did (i) she, and/or (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary, attend, (c) what was the total cost of the conference, including (i) venue hire, (ii) venue preparation and decoration, (iii) meals, (iv) accommodation, (v) travel, and (vi) other allowances, and (d) what was the itinerary.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Julie Bishop</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Attendance at the Indian Ocean Dialogue 2015 comprised 77 delegates drawn from 21 IORA Member States and Dialogue Partners, 2 Ministerial staff, and 3 departmental staff.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) I (the Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs) attended the opening session of the Indian Ocean Dialogue on 6 September 2015 and delivered a keynote address on maritime security cooperation in the Indian Ocean region, which can be viewed on my website. The Parliamentary Secretary did not attend.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The total cost of the conference including venue hire, venue preparation and decoration, meals, accommodation and travel, was $199,717.59. No additional allowances such as per diems were paid to delegates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) The full Indian Ocean Dialogue 2015 program is below:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Day One - Saturday 5 September 2015</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1800 Conference Registration</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1830-2100 Welcome reception and dinner at the Perth Convention Centre</para></quote>
<list>Speaker: Dr C. Raja Mohan, Head, Strategic Studies and Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation</list>
<quote><para class="block">Day Two - Sunday 6 September 2015</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">0830-0900 Registration</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">0900-1000 Opening Plenary</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">0900-0910 Welcome by Major General John Hartley (Retd), CEO, Future Directions International</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">0910-0930 Keynote opening address by the Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">0930-0945 Update on recent IORA activities and comments on regional cooperation by His Excellency, KV Bhagirath, IORA Secretary General</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">0945 Official photographs</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1000-1030 Spotlight Presentation: Non-Traditional Security Challenges</para></quote>
<list>Speaker: Major General John Hartley (Retd), CEO, Future Directions International</list>
<quote><para class="block">1030-1100 Morning tea</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1100-1230 Session 1: Combating Maritime Transnational Crime</para></quote>
<list>Chief Facilitator: Dr Rob McLaughlin, Associate Professor, ANU College of Law</list>
<list>Facilitator: RADM Michael Noonan, Commander, Maritime Border Command</list>
<list>Facilitator: Vice Admiral Anup Singh (Retd), former Commander, Eastern Naval Command, India</list>
<quote><para class="block">1230-1330 Lunch</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1330-1500 Session 2: Maritime Security and Defence Cooperation</para></quote>
<list>Chief Facilitator: Dr Sam Bateman, Professorial Research Fellow, at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong</list>
<list>Facilitator: Rear Admiral Khurshed Alam (Retd), Secretary's Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh</list>
<list>Facilitator: CMDR Shishir Upadhyaya (Retd) (India), Doctoral Candidate, Wollongong University</list>
<quote><para class="block">1500-1520 Afternoon tea</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1520-1630 Session 3: Regional cooperation in Search and Rescue</para></quote>
<list>Chief Facilitator: Mr John Young, General Manager, Search and Rescue Operations, Australian Maritime Safety Authority</list>
<quote><para class="block">1700 Depart Convention Centre</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1730-1930 Dinner cruise</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2000 Return to accommodation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Day Three - Monday 7 September 2015</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">0900-0910 Opening remarks: reflections on Dialogue thus far</para></quote>
<list>Speaker: Major General John Hartley (Retd), CEO, Future Directions International.</list>
<quote><para class="block">0910-0930 Spotlight Presentation: Deliberative Dispute Settlement: Developments in the Bay of Bengal</para></quote>
<list>Speaker: RADM Khurshed Alam (Retd), Secretary's Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh</list>
<quote><para class="block">0930-1045 Session 4: Blue Economy as a Driver of Economic Growth</para></quote>
<list>Chief Facilitator: Dr Lyndon Llewellyn, Program Leader, Data Technology and Innovation, Australian Institute of Marine Science</list>
<list>Other Facilitators: Dr S. K. Mohanty, Research and Information System for Developing Countries, New Delhi</list>
<list>Other Facilitators: Professor Narnia Bohler-Muller, Nelson R. Mandela School of Law, University of Fort Hart, South Africa</list>
<quote><para class="block">1045-1115 Morning tea</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1115-1230 Session 5: Countering Illegal Fishing</para></quote>
<list>Chief Facilitator: Dr Mary Ann Palma-Robles, Visiting Senior Fellow, Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong</list>
<quote><para class="block">1230-1330 Lunch</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1330-1500 Session 6: Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief</para></quote>
<list>Chief Facilitator: CDRE (Retd RAN) Campbell Darby</list>
<quote><para class="block">1500-1530 Afternoon tea</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1530-1600 Discussion and agreement of "Perth Consensus"</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1600-1615 Concluding remarks</para></quote>
<list>Speaker: Dr C. Raja Mohan, Senior Fellow, Observer Research Foundation</list>
<list>Speaker: Major General John Hartley (Retd), CEO, Future Directions International</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gartner Australasia Pty Ltd (Question No. 1542)</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
