2016-10-18 45 1 1 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

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

 

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Gun Control 1 12:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I seek leave to move the following motion: That: (1) the House notes that: (a) this morning, there are reports the Prime Minister will do a deal on gun laws to pass the Abbott Government's industrial relations bills; and (b) the Prime Minister has on at least five occasions just this morning refused to rule out trading away John Howard's gun laws to pass the Abbott Government's industrial relations bills; and (2) therefore, the House resolves that it will never put the safety of Australians at risk by trading away John Howard's gun laws to pursue an Abbott Government attack on workers. Leave not granted. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith—That: (1) the House notes that: (a) this morning, there are reports the Prime Minister will do a deal on gun laws to pass the Abbott Government's industrial relations bills; and (b) the Prime Minister has on at least five occasions just this morning refused to rule out trading away John Howard's gun laws to pass the Abbott Government's industrial relations bills; and (2) therefore, the House resolves that it will never put the safety of Australians at risk by trading away John Howard's gun laws to pursue an Abbott Government attack on workers. Just how weak is Malcolm Turnbull? Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth— The SPEAKER 10000 The Leader of the Opposition will refer to people by their correct titles. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The weak member for Wentworth is prepared to trade off John Howard's gun laws to pursue the member for Warringah's attack on workers. This is a disgrace and it must be stopped now. The Prime Minister is willing to risk more guns on the streets for one vote in the Senate. What price will this Prime Minister not pay to gain one grubby vote in the Senate? Just how weak is the Prime Minister? Just how weak is the member for Wentworth? This is the story of his prime ministership—a new disappointment every day. The problem with this Prime Minister is that the world knows how weak and wounded he is. People know that, if they hold out, the Prime Minister gives in. Every time there is a hard issue, he simply gives in. Every time there is a hard issue, he gives away more of himself and the man he once was, just to keep the job he desperately craves. Yet again, we see another group tweaking the prime ministerial tail. This man, who has traded off so many of his former views and so much of his integrity, keeps finding new ways to let Australia down. On radio and at his press conference just this morning, he had five opportunities to rule out the proposition that he is watering down the gun laws in return for grubby votes. His refusal to rule out changes to gun laws shows that, at best, he is contemplating doing this and, at worst, he has already agreed to do it. This is the sort of thing that you would see in the United States—gun laws treated as a legislative bargaining chip. Gun control should not be a political plaything; it should be the source of a unanimous view of this parliament and of this House. It marks those sitting in the government very poorly that they will not stand up and rule out watering down our gun laws. Every minute the government refuses to rule out the betrayal of our gun laws in return for its anti-worker, anti-union, anti-fairness agenda marks this government as one of the weakest governments in federation. There are some things that are simply too important for political games, and gun laws should be at the top of this list. There are plenty of disappointments I and Labor have with this government, but it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that the government would sell out on gun laws because they are so obsessed about destroying unions and the representatives of workers and a better deal for workers. My message is not to the Prime Minister and not to those shaking heads—those weak people sitting opposite; my message is to the people of Australia. Tell the Prime Minister that you do not want the gun laws changed. Ring him; email him; talk to your local representatives; talk to the members in all of those marginal seats who are more interested in saving their jobs. This is now a job for the people of Australia. We have a government where the Prime Minister is so wounded and so weak that he will do any deal to try to harm and destroy the representatives of working people to introduce different laws for different categories of workers in Australia. He is so desperate to pursue an anti-union agenda forced on him by the right of his party that he will sell out gun laws. Ring him up, email him—Australian people, we call upon you to just tell him, 'No; no way; no chance; not ever will we agree to watering down the gun laws.' Look at those members of the government smiling as if they are pulling some clever trick. This is not the party of John Howard anymore. They claim the mantle. They are not fit to clean his shoes on this issue. These laws have made Australia safe, and you should think very carefully before you tamper with laws which have made Australia safer. It was a great achievement of John Howard, proudly supported by Kim Beazley. Let me remind this government of amnesia and weakness what John Howard said on the 20th anniversary of those terrible events at Port Arthur. He said this, and I quote exactly: … I'm wholly against any watering down of the existing laws, and I would encourage sensible strengthening of the existing laws. Let me remind those opposite of what the Prime Minister's predecessor said about the risk this poses to national security. On 12 August last year, the member for Warringah said: 'Importing so many of the high-capacity Adlers was inappropriate in a heightened threat environment.' Yesterday, the Prime Minister, who challenged us for daring to question the competence of the Attorney-General of Australia—a common topic which, we are all know, is not possible to defend—said, 'How dare there be a question of any watering down of national security.' Well, your words come back to haunt you today, Prime Minister. Let me remind the Prime Minister of what he said in Tasmania this year. He said: … the leadership that was shown by our Prime Minister, John Howard, ensured that we have had, and have, the toughest gun control laws in the world, and we are committed to ensuring they remain just that. He goes on—as he does: Our collaboration and our commitment is utterly unwavering. Australia has the toughest gun control laws in the world, and we will continue to keep them that way. It is horrifying to think that, when the Prime Minister said that, what he actually meant was: 'We will continue to keep them that way until we need a vote in the Senate; then all bets are off.' Why is he making this sordid deal? It is just so he can create a new industrial bureaucracy. Let us talk about the facts around this ABCC legislation that he is so keen to water down the gun laws for. Firstly, there is already a building regulator in place. They already have coercive powers. They have already—in their last report—done 130 investigations and they have used these powers on 17 occasions. Secondly, Labor is gravely concerned that workplace deaths and injuries will increase. During the ABCC's time, fatalities for construction workers nearly doubled from an average of nearly two and a half fatalities per 100,000 workers to nearly five fatalities per 100,000 workers. In 2007, when the coalition's ABCC was last in place, worker deaths on construction sites hit a 10-year high of 51 of our fellow Australians dying at work. After Labor abolished the ABCC, workplace deaths dropped by 80 per cent. The third problem we have is that the ABCC will not improve productivity. Construction industry productivity increased more in the seven years before the introduction of the ABCC than it did in the seven years after the ABCC was created. Since the ABCC has been abolished, productivity has increased every year, year on year. The reality is that this is a government not interested in safer workplaces, better unions. They are not interested in safer streets now or better gun laws. No conservative government in history has ever believed in a better deal for workers. They hate unions. This mob is no different. It is deeply disturbing that this mob had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything about 7-Eleven. They are happy while workers in this country are being paid half the minimum wage. They have done nothing to deal with widespread reports of corruption and rorting in the visa system. The Prime Minister could not even work up a tweet to commiserate the Ford workers as they worked on their last day. The only time they talk about wages is when they complain that they are too high. The double dealing of this Prime Minister on gun laws shocks even his Labor critics. We know that he has sold out nearly everything else he believes in. I want to conclude by asking the Prime Minister one thing: you will not stand up to the right-wing wolves of your party; will you, just for once, stand up for Australia? If you do not believe me, I will leave you with the words of the tweet of the member for Warringah, just recently tweeted: Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws. ABCC should be supported on its merits. The member for Warringah is a strong man. Labor will stand up. People of Australia, tell Malcolm Turnbull: no deal on gun laws. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? Ms Plibersek 83M Mr Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 10000 The question is that the motion be agreed to. 12:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Mr Speaker, the leader of the opposition will do absolutely anything to distract people from his twin problems right now. The first of the twin problems that he has right now is: the civil war in the Labor Party in Victoria that he is dealing with over the appointment of Kimberley Kitching and the split in the national left, led by Gavin Marshall, against that member for Scullin over there in the House. I am very pleased to see this debate. Dr Chalmers 37998 Tell us about gun laws! Talk about gun laws! The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Rankin! Mr PYNE 9V5 The first problem that Mr Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, is trying to deal with is the civil war in the Labor Party. His second problem that he is trying to distract his caucus from is that he has shackled them to the CFMEU in the great debate in this country over industrial relations reform to change the building and construction industry. So, in the oldest trick in the book, the Leader of the Opposition has come into the House and moved the suspension of standing orders. He has given a ripsnorting speech, in his mind—all of it read, by the way, about the apparent perfidiousness of this government to do with trying to get our legislation through. But we know, the media knows and the public knows this is all a smokescreen for the twin problems the Leader of the Opposition faces—the disintegration of the national left and the fact that he has shackled the Labor Party to the CFMEU over what every mum and dad, and small businessman in the country knows is a vital reform for building and construction in this country—that is, to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I will turn to the first problem that the Leader of the Opposition has. In the Senate, he has Gavin Marshall, a Victorian left senator. He is openly attacking, taking a political hatchet to, his own colleagues, whether it is Catherine King, the member for Ballarat; whether it is the member for Scullin; or whether it is in fact the very well respected member for Jagajaga, whom I have not always agreed with over the many years we have been in parliament together. But to attack the member for Jagajaga is a bizarre step. What it indicates is that the Leader of the Opposition has completely lost control of the Victorian Labor Party. Today we have seen, in the last few hours, that the member for Grayndler has attacked Gavin Marshall. At least the member is standing up for his mates; he usually does that. The member for Grayndler has attacked Gavin Marshall and said that Gavin Marshall's comments 'speak for themselves; they say more about Senator Marshall than they do about the colleagues he is disparaging'. At least the member is standing by his colleagues. But he has also failed to endorse Kimberley Kitching, the Labor Party nominee from Victoria for the Senate. This is a man who knows every intricate detail of the Labor Party across the country. This is a man who stood for the leadership of the Labor Party and was the people's choice. Not a leaf falls in the Labor Party forest without the member for Grayndler knowing that it has happened. Instead, the member for Grayndler has said: 'I didn't have a vote, I'm not familiar with all of the candidates … …   …   … 'I don't know all of the candidates, therefore I wasn't in a position to make a judgment.' The member for Grayndler, so prepared to speak for the Leader of the Opposition on this problem that the Leader of the Opposition has, is pretending he has never heard of Kimberley Kitching—never heard of her. She has only run for several preselections over the last 10 years in Victoria and been blocked! She was blocked by Julia Gillard, blocked by then senator Stephen Conroy and stopped from getting into the parliament. Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, missed all of that! He never saw any of that happening! He has never heard of Kimberley Kitching! He is not familiar with the candidates! She is only married to Andrew Landeryou, who everybody in this political firmament knows because of his mischievous past. The member for Grayndler, on the other hand, has never heard of them! So the reason that the motion for the suspension of standing orders should not be supported is that we on this side of the House want to get on with the business of government. We want to reform the building and construction industry. We want to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Mr Speaker, I am happy to curtail my remarks because, after we hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I have great pleasure in knowing that the Prime Minister intends to contribute to this debate. 12:17 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I think, both on this side and the other side, we would have been happy to allow the Leader of the House to continue, indeed to extend, the time available for this debate, because we did not hear one single word about guns from the Leader of the House—not a single word about gun control and the risk to this nation if the strong gun-control laws introduced by John Howard as Prime Minister are watered down. And watered down why? For a nasty deal to introduce an unnecessary Building and Construction Commission. The Leader of the House does not even have the courage to say what the member for Warringah has said: Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws. ABCC should be supported on its merits … If those opposite want to make a case for it, of course they have every right to make a case for it. But we should never, ever water down gun laws in this country, particularly not for a grubby deal like this. Every single Australian adult who was of an age two decades ago to remember the Port Arthur massacre would remember exactly where they were that evening as the news came through of those 35 Australians who lost their lives and the 18 who were injured—and there were thousands, if not millions, I would say, who were traumatised to hear of that crime in this country. There are a lot of things that I did not agree with John Howard about, but he took action. He drew something good from this tragedy, something that all Australians could be proud of. Prime Minister Howard said at the time, in 1996: We have an opportunity in this country not to go down the American path. I can tell members that those who are fighting for better gun control in the United States use us as an example often. They say, 'Australia had a shocking tragedy, an unthinkable tragedy, but they used that tragedy for good.' In the United States this year, 2016, there have been 11,616 gun deaths according to the latest report. Three hundred of those have been in mass shootings. In Australia, in the decade between 1986 and 1996, this country had 10 mass shootings. How many have we had since those gun laws were amended? How many have we had since those gun laws were tightened? None. We have had no mass shootings. What is this parliament being asked to do? Mr Keenan E0J We all agree. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Well, rule it out! What is this parliament being asked to do? This parliament is being asked by the proponents of this change to allow into this country a gun, the Adler A110 five-shot weapon, which can be converted to a 14-shot gun with a do-it-yourself magazine. These do-it-yourself magazines are already for sale in Australia. In fact, Curtin University's Professor Charles Watson called for this shotgun to be banned, saying: … in reality the Adler is a modern firearm that looks and operates like a semiautomatic weapon … Do we want to put these weapons into the hands of more Australians? We do not. We have already seen gun laws watered down in this country. We have already seen it happening. We have seen it happening in exchange for Senator Leyonhjelm's vote on border control legislation, with the government putting an automatic expiry date on the 7 August ban on the Adler. We have seen the fate of the banned lever-action shotguns— (Time expired) 12:22 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The opposition is endeavouring to create a distraction from the real agenda of this parliament, which is to end the lawlessness on the construction and building sites of Australia. Let me be very clear: we stand by John Howard's national firearms agreement; we are proud of it. As I said on the radio this morning, every day Australians watch the news they are reminded of what a coalition government did, what John Howard did, what our side of politics did. It was the Liberal and the National parties that put in place that agreement. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Honourable members opposite want to know about the Adler lever action gun. If they stop shouting, I will tell them. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Griffith is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 Under the current national firearms agreement, lever action shotguns are category A. There has been a move on the COAG committee of justice ministers to have those guns reclassified, which we have supported. Because agreement has not been reached, we put in place an import ban, which expired in August this year, so we have renewed it and we have renewed it indefinitely. What that means, of course, is that— Ms Plibersek 83M A temporary ban! The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Sydney is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 It is not a temporary ban. It is permanent. It is set in stone. It can be amended, but it is there—like any import ban. If the honourable member is seriously interested in the safety of Australians, as I trust we all are, let me explain. Firearms are classified under the national firearms agreement as category A, B, C or D. Category A guns are relatively readily able to be acquired. For category B you need to nominate a specific purpose, like primary production. Firearms in categories C and D are very, very difficult to obtain, and appropriately so. So the debate that is being conducted and has not yet been agreed between the state jurisdictions, who of course have the regulation of firearms, is whether and how the Adler seven-shot lever action gun should be classified. What my government has done is to ensure that no Adler lever action guns with more than five rounds can be imported in any category. They cannot be imported at all. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 What we have done is put a stop on it. The fact is that we stand by the national firearms agreement. We want to see it stronger. We are supporting that with an import ban. We are proud of the achievements of John Howard. The action of the opposition in trying to use this as a distraction is a disgrace. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Gorton is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 I tell you that ban will remain in place until such time as there is a satisfactory reclassification of these guns by the COAG committee. That was the purpose of the ban when we first put it in place; that was the purpose when we renewed it. We stand by our commitment for the public safety of Australians. The national firearms agreement is our achievement. It is John Howard's achievement. It is not Labor's achievement. We get this mock sympathy from the Labor Party. The Labor Party would be better off cleaning up its own house rather than creating distractions. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 The national firearms agreement is defended. It stands here and so does the ban. 12:26 Mr BURKE DYW Watson If it is the position of the government that they will never water down Australia's gun laws, then they will vote for this motion. If it is the position of the government that they will not trade the gun laws to win a vote on the ABCC, they will vote for this motion. If they will not vote for this motion, then you can see why. The member for Warringah was on Twitter only minutes ago saying: Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws. If those reports are inaccurate, then every member of this House will vote for this motion. If those reports are accurate and gun laws are being traded for a vote in the Senate, then there will be a decision in this House in a few moments time. The SPEAKER 10000 The time allotted for this debate is expired. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion on the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time. BILLS 5 BILLS VET Student Loans Bill 2016, VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016, VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016 5

VET Student Loans Bill 2016

VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016

VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016

Second Reading 5 12:28 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I rise today to speak on the VET Student Loans Bill 2016 cognate debate. In doing so, I begin by saying: finally we are seeing the government prepared to come into this House and take some action on an issue which has been growing and growing and being continually ignored under their watch. Unfortunately, we believe that these changes are too little too late, but I guess we do say 'Better late than never.' We should have seen legislation to improve VET FEE-HELP before the parliament years ago. Let us just stop for a moment and consider what would have happened if the government had done their job when they should have—years ago. Years ago, if the government had acted sooner, billions of dollars—not millions, billions—could have been invested in apprenticeships and TAFE instead of being wasted on dodgy providers. We know that change is absolutely urgent and, now that the bills are finally before the House, I can offer Labor's in-principle support in the House as we await the outcomes of the Senate inquiry. But the reality is that the bills before the House today are only one part of the issue. We know that one incredibly important part of the puzzle is to close the loopholes in the VET FEE-HELP scheme but we also know that that is not the entire solution. The proposed changes do not do anything to turn around the decline in our public TAFE system. The government have stood by as unfair competition has run absolutely rampant, quality has declined and students have been squeezed out of our quality TAFEs and lured away by far too many shonks. We have seen the breadth and depth of TAFE courses decline; we have seen campuses close; we have seen fees rise. The bills before the House today do not fix the crisis that is currently being faced by TAFE, but it is a crisis that must be fixed. We on this side of the chamber will continue to stand up and fight for a quality TAFE sector across Australia because we know how incredibly important it is. Not only do these bills not address the crisis, but from the middle of next year there is nothing in this government's budget to continue the national partnership that funds TAFE and skills—nothing. The Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills has been on the record in the past week questioning whether there is even a need for a replacement agreement—essentially questioning the role of the Commonwealth government in supporting TAFE at all. That is extraordinary! Australians ask themselves time and time again: why does this government have such an ideological problem with supporting public education in this nation? And time and time again it is Labor, on this side of the House, who stand up and fight for public education. In this instance, it is Labor who will stand up and fight for quality TAFE and vocational education. The tardiness in dealing with the billion-dollar blow-outs, the rorts and exploitation in VET FEE-HELP is, sadly, in line with the modus operandi of this Prime Minister and this government when it comes to policy. It seems to be the Turnbull template: they ignore a problem that is there in plain sight; they dither; they blame someone else; things get worse; and finally—sometimes, if the problem proves to be bad enough—they belatedly jump on board, try to copy Labor's policy and take the credit for it. The concept behind the bills before us today is no different. It is almost a carbon copy of the VET student loans policy that Labor announced in May and took to the last election. Of course, our concern is not necessarily with the concept. Our concern, when it comes to this government, is about the detail, the implementation and getting the delivery right. If history is anything to go by, there is nothing to suggest that they will not stuff those things up too. We know that we were the ones who came forward and said we should cap student loans to stop rip-offs. In this legislation the government have copied that. We were the ones who said that we should crack down on the use of brokers. The government have come forward and copied that. We were the ones who said we should link publicly funded courses to industry needs and skills shortages, and here we see the government copying that too. We said providers should be required to reapply under new standards so that only high-quality providers could access the loan system. Here today—yes—we see that has been copied. And we were the ones who said that public funding should be linked to student progress and completion. That too has been copied here. We have also advocated for an ombudsman for the system. There needs to be someone to hear student complaints, because far too many students have been the victims of government inaction in this area, and we will be moving some amendments towards that in the consideration in detail stage of the bill. Although I note that the government said last week that they would create an ombudsman—again, belatedly; again, copying Labor's ideas—there is nothing in this legislation that actually does that. We know, of course, that mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, and what is concerning here is not that they have copied Labor's ideas—that is fair enough; we wish the government would do it a whole lot more often—but the hypocrisy with which they have done it, after so roundly panning the very same proposals. It is a complete 180; it is a backflip of Olympic proportions. In May this year the Liberals were falling over themselves to criticise Labor's policy proposals. Today they are moving them in the Australian House of Representatives and trying to take the credit for them. Let's just have a look at what they said on the record. When Labor announced a policy of capping student loans, the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, said it would 'pull the rug out from under the private education industry'. Today his government is proposing to do just that. The then minister, Scott Ryan, called it 'classist policy' and a 'thought bubble' that, he said, 'will lead to up-front fees for VET students'. He also dismissed Labor's suggestions as 'impulsive, ill thought through, ill-considered' and a 'sound bite'. Senator Simon Birmingham, now the minister, said they were: 'an ill-considered flat pack'. He also said a price cap—and I should point out once again that central to the legislation the government is putting forward here today is a price cap when it comes to vocational education—'would simply, in effect, establish a government sanctioned price'. He brushed off the concept, saying, 'When you set a price cap, everybody simply shifts to the price.' But in the bills we have here today the same senator is now proposing three different price caps, at $5000, $10,000 and $15,000. Perhaps all of this is a symptom of the fact that there has been a revolving door in the government when it comes to responsibility for technical and vocational education. It shows just how little they think of this sector that each of the five ministers who have held the portfolio over the last three years—that is right: five ministers in just three years—has been focused more on politics than on policy. This has not been a priority and the sector has suffered gravely as a result of that. I fully anticipate that during the course of this debate what we will see from the talking points issued to those opposite is that one after another they will do what they always do. They will stand up and they will say that this is all Labor's fault, like everything else in this place—'It's all Labor's fault'. Blaming Labor for the blow-outs and the mess that have occurred under their watch is just not going to wash. The minister's own media release when he announced these reforms and his belated discussion paper made it clear that the annual value of VET FEE-HELP loans was about $700 million in 2013. In 2014, when they were in government, it jumped to $1.8 billion, an increase of around 250 per cent in just one year, a 250 per cent increase under their watch. The next year, 2015, we saw the loan book balloon again, to about $3 billion, another massive annual increase, of around 160 per cent. In just two years, between the Liberals coming to government and the latest figures, the VET FEE-HELP scheme blew out, incredibly, by more than 400 per cent. To preside over this is not an indictment of Labor. It is an indictment of absolutely each of the five ministers who have held this portfolio and who have failed to act. Listening to the government, I am sure that we could be forgiven for thinking that the crisis facing technical and vocational education was new, that the bills before the House were a quick reaction to an emerging problem. But, as I have just established, it is not. This is not a new or emerging problem. The alarm bells have been ringing for years about this issue. They have not been silent. They have been splashed across the front pages of papers. They have been exposed by Senate inquiries. They have been brought up time and time again by victims, teachers, experts and by Labor, who have been urging the government to act. The problems have not suddenly emerged; they have been around for years. And no policy is ever a success unless the government of the day is diligent, sober and responsible in managing its implementation and operation. No-one builds a hospital and then forgets about it. But that is exactly what seems to have happened to the VET FEE-HELP scheme. By looking to place the blame on changes made in 2012, rather than taking responsibility for the scheme over the last three years, the government is admitting that they took their eye off the ball. They sat back, they wrote cheques and they failed to pay any attention to their responsibility for administering government programs. The department would have been making payments to providers on an ongoing basis throughout 2014 and 2015. Why wasn't this exponential growth trend properly addressed as it emerged? Did no-one tell the minister? Did the minister simply fail to read their briefs? Did the minister know what was going on, but fail to act? If trends and issues were identified, why wasn't effective action taken then? Those are the questions that we demand answers to. And those are the questions that Australian taxpayers demand answers to, after seeing billions of their hard-earned dollars wasted in this space. Perhaps it was because the minister changed so regularly. Were they never in the seat long enough to understand the issues and do anything about them? One of these explanations has to be true. We just do not know yet which one it is. None of them is acceptable. And it does not matter which one is the truth, because they are all equally damning. They are all equalling damning on the government that sits at the table today. There is one final and fatal logical flaw in the government's argument that Labor somehow caused the VET FEE-HELP program to blow-out under their watch. If they knew something was wrong on day 1, why didn't they fix it on day 1? It does not matter which way you look at the facts, the government is guilty of abdicating their responsibility for the careful use of taxpayers' money, and for protecting students from exploitation, because it is students as well as taxpayers who have suffered greatly as a result of the government's incompetence. We know there are many facts that have been put forward that the government chose to ignore. In October 2014, the ABC reported that the Department of Education had received reports of students being signed up to courses without their knowledge. But there was no government response. Why didn't the government take action at that point to stamp out these practices? The same report, in October 2014, showed inappropriate student enrolments and the blow-out in costs under some private providers, compared to TAFE. The government's own figures show that average VET FEE-HELP tuition fees have grown from $5,900 in 2012 to over $14,000 in 2015. Why didn't the government stop the price gouging when it was first identified, when it was pointed out clearly to them? One of the many extraordinary stories of blatant misuse of this scheme was reported by the TAFE Community Alliance in the course of last year's Senate inquiry. They reported how a woman in her 70s, who was having lunch with her bible group at Bankstown central shopping centre, was approached by a broker and offered a 'free' laptop and what was explained was a 'free' diploma of community services. She was told she should not worry about signing up, because she would only have to repay the fee if she earnt over $50,000. Did I mention that this was a woman in her 70s at her local bible group? We know that this was an example of misuse. She was then offered $400 as a spotter's fee if she was able to sign her friends from the Chinese community so they could also be a part of this scam. Just like in so many other cases, there was nothing free about this. Every cent of it was taxpayer's money. And there was nothing fair about this. In fact, it is an absolutely clear-cut case of exploitation. Why weren't brokers banned earlier, when these stories were publicly coming to light? In 2014, the graduation rate for the 10 largest private providers was under five per cent: $900 million in federal money, over $215,000 for each graduate. Why wasn't something done then to re-accredit providers and make sure students completed courses? When some changes were made to the scheme last year, and Labor at that point warned they were inadequate to deal with this situation, why didn't the government take the opportunity to work with us to fix the situation properly? Unfortunately, there is a very clear pattern of too many questions and not enough answers in the way the government has managed—or, indeed, entirely mismanaged—the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Looking forward, though, we know that students must be the priority, for the government and this parliament, in restoring the quality, the reputation and the integrity of Australia's technical and vocational education system. We must work together to make sure that it does meet the needs of students, employers and the economy. And, more than anything else, we must make sure that students are protected from the kinds of exploitation that we have witnessed all too often in recent years. The House will be familiar with some of the worst examples: shonks waiting outside Centrelink to take advantage of people facing difficult circumstances by signing them up to dodgy training and bad debt; brokers travelling to remote Aboriginal communities and convincing locals to sign up en masse. The minister's own discussion outlines a 650 per cent increase in Indigenous VET FEE-HELP enrolments since 2012, a 500 per cent increase in students from very remote communities, a 180 per cent increase for students with a disability, and a 172 per cent increase in students with low socio-economic backgrounds. All of these vulnerable groups have been over-represented, and there is no doubt that this is a consequence of the unethical selling which has been so widely reported, yet which the government have failed to act on. As a result, many disadvantaged students now carry significant debt—and, as independent analysis shows, a significant proportion of them will probably never ever be in a position to repay it. Across the board, there are too many students whose hopes have been crushed by dodgy providers, and who have been left with big debt and no qualification to show for it. So, whilst Labor does support the bills before the House in principle, we also have a number of concerns. In particular, we have concerns about the lack of available information at this stage on how the re-accreditation process will work for providers and on the ability of the department to assess providers against complex criteria in such a short period of time. At this stage, the new standards have not been published, and they will contain a great deal of important information about how the new accreditation framework will operate. We hope that the Senate inquiry will provide an opportunity for the parliament and for stakeholders to consider these important elements. It will no doubt be a significant challenge for the department to develop methods of assessing the suitability of providers in such a short amount of time—and with so little opportunity to consult on or to trial the methodology that they intend to use. It will also be an enormous challenge for the department to be able to rigorously assess hundreds and hundreds of providers against the standards in the available timeframe. We sincerely hope that the government ensures that there are adequate expertise and resources deployed for this task, because we know that the VET sector simply cannot afford for this process to fail. Labor also wants to see the government engage meaningfully and constructively with the sector in finalising the approved course list. I hope that the minister is seeking expert advice about the demand for skills, the employment and business prospects of students as a result of courses, and the transferrable skills that students acquire. While it is really easy to get headlines by striking some courses from the list, we know that it is predominantly courses in management and business administration that have caused the blow-out in VET FEE-HELP. It is really important that the minister gets the course list right and that he does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. On this side of the House, we have already been contacted by good-quality and longstanding providers that have fallen foul of the government's proposed course list—particularly in some creative industries. The government needs to make sure that they do not use this opportunity in order to pursue some ideological crusade on what they consider to be 'worthy' study and that instead they use this opportunity to deal with rorting and exploitation. Of course, the course list is not contained in the bills that we are debating here today; it will not be voted on in the House at this stage. But we do put forward that we have heard concerns, that we have significant concerns and that the minister needs to make sure that he gets it right. He needs to make sure that they recognise that there are many courses with value, and many good providers with a proud history. There are many courses which improve the skills, employability, work readiness and job prospects of Australians, and we need to make sure that we do not inadvertently limit those prospects. We also have a particular concern about how the transition to the new scheme will impact on students—in particular, students who might, for whatever reason, need to extend their study under the VET FEE-HELP scheme past the end of 2017 when the grandfathering provisions in this bill expire. If the student needs to repeat units, or if they have been ill, or if they have had to undertake their studies part-time or to defer part of their course, for whatever reason, it would be incredibly unfair if they had to face large and unexpected gap payments as a result of this measure. More alarming still, they may be left liable to pay full course fees up-front because the provider or course is not approved under the new scheme. These circumstances, should they occur, would not be the fault of those individual students, and we believe that students have paid the price for this government's mismanagement in this sector too much already. We will be standing, looking and working very carefully to make sure that this does not occur again. I did want to say that the changes in the bill to ban brokers are welcome, and, in the course of the Senate inquiry, we hope to get the full details about what this will mean in practical terms. The bill bans brokers from having a role in the VET student loan scheme, but it is unclear at this stage what this will mean for brokers more broadly. I also note that concerns have been raised by the TAFE directors association and others that the bills do not go far enough in delivering the governance reforms that are needed to permanently clean up the sector. Again, I hope that this is something that can be clarified in the course of the Senate inquiry. We understand the urgency of these bills. We have been arguing for them for years. But it is an urgency that the government have brought upon themselves. A consequence of this rushed process now has been a lack of consultation and a lack of scrutiny of the details of the proposed policies. I understand that many in the sector were promised that they would see a second discussion paper on these reforms and would have the opportunity to comment on detailed proposals. This promise has not been fulfilled, making it all the more important that the government presents full and accurate information to the Senate inquiry so that stakeholders can at least get across the detail of these changes in that contract. Most importantly, the bills before the House will hopefully restore the integrity of the VET loans system but they will do nothing to fix the broader crisis. The government needs to recognise this. The government needs to recognise that Australia needs a healthy, strong and diverse vocational education sector. By the government's own account, as a result of this bill, there will be $7 billion less in federal funding going towards vocational education in just the next four years—$25 billion in the next 10 years. The government needs to ensure the long-term sustainability of this sector. The government needs to ensure that we have strong and healthy TAFEs. While we will work with the government to try and close loopholes and stop rorting in VET FEE-HELP, the government needs to come on board and work with us when it comes to standing up and fighting for TAFE and public education. The government needs to work with us when it comes to ensuring the long-term viability of a sector that is so central to our economic future. The government needs to stand with us when it comes to investing in skills, in traineeships and apprenticeships. And the government will have the opportunity to do that because in just over six months time a new national partnership with the states and territories will be required. I can place the government on notice here today that Labor will be standing up and ensuring that this national partnership guarantees the strength of the sector. We will be standing up and ensuring that this national partnership reinvests in TAFE—that we prop up the TAFE system, which has suffered incredibly badly in recent years. Our overwhelming concern is that nothing in these bills will help to rebuild and restore our TAFEs. We know that a lack of action on this front is not surprising from a government that has had such a poor attitude when it comes to TAFE. But we were shocked that just last week the senior minister, the member for McPherson, question whether the national partnership for skills was even needed in the future. She said she was meeting with the states to 'determine whether there are reforms to VET that warrant a new agreement'. This is deeply concerning. The current national partnership expires in the middle of the next year. What does this mean? It means over $500 million in Commonwealth support for TAFE and skills is on the line—and the minister does not seem to know whether they will need a new agreement to replace that at all! Labor is absolutely clear: we back public TAFE. That is why we took a TAFE funding guarantee to the last election. We know that that is where people get the technical and semi-professional skills that they need for growing industries. We know that that is where the skills that are being demanded by industry are and it is where the skills that Australia needs to be competitive with other countries are. Generations of Australians know just how important TAFE is to our community and to our economy. They know the first-class skills and opportunities that going to TAFE can provide. Well, we need the government to know that too; and, more than that, we need the government to step up and act in that area. VET, TAFE and apprenticeships are crucial to jobs in our economy. They are crucial to the incomes, the wellbeing, the hopes and the dreams of so many Australians. I genuinely hope the government has turned a corner from here—that after years of inaction and years of incompetence they will do what is best for students, employers and the sector. I genuinely hope they work to get the implementation of these changes right. But there can be no doubt that this government's maladministration of the VET FEE-HELP is one of the most egregious examples of waste and incompetence in the history of federal government; it is extraordinary. No amount of finger pointing, no amount of huffing and puffing from those opposite will be able to change that. It stands on the record. It stands on the record of the five ministers in three years who sat by and did nothing. But it also stands as a burden to every single member opposite who just did not think vocational education was worth standing up for, who did not think it was important enough to have a look at the information that was publicly available and ask some questions of their own government, who did not think it was important enough that they protect taxpayer dollars which were clearly being misused in the most ridiculous fashion. It is because of that that I move: That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government’s failure to properly administer the VET FEE-HELP scheme, leaving taxpayers and students to deal with the consequences of their mismanagement.” The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Dr Chalmers 37998 I second the motion. 12:57 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper On listening to the contribution by the member for Adelaide I can only say that they have short memories with regard to public administration. Who can forget pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers and $900 checks to dead people? The list is endless when it comes to Labor's maladministration. And who can forget that the members opposite are in fact the architects of the problems that we are fixing. I am very pleased to speak on this reform package. In 2015, as Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, I introduced legislation aimed at strengthening protection for students, helping the interests of taxpayers, pushing unscrupulous operators out of the business and ensuring that our vocational education and training sector was held in the high regard that it should be. And I am pleased that good Minister Birmingham has continued that good work, and that has manifested itself in the legislation before the House today. Australia's vocational education system is world leading. The outcomes delivered through our system are relevant and valuable in the modern economy of the 21st century. Our VET teachers and instructors are well regarded, and students and employers value the qualifications that can be earned through Australia's VET system. Unfortunately, Labor's VET FEE-HELP loans program has let the entire sector down. Labor's flawed scheme was not sustainable. It was characterised by rapidly rising fees, debts for students, poor student outcomes and the proliferation of unscrupulous providers. Labor removed the requirement for VET FEE-HELP courses to be linked to further study at a university level. They required little accountability from registered training organisations or their agents. Labor designed the program with in-built incentives to rort the system, and it did not take long for unscrupulous providers to take advantage of Labor's architecture. It allowed training providers and their agents to market courses as free or government funded, when in fact they were not. Several years ago my staff observed brokers from a VET FEE-HELP provider standing outside the soup kitchen in Coffs Harbour using free iPads as bait to lure homeless people into signing up for expensive diploma courses. When Labor threw open the VET FEE-HELP floodgates, the scheme blew out from costing $325 million in 2012 to $1.8 billion in 2014 and $2.9 billion in 2015. Student numbers jumped by almost 400 per cent, fees more than doubled and loans increased by 792 per cent. In 2015 the government implemented a range of measures in an effort to put the program on a sustainable footing. We banned inducements and tightened the eligibility criteria for providers. We put new rules in place to ensure that prospective students had the minimum literacy skills needed to complete a course. We stopped brokers from marketing courses as free, and we required training providers to tell prospective students that VET FEE-HELP was a loan and not a grant from the government. In total, we implemented around 20 separate measures to get VET FEE-HELP under control. However, it quickly became clear to me that Labor's VET FEE-HELP model was utterly beyond redemption. The only option was to freeze the program in 2016, stop the unsustainable growth and rebuild the program from the ground up. The sad thing is that this whole situation is downgrading the reputation of hundreds of honest training organisations who are delivering quality services. This sad and sorry saga has harmed the reputation of the Australian VET sector. The entire sector has been dragged down by the handful of dodgy training organisations. We need to restore trust in the sector, and this legislation will go a long way towards doing that. VET FEE-HELP was a mess of Labor's making—just like pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers and cheques for dead people. However, the reform package that we have before the House will introduce a new concessional loan program for vocational education students studying at the diploma level and above. Loans under the new VET student system will only be available for courses that are a national priority, align with industry needs and provide a reasonable prospect of employment. Australia's vocational education system offers a wide variety of courses, which is a good thing. But there are many courses that could be described as lifestyle courses—subjects that may be interesting and that may be stimulating, but are unlikely to lead to employment. There is nothing necessarily wrong with these types of courses, but they should not be funded by the Australian taxpayer. If someone wants to do a diploma of energy healing, that is fine; but taxpayers should not pay for it. The same principle applies to diplomas of fashion styling, veterinary Chinese herbal medicine and many other qualifications that are interesting but not a national priority. The minister has released a long list of courses that will be eligible when the new VET Student Loans program begins. Interested stakeholders can provide feedback on that list until 23 October. As national priorities change, the list will be updated. This package of reforms is dynamic, flexible and sustainable; but, more importantly, it is sensible and fair. It will put a cap on the loan amounts for specific courses, whereas under Labor's system the sky was the only limit on course cost. One of the great problems with Labor's VET FEE-HELP system was that it contained no price signals for students or providers, so training organisations just charged whatever they wanted. I saw numerous examples of courses for a cash price of $3,000 to $4,000 but a VET FEE-HELP price of $15,000 or more—outrageous behaviour. The properly considered caps that are part of this program were chosen based on analysis of the course prices under the NSW Smart and Skilled program and validated against average VET FEE-HELP fees prior to the exorbitant rises in course fees in recent years. There will be some exemptions to the caps where there is a demonstrated need, particularly in areas such as aviation, where courses can cost as much as $80,000 or more. It is worth noting that providers can still charge above this cap, and, if so, students will be required to pay the difference. Some students may choose to do this; however, many are likely to seek an alternative provider who charges fees that are within the allowable cap. The loan caps are not an attempt to stymie business or to prevent providers from making a profit. But it is expected that loan caps will put a stop to the exorbitant rises in course fees that we have seen in recent years. In addition to the fee caps, students will need to show progression through a course to be able to continue to access to a VET student loan. Students undertaking a longer VET FEE-HELP course will be able to apply to have their current arrangements grandfathered until the end of 2017. A fee will now be required for providers of VET FEE-HELP loans to enable them to offer VET FEE-HELP courses; they will also be required to pay an annual levy for this service. Existing VET FEE-HELP providers—with the exception of some existing bodies such as TAFEs—will have to apply under the new program. Again, the aim of the reform package is to put checks and balances in place to better regulate the sector and to raise the bar. The reform package also bans the use of brokers and agents to recruit students for VET Student Loans courses. Brokers were a large part of the problem with Labor's VET FEE-HELP system, as they had a financial incentive to sign up as many people as possible, but they had no accountability when the students proved incapable of completing a course or repaying the loan. This reform package will also retain many of the reforms introduced last year, including a ban on the use of inducements such as iPads or laptops, and a requirement for a parent or guardian to approve a VET student loan for a student under the age of 18. I have met with numerous excellent training organisations in my electorate of Cowper and around the country. Our local North Coast Institute TAFE is an excellent provider of quality training and is doing a wonderful job in developing and delivering high quality qualifications. Many of the organisations are delivering absolute quality outcomes, and they are frustrated that their reputation, along with the reputation of the whole sector, is being dragged down by rogue operators who profited under Labor's VET FEE-HELP regime. Unfortunately, many of my constituents have been left with large loans as a result of the scheme introduced by Labor—loans that they cannot repay for courses they did not want and were effectively tricked into signing up for by unscrupulous brokers and operators. I am pleased that the government is moving further down the path of reform through the changes that we are debating in the House today. This is important legislation. It protects the students and the taxpayers of the North Coast and it protects the students and the taxpayers of Australia more generally. The changes that come into force with this legislation will build on the legislation that I introduced last year. It will protect North Coast students from the sharks and unscrupulous operators who have done so much damage to the VET system and so much damage to many students. I commend these bills to the House. 13:08 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I rise today to speak to the importance of a robust and effective VET sector. As an educator first at TAFE and then at higher education institutions, I know that not every person can, should or, indeed, wants to go to university. I also know that not every industry, not every job and not every vocation can have, should have or, indeed, needs to have university graduates. What they need is a well-trained workforce, focussed on competencies and practical skills. Australia's training framework was world-renowned for its responsiveness to industry needs and for its quality framework. Education is one of Australia's most valuable exports, and it is one that is worth protecting. But this government's inexplicable sluggish and tardy response to malfeasance in the VET sector has put the education industry and Australia's reputation as a world-class, quality training provider in danger. VET works for students, for employers and for the community. Western Australia is facing increasing unemployment as the mining boom winds down and people need access to training courses to acquire new skills and develop their employment potential. It is all very well and good for this government to talk about jobs and growth, growth and jobs, but people cannot get jobs if they are not trained or qualified to do the work and if they cannot get the quality training they need to do the work. In my own life, training and education have played a significant role in helping me to get off a single parent pension and improve the economic and social circumstances for me and my children. I am living proof of just how life-transforming good education and training can be. I started out my career as a teacher at TAFE, where I set up a program that focussed on outcomes—a program that helped adult learners who were re-training in the health sector to ensure that they not only successfully enrolled in their course but, more importantly, successfully completed their course. Today it is a very different story. The focus on outcomes and on getting successful completions has completely been lost with the blow-out of the VET FEE-HELP scheme under this government's watch. Less than one third of students enrolled in VET FEE-HELP courses finished within three years. Completion rates for online diplomas are shocking—deplorably shocking—with just seven per cent of students completing their course. The government bill for VET FEE-HELP loans blew out by $315 million last year to $1.6 billion, or thereabouts. Modelling by the Grattan Institute estimates 40 per cent of those loans will never be repaid, meaning that taxpayers will wear that cost. According to a University of Sydney study, some of Australia's largest RTOs are raking in profit margins of more than 50 per cent off these loans. The examples are mind-boggling. Two providers owned by the same operator can charge $3,500 and $12,750 for the identical qualification. The previous speaker gave us several more examples, all of which occurred under his watch—not just as a member of the government but as the actual minister responsible. VET reform is important, but we cannot let this government off the hook on its persistent mishandling and refusal to do anything about this, despite being called upon time and time again to do so. A comment from a piece in TheAge in 2015 says: It beggars belief that the federal government has waited until now to freeze the level of funding it is providing to the myriad private companies offering vocational education courses via the VET FEE-HELP scheme. And even now, its efforts to curb the fraud and rorts in the industry seem tepid. Labor supports the VET Student Loans Bill 2016 and related bills in principle, but in so many ways it is a case of too little, too late. Over the last three years, the Liberals have shown that they simply do not care about technical and vocational education or about TAFE. They have ripped $2.75 billion out of TAFE, skills and apprentices. Under the WA Liberals, TAFE fees have increased by more than 500 per cent and dozens of courses have been cut. It is simply not good enough. Of course we support these bills, but that does not let the Liberals off the hook for sitting on their hands while dodgy private providers ran rampant and students were ripped off, leaving them saddled with massive debts. While it is commendable that finally something is being done about this, let's not forget that before the election it was Labor that proposed VET reforms, and now the government has copied them. Capping student loans to stop rip-offs—copied. Cracking down on brokers—copied. Linking publically funded courses to industry need and skills shortages—copied. Requiring providers to re-apply under new standards so only high-quality providers could access the loan system—copied. Linking funding to student progress and completion—copied. And a VET loans ombudsman—you guessed it: copied. Yet when Labor announced a policy of capping student loans, as we heard from the member for Adelaide, the response from the other side, from senior ministers in the government, was to rubbish it as 'ill-thought-out', 'ill-considered' and a 'classist policy'. In closing, we do hope that the Senate inquiry into the bill will give stakeholders a chance to properly examine these issues, because the government did not consult properly with students or the sector on the detail of any of these changes. It should never have come to this, but now, after billion-dollar blowouts, the government seems to have finally woken up to itself. VET, TAFE and apprenticeships are crucial to jobs and our economy. As a representative of an outer-suburban electorate, where TAFE represents not just second-class alternatives for those who could not get into university but an actual pathway, a real pathway, a quality training framework for real jobs and real job creation, I hope, and Labor sincerely hopes, that the government will use these changes to do what they can for the best interests of students and for the best interests of employers. We genuinely hope that they work to get the implementation of these changes right. 