          <id.no>1542</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 15 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the $10,873.50 tender to Gartner Australasia Pty Ltd for 'Symposium/ITxpo Tickets' (CN3290635)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) how many (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff, will be in attendance at ITxpo, (b) what outcomes will be achieved at ITxpo, and (c) can his department provide an itemised budget for (i) meals, (ii) travel, and (iii) other allowances for ITxpo.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the $10,873.50 tender to Gartner Australasia Pty Ltd for 'Symposium/ITxpo Tickets' (CN3290635)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) There will be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) No ministerial staff in attendance at the ITxpo.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) 10 departmental staff in attendance at the ITxpo.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Staff in attendance will engage with Gartner analysts and peers from across the IT industry to discuss IT trends, innovations and major IT challenges facing organisations across the globe. This conference will provide opportunities for these staff to improve and refresh their knowledge of the current global IT landscape through participation in a range of workshops, round table discussions, keynote presentations and one-on-one Gartner analyst meetings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The $10,873.50 tender covers the cost for all 10 staff members' tickets to the ITxpo. Below is an itemised budget for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) meals $3,686.05</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) travel $11,656.08</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) other allowances for ITxpo $878.25</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Workforce Scholarship Programme (Question No. 1551)</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
          <id.no>1551</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 17 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Has a contract been entered into for the administration of the Health Workforce Scholarship Programme; if so, which organisation will be administering the programme. (2) What sum of funding is available each financial year under this programme to deliver Health Workforce Scholarships.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) No. The Health Workforce Scholarship Programme will commence on 1 July 2016, and an approach to market for administration of this programme will occur before then.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Once an approach to market has been completed for the Health Workforce Scholarship Programme, details of the funding arrangements entered into with the successful provider will be reported through normal government processes.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs and Trade: Departmental Media Events (Question No. 1554)</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
          <id.no>1554</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 17 September 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Further to her answer to question in writing No.1328 (House <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, 14 September 2015, page 182), does her department keep records on costs incurred by it, if not, why not; if so, (a) are those costs itemised, and (b) are documents available that would identify these costs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Julie Bishop</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">DFAT has in place appropriate and effective record keeping policies, and financial records are maintained as required under subsection 41(2) of the PGPA Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Details of specific media events and photo opportunities are maintained on individual files across the department's domestic and overseas network. To provide these details would entail a significant diversion of resources and, in these circumstances, I do not consider the additional work can be justified.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Research Survey Group (Question No. 1570)</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
          <id.no>1570</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 12 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the $25,850.00 tender to the Australian Research Survey Group for "Procurement of Online Survey Tool" (CN3291487), (a) what is the aim of this survey, and (b) to what policy(s) and/or initiative(s) does this tool relate.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Post-Programme Monitoring survey is used to measure the labour market status of job seekers who received assistance through government-funded employment services and has operated since 1987.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The online survey tool was procured to reduce mail and printing costs for the Post-Programme Monitoring survey, as well as to provide an alternative mode of response for job seekers.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McDonald's Training Centre (Question No. 1589)</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
          <id.no>1589</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 12 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What costs did the Minister's Department incur resulting from the former Minister's visit to the McDonald's Training Centre in Sydney on 27 August 2015?</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The former Minister was in Sydney on official government business on 27 August 2015. The Department paid $138.01 for the former Minister's Comcar travel to visit the McDonald's Training Centre in Thornleigh during the day.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Workers (Question No. 1592)</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
          <id.no>1592</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Kelvin Thomson</name>