13:18 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to support the VET Student Loans Bill 2016 and cognate bills, as presented by the minister. The state of vocational education and training in Australia is scandalous. The Gillard government's ill-considered changes in 2012 to the VET FEE-HELP loan scheme have seen a free-for-all in the vocational education and training market. Colleges with questionable business practices have rorted the federal government for all they could get, building unsustainable financial models that, when they fail, have a devastating impact on students, teachers, staff and the broader VET sector. Dishonest providers have engaged in price gouging and rorting. Training organisations are charging outrageously inflated VET FEE-HELP tuition fees compared to state subsidised courses. Some diplomas cost more than 500 per cent more than their state subsidised equivalent. This is a cost that is being directly borne by taxpayers. The VET sector is also developing a terrible reputation for the outrageous exploitation of vulnerable students. We need a high-quality VET sector in Australia for a skilled nation, and jobs that require a vocational education qualification can provide a rich and rewarding life for people who undertake them, but we have all seen in recent months the public reporting that college agents hunt around Centrelink offices and train stations in low-income areas offering incentives such as free iPads and laptops to encourage enrolments in diplomas. We have heard of the colleges preying upon people with intellectual disabilities, preying on older Australians in retirement villages and preying on Indigenous students in remote communities—our most vulnerable Australians. In many instances, people who had no hope of finishing their courses were recruited and people who had no opportunity to repay their debt were recruited. Providers have been recruiting students into training programs with little or no hope of employment. Can you imagine what the demand might be for graduates in a diploma of veterinary Chinese herbal medicine or energy healing? Close to none. Colleges have outsourced student recruitment to third-party brokers with no oversight of their activities and recruitment methods. This is a terrible business practice and shirks at basic ethical and legal responsibility to their customers and to the broader community. As an indication of how badly they have exploited some students, providers have been charged with unconscionable conduct and false and misleading representation. Further to these terrible and unethical practices of exploitation, reports of training organisations going bust have become distressingly common. Having set themselves up with little or no experience in education and, presumably, a similar level of business experience, these companies have taken the government for a ride and abandoned their students. These shonky practices have led to a loss of confidence by Australians in the vocational education and training sector, and that loss of confidence, sadly, is warranted given the results that the VET sector is delivering. Completion rates are dismal at only 22.9 per cent for all students. For online students, completion rates are only 7.8 per cent. That is outrageous. How can the government provide funding for a system that sees fewer than eight out of every hundred students finish their cause? This is a failing system. Another indication of how badly the VET FEE-HELP program is delivering can be seen in the incredible blowout in costs. It has been four years since the Gillard government provided inadequate regulation for the scheme and we can finally see the true damage done by their irresponsible regime. Costs blew out from $325 million in 2012 to $1.8 billion only two years later, in 2014. That is a 550 per cent increase. Then costs exploded to $2.9 billion in 2015, a further 160 per cent increase. That is a total of 890 per cent increase in cost in only four years. Sadly, these practices and these results have had a very real reputational impact on good providers, who continue to deliver high-quality courses and outcomes and whose businesses are being tarred with the same brush as those who have no interest in employment or educational welfare of students, but are only looking to make a fast buck. The VET FEE-HELP program is further proof that Labor is absolutely incompetent in implementing government programs. Pink batts, school halls and now vocational training—program after program being implemented with inadequate regulatory frameworks. The Labor Party consistently puts in place billions of dollars worth of programs with no guidance and no regulation: no guidelines to ensure success and no boundaries to protect programs from spivs and shonky operators. Nothing could be better for a dodgy business, someone who takes shortcuts and plays with people's lives, than a Labor government. The VET Student Loans Bill 2016 will fix Labor's mess. It is the next instalment of more than 20 changes that the government has made over the last two years to the vocational education and training system to fix Labor's poorly implemented scheme. The reforms we have put in place to date have had some impact on the problems in this sector, so much so that it is estimated that loans offered under VET FEE-HELP in 2016 will be several hundred million dollars less than in 2015. However, it has become clear that there is only one way to fix this broken scheme. It needs to be shut down. It is the only way to deal with the dodgy business schemes, the exploitation of students and the continuing reputational damage being done to bona fide training organisations. The VET Student Loans Bill closes down Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP scheme. It introduces a new program with the required regulation and structure to ensure success. This bill will ensure that training organisations are high quality, that students are genuine and are supported in their education, and that loans are provided for courses that align to skill needs. This bill will protect students, taxpayers and the reputation of the majority of training providers and teachers who are doing the right thing. Vocational education and training itself is an excellent and much needed element of the tertiary education system in this country. It is a sector that contributes to ensuring that Australians are properly skilled for employment. The VET sector that deserves to be supported by government, if supported properly, will contribute to better prospects for students, better outcomes for business and the growth of Australia's economy. In 2015, around 45 per cent of the financial assistance provided to the VET sector was delivered through the VET FEE-HELP scheme, and that scheme has not served the sector will. The lack of regulation tempted questionable operators to join the sector. It encouraged good operators to take shortcuts and it led to the loss of reputation of good businesses who have done nothing at all wrong. The VET sector deserves well targeted, effective government funding that delivers outcomes for the sector, for students and for the Australian economy. The VET Student Loans Bill introduces a new program to provide loans to VET students. It delivers on the Turnbull government's commitment to redesign the VET FEE-HELP scheme so that it is affordable, sustainable and student focused. The new loan program introduced in this bill will address the most pressing issues facing the sector. Most importantly, this loan program is designed to support employment outcomes for students. Quality of providers is a critical element in achieving this. This program will see strong and proven performers, including TAFEs like the Hornsby TAFE in my electorate and other public providers, receive automatic entry into the new scheme. That is a great boon for TAFE. But new training providers will face a much more stringent test before they can access VET student loans. This will include assessing their relationships with industry, their student completion rates, the employment outcomes of their courses and their track record as education providers. It will no longer be possible for fly-by-night operators to exploit the system for their own profit at the expense of students and taxpayers. We have a responsibility to ensure that education that is publicly subsidised meets the needs of the country as well as the needs of the student. As a government, we should not be subsidising people's general interest or lifestyle choices. Everyone has the right to explore new fields of interest; however, not every course should be subsidised by the taxpayer. Taxpayer-subsidised education should be restricted to education that adds value to our economy, quality education that is linked to employment and building the individual's capacity and future prospects. Government-funded education makes a valuable and important contribution to our society. It should not be watered down and have its impact lessened by including courses designed solely to satisfy the personal whims of individuals. This program will direct funding to courses with proven employment outcomes that are linked to Australia's national skills priorities and align to industry needs. The government has worked closely with the states to ensure that the list of approved colleges aligns with their skills priorities lists. The list of approved courses includes those with the best employment prospects, proven through results. It ensures that the government is not subsidising courses relating almost purely to personal interest. It also ensures that students will not be duped or deceived into believing that there might be real jobs waiting at the end of their course unless that is an actual possibility. This measure will not only protect the taxpayer, but students as well. The program will put an end to the unaffordable and limitless subsidising of training organisations. Loan caps linked to the cost of course delivery should see course fees drop significantly as training providers no longer look to government to fund their profits. The Labor Party went to the last election proposing a flat $8,000 cap on loans. Given the scale of the problem represented by the VET FEE-HELP scheme, which I have only touched on, this is an unbelievably inadequate response. A flat cap does not solve the problem of shonky recruitment. It does not ensure quality providers or support better completion rates or student satisfaction. This bill introduces a stepped loan cap based on the cost of course delivery. The outcome is fair for providers and will have a positive impact on students, as it will place strong downward pressure on course fees. It will also stop the enormous cost blow-out to government that we have seen over the last four years. It will stop the unsustainable impact on the budget. This new program is forecast to see loans issued reduced by almost $2.4 billion per year, and it will see outstanding HELP debt—bad loans carried by the government—reduced by $7 billion by 2020. That is a reduction of $25 billion over the next 10 years. These are the outcomes the federal budget needs, and they will be achieved at the same time as course quality is improved, student outcomes are improved and the sector's reputation is repaired. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Housing Affordability 15 13:30 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand For many Australians, the dream of home ownership remains completely out of reach. Today only four in 10 25- to 34-year-olds own a home, compared to six in 10 in 1982. Why? There are a number of reasons, but one is the fact that the Turnbull government gives a tax break to people buying their second, third, fourth and fifth homes but no assistance to young Australians trying to buy their first home. It costs the budget more than $10 billion a year and almost half of this benefit goes to the highest 10 per cent of income earners. It has helped growth in property prices to outstrip growth in people's incomes in a way that low interest rates could never offset. To add insult to injury, all too often young people's aspiration for home ownership is met with condescension from their government and from baby boomers in general. They are frequently told that, if they want a house, they should stop eating smashed avocados on toast or stop buying coffees. To put down a deposit on a typical house in Footscray, in my electorate, you would need to forgo about 38,000 coffees or 150 years worth of weekly smashed avocado brunches. It is a nonsense. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, generation Y already spend less on food and recreation and much more on housing than their equivalents did in 1989. Labor has a plan to fix negative gearing in a way that will both help to reduce the deficit and help young Australians to buy their first home. That is budget repair that is fair. Mitochondrial Disease 15 13:31 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Today, I seek the support of the opposition and the consideration of my colleagues to change the human cloning laws of 2002. There is no better reason than mitochondrial disease. The United Kingdom Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is now issuing licences for this very, very important condition. One in 5,000 babies and one in 200 adults live with the devastating and life-threatening potential of mitochondrial disease. Cells are the engine rooms of every body, mutations of which can lead to life-changing circumstances including intellectual and developmental delay, early death in the case of Leigh disease, liver, cardiovascular, eye and ear conditions, and, most importantly, loss of motor control, which can end work lives and require 100 per cent care at home. To fix it, of course, requires one simple amendment to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. This possibility did not exist in 2011, but today we know that if you live in the UK you have a chance to have your nuclear DNA implanted into normal mitochondrial donor eggs or fertilised eggs to have normal children. Let us give Rhonda Murray, who has already lost her mother and her brother to these terrible mitochondrial conditions, a chance to not pass this on to her daughters. Children can be born without these devastating consequences. We can do it, as the UK is already doing this year, through a tiny change to these laws. Dobell Electorate: Wyong Hospital 15 13:33 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Thousands of people joined a community rally at Morry Breen Oval in Kanwal on Sunday, opposing the New South Wales government's decision to privatise Wyong Hospital. This is our community hospital; it was built after decades of hard work and fundraising by our community. It is not the government's to sell. The community has not been consulted about its future. This is not acceptable. The Premier and the state health minister owe it to the residents of the Central Coast to explain why they failed to make their plans public, why they are proceeding with a model with known risks and failure rates and why they are fundamentally opposed to public health. Our rally was the first in a series of events planned for regional locations where public-private partnerships are being considered. However, all residents in New South Wales may potentially be affected, with the government's own documents showing this approach will be considered for future hospital upgrades in New South Wales. Health is the biggest employer on the Central Coast. It is unacceptable that health workers are being put in a position where they have no certainty about their future. As someone who has worked at Wyong Hospital for almost a decade, I stand alongside my community and say: Wyong Hospital should stay—now and in the future—in public hands. I want to thank the community and health workers for standing up and making their voices heard about just what effect a privatised Wyong Hospital would have on the health and wellbeing of locals. WorldSkills Australia National Competition 16 13:34 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Recently I told the House about Jake Hiscock. Jake is a local Lismore mechanic who took home the gold medal at the regional automotive mechanics competition in Kingscliff. As part of winning the regional competition, Jake was nominated to compete in the recent WorldSkills competition in Melbourne. Last week he won his division in Melbourne, taking home the gold once again. I am sure his workmates Ray Barrett and Andy Robinson are very proud of him. Winning gold in Melbourne gives Jake the opportunity to represent Australia at the international competition in Dubai next year. I know both his mum, Tanya, and his father, Brian, are very proud of him. At the WorldSkills competition in Melbourne, Isabella Di Mattia, who works at Grafton's DiMattia Hairdressing, took home a silver medal in the hairdressing category. Isabella has followed in the footsteps of her mum, Kerrie, and her older sister, Lauren. In 2012, Kerrie won the chance to travel to London, where she studied with the Toni & Guy Academy. Over the years, Kerrie has nurtured many very successful apprentices. Congratulations, Isabella. I know that your grandmother, Alba, is very proud of you. Shannon Thompson is an apprentice tiler from Grafton. Recently, he won the bronze in the wall and floor tiling division at the WorldSkills competition in Melbourne. As a third-generation tiler— (Time expired) Carers 16 13:36 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills This week is National Carers Week, a time to acknowledge and celebrate the outstanding contribution that Australia's unpaid carers make to our nation. These people contribute an estimated $60 billion of value per year to Australia, but, despite their incredible efforts, they often experience social isolation and find it difficult to maintain employment, enter the workforce or participate in education. I heard from a constituent this week, Janeane Baker, who acts as the sole carer for her son while also maintaining full-time employment. We should try and understand how mammoth the task must be—impacting on carers' energy levels, emotional wellbeing and financial circumstances—and how difficult it is for all of them. While Janeane has qualified for acceptance to the Disability Support Register to enable access to carers respite services, she has been told that the funding will not begin until someone else leaves the system. The waiting time remains indefinite. Until then, Janeane will carry the load for her son, who has high-functioning autism. And can I just say: what a remarkable person she is. This is only one of a raft of issues with support services that government can provide to unpaid carers. She was put on hold for 45 minutes while trying to sort out her carers payment, which is now under review. Nor should she be subjected to this kind of additional stress, given the stress that she faces day to day. Berowra Electorate: Greenway Giants Baseball and Softball Club 16 13:38 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to congratulate the Greenway Giants Baseball and Softball Club on an outstanding 2016-17 season. The Greenway Giants baseball club has been a much valued and energetic part of the electorate of Berowra since 1990. It has more than 510 registered players across both women's and men's competitions, ranging from under-sevens T-ball through to the seniors competitions. This year the Greenway Giants had a fantastic season. Both the men's and women's A-grade teams won their grand finals last summer. I was delighted to recently give Local Sporting Champions awards to several under-12 players whose representative teams came third in the national championships. The under-14s team is equally as talented. Six of the Giants joined the rep team which came second at the national championships. Four of the first-grade women are members of the Australian baseball team. Such is the generous spirit of the Greenway Giants that they offered me the opportunity to throw out the first pitch of their annual Greenies tournament, held on the long weekend in October. This wonderful local event attracted more than 30 teams from New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Next year, they hope to have international teams join them. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Greenway Giants club committee, in particular its president, Joe Nati, and the vice-president, Steve Hainsworth. The standout appeal of their major contest is that it is run entirely by dedicated volunteers. The club is fuelled by the passion of local residents for their sport and their community. Congratulations to the Greenway Giants. Ley, Dr Kem 17 13:39 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce As this Sunday is the 25th anniversary of the 1991 Paris Peace Accords for Cambodia, I rise to record my sadness and disgust at the murder of Dr Kem Ley. On the morning of 10 July, 2016, Dr Ley was shot once in the head and twice in the chest at a local cafe in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. He was a prominent Cambodian political commentator known throughout Cambodia and the world for his staunch criticism of corruption and his defence of human rights in Cambodia. Before his murder, Dr Ley had actually visited Australia just two weeks before. As he was on his way to the airport to return to Cambodia, I shared a coffee with him at a park in Noble Park. I was struck by not only his intellect but his humble and gentle nature. His murder has caused great distress amongst the Cambodian people. There was a march of one million people in Phnom Penh. The Cambodian-Australian community in my electorate have been in mourning. They completed the 100th day of grieving last Sunday. In this context, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Cambodian peace accords, I call on our government to do more to put pressure on the Cambodian government to improve its record on human rights. Australia's former foreign minister Gareth Evans said that Dr Ley's death had 'all the hallmarks of a political assassination'. I hope that the suspicions of the Cambodian community that the government's voice is restrained by its outrageous refugee deal with Cambodia are not true. Maranoa Electorate: Warwick Rodeo 17 13:41 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Monday marks the commencement of the 2016 Warwick Rodeo, which is Australia's most famous rodeo. Warwick Rodeo was immortalised in a song by Australian country music legend Buddy Williams in the early 1940s, but also from the old line: 'Never the horse that couldn't be road; never the rider that couldn't be throwed.' Well before then, however, Warwick had a traditional of horsemanship and great riders to match the city's sandstone buildings, fine churches, rose gardens and wide tree-lined streets. This year will mark the 88th Warwick Rodeo. It will attract 30,000 people and inject more than $15 million into the local economy, bringing visitors from as far afield as Western Australia. Australia's top 15 bull riders have also been invited to compete. It will culminate in the crowning of the national champion on Sunday, 30 October. Campdrafters from around the country will also descend on Warwick to compete in the prestigious Gold Cup, with nearly $190,000 in prizemoney, plus the offer of the Triple Bonus Crown of $30,000 up for grabs for anyone who can win the Chinchilla Grandfather, the Condamine Bell and the Warwick Gold Cup Campdraft. Warwick's Rodeo has become the pinnacle for every campdrafter in Australia. I congratulate Dr John Kiss and his Warwick Show and Rodeo Society on continually building each year on what has become one of Queensland's and Australia's most iconic events. Makeev, Mrs Tamara, OAM 17 13:42 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Tamara Makeev's parents left Russia for Poland during the Russian Revolution. It was there Tamara was born in 1923. Then the Soviets advanced on Poland, deporting every former Tsarist Army officer and their children to Siberian concentration camps. Because one such officer was her father, Tamara fled again—on a train out of Poland to Berlin. At a displaced persons camp in Munich, she met Kiril and fell madly in love. Her wedding dress was hand sewn from an old Russian military parachute. Her wedding band was melted-down silver coins. The United Nations organised for Kiril and Tamara to work on The Snowy Mountains Scheme, which they did before moving to Canberra. When Tamara got here, she threw herself into our great city. She joined the Russian church and coordinated a Russian dance group and a choir, which sang in Russian, Polish, German, Italian and Spanish at nursing homes. Tamara knew Vic Rebikoff for 40 years. For most of us, Vic is a Canberra legend. To Tamara, Vic was her adopted son—and he is in the gallery today. Vic met with her in hospital a few days before her passing. 'Don't worry,' she said to him, as she often did. 'Everything will be all right.' Vale, Tamara Makeev. Thank you so much for what you gave to Canberra with such style, with such passion and with such flair. McDonald, Mr John 'Cracka' 18 13:44 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I rise to speak of a beloved son of Toowoomba, a great Australian and, above all else, a devoted family man. I refer to John 'Cracka' McDonald. John recently retired after 16 years as President of the Royal Agricultural Society of Queensland in Toowoomba, the oldest show society in the state. The Toowoomba Royal Show is the longest running. I was among those privileged to be at the retirement dinner for John and his lovely wife, Joan, just a few weeks ago. As its second-longest-serving president John has done the society and the Darling Downs proud. John has also enjoyed an impressive career as an athlete and a Rugby League international—as a professional runner; as a player in 13 tests for Australia, nine games for Queensland, three games for New South Wales, 66 games for Manly; as a player with the Toowoomba Valleys club and captain-coach of the Toowoomba side; as chairman of the QRL and ARL; and, of course, as the successful coach of the Queensland Maroons first State of Origin team in 1980. To cap it all off, Cracker Print & Paper, led by John and Joan; their son, Geoff; and his wife, Lisa, was named a Hall of Fame Inductee at the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce 2016 Heritage Bank Business Excellence Awards 10 days ago. Congratulations, John and Joan and your wonderful family. John 'Cracka' McDonald—a true living legend, a great son of Toowoomba, and someone our community is proud to recognise as a friend to all. Maldon-Dombarton Rail Link 18 13:45 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam There was a time when this parliament was fascinated with nothing more than the building of infrastructure. But, sadly, that time has passed, and we discovered yesterday in Senate estimates exactly why that is the case. Yesterday we discovered that this government has imposed a 35 per cent cut on its own infrastructure budget. That is $33 billion that they told Australians they were going to spend on infrastructure, but now they are not going to do that. Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, if you look at the document, you will see that, in the year 2019-20, there will not be one single cent spent on rail infrastructure. Now, that should matter to all Australians, but it matters deeply to the people in my electorate and throughout the Illawarra because since 1988 we have been waiting on a government to complete the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. It was commissioned by the Wran Labor government in 1983 and then cancelled by the Greiner government in 1988. In government, Labor committed to $25 million toward the design and engineering works to get the project back up and running. We commissioned the New South Wales government to do that work. It is time this government, a federal Liberal government, leant on the New South Wales Liberal government to get the job done and to get the work underway, because in Senate estimates yesterday we heard that there has been an unacceptable delay, and it will be months and months and months before Infrastructure Australia can get some straight answers from New South Wales— (Time expired) Tangney Electorate: Schools 18 13:47 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney As we approach the end of the school year, I wish all the Tangney high-school students heading to exams the very best of luck: study hard, apply your effort, and I know you will do well. Tangney schools are second to none when it comes to quality education for students and to dedication by teachers and P&Cs. I recently joined the St Benedict's primary school community to celebrate the opening and blessing of new classrooms that will facilitate their move to double-stream education. The federal government contributed $250,000 in partnership with the WA state government, the Catholic Development Fund and the St Benedict's School community to complete the project. It is great that we have principal Darren McDonald and board president Anna Fitzgerald giving their students the best possible opportunities to succeed. Over at Oberthur Primary School, we will have a new nature playground, which means that every student will love going to school. I had the students cheering as I let them know about the lunchtime adventures that they will have thanks to a Stronger Communities Program grant of $20,000 towards the construction of the playground. Bull Creek families might spend a bit more time washing uniforms, but, if it means the kids make new friends and enjoy learning and discovering on the playground, I know the parents will not mind. I congratulate P&C president Peter Kervin, principal Tim Bamber and the school community for delivering this project. Live Animal Exports 19 13:48 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Australia's live export sector is critical to many of our producers, particularly in the north, and indeed to the Australian economy. It is a sector which has my strong support. But two issues constantly threaten broader community support. The first, of course, is the incidence of animal cruelty; and the second is the impact of security of supply on our own domestic market. In office, Labor addressed the welfare issue by putting in place the best animal welfare system in the world. It provided sustainability for the sector. The implementation of ESCAS was tortuous; it took a pause in the trade to achieve it. Members opposite are very fond of reminding us of the pause, but they are even fonder of hiding behind the success of the scheme. Today we have new reports of animal cruelty both inside and outside supply chains, and as usual the Deputy Prime Minister has responded through a spokesperson. The sector needs more than a minister who runs to the cameras when there is good news but hides when there is bad news. A robust response is needed to maintain and build community confidence in the sector. On the issue of security of supply, we need a minister with a productivity agenda and a plan for the sector. Meatworkers are losing their jobs, and beef prices in our supermarkets are rising through the roof, but the minister does nothing—other than try, in this place, to claim credit for drought-induced cattle prices. Flynn Electorate: Bauhinia 19 13:50 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Bauhinia is a proud, vibrant, proactive and caring community in my electorate of Flynn that I had the pleasure of visiting on a recent trip. Situated on the Dawson Highway and Fitzroy Developmental Road junction in the lower south-east corner of the Central Highlands region, between Moura and Rolleston, the town was established in 1967. Bauhinia has a general store, a 20-pupil primary school, a community hall and a few houses. Bauhinia continue to flourish due to the very rich fertile soils and reliable artesian water sources, producing some of Australia's best cattle and cropping. With a district population of only 340, the community priorities include improving roads, mobile and internet services, and enhancing community services for the future of the town. The Bauhinia Polocrosse Club celebrated its 50th anniversary in June this year. Bauhinia is well known throughout the state for its campdraft, polocrosse, and hack-and-pony associations. Bauhinia has proudly hosted regional, state and national championships over the years. In March 2017, the whole community will gather for the 50th anniversary of the Bauhinia State School. The Bauhinia State School P&C will hold its ever-popular Melbourne Cup luncheon next month. Patrons will come from far and wide to watch 'the race that stops the nation', feast on delicious food— (Time expired) Lalor Electorate: Education 19 13:51 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor In Werribee, October reminds us of lots of things—most importantly the spring racing carnival. The equestrian centre in Werribee becomes the quarantine centre for all of our international horses coming to Melbourne for that spring carnival. October is also about year 12s completing school. It is about exams. It is about the completion of assessment tasks and work requirements. It is about a celebration that goes on all year for all the work that has gone into improving those retention rates in our community, to ensure that our kids are getting the best start and the best education going forward. So I want to send out a big shout out to all the students across the electorate of Lalor who are preparing for their exams or finalising their work requirements for the VCAL program. I wish you luck in those VCE exams. I wish your families luck. I want to thank the teachers, the support staff, the school leaders—everybody who puts in to making school such a positive experience in the electorate of Lalor. We have many, many schools in Lalor, all of them doing a fabulous job. I just cannot wait to see what sort of a job they will be doing by the time we get that student resource standard in every school for every child. When we get to that magical $12,193 per student in every secondary school across the electorate, imagine the retention numbers then. Dawson Electorate: Roads 19 13:53 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson This morning, I issued a call for North Queenslanders to suggest a new name for a new bridge that has just been completed on the Bruce Highway. The 120 metre long bridge is part of flood-proofing works at Yellow Gin Creek—just to the south of Home Hill in the Burdekin. This is one of several projects in my electorate funded in the Liberal National government's $6.7 billion program over 10 years to fix the Bruce Highway. Last year saw the completion of a highway upgrade between Sandy Corner and Collinson's Lagoon, just to the north of Ayr. Further south, the $565 million stage 1 of the Mackay Ring Road is now under way. It will include 14 bridges, including a major crossing of the Pioneer River. Our commitment of $412 million to replace the Haughton River Bridge in the Burdekin is in also in pre-construction planning and design. Three weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of turning the first sod on the $57 million project to replace the Sandy Gully bridge near Bowen. While overtaking lanes at Alligator Creek were completed in July, more are currently under construction at Dingo and Emu Creek south of Bowen, at Thomsetts Road south of Proserpine, at Kitty Creek near Kuttabul and Carey's Creek near Calen. And there are more on the way, including at the fantastically-named Bannister's Bog and Didgeridoo Lagoon. I am sure the locals will come up with some equally entertaining names for the new bridge in the Burdekin. And I look forward to seeing some local creativity. Kent, Mr Alasdair 20 13:54 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I am very proud to rise to congratulate Western Australian Alasdair Kent on taking out the 2016 Joan Sutherland & Richard Bonynge Bel Canto Award, one of the country's most prestigious competitions for young Australian singers. In Dame Joan's 90th birthday anniversary year, a record 74 entrants competed in the sixth annual Bel Canto Award, with auditions held in Sydney, London, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne, New York and Vienna. Alasdair won the prestigious $50,000 first prize from a field of six finalists, and secured his place at the Georg Solti Accademia di Bel Canto summer school in Tuscany for 2017, as well as a performance opportunity with Sydney Philharmonia Choirs. The award adds to an impressive pool of prizes for 29-year-old Alasdair, including in the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions and the Guilio Gari Foundation International Vocal Competition. Alasdair's family hails from my electorate of Burt. He studied a Bachelor of Music at the WA Academy of Performing Arts, before heading to the Academy of Vocal Arts in Philadelphia to take up a residency. Congratulations once again to Alasdair, and good luck at the 2017 Paris Opera Competition. Workplace Relations 20 13:56 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay After so many reports of bribery, bullying, intimidation and links to organised crime, it is an absolute disgrace that Labor continues to operate a protection racket for union thuggery. It is no surprise that Labor and the Greens are protecting their union mates from the coalition's plan to tackle union rorts and intimidation. After all, the CFMEU is a powerful donor to the Labor Party and the Greens. The CFMEU donated almost $2.3 million dollars to them between 2010 and 2015. The CFMEUs fundraising tactics are well documented. Daily headlines throughout the royal commission screamed of corruption, secret payments and intimidation. Labor refuses to clean up union corruption because it relies on donations from its political masters. The connections between outlaw motorcycle gangs and the CFMEU are well known, but the Labor Party disgracefully pretends they do not exist. In 2014 the MUA and the ETU funded a High Court challenge to Queensland's bikie laws introduced by the LNP. In my previous career I have seen the devastating effects of drugs and the standover tactics and violence perpetrated by motorcycle gangs. These gangs disrespect everything we stand for, and all political parties and every member in this place should condemn them. It is an absolute disgrace that the Labor Party continues to support and receive support from organisations that live outside the laws that we here are elected to make. (Time expired) Hindmarsh Electorate: Walk Together 20 13:58 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh On Saturday, 22 October, the annual Walk Together walk is being held around the country. In Adelaide, it will start at 11 am at the Torrens Parade Grounds. Walk Together 2016 will be a huge celebration of diversity and a loud declaration that thousands of Australians believe we can become a nation known for our compassion, our generosity and our welcoming nature. I, for one, will be proudly joining thousands of Australians in more than 20 cities and towns around the country to celebrate cultural diversity, promote compassion, build unity and to say welcome to people seeking asylum, refugees and other new arrivals to this wonderful nation of ours. My Electorate of Hindmarsh is a very diverse community with around 200 languages spoken, with people from every nation settled in the western suburbs to make Australia their home. I want Hindmarsh and, indeed, the entire country to be a place of unity, respect and inclusion towards everyone. Last year over 20,000 people participated around the country in this march. And this year, for the first time, Walk Together will go international, with Anchorage in Alaska also taking part with its sister city, Darwin. Walk Together is an initiative of Welcome to Australia, a national movement that has built around the country, promoting a welcoming atmosphere for those that settle here in our nation, and promoting diversity and unity. Fallas, Mrs Patricia 21 13:59 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise today to pay tribute to Patricia Fallas on her 50 years—a herculean performance—of service to Meals on Wheels in the Mount Gambier community. Volunteers, as all on this side know, play a critical role in helping shape our society and build strong communities, and dedicated volunteers like Patricia need to be highly commended. I pay tribute to Patricia Fallas and thank her for her five decades of service to our nation and our fellow citizens. The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 21 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Iraq 21 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I rise to update the House on the battle against Daesh. As honourable members are aware, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, has announced that Iraqi security forces have commenced operations to liberate Mosul from the terrorist group Daesh, or ISIL. Australia is making a vital contribution to this campaign, as our forces have done in the successful recapture of other centres from Daesh, such as Ramadi. The ADF, as part of the broader coalition, will continue to support the Iraqi security forces throughout the Mosul offensive. Iraqi security force units are being trained by Task Group Taji as part of our Building Partner Capacity mission; our Special Operations Task Group is supporting the Iraqi Counter Terrorism Service's 1st Iraqi Special Operations Forces Brigade—that is, their elite unit; and Australia's Air Task Group is conducting air strikes and providing air support, including in the vicinity of Mosul. I had the honour of meeting our service men and women in Iraq in January and thanking them for their service to our nation. I know that they, along with all of our forces, will continue to make us proud as they fight in freedom's name defending our national interests. Let there be no doubt as to the importance of the liberation of Mosul. It is the largest city in Iraq remaining under the control of Daesh. In my discussions only last month with Prime Minister Abadi in New York, he noted how important the Australian contribution to the anti-Daesh effort has been, and when I saw him earlier in the year he thanked me for our forces' efforts then as well. The Iraqi government and people understand how important the role of the Australian Defence Force is as they seek to secure and liberate their own nation. We discussed the upcoming battle. He acknowledged the liberation of Mosul would be difficult, with no guarantees on the length of the fight or the determination of the Daesh fighters to hold the city. Daesh is losing on the battlefield. Its territory is shrinking. Its resources are deteriorating. Its numbers have been substantially reduced. Daesh's myth of invincibility, which has been part of its recruiting platform, has been shattered. But there is more to be done. Daesh knows that Mosul is one of its last strongholds and it will sacrifice its fighters in suicide attacks. It will use the civilians, the residents of Mosul, as shields. This will be a terrible battle to recapture Mosul. The defeat of Daesh is critical for Iraq, for the region and for Australia. From Daesh controlled territory in Iraq and Syria, this Islamist terrorist network has directed and inspired attacks in Australia and around the world. Since September 2014 there have been four terrorist attacks in Australia, and in each case the attacker claimed allegiance to, or was inspired by, Daesh. In those two years alone our agencies have successfully disrupted a further 11 terrorist attacks. Ten of these involved individuals with some allegiance to Daesh, the most recent just last week in Sydney where two teenagers were charged with terrorism offences. The reach of this violent ideology is why we must give the ADF on the front line of this fight all of the powers they need. That is why on 1 September I announced that the government had reviewed its policy on targeting enemy combatants to ensure our forces are empowered to act against Daesh to the full extent allowed by international law, and that is why we moved quickly to introduce the necessary amendments to the Commonwealth Criminal Code to ensure that ADF personnel will be supported by our domestic laws as they target Daesh and kill its fighters. Taking back Mosul and the destruction of Daesh's so-called caliphate is a military and strategic imperative, but let me be very clear: it will not mark the end of this conflict. There will be a need to establish order and maintain stability, tasks which could be even more difficult and protracted than the recapture of the city. This is the context in which, in July this year, we expanded the mandate of our Building Partner Capacity training mission to include, within the range of agencies that we are supporting and training, Iraqi law enforcement agencies. Helping train these law enforcement agencies to hold and stabilise territory will assist Iraq to take responsibility for its own security. That is why our work in the Middle East must be ongoing. As Daesh loses ground it will try to find new ways to incite fear and division and propagate the illusion of momentum, including by encouraging and inspiring attacks against civilian populations in the West, including our own nation. To protect Australians we are redoubling our efforts at home, providing our law enforcement and security agencies with the powers they need: in addition to the targeting legislation we introduced in the last sitting week, a new law to establish a post-sentence preventative detention system. This will enable a continuing period of detention for high-risk terrorist offenders. Both these bills are currently before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which will report next month. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to take this opportunity to recommit, as I am sure he will, to bipartisan support for these critical changes to our laws. As we continue the fight against Daesh on the battlefield in the Middle East, our thoughts and prayers are with our service men and women, along with their families at home. All of them are putting their lives on the line. All of them are putting their heart and soul into keeping us safe. And I know that every member of this House—no matter what matters might divide us or what we might disagree on—all of us are with the men and women of the ADF and their families as they serve to keep us free. 14:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for updating the House. We agree that retaking Mosul is crucial to defeating Daesh. It is critical to restoring stability in the region. We can all be proud of the Australian contribution to this objective, from air support to building the capacity of the Iraqi troops involved. The remarkable Australians who serve in our Defence Force have the complete support and respect of this House and our entire nation. I know that all of us who serve in parliament who have had the privilege of meeting the extraordinary men and women of the ADF universally come away with a greater appreciation for their professionalism, their skill and their bravery. I think I speak for all of us when I say that every time parliamentarians come to see and witness the capacity of our ADF—whilst we are not a warrior nation, we are always more proud to be an Australian when we see how skilled and capable and dedicated our people are. Australia does owe a duty to the cause of peace beyond just our borders. We are a free people. We are a prosperous nation. We are a leader in our region and a constructed middle power in the world. As such, Australia owes a duty of cause to the peace. And we fulfil that responsibility in the continuing fight against extremism. As the Prime Minister noted, Mosul is Iraq's second-largest city, and it is the largest city currently under the control of terrorist forces. It is a tragedy that since Mosul was captured in 2014 its population has fallen from over two million to one million. Recapturing the city will add to the momentum which is already building against Daesh, exposing its hollow claims of invincibility in the field. Daesh is losing territory in Iraq that it can control. Fifty per cent of what it stole has been taken back from it; in Syria, 20 per cent. At least 30 per cent of its resources have been impacted, undermining the ability of Daesh to organise its evil operations. Retaking Mosul may not be achieved quickly, and victory will not come easily to the Iraqi military or the Iraqi people. But for the sake of all of the civilians suffering and dying at the hands of this hateful strand of extremism, it must be done. Restoring the territorial integrity of Iraq, and the rights of diverse population, is vital. It is equally important that the Western world plays its part in building the infrastructure of peace cooperating with the government of Iraq to deliver a lasting stability and a more certain future. And Australians should know that, despite other disagreements in this place, when it comes to fighting terror, wherever it occurs, Labor along with the coalition is in it together to promote the security of our nation and its people. Labor joins with all Australians in wishing our forces a swift, successful mission, our gratitude for the work they do and a safe return to the people they love. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gun Control 22 14:11 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Prime Minister was asked what should be the easiest question that a Liberal or Labor Prime Minister is ever expected to answer. Given the Prime Minister refused to give a direct answer, I ask again: will the Prime Minister rule out weakening John Howard's gun laws as a part of horse-trading in the Senate? 14:11 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth As I indicated on the radio this morning and as I indicated earlier today in the House, there is no prospect, no chance, of my government weakening—watering down—John Howard's gun laws. And, I might say, there is no proposal being made to do so. I want to explain to honourable members very clearly what the position is. The National Firearms Agreement in 1996 was one of John Howard's great achievements. It is one of the great prides of the coalition. Under the National Firearms Agreement, honourable members should be aware that lever-action shotguns are listed as category A, which makes them—subject to the regulations that we have around firearms—readily able to be acquired by people who conform with the necessary regulations. What occurred last year, as honourable members may be aware, was that there was a proposal to import a large number of lever-action shotguns, the Adler shotguns. What that meant was that, in the views of many law enforcement officials, the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, John Howard's gun laws if you like, had not kept up with technology. There was a need for the council of Australian justice ministers—the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council—to consider this matter, and the Commonwealth has sought for us all to reach a consensus and reclassify these lever-action guns. Because there had been a failure to reach that consensus, the government imposed a ban on importing lever-action shotguns of more than five rounds. That was not designed to weaken or vary John Howard's gun laws. It was to hold the ring and prevent those lever-action guns of that capacity to be imported at all. That ban had a 12-month duration. When it came up for expiry it was renewed, and the minister is working hard to ensure that his counterparts in the states agree on a reclassification of these guns that they can reach consensus on, with the advice of their police commissioners. So, to be very clear, there is no chance at all, no prospect whatsoever, no proposal to weaken John Howard's gun laws. What has been identified is an area in his gun laws where there needs to be strengthening, and that is what is before the relevant ministers at the moment. Australian Building and Construction Commission 23 14:14 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the importance of re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission? How will the ABCC improve the productivity of work sites, reduce the cost of construction and crack down on union thuggery? 14:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. As if we needed any more reminding, a video has become available today that shows, on a Queensland construction site—for the Commonwealth Games, no less; paid for by taxpayers' dollars—the threats from the CFMEU graphically displayed. 'I've got your telephone number,' that thug said. 'I know where you live,' that thug said. 'Do you want your site shut down for another two days?' that thug said. That is the thuggery that the opposition continues to endorse and protect. Mr Dreyfus HWG Rubbish! Mr TURNBULL 885 'Rubbish!' they cry. Well, you've got the chance to vote to bring back the rule of law to the construction sector. We know that the CFMEU regards the law of the land with contempt. They regard the fines that are imposed on them—millions of dollars of fines—with the same indifference as a courier might regard a few parking tickets. They pay no regard to the rule of law. And this has a direct impact on our economic progress. We are paying 30 per cent more on these union jobs—not because of any reason other than that they stand over, they threaten, they bully and they intimidate. And what about the way you have favoured contractors? What about the city of Brisbane? Try getting on a job if you are a tiler in the city of Brisbane and you are not on the CFMEU list. Try that—you won't get very far. This thuggery has to stop. We know what works. We are not being theoretical here. When there was the Australian Building and Construction Commission, disputes went down, productivity increased and the rule of law prevailed. Mr Hammond interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 And there is a clear-cut case for reform here. It was the opposition leader in 2012, doing the bidding of his union masters, who abolished the ABCC. He did that because he had to. He did that because they fund the Labor Party; they control the Labor Party. All of their academics, all of their fine lawyers, all of their pretension and talk about fairness— Mr Hammond interjecting— Ms Owens interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 How is it fair to have a militant union ignoring the law, standing over contractors, denying people a chance to work and undermining our economic growth? The time for this sectional interest of the Labor Party has come to an end. This parliament must embrace the rule of law and restore justice to the construction sector. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 10000 The members for Perth and Parramatta are warned. Gun Control 24 14:18 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Since coming to office in 2013, has the coalition government or any of its ministers offered or agreed to weaken Australia's gun laws in return for support in the Senate? 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer: not only is there no prospect or chance of any kind of my government weakening Australia's gun laws—by which I assume he means the National Firearms Agreement—but we are constantly seeking to strengthen them. We are increasing the penalties for the illegal importation of firearms. We are standing up against illegal trafficking in guns all the time. That is our commitment. So there is no prospect of any weakening of or change to the National Firearms Agreement—other than one that in fact would strengthen it. Let us be quite clear: Senator Leyonhjelm, the libertarian senator, as he said today in his doorstop, is not proposing any weakening of John Howard's gun laws. There is no proposal to weaken John Howard's gun laws. What has been identified is— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting, as will the member for Bruce. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Yes, on direct relevance: there was an earlier question that asked whether something would happen prospectively. This question asks whether something has happened in the past, since the change of government, and the Prime Minister should be directly relevant to that. The SPEAKER 10000 I have been listening carefully. I believe the Prime Minister has been relevant to the answer. Mr TURNBULL 885 I can speak for myself: I have not been asked— Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 No—I have not been asked, and I am not aware of any minister being asked, to weaken the National Firearms Agreement. There has been an issue, as you know, about the import ban, and the import ban, as I said and as was said at the time it was imposed originally, is designed to prevent the importation of these Adler lever-action shotguns of more than five rounds which, under the National Firearms Agreement—John Howard's gun law, if you like—are categorised as category A. So that is what is happening. We are standing up to ensure that Australians are protected and are kept safe. I just think honourable members should be very careful in their desperate efforts to distract from the criminality and thuggery of the CFMEU and to distract from the obligation this parliament has to reinstate the rule of law in the construction sector—to try to latch on to this issue when they know full well that not only do we stand by the National Firearms Agreement; our side of politics established it. This is what we did. This is our claim to this issue. John Howard established the National Firearms Agreement, and we stand by it. But what the Labor Party does not do is to stand by the rule of law. It does not stand by the contractors. It does not stand by the thousands of electricians and carpenters and plumbers who have to knuckle down to the thuggery of the CFMEU. It does not stand for the young couples who cannot afford to buy a house because the costs are being pushed up by union thuggery or for taxpayers who have to pay more to build every type of infrastructure. (Time expired) Iraq 24 14:22 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is providing humanitarian assistance to Iraq, especially those affected by the Mosul offensive? 14:22 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Canning for his question and for his ongoing commitment to global security. As the Prime Minister said earlier, the government of Iraq has commenced military operations to liberate the city of Mosul from the terrorist organisation Daesh, or ISIL as it is variously called. Members will be aware that, in June 2014, ISIL proclaimed a so-called Islamic caliphate over parts of Iraq, including Mosul, and in Syria. At the invitation and with the consent of the Iraqi government Australia is playing an important role in Iraq and during the Mosul offensive. As a major contributor to the global counter-ISIL coalition Australian Defence Force personnel are advising and assisting the Iraqi counterterrorism service, our aircraft are providing air support to Iraqi operations and our personnel have trained Iraqi army battalions that are participating in the offensive. Australia is also providing critical humanitarian assistance in response to the Mosul offensive, recognising that the humanitarian need that will invariably result from this military operation is likely to be significant. Today I have announced that Australia's contribution will be an additional $10 million in humanitarian support to Iraq. This contribution will specifically provide emergency food, medical assistance and temporary shelter to meet the needs of Iraqis displaced or impacted by the Mosul operation and it will specifically support women and girls, who are at the greatest risk of hardship. The contribution will bring Australia's total humanitarian assistance to Iraq since June 2014 to $70 million. It is in addition to the $230 million in humanitarian assistance provided to date in response to the Syrian crisis and recently the government committed an additional $220 million over the next three years for humanitarian relief in Syria and neighbouring countries. Australia's committed humanitarian and stabilisation assistance to both the Iraq and Syrian crises now stands at over $500 million. The defeat of terrorist organisations such as ISIL is a national security priority for the Australian government and for our country as we work to prevent the spread of ISIL's activities in our region and here in Australia. Freeing Mosul from the tyranny of ISIL will liberate the people of Mosul and take away the false narratives of these Islamic terrorists, who must be defeated for the safety and security of people in that region, in our region and in Australia. Gun Control 25 14:25 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Justice. Since coming to office in 2013 has the minister ever offered to weaken Australia's gun laws for support in the Senate? 14:25 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling What that question from the Leader of the Opposition shows is that he has absolutely no understanding about the way we regulate guns in Australia—and neither does anyone else on the opposition frontbench as far as I can tell from all the nonsense that has been said about this today. Let me go through it. I will be as precise as I can so you can actually understand what is going on. In Australia since 1996, lever action shotguns of any capacity have been classified in category A. That has been the case since 1996; and, of course, that was the case during the six years of Labor government during that period. During the six years of Labor government all lever action shotguns, regardless of their capacity, were in category A, the least restrictive category of licence that is offered anywhere in Australia. About 18 months ago it was made known to the Commonwealth, through both officials at the state level and our own law enforcement officials, that there was going to be a significant import of lever action firearms with a magazine capacity of over five. Subsequently, we took action to restrict their import until we could start and complete a conversation with the states about the appropriate classification for lever action shotguns. Those conversations have been ongoing but they are not yet concluded because we have not yet got agreement between the states. So we have said the ban will remain in place until we have that agreement with the states. I am hopeful that we will have that agreement soon. But the government has been very clear that the temporary import ban is going to remain until that time. Anyone who knows anything about community safety and guns in Australia knows that the real issue is the illegal firearms market. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for McMahon will cease interjecting. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for McMahon is now warned. Mr KEENAN E0J Since we arrived in office we have worked to restrict the access of criminals to illegal guns. Part of that is making sure we have tougher restrictions for gun smuggling. We have presented that to the parliament twice and twice the Labor Party has stood in the way of us passing these stricter penalties for gun smuggling. So there is all this confected outrage, all this nonsense, about issues that they clearly do not understand. Yet they are standing in the way of us having stricter penalties for organised crooks who smuggle in the black market. That is actually the issue that we should be addressing as a parliament. We will continue to make sure that John Howard's very strong, very successful firearms laws remain in place. And we will continue to do the most important thing with regard to public safety, and that is crackdown on the illegal firearms market. If you cared about this, you would join us in doing that. Veterans 26 14:29 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Ray Williams was a peacekeeper in Beirut during the civil war. He was shot at and shelled but had no weapon, body armour or support. He suffers from PTSD. Remarkably though, Ray has been fighting for 18 years to have his service recognised as warlike. Yes, there is a review into service with the Truce Supervision Organization but it has been going for years and will likely outlive the veterans. Prime Minister, do you agree that everyone injured or wounded in the ADF, wherever they have served, should be given the same high level of support? Will you stop this bureaucratic nonsense, order the UNTSO review finalised and help veterans like Ray Williams? 14:30 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service in the defence of our nation. The coalition is committed to ensuring that veterans like Mr Williams and future veterans and their families have all the support that they need. In this year's budget the government expanded access to free mental health treatment and support for Australia's veterans to ensure that anybody who has ever served as a permanent member of the ADF has access to free mental health treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, alcohol and substance abuse without having to prove it is service related. This assistance, as the honourable member knows, can be accessed by contacting the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is committed to providing support to all eligible members and former members of the ADF who have medical conditions that are related to their service. In addition, medical treatment for a range of conditions can be provided irrespective of whether the condition is in fact related to service. Where a member has a very high level of service-related impairment the amount of compensation they receive will be the same, regardless of whether they were injured in operational or non-operational circumstances. In 2014 Defence commenced a review of the nature of service classifications for ADF service with the United Nations service that you referred to earlier—1956 to 2010. This review is continuing to work through its work. The findings are continuing to be developed. It is a complex process due to the changing nature of the conflict during this extensive period of time, which makes it difficult to determine the right category to describe the service. This review will, however, be completed by the end of this year. So, in answer to the honourable member's question: when will this review be completed? It will be completed by the end of this year. As to Mr Williams's case I will ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to get all of the details from you—he may have them already—and he will follow up that case. I want to reassure the honourable member and all veterans that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will continue to look after them. That is our obligation. We take that very seriously, as I am sure all honourable members do. They deserve their own department dedicated to the special needs that come with being a returned serviceman or servicewomen. They put their lives on the line for us. They put their health at risk for us, and we have to care for them. I can assure the honourable member and all honourable members that the minister is as committed to this as anyone in this parliament and determined to do the right thing by all of our veterans and their families. Water 26 14:33 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. What is the government doing to ensure that all Australians, including the great Australians in Mallee, have access to a reliable water supply? Is the minister aware of any threats to the effective delivery of affordable and reliable water supply infrastructure? 14:33 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. I realise that he has a strong understanding of water infrastructure, especially with what we have done with Sunraysia and the capital improvements there that have brought a better efficiency for water—and efficiency at the right price. It is very interesting that he would have that interest, because we are very aware of the Labor Party policy to take $235.2 million from the water infrastructure fund. They obviously do not believe in building water infrastructure. They do not believe in dams. But they do have a belief in some forms of water infrastructure. Back in 2007, when certain individuals were running around telling us it was never ever going to rain again, the Labor government in Victoria chose to build a desalination plant. It was going to cost $2.9 billion. Then it was going to cost $3.1 billion, then $3.5 billion and then ultimately $4 billion—a 38 per cent increase in the cost of the plant. The proposal was so wild that even the Greens gave up on them, because, as we know, desalination is merely bottled electricity. The plant costs $1.8 million every day now, and how much water is this plant producing? Not a drop—$4 billion and it does not produce a drop of water. But it gets much better than this, of course. Just recently Premier Daniel Andrews has wanted to basically prove its worth, so he ordered $27 million worth of water—50 gigalitres—to be delivered this summer. Now, what we have actually got for this $1.8 million, where you get nothing, is you ask: how did we get this cost blow-out? Well, back in 2011, during construction, the CFMEU went on strike and defied the orders of Fair Work Australia to return to work, and the cost went up to $5 million a day. They went on strike despite the desalination plant being affectionately known as 'Treasure Island' by construction workers, given its generous conditions—condition so generous that plant workers reported that ice and strippers were made available during midweek parties. The shop steward for the CFMEU at the desalination plant had previously been convicted and given a 5½ year jail sentence for his role in importing $147 million worth of cannabis. Now, I have always thought that the Labor Party needed stronger connections to business, but this is not quite what I had in mind! So, what do we get for the $1.8 million-a-day white elephant? Well, no doubt we know what the CFMEU got. We know what the CFMEU got, and they paid for it with a $2.13 million donation to the Labor Party over the last five years—and to others and to the Greens. For all of that, we got 130 CFMEU representatives before the courts. They stand accused of 1,129 breaches of the law. Gun Control 27 14:36 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Justice. I refer to this email from your office to Senator Leyonhjelm's office, dated 12 August 2015 at 10.36 am, which confirms the minister and Minister Dutton, on behalf of the coalition government, agreed to insert a sunset clause on the banning of— The SPEAKER 10000 If the Leader of the Opposition could put the email down. You have made your point. I will ask you to repeat the last part of the question. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I refer to this email from your office to Senator Leyonhjelm's office dated 12 August 2015 at 10.36 am, which confirms the minister and Minister Dutton on behalf of the coalition government agree to insert a sunset clause on the banning of particular lever action shotguns in exchange for Senator Leyonhjelm's support in the Senate. Does the minister consider it acceptable that he was prepared to trade off John Howard's gun laws in order to secure support for legislation in the Senate? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Members on my right do not need to yell out 'time'. I interrupted the Leader of the Opposition to get him to put the email down. I am well aware of the clock. The Minister for Justice has the call. 14:37 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Yet again, the opposition leader shows he has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about—no understanding whatsoever. Let me explain to the House—now there is nothing new in that email, by the way; this has all been on the public record for a very long time—when we pass the regulation through the Senate to restrict the import of lever action shotguns, with a magazine capacity of over five, on a temporary basis—this has always been a temporary ban until the states come to an agreement about where to classify the gun—we had a conversation with Senator Leyonhjelm, and, yes, as part of that conversation we will put a sunset clause on that particular regulation. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The Minister for Justice will just pause for a second or take a seat. I am trying to listen to the minister's answer. The member for Gorton and others keep interjecting. I am going to eject them if that is what it requires for me to listen to the answer. If the member for Gorton and others on my left want me to adjudicate on the questions from the Leader of the Opposition, I need to be able to hear the answer. The Minister for Justice has the call. Mr KEENAN E0J Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have already passed this regulation that was a temporary ban on the import of lever action shotguns, with a magazine capacity of over five, as part of a conversation we had with Senator Leyonhjelm. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Griffith can leave under 94(a). Mr KEENAN E0J We put a sunset clause on that regulation. This is not unusual. Governments put sunset clauses as a break at any particular point so you can have another conversation about what you might do going forward. That is exactly what we did in this case. The government have always been 100 per cent clear in our position that we will restrict their import until we get an agreement with the states about where they were to be classified. I would have very much liked that that conversation was concluded within those 12 months, but it was not; so we have subsequently extended the ban until we reach that agreement. It is very straightforward. It is very simple. If Labor had any idea about what they were talking about then they might just get it. I repeat— Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Lyons can leave under 94(a). Mr KEENAN E0J what is important in terms of public safety and guns in Australia is that we are as strict as possible on the illegal firearms market. It is the black market for guns that represents the most significant risk to public safety. The reason we have the NFA and the reason that we restrict weapons of a high capacity or of a high calibre is that we do not want those weapons moving from the legal into the illegal market. It is the illegal market that we need to be tough on if we are going to ensure public safety. When Labor were in office we of course saw an instance where 200 Glocks we imported through an Australia Post office in Sylvania Waters. We were determined when we came to office that we were not going to let that happen. We were going to crack down on what was important for public safety, which is the illegal firearms market, and we have been stymied in that objective by an obstinate Labor Party that refuses to join with us to get that done. Building and Construction Industry 28 14:41 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman A question to the Treasurer: will the Treasurer advise the House on the economic benefits of a strong and efficient construction sector? Treasurer, how does lawlessness and corruption in the building industry risk jobs and add to the cost of productivity-enhancing infrastructure right across Australia? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bowman for his question, because he is well aware of the rather dastardly effect of the CFMEU on building and construction sites all over Brisbane, in particular, his home town. But the CFMEU's grip on the building and construction industry across Australia is choking productivity. Forget the issue of the union movement per se. If we look at it just simply on the economics, the refusal of those opposite to support the reintroduction of the ABCC is choking productivity in our economy, which is preventing workers from earning higher real wages from companies, particularly small businesses, and earning more. Those opposite are standing in the way of that. Mr Hammond interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Perth will leave under 94(a). He has been warned. I could not have warned him anymore. The Treasurer has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. The lawlessness in the building and construction industry sponsored by the CFMEU is putting up building and construction costs, so it costs 30 per cent more—and more. That means it costs more to build a school. It costs more to build a hospital. It costs more to build an aged care facility or a road or a port—all of this. It is increasing the cost of investment, which makes investment harder to attract. That is why it is so important that we move to restore the Australian building and construction industry. It is also driving small businesses out of business. Small businesses account for some $66 billion of the contribution to construction GDP in this country. They account for some 70 per cent of employment. You read stories like those of Andrew Bourke in Queensland, who is a security contractor, where the CFMEU forced him off five sites. He was sacked from five sites for doing one simple thing, and that was to run security on the sites to prevent trespassing onto those sites. You can imagine who he was trying to prevent from entering those sites. He says: We are a small player trying to grow, but we cannot get any work. … … … … we are black-banned by the union. …   …   …    The union boasts that we are going out of business … the CFMEU is out of control. …   …   …    They pressure the builder and threaten to close the site down until they get that control. When the Leader of the Opposition is asked about his support for the CFMEU, he says: … I reckon I am on the side of the angels. That is what he says about his support for the CFMEU—well, more like the Hells Angels. We all know it was those opposite who renewed the visas of bikie gang presidents. It took this government to cancel those visas, and it will take this government to restore the rule of law in the building and construction industry. Gun Control 29 14:44 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Justice. I refer to the minister's previous answer where he explained that the only influence for lifting the ban on rapid-fire lever-action shotguns after 12 months was the negotiation with the states. Why then was he offering, or his office was offering, a sunset clause in return to secure votes in the Senate on completely unrelated legislation? 14:45 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I think I just answered that in the last answer. I did. I answered exactly that. I answered exactly that question. I will go through it again for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly does not understand anything about firearms. He continues to ask questions that demonstrate his lack of knowledge about how this actually works. Let me explain it again. There was going to be a large import of lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of over five. We had many representations from our own law enforcement officials and from state governments that they were concerned about this import. At the time, and it is still the case, all lever-action shotguns, regardless of their capacity—two, six, eight—were classified in category A, the least restrictive category of licence that is available. When we were advised about the concern about this large-scale import we took action to restrict the import whilst we had a conversation with the states about where these guns were to be classified. That temporary ban will remain in place until we can conclude that conversation. We had a conversation with Senator Leyonhjelm about the regulation that needed to pass the Senate for us to regulate this temporary import ban. As part of that conversation, we inserted a sunset clause in that regulation so it would expire after 12 months and, at the end of that 12 months, we would have seen where we were at. My hope was, of course, that the negotiation with the states would have been concluded. They were not, so it continues that that temporary import ban remains in place. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 I remind the member for McMahon he has been warned! Mr KEENAN E0J This is not a new piece of information. It has been out in the public domain for some time, and Senator Leyonhjelm, of course, has mentioned it many times. In fact, he has released that correspondence on many other occasions, but apparently the Labor Party has never seen it before today. So, let me repeat: we will keep the ban in place until the states come to an agreement about where they are going to classify these guns. You can keep asking me about the sunset clause. The explanation remains exactly the same. And, as I said, this is not a new piece of information, but apparently Labor has been completely asleep to do with anything about guns. Let me just go through what the record of the Labor Party was, when they were in office, about guns. They cut the ability of Customs and Border Protection to detect illegal guns coming into this country. They slashed the resources of the Australian Crime Commission by fully one-third and the funding of the Australian Crime Commission by fully one-third—our criminal intelligence agency that helps us detect illegal guns. We will continue to do what we have always done, which is crack down on the illegal market whilst maintaining John Howard's gun laws— (Time expired) Building and Construction Industry 29 14:48 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House on why restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission is essential to the creation of more jobs for Australians? What hurdles exist to restoring the rule of law to the building and construction sector? 14:48 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I am very grateful to the member for Fisher for this question, because I know that he, along all of his colleagues, at least on this side of the House, is absolutely passionate about restoring the rule of law on the building and construction sites across Australia. The member for Fisher asks me why it is important to reform building and construction in Australia. The building and construction industry employs 1.1 million Australians. It sustains 300,000 small businesses and contributes eight per cent to gross domestic product, so it is a very important part of our economy. But, unfortunately, it could be much more productive if it were not for the influence of the CFMEU and their fellow travellers in the union movement that stop the building and construction industry from reaching its full potential. The Haydon royal commission found that the building and construction industry was riddled with 'systemic corruption and unlawful conduct, including corrupt payments, physical and verbal violence, threats, intimidation, abuse of right of entry permits, secondary boycotts and contempt of court'. It went on to say: Given the high level of unlawful activity within the building and construction sector, it is desirable to have a regulator tasked solely with enforcing the law within that sector. Yet the Leader of the Opposition cannot see any problem in the building and construction sector. As the saying goes: there are none so blind as those that will not see. The Leader of the Opposition determinedly decides to ignore what everyone else can see before them, which is that the building and construction sector is one of the most unproductive in our economy, and it could make an enormous difference to our economy in Australia and jobs and growth if the building and construction industry were reformed. But there could be a clue as to why the Leader of the Opposition takes this position which is diametrically opposed to Australia's best interests: there are $11.2 million worth of clues as to why the Labor Party will not stop being shackled to the CFMEU. That is the amount of money that the CFMEU has donated to the Labor Party since the year 2000: $11.2 million. As the Treasurer says, 'Follow the money.' The reality is that this enormous amount of money is stopping the Leader of the Opposition from putting Australians' interests first rather than the CFMEU's interests first. He could prove us wrong by reversing the Labor Party's position on the ABCC and ROC bills. He could prove that he is not a cat's paw of the union movement, by reversing Labor's position and by supporting these bills. If he does that, I and the Prime Minister will be the first to congratulate him because that will be putting Australia's interests first. Gun Control 30 14:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he has spoken directly to Senator Leyonhjelm about the ban on the lever-action Adler shotgun? And has he seen reports that Senator Leyonhjelm has told Sky News that the Prime Minister was willing to discuss the regulation of the Adler gun in connection with support for the ABCC legislation? 14:52 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Unlike the honourable member who just asked me this question, I respect all of the senators. I respect the crossbench senators, and I respect the view of the thousands of shooters in Australia who have an opinion about the appropriate regulation of shotguns, rifles and other guns. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Wakefield is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 There is a tendency on the part of the Labor Party, in their efforts to distract, to try to misrepresent this issue. Let us be very clear: John Howard's gun laws are absolutely part of our platform, our policy and our commitment. We have not sought to change them and we have not sought to weaken them. Neither has Senator Leyonhjelm. Ms Plibersek 83M You have to be kidding! Mr TURNBULL 885 Let me be very clear. The honourable member should listen very carefully. As the Minister for Justice said and as I have said, lever-action shotguns are in category A and have been since 1996. Because a large importation of lever-action shotguns was forecast, the government—this is the Abbott government, of course—took a decision to impose a temporary import ban on those guns, which means, of course, they could not be imported to go into any classification—A, B, C or D, the very restrictive classification. There was an import ban. That was quite expressly done in order to allow the council of state and territory justice ministers, who determine the content of the National Firearms Agreement, to come to a consensus on the appropriate classification of these lever-action shotguns. That import ban was continued because such consensus had not yet been arrived at. Senator Leyonhjelm has a view about what that classification should be. He is entitled to that view and he is entitled to express it to me or to any other minister. What he has not proposed—at least, not in my hearing—is any weakening of the National Firearms Agreement as it stands. He has a view as to the manner in which it should be strengthened, and he is entitled to have that view, as are other shooters, organisations and their representatives. The government, of course, listens to those views, as I am sure justice ministers and premiers in other jurisdictions do as well. So—number one: no weakening, no diminishment of John Howard's gun laws. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement is set there. That is our platform and we stand by it. There is discussion among the ministers about the possible reclassification of these lever-action guns, and we certainly encourage them to reach a consensus. Pending that, the import ban stays in place. Border Protection 30 14:55 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to improve community safety by cancelling the visas of criminals? 14:55 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for Tangney very much for his question and his dedication to making sure that Western Australians can live in a safer society. That is what this government is about: to make sure we can take decisions which will make our country safer. It was an absolutely deliberate decision for us to seek out people who are non-citizens, that is, people in our country on visas, who commit criminal offences against Australian citizens, and to cancel their visas. I am pleased to report to the House that we have cancelled a record number of visas over the course of the last year. But we have only just started, and we will continue to work with state and territory policing authorities and intelligence agencies to identify those at the top of the tree and to work with the policing agencies to identify paedophiles and people who have committed serious offences including rape and murder. We will cancel the visas of those people, because we do not believe that they deserve to be in our society. We have taken advice from the intelligence and policing agencies about those who are most organised in criminal activity. The advice from the agencies is that the people who are the biggest distributors of amphetamines—that is, drugs that end up in the arms of young Australians and destroy the lives of Australian families—are outlaw motorcycle gang members. The advice is very clear, and that is why over the course of the last 12 months we have taken action in relation to 106 bikies, members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, and we have cancelled the visas of those individuals. We will not stop, because we are going to continue to work with those agencies to clean up the sector, to make sure that we can deal with these outlaw motorcycle gang members so they cannot inflict the pain and agony on young children and families around the country. We are not going to be deterred in that process. That is why Australians look with absolute bewilderment at the Leader of the Opposition, because he is one of the few Australians that support these bikies so vehemently. It is an absolute outrage, but ask yourself the question— Opposition members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI They can feign all the outrage they like, but ask yourself the question— The SPEAKER 10000 The minister will resume his seat. I was about to say something myself, but I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Unparliamentary language, personal reflection—the list goes on. The minister is completely out of line. The SPEAKER 10000 I want to address the House on this subject. I listened very carefully to the minister on this subject last week, and I have obviously listened very carefully through question time. Following that point of order last week I have examined the House of Representatives Practice and the Hansard pretty extensively. Whilst we do want a robust debate, as I have said before—and, indeed, I think Speaker Jenkins probably summed it up best in 2009—and whilst there are issues of cut and thrust in this place, I do say to the minister that that direct link does go beyond the line. It would assist the House if he withdrew that. Mr Watts 193430 Get out of the gutter! Mr DUTTON 00AKI I am happy to withdraw that term, Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a). The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI but, if we want to stick with the facts, the fact is that Labor renewed the visa of a bikie in this country who was known to be involved in organised crime. There are links between the Labor Party, the CFMEU and outlaw motorcycle gangs. That is indisputable. These people are accepting money from the CFMEU in the millions of dollars. The CFMEU supports the bikies because the bikies provide the muscle on building sites. These facts cannot be disputed. They have been detailed by royal commissions around the country. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Isaacs has been warned. Mr DUTTON 00AKI It is a fact that the Labor Party has taken money and continues to take money from the CFMEU, and the CFMEU have definite links into the outlaw motorcycle gangs. This Leader of the Opposition, if he was worth anything, would denounce their actions. (Time expired) Gun Control 31 15:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Minister for Justice. I refer to the email from the minister's office to Senator Leyonhjelm which refers to the promise to sunset the ban on lever-action shotguns—and I quote: 'In return, Senator Leyonhjelm will vote against the Labor amendment to the migration amendment. Please confirm Senator Leyonhjelm's agreement.' Minister, how are these issues connected? Why did the government seek to weaken gun laws to secure votes in the Senate on unrelated legislation? 15:01 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling You have got to love this guy. He is waving around an email like he has come across some sort of silver bullet. Senator Leyonhjelm has put this in the public domain about half a dozen times before today. This is not new information. The reason that he is doing this—the reason why he is grabbing hold of all this stuff like a drowning man grabbing the nearest life raft—is that he does not want to talk about the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the body that this side of the House believes is vital to restore law and order in our construction industry, the body that will ensure that we have a building and construction industry that is actually productive and world standard, and the body that will stop people working on our building sites being intimidated in the way that we saw in that horrendous video today. That is what is happening here. I have answered all the questions in relation to my dealings with Senator Leyonhjelm and in relation to what we are doing about lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of over five. We will continue to prosecute the case for the ABCC and we will do that because, on this side of the House, we believe in the rule of law. MOTIONS 32 MOTIONS Gun Control 32 15:02 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House condemns the coalition government for being willing to trade John Howard's gun laws for votes in the Senate. Leave not granted. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving the following motion forthwith—That the House condemns the coalition government for being willing to trade John Howard's gun laws for votes in the Senate. This government would sell out gun laws to pursue their anti-worker— 15:03 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt As this motion was already dealt with earlier today at 12 o'clock and will be voted on at 4.10, I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 10000 The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.

The House divided. [15:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 74 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 66 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed.

 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG Is there a seconder? Ms Plibersek 83M There is, Mr Speaker. Guns for votes! The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Sydney second the— Ms Plibersek 83M This Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney will resume her seat. It is a requirement that someone seconding the motion states so. Is the member for Sydney seconding the motion? Or this motion will lapse. We are not having a repeat of last night. Does the member for Sydney second the motion? Ms Plibersek 83M Shameful! I second this motion. Guns for votes! It is a shame that this Prime Minister— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney will resume her seat. 15:11 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Sydney be no further heard.

The House divided. [15:12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 74 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 66 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed.

 15:14): The SPEAKER ( 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. 15:14 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be put.

The House divided. [15:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 77 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. Mr Turnbull 885 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

The House divided. [15:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 65 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 38 DOCUMENTS Presentation 38 15:24 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 38 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Centrelink 38 15:24 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Barton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's mismanagement of Centrelink hurting Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:25 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise today on a matter of public importance which affects thousands of Australians—people in every one of our electorates. The government's mismanagement of Centrelink is hurting many of our fellow citizens. Despite the way those opposite talk about it, Centrelink is not just the agency that deals with cheaters, bludgers and leaners. It is an agency responsible for looking after our welfare safety net. It serves some of the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and marginalised in our community—people who desperately want to find work, who live with long-term disabilities or who care for sick family members, often with enormous stress and sacrifice. Our community will be judged on how it treats those most voiceless and least enfranchised—precisely those people who rely on our social safety net. Imagine if you were in those shoes. Those opposite see this safety net only in terms of the budget bottom line. On this side of the House, we see it in terms of people. The government's mismanagement of Centrelink and its deliberate punishment of those who are doing nothing wrong is unconscionable. The Minister for Human Services has enacted policies which do not just seek to make the system harder to exploit—and of course we condemn those who try to exploit the system—but the minister seeks to make the lives of those who rely on Centrelink far more difficult. Yesterday the Prime Minister was questioned by the member for Bruce, who is in the House, about one constituent receiving the disability support pension who was asked to go through an onerous and expensive review process. That constituent's disability was so self-evidently debilitating that his specialist wrote to Centrelink managers noting that the review was a total waste of time, and the minister knows this because the minister intervened. It was traumatic for the constituent and for his family and, as the minister knows, it was totally unnecessary. This is not just a one-off story; it is the story of thousands. Do not look at the floor, those on the opposite side. You know these stories in each of your electorates. If you had any gumption and if you had any honesty, you would tell those stories today. I wish I could say this was an isolated case, but, as I say, every member here knows these stories. Indeed, according to figures released late last year, of the 5,000 people taken off the disability support pension only 70 were subsequently able to go back into the workforce. Are we to believe that the other 6,300 individuals were just lazy? We do not believe that. One man who has approached my office was forced to wait months—after being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and being made redundant—to receive the disability support pension. When he asked whether he could claim Newstart allowance in the interim he was told he would have to wait months for that too! It is not just people with a disability who are suffering as the result of the Minister for Human Services' failure. People have been left in limbo while being assessed for the disability support pension, with no idea of what their future contains. I have seen age pensioners who have been forced to wait months—not just one or two months, but many, many months—for their applications to be assessed. They have had to rely on emergency assistance. These are people who have contributed for 65 years of their life to the Australian economy, and they are told they have to wait. There are thousands of these people. What about students? We know about students who have applied for the student payment and have been left to wait for up to six months. I know of one case here in Canberra where a student had to wait so long he was forced to sleep in a tent because his family did not have the means to help support him. Let us talk about farmers who have applied for emergency assistance. Those of you in the National Party know these people. They have been waiting months and months for any support, and they are the farmers of this country. Centrelink cannot continue to stumble from disaster to disaster. It is too important for too many people. People do not choose to have a disability; people do not choose to have to care for relatives who have become sick; and, for the most part, people do not choose to be unemployed. If the government are not deliberately punishing Centrelink customers then they are doing a shocking job of managing the department. Thirty per cent of customers who call Centrelink wait so long on hold that they have to hang up. Then there is the fabrication of wait times. Wait times are the biggest furphy. The triage might be 10 to 12 minutes but the waiting time for some decent, proper advice from someone who understands the issue is over one hour in most cases. For some people this is not just about patience. If you are unemployed, the cost of a phone call, in particular one taking that long, can be prohibitive. Even if you manage to get through and talk to someone at Centrelink, you still face months of waiting for your application to be assessed. That could mean months without any income. I say to the Minister for Human Services, who is in the chamber: put yourself in those shoes. The services provided at shopfronts are no better. According to the department's last annual report, complaints are up almost 20 per cent and customer satisfaction is continuing to fall. In fact, customers who visit Centrelink service centres are now being told at many centres that they cannot lodge Medicare claims, and they are also waiting weeks and weeks for those claims to be assessed. The claims are being sent off into the never-never and we really do not know what is going on there. I suspect the minister does not either. If he does, we would like to hear him explain why it takes three or four weeks for a Medicare form to be processed. Ms Macklin PG6 What is he going to do about it? Ms BURNEY 8GH As the shadow minister says, what is he going to do about it? When it comes to other payments, the government will not tell us how big the backlog is, but we know that the processing time is increasing. The problems at Centrelink are no secret to the staff who work there. I want to talk about the staff, because you, Minister, are doing those staff a great disservice. How can they be expected to assist people in the community when they have waited over 28 months for the government to come to the table with a decent workplace agreement—one that includes domestic violence leave if they need it? Even though customer service standards are falling and people are increasingly unable to gain access to the system, we also know that the government is cutting another 1,000 jobs— Opposition members: What! Mr Stephen Jones A9B How many? Ms BURNEY 8GH They are cutting another thousand jobs from Centrelink. This minister is cutting 1,000 jobs! That is 1,000 fewer people to help process claims, answer phones or help submit applications. The staff are totally distressed. These are not the actions of a government that wants to fix the problem; they are the actions of a government working hard to undermine our welfare system. When I talk to Centrelink staff—as we all do—they are increasingly concerned. On all fronts the government is failing. Centrelink staff want to do their jobs, and they are doing their best, but they are under enormous pressure. Morale is low. I also have to say that it is time we changed the language that we use to talk about our social safety net. We should be proud that we have a welfare system that means, for the most part, that being diagnosed with a serious disability, losing your job or just getting old will not force you over the edge. People who cheat the welfare system should be caught and they should be punished, but the majority of people—as you know, Minister—are being punished because they are in these positions. They are being punished because you are cutting jobs. They are being punished because the system is so hard to negotiate. Making life difficult for people with long-term disabilities will not make them more able to work. Making it more difficult for the unemployed to access support will not help people find a job. Making people wait months to receive their aged pension will not improve their standard of living. So why does the government keep doing it? The truth is that this government, even though we have a new Prime Minister and a new Treasurer, is still operating with a Joe Hockey mindset. We all remember the cigars back in 2014! In this government's view, people who visit Centrelink are not valued members of our community. They are not voters or constituents. This government and this minister say they are just 'leaners'. They are not leaners; they are people who rely on people like us to give them a hand up. Minister, the hand up is not there. The hand is there taking things away, making it more difficult, pushing people to the edge where they become desperate. Minister, you cannot cut another thousand jobs. You cannot make people wait for 1½ hours to get some sort of assistance. People do not choose to have a disability. People do not choose to have ill parents so that they have to be carers. You, Minister, are responsible. 15:35 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston May I start by agreeing with the shadow minister for human services on at least one thing, which is that we should be thankful we have such a strong social security safety net in this country. I think it is a mark of a modern, prosperous, generous society that we have such a system in place. Indeed, this system has saved thousands of people over the decades from going hungry, from going without shelter and from going without clothing. I think we should always reflect upon that and be very proud of the social security system that we have. That is probably where my agreement with the shadow minister ends—other than also agreeing with her that people with disabilities do not choose their disability. Of course they do not, and I think it is quite offensive that she would suggest we think otherwise. I would like to start my substantive remarks on this MPI by thanking the 35,000 DHS staff who work tirelessly in support of many of the people the shadow minister referred to. Whenever I am out visiting electorates or doing other community visits I try to make an effort to drop in to the local Centrelink centre, and typically I find very dedicated staff who are working in those organisations because they want to make a difference to people's lives. Often they are under stress, sometimes they are dealing with angry people and sometimes they are dealing with aggressive people. I think they do it incredibly professionally and I hope that they do not take the shadow minister's comments from today's MPI as a reflection upon their professionalism. It should not be a reflection on their professionalism. I think the Centrelink staff actually are a very professional group of people who are doing their best. Centrelink itself is in some respects the main government interface for millions of Australians. Our service centres and our call centres deal with thousands upon thousands of people every single day. About 600,000 interactions each day are done by Centrelink staff; 80,000 face-to-face contacts and almost 140,000 online transactions are conducted each day. In the process, they administer payments of about $150 billion. By and large, I think that the Centrelink operations overall do quite well. I am not suggesting that they are perfect—because they are not—but, overall, given the size of the Department of Human Services, it will never be perfect and will always be seeking to improve. The biggest change, which is occurring over the next few years and which has already started, is the digital transformation which is happening right now. This will mean that people will be able to interact with Centrelink much more seamlessly in the future. I will go into that a little bit more in just a minute. But I would point out that these are digital transformations that the Labor Party, in their six long years of government, never undertook. They had the opportunity to do so but never invested in those systems which would indeed make it much easier for many Australians to be able to interact with Centrelink. Ms Husar interjecting— Ms Burney interjecting— Ms Keay interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! I remind members that interjecting while not in their correct places is highly disorderly, and they are warned. Minister. Mr TUDGE M2Y Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let's have a look at the service standards from Centrelink today. That was indeed what the shadow minister was largely referring to in terms of how people are dealt with when they are applying for a Centrelink benefit, when they are having their process claimed and they are on the call centres and the like. I point out to begin with that the Department of Human Services met over 86 per cent of its KPIs last year. These KPIs are generally-agreed community standards. Many of them were actually set underneath the Labor governments, and we are delivering upon those, by and large. The average wait time when you go to a Centrelink office around the country is about 10 minutes. That is the average wait time when you go to a service centre office. Typically, if you go to a GP clinic or another type of service, that is not an unreasonable time to wait. The average call wait time at the moment is 11 minutes, when the KPI is 16 minutes. I admit that that figure is an average so of course you have a curve. Some people are waiting a shorter amount of time; other people are waiting a longer amount of time, but the average is 11 minutes. We are always looking to bring that figure down, and obviously that comes at a considerable cost. Do you know when the call wait times did actually blow out? They actually used to be—and the shadow minister is, I know, a relatively new member to this parliament—but the call wait times actually ballooned out in the Labor years. And the Australian National Audit Office found that between 2010-11 and 2011-12 the call wait times went from three minutes and five seconds out to 11 minutes and 45 seconds. That occurred under the Labor government, and that is the Australian National Audit Office who found this. Do you know why this occurred, why those wait times ballooned out? Because the Labor Party ripped out at that time 1,100 staff in order to do that, and that is when those call wait times ballooned out. Ms Burney interjecting— Mr TUDGE M2Y I appreciate that the member for Barton is a very new member to this parliament but I think it is probably incumbent on her to know a little bit of the history in relation to that as well. Let me go to what we are doing overall, and this is the big system transformation that we are now referring to. Unlike the Labor Party when they were in government for six long years, we are investing a billion dollars to upgrade the welfare payment system. When this system is upgraded, it will make it so much easier for individual citizens to be able to interact with the Centrelink office. In many cases—and indeed we hope in most cases—they will never have to go to a Centrelink office, they will not have to call a call centre and they will not be waiting for their claims to be processed because they will be seamlessly done. Let me give you an example of how this might occur in the not too distant future. I will give the example of student processing. The member opposite mentioned the student claims—if you are putting in a claim for youth allowance or for Austudy and the like. At the moment, and certainly this was the case under the Labor Party when they were in government, they would put in a claim Ms Husar interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Lindsay is warned. Mr TUDGE M2Y They would put in a claim, and they might even put that claim in online. Then that claim would be printed out at the other end, then manually entered into somewhere else. A person would have to pick up that claim. They would have to interrogate the ATO database to ensure that that person's parents' income did not go above a certain threshold. They might have to interrogate a university system to ensure their course load was equally truthful according to what was being said. That might take several weeks to do. In the meantime, of course, the student is ringing up and trying to find out where their claim is at. That is understandable. That creates a lot of time and a lot of effort. In the process, 40 per cent of those claims get rejected, in large part because the student does not understand their parental income. So a large part of those are automatically rejected once that is understood. But of course we have gone through that whole process to get that. In the near future, because of the investment which this government is making—which the Labor Party refused to make, despite knowing about these issues which were going on—a student will be able to put in a claim online. That claim will automatically interrogate the ATO database to find out what their income is and what their parents' income might be. It will also interrogate the university's course system so that the system itself understands what the course load is of that student. Then—literally, for many people—you will get an automatic response in terms of whether that claim is successful or otherwise. That is the picture of the future. And that is in the not too distant future, and that will occur because this government had the decency, the courage and the foresight to be investing in upgrading these Medicare payment systems. Of course, this builds upon the work which we have done in the myGov space. We now have 10 million people who are registered on myGov and who can now tell our system once and have those details updated not only for their Centrelink records but potentially for their Medicare records, their Child Support Agency records and elsewhere. It builds on the work we have done in the Medicare space, where 96 per cent of all claims are now done digitally. Swipe your card—that is all you have to do in order for your rebate to occur. We take these service standards very seriously. We are constantly trying to improve them and, in the future, there are going to be great steps forward in this. (Time expired) 15:45 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I rise to speak to this motion, and, listening to the minister, it is like an episode of Fantasy Island. The government's mismanagement of Centrelink is hurting millions of Australians. And it is important at the outset to state, Minister, that it is about the government. I will have no part, and we will have no part, in bashing public servants. Collectively, they do important work, and, in a civilised society, a decent society, we need great public services and great public servants. And citizens have a right to expect efficient, effective service. The Centrelink workforce, as we have heard and as we know, is under terrible stress. Under this government, it is 1,000 days, Minister, and counting, since you have had the decency to have an EBA for your staff. And you can tell a lot about a government—and a minister who turns his back on the debate—by the way they treat their staff. I have spoken to people in my electorate about the threats to pay and conditions. That is a two-year wage freeze, Minister, largely falling on women—people with caring responsibilities, in this carers' week. But the most disgraceful part of your EBA policy is to remove the rights to wages and conditions and job flexibility for your own workforce—that is right: to remove the right to flexible working conditions for people with caring responsibilities. And I know; I have been there. I have lived, at times, as a single parent. I know the importance of being able to leave at 3 pm as an industrial right, not at the whim of a management that is able to direct you to work on the other side of town, Minister. This is serious stuff for people in your agency, and this is your government's policy. You really can tell a lot about their response. So we see the cuts. We see the empty desks. We know the impossible workloads. For the community, we know what this means. It does mean extra waiting time. It does mean claims being lost. And you know who bears the burden when claims are lost; it is the recipient, going to the back of the queue. I was speaking to the member for Longman earlier. She recounted the story of a constituent in her electorate with terminal brain cancer. He was diagnosed as having four to six months to live, or perhaps a little longer. His wife quit work to care for him. Four months in—no carer's pension. No carer's pension, Minister. In two months, the prognosis is, that man will be dead, still waiting for his wife to receive a carer's pension. But it is not just bad administration and cuts and mismanagement. There is a deliberate government policy, a cruel policy, of picking on the vulnerable. I refer to the debate which has emerged—and it has certainly hit a raw nerve across Australia—in relation to your government's policies around the Disability Support Pension reviews. I fear it is the tip of the iceberg. You are aware—because I know you spoke to the media—about this case that I have raised. I wrote to you. We tried with Centrelink. Nothing happened. But then, when The Age journalist got onto you, all of a sudden it was, 'Nothing to see here; no, no; we'll sort it out.' Well, your welfare crackdown on fraud is a fraud. I would like to mention just some of the responses we have had in relation to this case. Margo said: 'My brother, a thalidomide victim, had to provide medical evidence that his arms had not magically grown back'! James said: 'I had a friend who had his leg amputated and suffered some other serious health problems after an accident and was refused a DSP as Centrelink told him his legs will grow back.' Of course, you may think these folk stories. But then I received a message from another constituent who recounted a tale to me of one of your colleagues, the member for Deakin, publicly denying, at a public meeting, that these amputee cases are even happening. That is right—at a public meeting on housing and homelessness, one of your government's members denied that these cases are even happening. Minister, I have been overwhelmed—and I have had no response like it before—by the response from the public in the last few days to these cases. And I agree with you, having been a public servant: not everything is perfect, and sometimes mistakes are made. They can be honest mistakes, and they can be rectified. And some of the complaints, which we all get, as to Centrelink, need to be fixed. They are not fair. You cannot pick on the staff; they are working in impossible conditions. But the government's policy in directing these reviews to the most vulnerable in the community—and causing hurt and fear to the families across Australia who are sitting there waiting for their turn to come to have to try and get to the doctor, and to find the out-of-pocket fees to see a specialist, to prove the bleeding obvious—has to stop. I draw the attention of the members of the House to an inquiry. In my capacity as the deputy chair of the parliament's Public Accounts and Audit Committee, we ticked off last week and it was announced yesterday that in November there will be a public hearing into the Auditor-General's report that you referred to—a public hearing into the Disability Support Pension and your department's administration of it. And I look forward to submissions from everyone across Australia, from every disability and advocacy group, so we can get to the bottom of this. 15:50 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn This government is not mismanaging Centrelink. In fact, we are forging ahead with new ideas and new technology. The very idea that Centrelink is going backwards is absolute bunkum. We will become more accountable and more efficient to those vulnerable people who need our services, while the rorting and the waste so often attributed to those on the other side will be reined in. We cannot do this overnight, but we are making great headway on doing that. Centrelink has a very, very important job, and the Centrelink staff are very important to the whole operation. They do a great job. They must deal with all sorts, from all walks of life, as we all know. I am sure we have all been to Centrelink offices and know that the variety of people coming and looking for assistance is humungous, and the way the staff generally handle these situations is very admirable indeed. However, we are trying to make their lives better with better working conditions, and we are moving into the technology age, of digital recording and digital processing of claims. This, we hope, will bring the waiting time down from 11 days to virtually instant. This will take a little while to achieve, but that is our aim and our goal, and we will achieve it. It will not be like the Queensland government when they changed the computer system for the payroll system; it was a mess for many, many years. I think they are still trying to claim back the money that was overpaid et cetera. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr O'DOWD 139441 Anna Bligh was the Premier who oversaw that changing of the computer system for the payroll system. We are moving from an old world to a new world. The new world will take individuals on a case-by-case basis and give them the control they need to go directly to where and when—they want a device that will look after their needs. They do not want to do what they do now: go to a place where they are told to sit on a chair and wait and wait. So that is where we are going and that should be good. They handle a lot of people. There are 56 million phone calls a year and 21 million face-to-face visits to Centrelink offices. That is how big the problem is and we are addressing those issues. Labor did absolutely nothing for six years; the system never changed. Dr Leigh interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Fenner is out of his place. Opposition members interjecting— Mr O'DOWD 139441 When you are finished I will continue. For too long, government services have not kept pace. There is $1.9 billion in fraud and overpayments. That is $1.9 billion that we will never receive back. Under Labor, waiting times went from three minutes out to 11 minutes; they ballooned out under your control. It takes time to fix these things. Labor also ripped out 1,100 telephone staff—and therein lies another problem. Opposition members interjecting— Mr O'DOWD 139441 Well, you put them off. You cannot lecture us on putting staff; you put off 1,100. I recall how efficient you were in the 2011 floods! There was a major flood in my area, especially the Burnett River. Bundaberg went under and I was further upstream at Mundubbera. Nicola Roxon was the Attorney-General. We were trying to work out at the time whether we had a category A, B, C or D— Mr Perrett HVP The state decides that, not the Commonwealth. Mr O'DOWD 139441 You are quite wrong about that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Moreton is out of his place and is warned. Mr O'DOWD 139441 The state needs to recommend it to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General must sign off. I think it got too hard for Nicola because she resigned smack bang in the middle of the floods. So that is what they thought— (Time expired) 15:55 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley As hard as it is to follow the big guns opposite, I will give it my best. Listening to those opposite defend Medicare and Centrelink delays is like thinking the Attorney-General gets on with the Solicitor-General or that the Prime Minister looks forward to tweets from the member for Warringah! Nonetheless, let's put some facts on the table. The minister gave us a great history lesson bit did not actually deal with the issue: under this government 5,000 people have been sacked from Centrelink; on your watch 5,000 people have been sacked. We have heard attempted lectures from the member for Flynn about waiting times. The minister was happy to talk about the report from the Australian National Audit Office. He was proud to say waiting times had gone to—was it 11 minutes? Well, what has happened under your government? Waiting times have gone to 16 minutes! With 13.7 million calls unable to be answered in the last 12 months, Centrelink managed a miserable waiting time of 16 minutes and 53 seconds. How about you look at your own record before you start lecturing anyone else! And, worse still, the ANAO estimated that around 30 per cent of the 43 million calls that did not get the busy signal were abandoned—that is, the customer hung up without resolving the reason for the call. The member for Flynn says this is as good as it gets. Well, it is a shambles. It is about time this government had a lecture about what they are doing to the human face of their decisions. Today, I stand very proudly to support the Centrelink workers—brave men and women who have had to put up with the cuts from those opposite and sit by for three years because this government will not sit down and negotiate in good faith. They have had to sit by for three years while an arrogant government has refused to honour its commitment to equal pay and decent conditions. This government expects more and more while they cut more and more. Those on this side of the House stand proudly alongside those men and women who provide outstanding service but are not given the tools or resources by those opposite to help millions of Australians. We also know that, under the 2016 Turnbull budget, we have seen cuts of around $80 million in funding to Centrelink. We have seen the casualisation of the workforce, which means staff have no career development prospects. The way these hardworking officers are treated by this government is shameful. And we have seen under-investment in IT resources. Centrelink has a 40-year-old IT system. The Turnbull government abandoned the long overdue replacement of this system despite admitting Centrelink cannot serve customers properly. Only a matter of weeks ago we heard whistleblowers within Medicare who have now belled the cat for those opposite. They have now shown that the interface between customer service officers and payment recipients is now gone. The government is dismantling Medicare one step at a time. We know this because we listen to the customers who are feeling the brunt of the so-called reforms by those opposite. We are seeing chronic service delivery problems—22 million calls went unanswered in 2015 and clients spent lengthy periods of time on hold. You need only look at some of the coverage around this issue: '33 hours on hold: Centrelink clients vent their rage over customer service performance'; ' Centrelink blocks 60,000 calls a day'. We see this time and time again. The whistleblowers are apparently saying we will not even have a Medicare drop box. The little old ladies will have to fill in a form and post it—and we already know how much mail goes missing. This government is incapable of providing basic services to those who need them. It is all very well for the minister to give us a history lesson today. It is all very well for the minister to want a pat on the back. But the consequences of the decisions that you are making are having a real impact on some of the most marginal and frail in our community. We on this side of the House will always make sure that we do what we can to support those in need. We know the secret plan of those opposite is to hollow out Centrelink, hollow out Medicare and hollow out education services so that they can provide big tax cuts to those who need them the least. We on this side will always stand shoulder to shoulder with those in need—and the people of Australia are seeing those opposite for what they are. 16:00 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I would firstly like to agree with part of the speech that the member for Barton gave, where she said that it is the most vulnerable and the most marginalised in our society that rely on Centrelink. It is for that very reason—for those people in our society who need support—that we need to make these reforms to Centrelink. Let's look at what the coalition inherited. We know that over Labor's last three years of government there was an estimated $1.9 billion in fraud and overpayments. It is the mismanagement that we saw during the Labor years that allowed that fraud and those overpayments that puts more pressure on the very people in the system that we are trying to help. We also saw, as the member for Oxley mentioned, that the payment system is 40 years old. Why then, when Labor were running the show for six years and that system was 40 years passed its use-by date, didn't the Labor government invest any money in sorting it out? We know why—because they were wasting money lock, stock and barrel on everything that they could think of, flushing billions and billions of dollars down the toilet rather than investing for the future. Also, Centrelink hand out an astonishing sum of money every year. Currently this year Centrelink will hand out $154 billion. They will hand out $154 billion. What we should remember in this place is that every single cent of that money has to be earned by someone else. Ms Flint 245550 Taxpayers. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Yes; the member for Boothby is correct. The equivalent of 80 per cent of personal income tax paid by Australians goes to pay for Centrelink payments in this nation. That is growing at six per cent every year. There are more and more demands on Centrelink—six per cent every year. This is why we have had to do a review of those on the disability pension. I am sure that some people have found that quite distressing. But the reason that is being done is to make sure that in the future going forward we can ensure that we can give those who really need that disability payment every resource that we can. The other mess that we inherited from the Labor government that we are trying to clean up is the interest payments that we must face. This government needs to find $1 billion every single month in interest payments. That is the equivalent of $35 million every single day. If it had not been for the wasteful mismanagement of the six years of Labor government, a lot of that money could have been put back in to helping those most vulnerable people in our society. We have also heard the very sad comment about how those on the other side simply misunderstand this economy. They claim that $150 billion worth of payments we make through Centrelink is all thanks to Labor. It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with those hardworking men and women in our society—in our cities, suburbs and regional and rural areas—that go out every single day and earn wealth for this country. Unless we first create the wealth, we do not have anything to distribute. So when members on the other side stand up and argue about policies, when they try and tie our businesses up with red and green tape, the real people they are harming are the most vulnerable in our society. We need to encourage people to take entrepreneurial risk, try new business ideas, try new methods of production to create the wealth that enables us to support the most vulnerable. I am proud of what this government is doing. (Time expired) 16:05 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I am glad to speak on this matter of public importance, because Centrelink is a critical guarantor of social justice and social inclusion in our country—or, at least, it should be. What we have heard today are members on the other side not really taking issue with the mismanagement of Centrelink on their watch but providing excuses for why that has occurred. Yet under this government, from the time of its first budget, there has been a recklessness, verging on neglect, when it comes to those facing disadvantage in many areas, and Centrelink is probably chief among them. Every part of the social safety net and every part of the social contract has been squeezed and put under pressure, and that means people who desperately need it are getting less care and less assistance. They are being made to wait; they are being treated with disrespect—and, worst of all, they are often being made to feel as if it is their own fault. In our society Centrelink should be the bedrock of care and support for Australians who need help, whether it is in a time of crisis or whether, in the case of age and disability pensioners, it is the foundation of their economic wellbeing. But Centrelink is not being enabled by this government to fulfil that role. In fact it has been hampered across the board, and there is evidence of that at every level. You can look at the top line statistics where complaints to Centrelink are up nearly 20 per cent and client satisfaction is down by nearly 10 per cent. The recent Ombudsman's report shows that in the most recent period complaints to the Ombudsman are up by 24 per cent. You can look at the performance measures in the audit last year: a full third of all calls go unanswered. That is something like 22 million calls from people reaching out for assistance that they are not getting in a timely way. A third of calls require the person seeking assistance to wait more than half an hour. There have been reports that age pensioners are waiting four months in some cases for their pension application to be processed. I am seeing that in my electorate. I have been a member of parliament for not much more than 100 days. I have people calling up my electorate staff, asking them to ring through to Centrelink for them, because they simply cannot get through. Mistakes are being made. I had a constituent come to my office recently who had been assigned a debt of some $25,000 based on assets of $180,000 that they just simply did not have. It is hard to understand how these kinds of errors occur. Unfortunately, the policies of this government are compounding the difficulties that people face. It starts with cuts to community legal centres, which means that people who need financial assistance do not get it, and so they get pushed onto the social safety net. It is lack of access to or service at Centrelink itself, whether that is in person or on the telephone. In the case of trying to get access through the internet, which is how many people are being pushed to gain access, irrespective of the difficulties that they might have with language or age, there are numerous broadband black spots in my area that make that virtually impossible. Any agency is only as good its staff, and that is the case with Centrelink. Over the years that agency, the bedrock of social justice and the social welfare net in Australia, has been well served by tens of thousands of Centrelink employees, who have a commitment to helping people. Staff take pride in their contribution to Australia's social safety net because they know it is the foundation of our social democracy. But, as the member for Oxley pointed out, Centrelink staff have been undermined by this government at every turn. Centrelink staff and their union, the valiant Community and Public Sector Union, have been bargaining for nearly 2½ years just to tread water, just to hold on to the conditions that they already have. The mismanagement of Centrelink is harmful. It is costly in money terms, which those opposite might understand, but it is more costly when it comes to families and individuals in desperate need, who cannot get the assistance and support that they deserve. It is costly in terms of the impact on people's lives, on their prospects and on their futures. Saying 'jobs and growth' 7,000 times a day simply does not make it so. The reality in my state is that we are facing recession conditions with rising unemployment. People are under pressure. It is putting families into difficulty and distress. People in those circumstances need help. Pensioners need and deserve support. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and given timely assistance when they need assistance. That will not happen if Centrelink continues to be mismanaged. It cannot happen unless Centrelink staff are enabled and supported in their essential work. 16:10 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services for the outstanding job they are doing in handling complex and difficult portfolio areas. Both ministers are thoughtful and considered people and policy makers. This could not be more important, given that the Department of Human Services    administers payments in the order of $154 billion a year, which represents one-third of our overall federal budget. The department touches the lives of 99 per cent of Australians through the delivery of health and welfare payments and services. Each year the department handles around 56 million phone calls and around 21 million face-to-face visits. It has processed 3.8 million social security and welfare claims in the past year and supported around 1.2 million children by working with separated parents to transfer child support moneys. It also looks after Australians during times of crisis, such as residents in my home state of South Australia during the Pinery bushfires. When Robert Menzies founded the modern Liberal Party of Australia he was clear that helping those in need was one of the key responsibilities of government. Menzies said the supreme business of politics is: The protection of the poor and the weak, and the elimination of the causes of poverty and weakness … However, he was also clear that this should be achieved: … without in any way ceasing to insist that the first duty of every man— and woman— is to do his utmost to stand on his own feet, to form his own judgments, and to accept his own responsibilities. I am particularly heartened that both ministers are doing everything they can to help people stand on their own two feet. Indeed, this is the key focus of the Turnbull-Liberal government through the Australian Priority Investment Approach to Welfare. The information gathered will assist the government to identify and target groups most at risk of long-term welfare dependency. I understand the Australian Priority Investment Approach to Welfare has been modelled on a similar approach adopted in New Zealand, which has been very successful. I first heard of the excellent work in New Zealand through the Menzies Research Centre's Menzies monograph Quiet Achievers: the New Zealand Path to reform.I commend the centre's Executive Director, Nick Cater, for commissioning such an important piece of work. The New Zealand government determined that by breaking the welfare cycle for young people and single mothers they could not only save their nation billions of dollars but give these people pride in themselves and hope for their future and those of their families. Why did they do this? It was not just to save taxpayers billions of dollars but to save lives by giving people pride in themselves and the self-confidence that comes with having a job. I do believe that the best form of welfare is a job. We, on this side of the House, have quite a job to do. We have to continue to fix the mess of the failed Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments that left us with a huge amount of debt. Mr Swan 2V5 Why has it gone up? Ms FLINT 245550 We have got one just here—the member for Lilley. When those opposite came to government we had $50 billion in the bank. What happened when they left government? We were $277 billion in debt. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Ms FLINT 245550 In terms of the Department of Human Services, Labor left an enormous mess as well. Labor failed to invest in the Centrelink payment system. Labor failed to implement and maintain a strong antifraud and compliance system. Labor failed to keep call waiting times under control. Why did this occur? It was because Labor did things like see call waiting times throughout Centrelink increase from three minutes and five seconds to 11 minutes and 45 seconds. They ripped 1,100 telephone staff out of Centrelink. Honourable members interjecting— Ms FLINT 245550 We are doing a lot to fix Labor's mess. We are embarking on a range of reforms. Unlike those opposite, we are taking a mature and considered approach to supporting Australians on welfare, and we are committed to ensuring that the system achieves what it sets out to do. I wish that those opposite would do the same and cooperate with us more on this very important issue of welfare reform so that all Australians can have the pride in themselves that comes from having a job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the next speaker, I would remind members that it is getting unruly and I will be removing people should that be the case. I call the member for Werriwa. 16:15 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I am pleased to speak on this matter of public importance. Centrelink is beset by falling service standards. These are the direct result of measures that have been undertaken by this government in the name of reform but that have actually made the situation much worse not only for the clients of Centrelink but also for the staff charged with administration at the front line. My office is constantly dealing with issues relating to Centrelink. This is unsurprising given that complaints are up by over 18 per cent according to the most recent Department of Human Services report. It is lucky that, when people ring out of desperation, my office is able to answer the calls. Centrelink clients are some of the most disadvantaged in my electorate. They are seeking support only to live, not to rort the system. Most of them just want to be able to survive until they find a job, or they want to be supported in managing a disability of their own or within their family, or they just want to live quietly in retirement. Often my office is contacted not because the situation is complicated but because people looking to access support do not know where they stand or are trying to do the right thing but the system is so broken that it is difficult for them to do it. Many of my constituents lack internet access. Whether as a result of the continuing poor internet coverage in many areas across south-west Sydney or of their age, infirmity or financial situation, using technology to access online services is difficult for these people. Consequently, the support phone line and local Centrelink office remain key points of contact. Accessing the phone service becomes difficult when the credit available on your prepaid mobile will scarcely cover the cost of waiting to reach a staff member. The waiting time is benchmarked at 16 minutes. However, we know that according to the 2015 audit 30 per cent of callers wait on hold for half an hour or more, and my constituents have described waiting times of more than an hour. So, if my constituents cannot wait on a phone line, that leaves the local Centrelink office. What does it say about us when our most vulnerable are forced to wait upwards of 45 minutes to make an appointment only to find they are expected to return the following day? Often these people have serious limitations on their movement through infirmity or because they struggle with the cost of transport. In most cases they are simply trying to ascertain the status of their claim or update their information. A Centrelink office near me consistently has lines out the door. I know that the staff at Centrelink are happy to do their job and have a sincere desire to help their community. They must be under continual stress, with long phone queues and watching customers wait for long periods of time in the office. However, instead of employing more staff to help out, there will be even more cuts to Centrelink staff. Even constituents using the 'fast and simple' MyGov app face issues. The issue of being unable to update income has been raised multiple times with me. In one case I have been made aware of, the app failed to record the data. However, the constituent received no indication of this error and only later found out that they had accrued a significant tax debt at the end of the financial year. Another has been told that there is a technical issue with the app. That means she would need to ring fortnightly to report her husband's earnings. She has small children. Waiting for an hour on the phone is not only inconvenient but costly to her family, who can least afford it. We are an affluent society. We should support our most vulnerable and not consistently make them feel like criminals. Most people want to work if they can, and when they retire they just want to be able to enjoy a decent quality of life. The government should ensure that Centrelink supports, rather than further hurts, the people who need it most. 16:19 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I want to say at the outset that I have got a lot of respect for the member for Barton, a colleague from the bearpit in New South Wales. But I have to say that I am very disappointed that she has brought such a specious and spurious MPI to this House today—especially today, of all days, when we saw that appalling video of union thuggery and the standover tactics on the Commonwealth Games village site up in Queensland. What we really wanted to hear from the other side today is what they are going to do about it. After all, they are the political arm of the union movement. What we want to know is what they are going to do to help clean it up. But we have heard nothing from them, and that made today— Mr Fletcher L6B We have heard nothing, just the sound of silence. Mr GEE 261393 Yes, the sound of silence. That is because most of them on that side of the House are wholly owned subsidiaries of the union movement. Most of them have come up through the union movement. The member for Paterson did not. She was a radio star, I think—one of the few stars on that side of the universe. What are they going to do about the thuggery and the standover tactics? 'I've got your number. I know where you live.' It is absolutely appalling, and that is really what we wanted to hear about today. Obviously, they have got some very strong feelings now. Was the man in the video a preselector? I do not know. Is that why you are upset? I think it is. He is on your preselection panel. Mr Fletcher L6B I think he controls about 30 votes. I think you've put your finger on it. Mr GEE 261393 I think that is right, and I think Dyson Heydon got it right when he referred to a rogues gallery of sorts—of 'louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts'. It is just appalling, and that is what we wanted to hear about today. To listen to some of those members on the other side, they want to go back to the past—to the glory days, the salad days, of Centrelink under Labor. I am not sure that we should go there. If are going to go there, first we would want to know what happened to the $1.9 billion that went missing in fraud and overpayments in the last three years of the Labor government. We are trying to get that money back. We are trying to clean up the mess that they made. A good start would be for them to tell us where that $1.9 billion is. What happened to it? Why didn't those opposite come to the House today and fess up about the $1.9 billion? It is absolutely extraordinary. Then of course there are the 1,100 staff— Ms Butler interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Griffith! Mr GEE 261393 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are worried about their preselections, on that side of the House. There were 1,100 staff cut under Labor. They were all telephony staff, yet Labor complain here about telephone waiting times. They are the ones who cut 1,100 staff from Centrelink. It is absolutely extraordinary. If you go through the performance of Centrelink, you will see there is a great story to tell. Every year, the Department of Human Services handles 56 million phone calls and 21 million face-to-face visits. It met over 86 per cent of its performance measures to the community in 2015-16. It is not perfect, granted. It still has a little bit of work to do, but 86 per cent is pretty good, in my book. As at 2 October this year, the average time taken to answer Centrelink phone lines was 11.4 minutes. That is well below the department's key performance indicator of 16 minutes, despite the 1,100 staff cuts that were imposed by Labor—appalling. Despite the mess that those on the other side of the House made, great strides are being made in service delivery. You just have to look at the myGov initiative to see that. You can log in to the departmental website using a PIN. It is all there for you. Dealing with the Department of Human Services is being revolutionised under the hardworking Minister for Human Services. I acknowledge the great work he has done. He is moving the department into the modern age. The myGov initiative allows everyone to access the site 24 hours a day. Millions are starting to use it. There are 10 million Australian now with a myGov account, which is a fantastic achievement. I salute the government for its work in this field. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is now concluded. MOTIONS 48 MOTIONS Gun Control 48