    <name.id>UK6</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 12 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Will he investigate reports that police believe a foreign worker who had recently overstayed his visa and was found dead in a toilet block in Mildura, was suffering from a treatable medical condition for which he did not seek help due to concerns about his illegal status.(2) Will he conduct an investigation into whether foreign workers are being exploited by labour hire contractors but are reluctant to speak up about the exploitation for fear of being sent home.(3) Will he investigate whether local workers who witness exploitation and intimidation of temporary foreign workers are reluctant to speak up for fear of being blackballed from whatever future employment may be available to them.(4) Will he, in consultation with the Minister for Employment, consider whether it is acceptable for employers to use labour hire companies to recruit temporary foreign workers and thereby seek to avoid responsibility for the way these workers are treated.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Victoria Police is responsible for investigations into the deaths of all persons within Victoria, regardless of the person's residency status.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Any exploitation of workers, whether local or foreign workers, is to be condemned. The Minister for Employment recently established a Ministerial Working Group to consult further on policy options to protect vulnerable foreign workers. This working group builds on the strong action the Government has already taken to stamp out the exploitation of foreign workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) All workers in Australia, including foreign nationals, must be engaged in accordance with applicable Australian workplace law and standards (including awards, agreements, superannuation, workers' compensation and workplace safety). All workers receive the same protection in terms of the investigation of claims of underpayment, exploitation and discriminatory practices by Australian companies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Fair Work Ombudsman is very active in this area and has a dedicated Overseas Workers team. Since 2012, the Fair Work Ombudsman has dealt with over 6,000 requests for assistance from visa holders and recovered more than $4 million in outstanding wages and entitlements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Fair Work Ombudsman has also undertaken substantial education activities with employers through its Harvest Trail project; conducted in depth inquiries into Baiada,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7-Eleven and the working holiday visa programme; and (as required) bought prosecutions, many involving employers of visa holders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) There are many reputable employers and labour hire companies who engage foreign workers in full compliance with the law. The Ministerial Working Group will consider a range of options in relation to employers, including labour hire companies, who deliberately flout the law. The Government has also established Taskforce Cadena to complement the ongoing compliance activities of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure foreign workers are paid in accordance with Australian workplace law. Taskforce Cadena is investigating allegations of worker exploitation, particularly against labour hire companies in the food production and agriculture industries. The Taskforce works with the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, and state and territory agencies.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Fund (Question No. 1600)</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
          <id.no>1600</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 12 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of instances where the Future Fund has invested in companies or other entities operating or reinvesting in the following GICS sub-industries: (a) 10101010—Oil & Gas Drilling, (b) 10101020—Oil & Gas Equipment & Services, (c) 10102010—Integrated Oil & Gas, (d) 10102020—Oil & Gas Exploration & Production, (e) 10102030—Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing, (f) 10102040—Oil & Gas Storage & Transportation, (g) 10102050—Coal & Consumable Fuels, (h) 55101010—Electric Utilities, and (i) 55103010—Multi-Utilities, what (i) are the names of the companies, and (ii) is the current value of investments.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morrison</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The answer is set out in the following table as at 12 October 2015.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Former Minister for Employment: Domestic and International Travel (Question No. 1624 Interim)</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
          <id.no>1624 Interim</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 12 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) In 2014-15, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for the (i) former Assistant Minister for Employment, and (ii) this Minister's staff.(2) Of this, (a) on what dates, and to what locations, did this Minister travel, (b) how many Ministerial staff accompanied this Minister on this travel, and (c) for what purpose was this travel.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Official travel by Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and their staff are met by the Department of Finance (DoF). Any questions regarding those costs or arrangements should be referred to DoF.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Training: Conferences (Question No. 1640)</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
          <id.no>1640</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 12 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Did the former Assistant Minister for Education and Training host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Assistant Minister did not host any conferences in 2014–15.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Learning and Teaching Website (Question No. 1649)</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