The House divided. [16:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BUSINESS 49 BUSINESS Rearrangement 49 16:35 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. Consideration of Legislation 49 16:36 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I ask leave of the House to amend the notice relating to suspension of standing orders for the consideration of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 in the terms circulated in the House. The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted? Mr Burke DYW I have not seen the circulated document, but, presuming it is with respect to the member for Kennedy's amendment, that can only improve a bad motion, so leave is granted. Leave granted. 16:37 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and point out that it is the same one that I circulated to you in question time. I would not pull a swiftie on the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. I would pay for it later, so there would be no point. So I move the motion in relation to suspension of standing orders, as amended: That, in respect of proceedings specifically on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring: (1) resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together and the bills debated cognately, and the first Opposition Member immediately called to speak, followed immediately by the Member for Kennedy; (2) at the conclusion of the speech of the Member for Kennedy on the second readings of the bills, the Prime Minister being called immediately to conclude the second reading debate and one question then being put immediately on the second readings of both bills, a Governor-General’s message being reported and one question being put immediately on the third readings of both bills; and (3) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. The government is moving this motion to manage the debate on the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The terms of the motion will allow the opposition spokesman—I assume—to speak for their usual allotted time of half an hour on the bills, and then will allow the member for Kennedy, who has a particular interest and is kind of representing the crossbenchers, to speak on the bills as well. Then the Prime Minister will sum up the ABCC bills, and we intend to try and pass them through the House this afternoon. We are moving this debate management motion because it is very clear what everybody in the House's view is on the ABCC. In spite of our working very hard to try and get the Leader of the Opposition to unshackle the Labor Party from the CFMEU and from other unions, he has determinedly refused to do so. This bill has been through the House of Representatives twice already. It has been through an exhaustive committee process. It was introduced in the House of Representatives, and the second reading was moved, on 14 November 2013. That was the first bill. The Senate then referred the bills to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on 14 November. A public hearing was then held by that legislation committee. A report was given by the legislation committee. The second reading debate in the House of Representatives occurred on 2 December 2013. The Senate referred the government's approach to re-establishing the ABCC for inquiry by a different Senate committee, the Senate Education and Employment References Committee, on 4 December. Then the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also considered the ABCC bill. The second reading debate in the House of Representatives occurred on 12 December 2013, and the legislation was passed by the House on that occasion. Then the public hearings of the Senate references committee occurred. The bill was introduced in the Senate, and the second reading was moved, on 11 February 2014. It then went through an exhaustive process. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill. There was a report by the references committee referred to earlier. Then the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights comments on the bill were tabled in the parliament. Then the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded its considerations of the bills in another round—the third time that the human rights committee had considered the legislation. Then the second reading debate in the Senate occurred, and the second reading was finally negatived on 17 August 2015. So it was considered from 11 February 2014 to 17 August 2015. It passed over a two-year period. Then it was reintroduced in the House of Representatives on 2 February 2016, this year. The second reading debate occurred on 3 and 4 February, and it was passed on 4 February. The Senate immediately referred the bills again to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, and that reported in February. The bills were introduced in the Senate, and the second reading was moved on 4 February this year, and the legislation was rejected on 18 February April 2016. These are exactly the same bills. Two bills exactly the same have been through the House since 2013. They have been considered, looked at from every single possible angle, by House committees, by Senate committees, by joint committees, by the House of Representatives itself on two occasions— Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 Still not successful! Mr PYNE 9V5 Exactly—and by the Senate twice. So we have given the parliament of the Australian Commonwealth every single opportunity to consider these bills, which simply bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission into place to ensure that the rule of law is applied on building and construction sites in Australia, improving productivity, creating jobs, creating growth. The last time the ABCC existed, it was worth $7½ billion to consumers in Australia in expenses that had previously needlessly been incurred. Mr Burke DYW It sounds like you want to talk on the bill. Mr PYNE 9V5 I am talking on my motion, because I am explaining to the House why a debate management motion is necessary and why the debate is being truncated in this way, because for the life of me I cannot think of any contribution from any member of the House that could add or subtract anything from the debate that has already occurred over the last three years now. So we are going to pass this motion, with the support of the House of Representatives, and get on with it, because the Australian economy needs it, businesses around the country need it and honest union leaders need these bills to be passed. There is nothing wrong with unions, nothing at all. They have a very important part in our society, in our economy, in ensuring that the rights of workers are protected, that their health is protected. I have never been anti-union. The unions have a very important role. But there are rogue unions, or rogue union leaders, in particular, who are behaving badly—and we have given example after example in question time and debate, even as recently as today, with the video that was released by the Prime Minister's office which indicated the extraordinary behaviour on a site in the Gold Coast. Even as recently as today these practices continue. I cannot understand why the Labor Party, or in fact the member for Kennedy, will not support this ABCC legislation. It would improve our country, it would be good for all those who are involved in the building and construction industry, and therefore I commend my motion to the House. 16:43 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The reasons that the Leader of the House gave for wanting the member for Kennedy to be able to speak go to the fact that every member of the parliament should be allowed to speak on the bill if they want to. The interesting thing is: the Leader of the House has been here so long he has gradually been absorbed by the green leather and cannot understand that there is such a thing as new members of parliament. It is one thing for him to say, 'All of this has happened'— Honourable members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW I am not allowed to call them by name; it would be unparliamentary. He reflects on the parliament of the Abbott government when he talks about what happened in 2013. He is right to point that out, because we are dealing with Abbott government legislation, as we tend to all the time in the years of the Turnbull government. What the Leader of the House is doing here is saying to everybody who came in for the first time at the last election, and there are some on each side of the chamber and quite a few on this side of the chamber— Mr Pyne 9V5 Where are they? Where are all your mates? Mr BURKE DYW If you want me to rev it up into a bigger speech I am happy to, but I think we can just get through the issues on this one. We should have a situation where people have the opportunity to put their view. It is as simple as that. The rush that the government is going through at the moment in wanting to make sure that this bill can go through, is so it can get to the Senate. If the Leader of the House were to walk 100 metres to the Senate, he would see that it is not sitting today. It is not sitting tomorrow. It will be three weeks until it comes back. There is no problem at all in allowing members of parliament to have their say. But I must say that the thing I find interesting—I may even say amusing—about the motion that the Leader of the House has brought forward is that he has insisted that the only person to give the summing-up will be the Prime Minister. He is actually moving that the person who represents the minister for workplace relations in this House will not be allowed to do the summing-up on the bill. Given that that is himself, I find that a moment of honesty that really explains what sort of term, what sort of kick-off, the Leader of the House has had. He has gone from the point of day after day burying his head in his hands and saying, 'It's not me; it's the people around me,' to now saying that maybe it is him and then putting in writing on the Notice Paper and now moving in the parliament that under no circumstances is the minister representing the minister for workplace relations going to be allowed to deliver the summing-up. I can only suggest the determination that the only person who would be allowed to talk would be the Prime Minister is probably an idea that came from the Prime Minister. For the Leader of the House, who has been humiliated week after week in this place, to now decide, 'May as well do the humiliation myself,' is a step I did not see coming, but that is what is contained within the motion before the House. This is another attempt for the government to stifle the parliament from doing its job. There cannot be a rush in getting legislation to the Senate at a time when the Senate is not on. The argument that everybody has had the opportunity to speak on this debate is a direct affront to every member of parliament who was elected for the first time at the last election. Extraordinarily, it was a double-dissolution election on this bill—and, very specifically, they will claim there is a mandate for the government for this bill to go ahead—and members of parliament who have come into this place for the first time, campaigning either for or against this very issue, and are not going to be allowed to say a word. I have to say that, if the government thought that this debate was going well for them, they would not be moving this motion. If they thought it suited them to be talking about this issue—to have their backbenchers up making speeches and sending them out to the electorates and getting the story up in the media—they would not be moving this motion. There is no procedural reason to do it. There is no legal reason to do it in terms of getting a bill through the other place. The only reason to do this is that an item that they thought was going to win them a thumping majority at the election turned out pretty badly for them and they lost a series of seats in it. If they thought this was a winning argument, the motion before us would never have been moved. What we have is a Leader of the House who has decided that best he carries by resolution that under no circumstances is he allowed to talk, that under no circumstances are any of the new members allowed to talk and that only the Prime Minister will be allowed to, so that we can get this bill out of the way so that it can go nowhere for three weeks. That is what the Leader of the House has done. The bit about him not being allowed to talk, I sort of have some sympathy with—he sort of nearly gets me there. But I have to say on this bill: don't put something forward as a double-dissolution trigger if you don't want it to be debated in the parliament. If you were going to put something forward as a double-dissolution trigger you would think the government would be willing to have a debate on it. Mr Pyne 9V5 We have debated it twice. This is the third time. Mr BURKE DYW This parliament has never debated this bill. Mr Pyne 9V5 It is exactly the same bill. Mr BURKE DYW This parliament has never debated this bill. This parliament was elected in a double dissolution where this bill was one of the triggers. As to the whole concept of what issues members of parliament should be allowed to talk on, there are in fact no pieces of legislation where members of parliament should have a stronger argument that they are allowed to make their case and should not be inhibited by a gag motion or a debate management motion than the triggers for a double-D. That is exactly what is happening here. Sometimes when we get these debate management motions, you get the government saying that they will cut off debate at a certain time of day. When they do that, at least parties on each side can organise that, if they want people to go for briefer times, they can share speaking times and try to make sure that people get as much of a chance as possible. What the Leader of the House is doing instead is saying, 'No; not one new member elected in the double dissolution will be allowed to speak in this debate—not one.' The word 'atrocity' gets thrown back and forth pretty often in this place. This one qualifies. Mr Pyne 9V5 So did the last 20. Mr BURKE DYW No; in the last 20 you said it about me, and they were untrue. This one qualifies, and it qualifies for a very simple reason. If the reason for the election was a double dissolution on this bill, then members of parliament who were elected in that double-dissolution election should have a right to make speeches on it. Even though there should not be one at all, if there is to be a debate management motion, it should be one with a time limit that at least allows members of parliament on either side of the place who want to speak on this bill to be able to do so and to be able to make sure that something that we thought that the election was going to be about—even though it disappeared once we got to the campaign—can in fact be something that is opened up for debate. But, beyond all of this, if the government thought this debate was going well, the motion before the House right now would never have been moved. The opposition will oppose it. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 74 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 71 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 54 BILLS Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 54

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013

Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Second Reading 54 17:02 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton These bills, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and cognate bill, were so important to the government that they have procedurally gagged members of this House—new members who wanted to participate in this debate. These bills were of course subject to a double dissolution election and yet the parliament is not in a position to have a full debate on one of two matters that were subject to the double dissolution election. Why would the government shut down debate, gag members of parliament and deprive new members to this place—there was more than one new member on the other side and, indeed, many new members on this side—who wanted to argue the case in relation to this matter? It really says everything about this government and it says something about these bills too, because not only are these bills fundamentally undemocratic and breach international labour conventions and other principles of democracy but, indeed, the fact that the government do not even want to debate the merits of these bills shows the disregard they have for democracy, for this parliament and for this place and their contempt for the Australian people. The reality is: the more things change the more they stay the same with this government. The composition of this House may have changed since the last time I rose to speak on these bills, but the same tired policy of the Abbott-Turnbull government has not. You could forgive me for having a sense of deja vu in standing here and discussing the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013—the third time I have done so in the same number of years. Is there a glitch in the matrix? No. Malcolm Turnbull is no Neo. Despite the Prime Minister telling everyone he is the most innovative, agile, thought-provoking Prime Minister in a generation, we are here debating bills Tony Abbott promised back in 2013—bills that were defeated not once but twice in the last parliament. To be very clear, Labor opposes these bills because a return to the Australian Building and Construction Commission is based on flawed and often ridiculed modelling. Their proposed powers are extreme, unnecessary and undemocratic and they restrict the civil liberties of ordinary working people. It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of these particular pieces of legislation for they have had a chequered past. The bills were introduced into the 44th Parliament on 14 November 2013. It was the former Minister for Employment, Senator Eric Abetz, who had carriage of the legislation. Unfortunately for Senator Abetz, the proposed legislation has outlasted its drafter and its drafter's boss, the member for Warringah. The bills sat idle again until 17 August 2015 when they were defeated in the Senate. Then in September last year, as we all recall, we had the prime ministerial coup, but no consequent change of direction by the government. The very same bills were then reintroduced in February 2016 before being defeated again in April this year, ultimately resulting in the bills being a double dissolution trigger. It is a matter so critical to the national interest, but guess how many times the Prime Minister mentioned it during the very long election campaign. Ms Chesters interjecting— Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 No, a few more than that. Four times in 55 days the Prime Minister mentioned this very important matter. To put it in context, the Prime Minister used the hollowed slogan 'jobs and growth' 37 times in his first press conference. So Australians went to a double dissolution election on a matter the Prime Minister barely referred to during the longest election campaign in many generations. The whole process since the birth of this legislation has been a shambolic disgrace. Today we find the government shutting down debate and depriving members of the opportunity to debate the dissolution bills. The member for Burt, a new member on our side of the chamber, who has put his name down to speak on this, is not in a position to contribute to this debate—a debate supposedly so important. If he is not in a position to do so, I would say that that is very, very shameful. I turn to the substantive reasons why the bill should never become law. They are compelling reasons. The ABCC is unjustified. The government established a $60 million dollar political witch-hunt to justify the bill. The only glaring problem for the government is that the bill has not changed one bit since its introduction in 2013, despite the fact that we have had a royal commission since then and many recommendations by that commissioner. The trade union royal commission was established on 13 March 2014. The bill predates the commission. The government established a lengthy, expensive and highly partisan royal commission and yet has not sought to enact any of its recommendations. Let us remember the manner in which this government uses royal commissions. They set up two royal commissions, called three Labor leaders and compelled them to those royal commissions. That is unprecedented in our history since federation, that the leaders of the political opponents of the government were subject to such conduct and scrutiny by the use of executive power. In the case of this particular commission, it treated Kathy Jackson with kid gloves, and the commissioner accepted an invitation to a Liberal Party fundraiser yet failed to disqualify himself once that was subsequently disclosed publicly. Given the fact that the recommendations do not find their way into this bill, what was the point of that royal commission? We know what the point was—to slur the political opponents of the government; to use taxpayers' money and the powers of the state to demean and traduce and defame opponents of the government. This government is either incompetent or lazy, though it is becoming increasingly apparent that they are both. It must be mentioned too—though it might come as a shock to those trying to follow this issue—that there is already a building industry regulator in place today with coercive powers: Fair Work Building and Construction. So the parliament's choice today in debating this bill is not between the ABCC and no other regulator; it is between the ABCC and Fair Work Building and Construction, which already has coercive powers, albeit there is some oversight with respect to those powers. In its annual report of 2015-16 Fair Work Building and Construction noted that it commenced 130 investigations and used its coercive powers on 17 occasions, yet none of the investigations where coercive powers were used led to any prosecutions. On the measure that the government seek so often to rely on—productivity—their argument does not stand up to scrutiny. We have heard the Prime Minister talk about the correlation between this bill and productivity. We have heard the Leader of the House talk about the correlation between this bill and productivity. Yet, according to the ABS, productivity in the construction industry increased more in the seven years before the introduction of the ABCC than it did in the seven years that the ABCC existed. The fact is that there was no correlation between improved productivity and the existence of that former body. Productivity has been higher ever since the abolition of the ABCC in 2012. The Productivity Commission's public infrastructure report of 2014 says it all. That report states: The evidence that the ABCC stimulated material improvements in aggregate productivity or achieved cost reductions is weak. That is what the Productivity Commission said. This is the government's principal review and advisory body on economic policy and regulation, the body that has been advising governments for many a year—the productivity experts, if you like—yet they repudiate the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and other government members in relation to the correlation between the existence of the ABCC and improved productivity. It is the body the government commissioned to do the review of the workplace relations, and it is saying that there is hardly a skerrick of evidence of cost savings and productivity increases the last time the ABCC was in place. So there is little or no evidence that there will be any improvements to productivity as a result of this body being enacted. True to form, the government is prepared to accept the PC's advice when it is convenient for its political interest, but in this case wants to dismiss or ignore it because it does not support their agenda. However, there is even more data which debunks the government's claims. Figures produced by Austrade for international investors establish that the Australian construction sector is '19 per cent more productive than global competitors and, measured against global competitors, is relatively more productive than other industry sectors including media, retail and banking.' But of course we are not looking at ways to make the banking sector more productive, are we? The ABCC did not reduce industrial disputation last time either. Whilst there has been an argument that somehow there is lawlessness in the building sector, which we refute, the fact is that the existence of the ABCC did not reduce in any way industrial disputation last time. Apart from one aberrant quarter, the fact is that the total number of days lost each year is similar, on average, under Fair Work Building and Construction as under the ABCC. In fact, the differences are negligible—to again undermine the arguments put forward by the government that somehow there is a correlation between the introduction and implementation of a new body, the ABCC, and industrial disputation. The Productivity Commission's review into workplace relations says: Industrial disputation, as measured by working days lost per 1000 employees, has declined markedly over the past three decades. The average number of days lost over the past five years was less than one tenth of the days lost on average from 1985 to 1990. Similarly, the total number of industrial disputes, the number of employees involved in industrial disputes, and the total number of working days lost to industrial action, have all declined substantially over this period, notwithstanding the substantial increase in employment over the ensuing decades. In other words, the labour market has got larger; industrial disputation has got smaller. There are fewer days that involve industrial disputation, not only in the building and construction sector but in all other sectors of our economy—and the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister, by other ministers and, indeed, by members of this government are just patently wrong. Any claim that the ABCC reduced industrial disputation is completely debunked. The PC noted further: … these concerns— that the Fair Work Act led to increased disputation when it was attacking the system— may be based on quite selective comparisons drawn over a short timeframe, by comparing more recent 'spikes' in the rate of disputation around 2011 and 2012, with low levels observed in 2006 to 2008. In doing so, they overlook the similarly low rates of disputation that were subsequently observed in 2013 and 2014, and fail to acknowledge that the apparently high levels of disputation in 2011 and 2012 were roughly the same as the level in 2005 … In other words, it is selective use of data that has allowed the government to erroneously conclude that there has been an increase in industrial disputation. But there is more to that. The government's own report says: Rather than focusing on increasing restrictions on industrial action, the WR framework should seek to ensure that parties' incentives to engage in action are appropriately aligned. There are no blowouts, we would argue, with labour costs, and schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure projects will not be cheaper, we would contend, under the ABCC. In fact, a BIS Shrapnel analysis recommends governments should fast-track infrastructure spending to take advantage of record low construction costs, which are delivering some projects at half the price they were before the global financial crisis. Let's reiterate: before the global financial crisis—when, indeed, the ABCC was in existence—costs were higher, according to BIS Shrapnel analysis where they say that record low construction costs are delivering some projects at half the price they were before the global financial crisis. Analysis by the Parliamentary Library shows that, when the ABCC was last in operation, between 2004 and 2012, the cost of non-residential building grew faster than the CPI. Let's just dwell on that for a moment: it cost more to build when the ABCC was around, not less. Although the government's attacks on unions are about driving record low wages even lower, it would seem that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer cannot get their argument straight. We saw today this contradiction in action. The Prime Minister says the ABCC will stop excessive wages, whereas the Treasurer says it will support wages growth. They cannot both be right. If you had to guess—and we are talking about a Liberal minister—it is more likely that anything they do will lead to a reduction in wages. But here we have the Treasurer of the country wanting to argue that we will see an increase in wages if we introduce this bill, enact it and set up the ABCC, while at the same time the Prime Minister is saying, 'We can cut labour costs by attacking excessive wages.' The two most senior ministers in the government clearly are at odds when it comes to this issue, which really says everything about this matter. The government will do anything and will run any argument, even when they are clearly contradictory, to try and get this legislation through. The fact is that it seems this government will use whatever argument it thinks is most popular in order to desperately try to pass this bill. After repudiating the alleged economic benefits, Labor opposes this bill because the ABCC restricts democratic rights. Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales say: … the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence. The Law Council says that the ABCC laws are 'contrary to the rule of law', an irony lost on the Prime Minister, who has been known to claim that the ABCC is required to 'return the rule of law to the construction industry'. So an independent body, replete with eminent experts in the area of civil rights, has claimed that the laws of the ABCC—that is, the manner in which we would be using laws in this civil jurisdiction in the building and construction sector—would be contrary to the rule of law as we know it in this country, while the Prime Minister argues the opposite. The ABCC breaches the principle of equality before the law. Workers in the building and construction industry should be subject to the same laws as apply to other workers. This legislation extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. So not only will we see, if this were to pass, the reintroduction of an undemocratic body; it would also be broader in its reach, going well beyond workers in the construction sector. The ABCC does not deal with criminal behaviour, but it effectively has criminal justice powers. We have debated this matter at length. The fact is that we are dealing in the civil jurisdiction. We are dealing with, in effect, industrial laws. If there is crime in the building industry—or if people are committing crime in any part of our society—we have crime-fighting agencies. If there is organised crime in banking or in the building industry, we have the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police, AUSTRAC and other agencies and state agencies that can fight crime. These matters are not to do with crime. The ABCC has no criminal coverage whatsoever. It does not deal with criminal matters. So every time a member of the government talks about criminal behaviour anywhere, they are talking about the wrong matter, because the ABCC, if introduced, would not be in a position to deal with such matters. That is why we established the Australian Crime Commission. The Australian Crime Commission emanated out of, in fact, a royal commission many, many years ago. Then the National Crime Authority was established by the Hawke government after the then Fraser government recommended that there be a body established, a standing commission, dealing with serious crime. And the Hawke government did so. We then, of course, changed its name to the Australian Crime Commission. Every government since has had that body at its disposal to fight crime. So if there is crime in the building industry or the banking industry, or anywhere for that matter, we have a standing commission with coercive powers that can fight crime. That has been the biggest furphy in this debate. None of the matters, none of the rhetoric about crime have anything to do with the regulation by a regulator in the building industry. Whether it is the Fair Work building commission or the ABCC, they have no powers. If those opposite think we are going to fight crime by setting up this legislation, they have no idea what they are talking about. Those matters have to be dealt with by the Federal Police, state police, AUSTRAC, the Australian Crime Commission. They are the agencies. As the former minister they used to report to me. I know what they do. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to know what the ABCC will do if enacted. That is, again, something that really underlines the dishonesty in this debate in relation to this matter. The ABCC, furthermore, has no protections from abuse of power by the regulator. That is really concerning, particularly when we are not talking about breaching criminal laws. The government's bill removes the current protection which requires the director of Fair Work Building and Construction to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue an examination notice before coercive powers are deployed. It is like the police being able to conduct a search without going to a judge to justify why they need a warrant. For many, many things, the police, in their work in the criminal jurisdiction, have to gain a warrant from a judge or from other bodies—third parties—who have the authority to grant such a warrant. In this case, we will be stripping away the only existing oversight that is with the current regulator and be allowing the regulator to deploy coercive powers—moreover, coercive powers in the civil jurisdiction—without any oversight whatsoever. This bill is offensive and, on any objective analysis, is a return to the dark days of the ABCC. It is completely unnecessary. The most distressing effect of this proposal is the fact that, if the ABCC comes into force, it is very likely—more likely than not—that workplace deaths and injuries in the building and construction sector will increase. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Oh, c'mon! Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 If you actually allow me to run through this argument, because this is the most serious of all. If the Prime Minister has his way, construction workers will be hit with a $36,000 fine for acting on safety concerns at work. The last time this was the case we saw more workplace deaths and more serious workplace injuries. During the period of WorkChoices and the ABCC under the Howard government, fatalities for all workers increased by more than 25 per cent, while fatalities for construction workers skyrocketed from an average of 2.5 fatalities per 100,000 to almost five fatalities per 100,000 workers. They, effectively, doubled in that time. In 2007, when the ABCC was last in place, worker deaths on construction sites hit a 10-year high, with 51 workers dying in that year. After Labor abolished the ABCC, workplace deaths dropped by 60 per cent. I am the first one to accept that there are a myriad of reasons for workplace injuries or workplace fatalities. But the evidence would suggest a significant correlation between weakening health and safety rights and such tragedies occurring. Sadly, since the former Prime Minister put the incompetent zealot Mr Nigel Hadgkiss in charge of the Fair Work building inspectorate, workplace deaths have started to climb again. Giving Mr Hadgkiss, or another hand-picked Liberal operative, more powers in the form of the ABCC will only make matters worse. I want to talk about a couple of real tragedies that underline Labor's concerns. Two workers, Joe McDermott and Gerry Bradley, were killed at Jaxon Construction's Bennett Street project, despite union delegates raising a number of safety concerns in the months leading up to the tragic deaths. They died because the company had not set up an exclusion zone where they were lifting concrete blocks from a truck onto the site. Both were crushed to death by a falling concrete slab. In August 2015, the CFMEU started proceedings in the Federal Court against Jaxon Construction. The matters relate to hindering, obstructing, refusing or delaying entry to various sites preventing union officials from carrying out their right to investigate suspected health and safety breaches on a number of Jaxon sites in Perth. The Fair Work building commission has been known to advise Jaxon management on the right-of-entry issues in relation to suspected safety breaches and holding discussions. It is clear that the Fair Work building commission is giving employers the view that cooperation with unions is a bad thing, even when someone has died in the workplace. If you do cooperate, you will be prosecuted yourself. In many cases, it is not the builder who wants to charge the union or the workers, it is the Fair Work building commission that has gone back in time and dug up old cases. As a consequence of Fair Work building commission interference at a site level, it is not uncommon for site supervisors that have a good working relationship with the union to tell them that, if it was up to them, they would be happy to let them on site. As the Bennett Street site was a social housing project and had a component of government money, strict FWBC right-of-entry protocols were enforced. In another example, at the Royal Adelaide Hospital two workers, Mr Castillo-Riffo and Mr Steve Wyatt, were tragically killed on site, both in scissor-lift incidents. Both were crushed between a scissor lift and the head of a low doorway. There were multiple complaints about fatigue, schedules, disorganised sites, and consistent and calculated blocking of legitimate health-and-safety initiatives from unions, at that hospital site. The week that Mr Castillo-Riffo died, he told his now widow that he was worried about using a scissor lift to do a job that required a scaffold to be used, but that management needed the scaffold for use on another part of the site, as they were running behind on the project. Three months prior to the death of Mr Steve Wyatt, the shop steward raised the issue, noting that scissor lifts should not be used to drive through site or through doorways, yet nothing was changed. I met with the family members of Mr Bradley and Mr Castillo-Riffo, and of course they are wracked by grief and want answers as to how this happened. If these examples are not enough, in the past fortnight there have been a further three tragic deaths in the building and construction industry. On Thursday, 6 October, two workers were killed at a construction site at Eagle Farm racecourse in Queensland. Ashley Morris, 34 and the parent of two young children, and a 55-year-old colleague were killed instantly when a nine-tonne concrete slab fell on them in a pit at the track's infield. On 10 October—last week—a 27-year-old German woman, Marianka Heumann, fell 13 floors to her death on the Perth construction site of a Finbar and Hanssen development. These sorts of tragedies are entirely preventable, and they will be so much more easily prevented if we deny the government its wish to return to the draconian ABCC. Lives are quite literally on the line here. The construction industry is dangerous, and it is difficult work. Why would any government want to make it more dangerous? It is beyond me. I appeal to members and senators to meet with the families of those who have died on construction sites so they can tell you about the health and safety concerns exacerbated by the ABCC laws. So there are many, many reasons why we cannot support this bill. There is no correlation between its introduction and improved productivity. The Productivity Commission says so, as do others. There are fundamental breaches of human rights and civil rights in relation to this legislation, as eminent lawyers have confirmed. There are very serious concerns about the correlation between the former ABCC and the increase in injuries and fatalities at that time. Once it was repealed, there was a fall in the number of deaths and injuries in the industry. We believe it is very likely that, if this bill is successfully introduced, the result will be more fatalities and more injuries. I think the government should rethink its position, stop playing politics with this and consider the impact that its laws will have on ordinary workers in the building and construction sector. 17:32 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I thank the government for the opportunity to say a few words on this bill. My sense of frustration here is that there has been a complete lack of a human side to this—the reaction to human pain. I will try to humanise this is much as I can. If you walk through that door near the Speaker's chair, you will see two magnificent paintings of the first two Speakers of this parliament. The one on the right-hand side is Charlie McDonald, the first member for the electorate of Kennedy, which I represent. Charlie left parliament after 23 years and, according to the history books and newspapers, died of dust on the lungs, or miner's phthisis. Charlie McDonald came from Charters Towers—remember, Charters Towers was bigger than Brisbane in those days, with the gold rushes. The state member for Charters Towers, Anderson Dawson, was the first Labor head of government elected anywhere in the world, a person of great historic significance. He also, according to the history books, was dying of dust on the lungs when he left politics. When the third Prime Minister of this place, Andrew Fisher—again, according to the history books—left parliament, he was also dying of dust on the lungs. His father died of dust on the lungs. In England, even though the treatment of Welsh and Cornish miners was somewhat akin to that of slaves—they actually wore steel bands with numbers on them—they still had damping-down laws. In Africa, where the local indigenous population worked the mines, they had damping-down laws. In this country, we did not, and there is no question that that is why one in 30 miners died. Thirty went down the mines, and one never came back up again. The labour movement was created by a very great Australian. Malcolm Fraser said his heroes were the American Franklin Roosevelt and the Australian Edward Granville Theodore. Paul Keating said his heroes were JT Lang and Edward Theodore. I have a picture of the great Jack McEwen, of course, and a picture of Theodore on my wall. I am not in their class—they are very important people, as former prime ministers of Australia—and you could not find three people on the planet who are more unalike than Malcolm Fraser, Paul Keating and me! But there is one thing that we do agree on, and that is Theodore. The first thing the labour movement did was pass damping-down laws for mines. It was not really a great cost to put in some water to damp down the dust so that we did not die of dust in the lungs—and it was not just dust in the lungs. Theodore formed the first union because the third time he went down a mine—he was ordered down the mine—it was extremely dangerous and two people died, and he bore the scars for the rest of his life. You can say, 'Well, those days are gone; we have safety now.' But the previous speaker, the member for Gorton, said that there were three deaths in the last two weeks on construction sites. Do we not have a problem when there are three deaths in two weeks on construction sites in Australia? After we formed our little political party, I went to my first stoppage meeting, which was called by the ETU and the CFMEU in Brisbane because the tunnel was extremely dangerous. They said that the supposed overseeing engineers had driven through in an air conditioned vehicle, put the window down, talked to a foreman, screamed abuse at him and told him, 'We're falling behind on the job and you're going to get sacked shortly.' They said that that was about the only oversight that was taking place in the tunnels. Well, I did not know whether that was true or not. There had been a couple of accidents there. Two weeks later I attended a second stoppage meeting because a man was dying as a result of an accident there. You think that it is somebody out there who is dying, but it turned out it was not. It was the mayor of Charters Towers' brother who had gone through school with my own daughters. I knew Sam Beveridge very, very well, and it hit home to me that it is not just anybody dying out there; it is us that are dying out there. I have worked on industrial sites. For those who have not worked on industrial sites: there is an intrinsic dangerousness, and we take that danger. I am not complaining about the danger. We were very highly paid in the mines to accept that danger. At my first job they said to me, 'Hey, mate, you better watch out because you know how you got the job?' I said, 'Yeah, because I'm clever and I presented well and I'm tough.' They said, 'No, because the bloke whose place you've taken was chopped up in the pelletiser.' A safety card was put on the chair, and someone came along and tripped over chair. The chair fell over, the door clanged shut and he was inside in this huge, giant 20c piece, if you like, with arms that swung around to break up the lead lumps inside, and he died under extremely tragic circumstances. The first time I took an industrial action was over a thing called the shaker. We had to jump up on top of the flue, hit it with a sledgehammer and then jump back down before thing came back at you at 60 miles an hour. There was probably about 30 minutes of work needed to fix that thing, but it was extremely dangerous. I was in a lead dust hopper, which is a huge thing—maybe a 10th of the size of this chamber—and a mate of mine, Mal Brodie, yelled out at me, 'You stupid'—I will not say exactly what he said. I asked, 'Why am I being stupid?' He said: 'Well, you're working the air gun to get the hopper working because it is clogged up. When it starts working, you're going to vanish straight down the hopper and be buried alive in the dust.' He burst out laughing and threw me the safety belt that someone should have told me I should have been wearing. I am indicating that, of their very nature, industrial sites are dangerous. We accept that. We people that work in industrial sites accept that. I am not trying to denigrate other unions by saying this, but the CFMEU are not the trendy Left or the socialist Left union. They are the hard trade unionists of Australia. You break them and you have broken trade unionism in this country. If you think that we are just a talking about fairytales or fairy floss: at approximately 2.50 on Monday, 10 October, a 27-year-old German backpacker fell 35 metres to her death on a Finbar construction project in the Perth CBD. When CFMEU safety officials entered the Finbar site about 40 minutes after the fatality, the job was still going full steam ahead, with a major concrete pour still taking place. Finbar had not even bothered to contact the police! It took an ABC journalist to ring the police. You understand there was a dead body here. Before they were made aware of the fatality, even the OHS regulator, WorkSafe, did not front up to the job until over an hour after the union safety officials entered site. Finbar failed to close off the second level of the job where the worker landed—and remember it was from 15 storeys up. Blood and strewn work clothing were clearly visible and accessible, and there had been no effort to ensure the scene of the fatality was not contaminated. The deceased construction worker was not wearing a fall prevention harness when she fell from the 15th floor. I might add that she was from overseas. Section 457 visa workers are all over these sites now, taking our jobs and undermining our pay and conditions. The minute something like this happens, they immediately clear all those people off the site. So I speak with some passion on this, I suppose. I represent the electorate where the worst tragedy ever recorded in Australian mining history took place. Seventy-two human beings were blown to death and every single male member of the Mount Mulligan community was dead within our one hour from that explosion at Mount Mulligan, which is in the heart of the Kennedy electorate. The third or fourth worst tragedy in Australia was when 23 people were blown to pieces at Mt Leyshon, which is in my home town of Charters Towers. You people over here—and I do not mean to denigrate you—to some degree are super featherweights. Honourable members interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 I had a great-granddad that paid out of his own money to go to America to buy two cranes to create the port which we now call Townsville. He paid for them out of his own money. We had no schools in Charters Towers. It was a mining field. So he went and built a school out of his own money. He got repaid for the cranes, but he did not get repaid for the school. When he started standing up for these poor workers that were dying, he put 3,000 pounds—this is in the history books—which is over $1 million in today's money, behind the strike fund and cut himself off from the social elite of the town, not that that would have worried him much! There is a responsibility on the rich and powerful to do something to look after the ordinary Australians. It is a noblesse oblige which does not exist with the Liberal Party today, but it did once upon a time. I have great admiration for our Prime Minister, but you know he is under great forces here. All I can say is you have got to stand up to those forces. For the last Prime Minister who succumbed to pressure from his own party—and I could be wrong but I do not think John Howard ever wanted to remove arbitration in Australia—the net result was not only the loss of government but the loss of his own seat in parliament. It was a tragedy, in my opinion, because I had great admiration for John Howard. Only twice have prime ministers lost their seats in parliament, and on both occasions they had removed our right to arbitration. So I say to a lot of the people on that side of the House who may fall into the category of rich and powerful: if you do then you have a responsibility to those who are not rich and powerful. We have to come together to ensure that these things do not happen. In the last two minutes I have, let me return to the CFMEU. It is my union. I hold a ticket in the coalminers union and am very proud to say that to you. We were forced by Bob Hawke to take on the builders labourers. He said, 'Oh well, you blokes can handle them because you're all commos.' There were some very good people in the builders division but there were also some very bad people. Mr Littleproud interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 It would be nice if this person here would give me a chance to have a say. He seems to think he should be speaking. The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting. Mr KATTER HX4 Listening to the drivel coming out of him, I do not think anyone else in this parliament would want to listen to it, but could he just give us a go. We have only one great development available to us in this country: the Galilee Basin. Half of Australia's coal reserves—coal, which has carried the economy of this country for the past 60 years—are in the Galilee, and we need a rail line into the Galilee. The state government in Queensland have dragged the chain and thrown up hurdle after hurdle. Last week—and I hope the Prime Minister is taking notice because I know he has been very positive towards the project—the state government rolled over, which we bless them for, and said they were backing the Galilee and opening up at Adani. That decision was taken because of the CFMEU—because they are fighting for jobs for their people. Mr Littleproud interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 This fellow over here in the chequered tie is laughing. He thinks it is funny that someone went out there and fought like a dog to get 20,000 jobs created. He thinks that is the subject of humour. Well, people can pass their own judgement upon him. It must be recalled in this place that in the Latham-Howard election the person who held Howard's arm up and told every trade unionist in this country to vote for the Liberals was in fact the now president of this union. Unlike you, he does not have closed-minded prejudices. He does the right thing by the people he is being paid to look after. I pay tribute to him and I am proud to be associated with him. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I call the Prime Minister. 17:48 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I rise to conclude the debate on these very important bills. They will ensure that the rule of law prevails in an industry that is essential to our economic growth and future prosperity. This legislation was blocked repeatedly by the previous Senate and consequently was one of the two triggers for July's double dissolution election. We fought the double dissolution election on our workplace reform commitments, which in their effect represent important economic reforms for this country, and we won. There can be no doubt that my government has a mandate for these bills. As has been said many times in this parliament, the government is absolutely committed to doing all that is necessary to bring an end to the culture of lawlessness, intimidation and bullying in the building and construction industry. The passage of these bills into law will ensure that building and construction work is carried out fairly, efficiently, lawfully and productively for all Australians. Taxpayers, consumers, workers and businesses large and small will all benefit from the reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The need for the restoration of the Building and Construction Commission is very, very clear. If anyone needs reminding, they need only look at the television reports in the last 24 hours of a confrontation on the Commonwealth Games construction site on the Gold Coast, where a CFMEU official is captured on camera bullying an employee on the site. Not content with a tirade of foulmouthed abuse, this representative of the CFMEU goes on to make one of those menacing threats that none of us would ever wish to hear. This is what he said: 'I have your telephone number. I know where you live.' This is not something scripted for The Godfather or The Sopranos; this is the practical reality of life on a construction site in our country. Thuggery like this should have no place in Australia. The evidence shows that the presence of a strong workplace relations regulator on building sites was successful in suppressing the coercion, the intimidation and the standover tactics that have created this environment of criminality and corruption. It is astounding that those opposite continue blindly to deny this. It is a bizarre notion of loyalty—their notion of loyalty—that sees them continue to sanction and condone this behaviour. Who are they protecting? Certainly not the more than one million Australians who rely for their livelihoods on a strong, safe and competitive construction industry, including 300,000 small businesses along with law-abiding rank-and-file union members. Certainly they are not protecting the taxpayers of Australia, who pay construction costs a third or more higher than they should for hospitals, schools, roads, dams and, indeed, apartment buildings because of the corrupt and criminal influence of a delinquent union. The reality is that the CFMEU's lawlessness makes taxpayers pay more for public infrastructure; it makes homebuyers pay more for apartments; it adds an enormous tax, a tax of lawlessness, on the building industry of Australia. Mr Snowdon IJ4 What a load of nonsense! You have no idea how these things work. The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the member for Lingiari he is out of his seat. Mr TURNBULL 885 We know what works. The Australian Building and Construction Commission works. It has been tried and tested. When the ABCC was in force, between 2005 and 2012, the number of days lost to industrial disputes in the construction industry fell significantly. Since its abolition, the rate of disputes are on the rise again. The rate of fatalities and serious injury in the building and construction industry continues to trend downwards in keeping with trends across other industries. Ms Chesters 249710 That is not true. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo is out of her seat. Mr TURNBULL 885 There is simply no evidence to support the claims by those opposite that the existence of the ABCC impacted on the safety performance of the industry in any negative way. It is absolutely, deliberately misleading to suggest it did. To suggest that the only way an industry can be safe is to have a culture of lawlessness and thuggery is surely the pinnacle of the absurdity of the defence the Labor Party mounts for this militant, lawless union. In doing so, the Labor Party also complain about the compulsory examinations process set out in the legislation. In doing so, they conveniently overlook the strong protections for witnesses to ensure due process and transparency in relation to those examinations. That includes that any information given by a witness cannot be used against them and that witnesses are entitled to have a lawyer present during an interview. In a stunning display of hypocrisy, the CFMEU—the most vocal critic of this legislation, apart from the members of the opposition—prevents its own members from receiving representation during its own internal disciplinary proceedings. We all know criminality is rife in this sector. We know there is a culture of wilful defiance of all laws, and workplace relation laws in particular. So those that say there is no need for an industry-specific regulator are wrong. No reasonable observer can deny the extent of unlawfulness in the sector given the litany of court judgements and fines against construction unions for repeated and unrepented breaches of the law. We can recall once again the 113 officials from the CFMEU currently before the courts for more than 1,100 suspected contraventions of the law. Time and time again, the courts have expressed their dismay at the actions of this union, with statements like, 'The CFMEU's record of noncompliance is an embarrassment to the trade union movement'; or, from another judge, 'Has there ever been a worse recidivist in the history of the common law?' Or another: 'The CFMEU has an egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.' Through this legislation the ABCC can restore the rule of law to the building and construction industry. It is vital for jobs, for economic growth, for productivity. Australians involved in this industry deserve a workplace free from unlawful behaviour, including illegal industrial action, bullying, threats and intimidation. The ABCC will play a key role in dealing with this unlawful conduct in the industry. Meaningful penalties will ensure workplaces are fair, productive and law abiding. The ABCC will improve productivity and reduce building costs by ensuring that disputes are dealt with efficiently and effectively by a regulator with specialist expertise. This will help small businesses develop and grow, which in turn will grow our economy. All Australians benefit by getting value for money on infrastructure investments. As we know, these bills have been twice rejected by the Senate. My government called the double dissolution election in order to resolve the deadlock over the bills. The Australian people voted for this legislation when they re-elected the coalition. Those opposite will be showing their contempt for that democratic outcome if they persist in their obstruction of these bills. It is now time for the House—and, in due time, for the Senate—to do the right thing and restore the rule of law to our building and construction sector. I commend the bills to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier I will now put the question on the second readings of the bills. The question is that these bills be now read a second time. Bills read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