          <id.no>1649</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 13 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching website, (a) what is the cost of all activities associated with the website, including (i) research and development, (ii) advertising, and (iii) ongoing maintenance, and (b) how many times has the website been accessed as at 13 October 2015, and from where.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Since October 2014, when the contract was signed, the costs of all activities associated with the QILT website are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Since the launch of QILT on 16 September 2015, there have been 27,738 visits to the website (as at 13 October 2015). The majority of these visits are from NSW, Vic and Qld with over 600 visits from both USA and India.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture and Water Resources: Department Name Change Costs (Question No.1669)</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
          <id.no>Question No.1669</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 15 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the name change to his department on 21 September 2015, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At present, it is too early to confirm any costs associated with the change of name.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Communication and the Arts: Departmental Name Changes (Question No. 1672)</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
          <id.no>1672</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, in writing, on 15 October 2015</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the name change from the Ministry of Arts within the Attorney-General's portfolio to the Ministry for the Arts within the Communications portfolio on 21 September 2015, will the Minister provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Arts has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Department's financial system does not allow for a distinction between spending on signage, stationery, web design and IT services, vehicle signage and painting, and marketing materials.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To attempt to identify this data would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Communication and the Arts: Departmental Name Changes (Question No. 1673)</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
          <id.no>1673</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 15 October 2015</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the name change from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to the Department of Communications on 18 September 2013, will the Minister's department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Communications has provided the answer to the member's question is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Department's financial system does not allow for a distinction between spending on signage, stationery, web design and IT services, vehicle signage and painting, and marketing material.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To attempt to identify this data would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Education: Name Change (Question No. 1678)</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
          <id.no>1678</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 15 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the name change to the Minister's department from the Department of Education to the Department of Education and Training on 21 September 2015, will the Minister's department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There were no changes to the department's name on 21 September 2015, therefore no costs were incurred.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Employment: Name Change Costs (Question No. 1681)</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
          <id.no>1681</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 15 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the name change to the Minister's department from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to the Department of Employment on 18 September 2013, will the Minister's department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the name change to the Department of Employment on 18 September 2013 the following costs were incurred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Signage, including for national and state offices, was produced at a cost of $4,780.15.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) There was no cost for letterheads (templates are available online through the Department's intranet and letters are only printed as needed). As at 30 June 2014, name badges were produced at a cost of $5,825.18 (excluding GST) and business cards were printed at a cost of $8,886.24 (excluding GST). Following this date production of name badges and business cards are considered business as usual and therefore not associated with the name change.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Nil. The separation of Employment related website content away from its predecessor Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations was performed in-house, within existing departmental resources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Nil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) Departmental banners were created at a cost of $3,225.91.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Finance: Department Name Change Costs (Question No. 1708)</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
          <id.no>1708</id.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 15 October 2015:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In respect of the name change to the Minister's department from the Department of Finance and Deregulation to the Department of Finance on 18 September 2013, will the Minister's department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morrison</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Refer to the response to Senate Estimates Question on Notice F84, asked at the2013-14 Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings which can be found at:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/fapactte/estimates/sup1314/finance/index.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </answers.to.questions>
</hansard>