The House divided. [18:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 76 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 69 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 63 18:06 The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will now put the question on the third reading of the bills. The question is that these bills be now read a third time. Bills read a third time.

The House divided. [18:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 76 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 69 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 65 BILLS VET Student Loans Bill 2016, VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016, VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016 65

VET Student Loans Bill 2016

VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016

VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016

Second Reading 65 18:11 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the measures included in this bill to protect students from unethical business practices and to ensure the quality of training providers accessing government funding. This bill bans the use of third-party brokers and agents to recruit students. This is an essential measure to bring integrity back to the system. It also limits subcontracting to third-party providers—a measure also designed to rebuild integrity and quality. The new program introduces other strong compliance measures to ensure that training providers are held to account and held to the high standards that their students and the broader community expects from them. Providers will be subject to monitoring and investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. And providers may even be suspended in urgent circumstances. The new program will also see new training organisations be subject to oversight of their growth forecasts and results. This will prevent unproven businesses from building business models based on the exploitation of students. It will stop the news reports of training organisations with huge short-term profits followed by immediate bankruptcy. It will stop rogue operators from seeing the VET sector as an opportunity ripe for the picking with no intention of being there for the long term. It will put the focus back on students. These are the measures we have needed over the past four years. In conclusion, the VET Student Loan Program introduced by these bills will restore the faith of Australians in the VET sector and allow the sector to rebuild its reputation. It will see genuine students offered worthwhile study with reputable providers with strong links to industry and business. It will undo the damage done by Labor's irresponsible changes to the VET FEE HELP system. It will support budget repair by significantly reducing the level of gross government debt that needs to be undertaken. It will provide an affordable and sustainable loan scheme that will allow students to gain meaningful qualifications with a pathway to employment. I commend the bills to the House. 18:13 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce This is actually the first time that I have risen to speak in this House on legislation. I decided to speak on the VET Student Loans Bill 2016 as I believe that reforms to the VET FEE-HELP scheme are urgent and overdue. Now, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Labor supports these bills in principle, because, as we have just heard from the member for Berowra—the other Julian; it is a lovely name—the government has finally accepted, after four long years of inaction, the need to act to stop the rorts and the waste in the vocational education and training sector and to copy Labor's policies. For too long students have been ripped off, running up debts that they have no hope of repaying. I think the sector is now graduating in the order of one in five students, which is a nonsense. If the government had acted more quickly, in just some of the last four years, as we heard before, then billions could have been saved. Indeed, successive coalition ministers have shovelled money out the door to dodgy private providers. The government has had five ministers in three years. If you are running at an average of five ministers in three years—I did the calculations coming in here—then the current minister's job is going to be up in February, so he had better watch out. He will be due for replacement. If that does transpire, I predict that it will be implementation that brings him undone, as these changes are overdue and are now being rushed through. This is complex legislation, and the transition and implementation will be diabolically difficult to do by 1 January—so be this on the minister's head. Now, it is not as if the government did not know. The VET FEE-HELP rorts featured daily in national newspapers and the national press. I know myself that institutions of longstanding good reputation were alerting the government—directly by providers and through peak bodies—to growing problems years ago and were beyond frustrated that successive ministers would not listen and would not act. I will not break private confidences, but, given my links with the training sector, I was approached many times as a candidate for federal parliament by reputable providers begging me to raise the issue and do something. They showed me letters which they had written to coalition ministers, which were simply ignored—letters that outlined the rorts by brokers and agents, exponential growth in payments, growth in the number of providers. There were a myriad of warning signs that would have sounded the red-alert alarms for any competent government. One of the most stunning statistics I found was that in 2014 the graduation rates of the 10 largest providers was under five per cent. That is $900 million in federal taxpayer money shovelled out the door for nothing—over $215,000 for every graduate they managed to produce. We have heard from the previous speakers—and no doubt we will hear more—that this is all Labor's fault. The government effectively acknowledged their failure when bagging Labor year after year. But the biggest problem was that they did not do anything. The problems exploded on their watch. Now, it is true that the scheme is not working as intended, as we kept saying publicly. But it is balanced comment, I think, to say that, with the best will in the world and with the most thoughtful analysis and policy design at a given point in time, it is almost inevitable that in new, complex areas of policy, particularly those interacting with the market, problems will emerge. It is a truism of public policy, I would say, that when you hang out the shingle for public funding and the giving of public money away to the market then sharks will appear and feed. You try and anticipate these things. You try and get the policy settings right. But these problems that you did not predict will emerge, and you have to adjust. So the issue, by 2015, and indeed the first half of this year, was not about what happened in 2012. It was what you do about reality as you find it. That is your obligation as a government. I know reality can be a difficult concept at times for some of those opposite challenged by the notion of evidence based policy: climate change—carbon is not real, then it is again; housing affordability—just get rich parents; nothing to see here. A government's obligation is to identify problems and to fix them. Goodness only knows what kind of market failure and get-rich-quick schemes we can expect when the government starts privatising Medicare and human services, which, as we know, is on their agenda. There are two aspects of the impact that I want to touch on and one aspect of the bill, in particular. Firstly, one of the most disturbing impacts in my view is that our national reputation for quality and efficiency has declined. Even those opposite, I think, would accept that a highly skilled workforce is critical to our future national prosperity and requires a well-structured, effective training system—and that the lack of such holds back Australia's productivity and growth potential if money is wasted on substandard costly and badly targeted training. There is a domestic angle to that, of course, but there is also the international angle, as others have touched on. To amplify: I know this previously from my work leading international education in Victoria, a sector worth in excess of $5½ billion—probably now over $6 billion—to the Victorian economy. Our skills and training sector used to be the envy of the world. I myself have led vocational training trade missions to many countries to explain and promote our VET sector with its focus on quality, industry-linked training, industry-driven standards and our diverse provider model. Australia has been up there in reputational terms with the best in the world—right alongside Germany, for example, who many say is the gold standard with their GTZ system. There is huge interest all over the world in our model. This interest is not just academic. There are large export opportunities which abound in the Indo-Pacific and across the globe from India, China, right across South-East Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. That is from students coming here to study onshore—and all the economic value that that brings—transnational delivery for our colleges and providers delivering in other countries and also education services exports, whether that is curriculum advisory services and so on. But our competitive advantage is and must always be our reputation for high quality. If that suffers, Australia's market disappears, because, frankly, we are a relatively high-cost, top-tier provider internationally for skills and training. Under this government this reputation has suffered, and these things are not easy to repair. The other aspect of the bill that I want to turn my attention to is that in relation to education agents and brokers. The bill's attempt to finally deal with the shady part of the sector are welcome and, in my view, long overdue. For years we have heard legions of stories of unscrupulous agents signing people up to courses they cannot complete, of dodgy quality and that do not lead to a job. Brokers that find students and churn them through, if you like, have been paid outrageous commissions. That is money which should have been going into the quality of education, the institutions themselves and the students but, instead, have been seen, because of this model, as a marketing or recruitment cost in a business model that relies simply on churn. I know reputable private providers who have despaired at the inaction. How on earth can you compete? Just think about it: you are a business; you are out there; you have been there for many years; you are running a good show; you have a reputation for quality; you have found your niche in your sector in the market, and you have all these others around you focused on shoving students through, paying outrageous commissions with no regard to quality—and they push the price down. You cannot run a quality business in that environment, so many of the old hands scaled back their business simply waiting for the bubble to burst, as it has now. I heard stories when doorknocking of students left with these debts. I have seen stalls at suburban shopping malls in my electorate recruiting students and people at stations in the morning and heard of brokers hanging around institutions, trying to convince students to swap from lower cost courses to those where they make a commission. In relation to the bill's proposal, I would contrast the approach with Labor's election policy, which made clear that the approach of not directly regulating these brokers has failed and proposed regulation through ASQA, with a licensing fee, cost-recovery arrangement. The bill proposes to ban providers outright from using brokers or agents to interact with students in relation to VET student loans. Two important questions arise. I say these seriously as matters which I think should be considered in detail through the Senate inquiry. Firstly, given how rushed this legislation is and how entrenched this behaviour is, the Senate inquiry has to look at this aspect of things very carefully to be sure that the legislative provision as drafted is watertight to achieve the objectives. I urge the inquiry to hear directly from experts in the industry, from businesspeople who actually understand this model and this market, to make sure there are no backdoor loopholes, unintended consequences and that the behaviour stops. I am concerned on a plain reading that the way that clause 49 is drafted may still leave loopholes for unscrupulous behaviour, and this needs to be tested with industry—in particular, subclause (1)(a). I would also note that clause 49(2)(b) provides for arrangements to continue that are 'specified in the rules'. It is entirely unclear what sorts of circumstances the government may be contemplating here. Secondly, more broadly, the Senate inquiry must consider whether this approach is the most appropriate or whether further action is needed. The regulatory impact statement, as I see it, indicates that the bill's approach is preferred to the regulation of agents. My experience of working with the sector is that the issue of agents requires much more attention and reform. The bill seeks to stamp them out in one part of the sector. It makes sense that, if you were going to pick one part of the sector to have a go at, it would be that which public money is actually pushed out in. It directly sheets home to the taxpayer; that makes sense. However, they remain an unregulated, concerning influence in other parts of the sector. Agents exist to support domestic students as well as international students onshore and offshore. They can play a useful role for some students, particularly for international students unfamiliar with countries on offer, but they are not regulated. There is no peak body or industry association, there is no clear code of conduct and there is no industry standard for self-regulation. There are too many reports still of dodgy agent behaviour in all other parts of this sector that will not be captured by this bill. Young people, of course, are particularly vulnerable consumers, but international students are especially vulnerable, with no legal norms, cultural norms, language or understanding of their rights. Reports continue, as I said, of agents hanging around train stations and universities basically trying to steal international students and tempt them to lower cost courses, for which they receive a large commission. Some changes in recent years to the student visa arrangements have gone some way to curtail this, but it remains a problem. In terms of options, regulating offshore agents is incredibly difficult and there is doubt about legal capacity, but through existing arrangements in the ESOS Act framework there are some obligations placed on providers through a provider code. There are other bits and pieces of indirect regulation through various pieces of legislation and registration standards for TEQSA and ASQA in some states, but there is nothing comprehensive, fundamentally. If a dodgy agent—this is a fact—is sacked by a provider, the same person can pop up tomorrow working for another provider. The plausible deniability continues for providers to say, 'I knew nothing; it wasn't me; it was the agent' and the same agent is out there doing it again or, indeed, doing it again for the same company, under a different company name. There is no policing or regulation of the sort of person who is able to enter the agent industry and provide advice to vulnerable consumers, often on highly expensive products that will still lead to debt. The Productivity Commission's research paper on international education services provides a good overview of these issues. A 2015 Senate inquiry, in fact, recommended that ASQA be granted powers to directly regulate brokers or marketing agents in the domestic VET sector. In my view, there remains a strong case for proper regulation of agents, whether through licensing or accreditation, as operates for migration agents, real estate agents and many other industry specialists. If the individual does the wrong thing, they are kicked out of the industry. We have heard about the impact on students, and I will not go through that again. I think they have been well made, and no doubt we will hear more. This bill does not go far enough. There is nothing in the bill to restore the $2.75 billion the Liberals have ripped out of TAFE schools and apprenticeships; nothing to protect TAFE; nothing to boost apprenticeships. There is nothing also, I might note, in this bill about the government's commitment in the second reading speech where we learnt that they are going to establish a VET loans ombudsman. We look forwarded to seeing how the government plans to make good on this commitment. I do have to point out that Labor moved in the Senate to establish this ombudsman over a year ago. It is another thing that the government has wisely, in this instance, chosen to copy from our policy, because this is not yet in the bill before the House. Perhaps it is another afterthought, or maybe they forgot to copy that bit of our policy and we will see it when it returns from the Senate. Perhaps it will be in a separate bill tomorrow, given there is not much of a legislative program and we seem to be currently splitting lots of little things into little bills so we all have some work to do. Mr DICK 53517 Or gag it. Mr HILL 86256 Nothing would surprise me. It is a strange world. In summary, the challenges of implementation, the policy direction, as I think we have made clear, is sound, because it is our policy which we have been suggesting. We do share the sector's concerns about the implementation of these changes, and, as I said, the minister's job in his future will rely on the successful implementation. It is an enormous task to get this bill, which has been rushed through, ready for implementation and transition for 1 January. We could talk at length, ad nauseam, about the hypocritical nature that copying these reforms, these Labor ideas, represent—and everyone has noticed. But that is okay because imitation, as they say, is the highest form of flattery. It is not the point either, because, give the seriousness of the issues, Australia cannot afford this kind of partisan incompetence again. When things go wrong, whoever is in government, whoever you are, we need a government that listens to good ideas wherever they come from, even from across the chamber. That was what we were promised at 'alt government'. Given the scale of the mess, it is unbelievable. We really have no practical ideas as to why it took so long to fix. I hope it was not crude electoral politics, but it is hard to be sure. The reason I say this in closing is that I was contacted by a student in my electorate during the campaign who was worried because his private provider had told him that they had to vote Liberal because Labor was going to crack down on the sector. Who were they acting to protect while failing to act while dodgy providers got rich? Certainly not our students or national interest. (Time expired) 18:28 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack The Turnbull government has introduced the VET Student Loans Bill 2016 and related bills into the House to establish a new VET student loans program commencing 1 January 2017. This legislation was introduced to replace the utter failure that was the VET FEE-HELP scheme introduced in 2012 by the last Labor government. This scheme patched up by this government—us, on this side of the chamber—in 2015 is now set to be overhauled entirely before the start of the next semester for most vocational training providers beginning early next year. The need for this legislation was clear. The VET FEE-HELP scheme was a deeply troubled Labor government policy that the Turnbull government has taken steps to remove. Our new proposal, the VET student loans program, will be more accountable, more sustainable and more accessible than its woeful predecessor. The failure of Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme is truly something to behold. I will briefly outline for the House some of the figures from this Gillard government policy, which has proved to be an unmitigated disaster. The costings for the program in 2012 were $325 million. By 2015, the scheme was costing Australian taxpayers $2.9 billion a year. Incredibly, fees for courses covered by the VET FEE-HELP scheme had more than doubled within three years and student loans had increased by a staggering 792 per cent. This reform is badly needed. It will provide a win for both taxpayers and students. It is not often a scheme is so bad that its end is marked with praise from service providers, students and taxpayers, but that is exactly what has happened with the VET FEE-HELP scheme. There are several key changes made in the proposed legislation. The new VET Student Loans program includes a range of measures to protect students and taxpayers and restore trust in the vocational education sector. Firstly, the Turnbull government will introduce an annual levy on approved service providers to decrease the overall cost of the program and to more closely audit unscrupulous service providers. The government will also limit course eligibility for VET student loans to courses approved by the minister. Courses will have a high national priority, will align with industry needs and will lead to employment, not just graduate outcomes. The course list will be updated regularly and subject to feedback as the changing needs of the country will need to be reflected in the approved course list. The Turnbull government will also introduce a maximum loan amount for eligible courses. The initial loan caps will be $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000, indexed annually by the CPI. The minister will have several new powers, which include the power to exempt courses with high delivery costs, such as aviation, from the loan caps; introduction of new caps; and specification of which courses fall within each loan cap band. Loans caps are derived from actual VET FEE-HELP tuition data and data used to develop the New South Wales Smart and Skilled program. This is in stark contrast to the Labor government scheme which, instead of capping loans, seemed to encourage a veritable arms race between service providers to see who could charge the most for their courses whilst offering the largest incentive to encourage students to enrol. In many cases, students had enrolled in programs with absolutely no prospect of a job at the end of the course. We have seen enrolments skyrocket in courses like circus skills, fortune telling, belly dancing and interpretive dance. We want to create graduates who will grow our economy, not join a circus. This policy resulted in the disgraceful behaviour of some of the private training service providers, with young and vulnerable students saddled with debts from diplomas they were completely unqualified to study and had no hope of completing, with definitely no job at the end. When the Labor Party attempts to feebly defend their economic record, one must only direct their gaze toward the complete failure of this policy. Not only did the scheme blow out to cost taxpayers some $3 billion a year but it also financially saddled young people from poor and disadvantaged areas as well as overseas students. Indeed, many of the service providers targeted Indigenous areas and populations, signing students up with the promise of a free up-front iPad or laptops so they could jack up their fees and make taxpayers pay for it. Absolutely shameful. This policy is by any measure an absolute failure. It is particularly abhorrent that the victims of this policy are in the main young and disadvantaged people who were simply attempting to better themselves and earn a qualification. It is simply heartbreaking for many of those young people. A change will also be made with regard to the requirement of student progression for continued access to the loan, which is designed to protect vulnerable students. This is especially relevant for regional students in my electorate of Durack who have relocated for study as they often need to defer in order to work and save money before returning to their studies. We will strengthen compliance and payment arrangements via a range of measures built into this legislation, because of the woeful lack of safeguards included in the original legislation. These will include greater monitoring and investigation powers and enforcement provisions through the use of civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. The government will also be able to immediately suspend a provider in urgent circumstances, if required. The government will also ban the use of brokers or agents to engage or recruit students in relation to loans, and any unsolicited contact with students in relation to enrolling in a vocational training institution will also be prohibited. We will require approved providers to only subcontract training to other approved VET student loan providers or higher education providers approved by the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency. Individual subcontractors engaged to provide specialist expertise for part of a course will be allowed on a case-by-case basis. There is the introduction of an application fee for providers to apply to become a VET student loan approved provider and an annual levy on providers will be established through the accompanying VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016. All existing VET FEE-HELP providers will have to apply to be approved under the new program. This will allow the government to weed out unscrupulous and predatory service providers that were allowed to flourish under the Labor policy. States, territories and employer groups have called for significant reform to protect the integrity of Australia's high-quality training system and to ensure the system delivers the skills needed for work. That is what we are delivering with these bills. This bill must be passed quickly, otherwise there will be no government loan program to assist students for the first semester of next year, which of course will be an unmitigated disaster—a disaster so large that it may only be matched by the disaster that was the VET FEE-HELP scheme administered by the members opposite during their time in government. This is the final part of this government's commitment to fixing Labor's mess in regard to student loans, and expands on the good work done on this program in 2015. We have already removed the cold calling and inducements from the program, where we saw predatory training providers luring vulnerable students into courses that they were wholly unsuitable for with bonuses, as I said previously, like iPads and laptops. This badly needed reset is necessary to encourage trust and support in our training sector—a sector that has been tarnished by endless scandal since the VET FEE-HELP program was introduced by those opposite in 2012. The VET Student Loans program will see stronger course eligibility criteria, mandatory student engagement measures and a stronger focus on students successfully completing courses. All of this is designed to benefit the students. For far too long our training providers and our higher education services have focused on the numbers of students we are producing. But this government is committed not to bulk tonnage of students, but to the quality of the graduates our institutions are producing. This is an important part of our election commitment to a more robust and flexible economy, and I firmly believe that this economic future rests on the backs of high-quality, skilled graduates. These young people will be responsible for driving our innovation economy and filling skilled roles in our economy for decades to come. Australia cannot afford another VET FEE-HELP debacle. The vocational students of this country deserve better. The hard-working teachers and trainers deserve better. And the taxpayers of Australia deserve better economic management than what has been offered up by the Labor government and the VET FEE-HELP scheme. I commend these bills to the House. 18:39 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to support the second reading amendment of the VET Student Loans Bill 2016. It is very important for me to place remarks on the record, because in my electorate of Oxley we not only have a high youth unemployment, we have high general unemployment. It has only got worse since this government has come to power. One of the issues that residents continually raise with me is the issue of training and access to quality higher education, whether that be through the university sector, the vocational education and training sector or, of course, the TAFE sector, which I will be speaking about tonight. Listening to the member for Durack, once again we are seeing a masterclass in hypocrisy from those opposite—big on lectures, little on responsibilities. That is the standard method of operation from those opposite. So I do want to contribute to the debate on the three VET student loan bills tonight. As the shadow minister, Kate Ellis, outlined in the House earlier today, we will be supporting these bills in principle and we will be awaiting the outcome of the Senate inquiry. I want to be very clear on the record this evening to say that the three bills implement Labor's pre-election commitments to capping student loans, cracking down on shonky brokers, linking publicly funded courses to industry need and skills shortages, requiring providers to reapply under new standards so that only high-quality providers access the loans system, linking funding to student progress and completion and, as we have heard, appointing a long overdue VET loans ombudsman. Let us be clear: those opposite have sat on their hands and done nothing. We heard nothing about this during the election campaign. Not a peep—in fact, the minister drove through my electorate on the way to Ipswich during the campaign and proudly proclaimed that the system was working; proudly said that there were no problems at all. What happened straight after the election? Despite enormous warnings by the industry itself; despite enormous warnings by the victims of some of these predatory operators; and despite people in the TAFE sector warning and setting off alarm bells, the government simply ignored the problem. So we have seen the Turnbull-Abbott government slow to take action with a standard procedure of more delay. That is what happens when you have a government more interested in fighting amongst themselves. Sadly, this sector has had five vocational education and training ministers in just three years. I am not sure if it is a bit of a dumping ground for those opposite, but tonight I want to place on record my thanks to Labor's former spokeswoman, the member for Cunningham, Sharon Bird, for her outstanding work and leadership in highlighting a number of these issues. I was very fortunate during the election campaign to see the member for Cunningham visit my electorate to meet with some of the students involved with the issues that we are debating tonight and have a chat with some of their families and also some of the providers as well—doing that hard work of listening, leading and raising those issues. We are only sad that it has taken a number of years for this government to take action. I want to note that it has been 12 months since the Senate inquiry into the VET system released its recommendations. We all know on this side of the chamber that if we had seen a government more committed to the sector and more committed to stronger policy initiatives we could have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. Let's go through the list. Three billion dollars in unrecoverable VET loans. Graduation rates for the 10 largest service providers under five per cent, costing around $215,000 per graduate. I note only last week there was some media commentary which described taxpayers footing the bill for $9 million diplomas as the scheme was shut down. Taxpayers paid $9 million per graduate in one year at a private Sydney college. An analysis of Department of Education and Training figures shows that 10 colleges received $900 million in taxpayer funding, despite those colleges graduating only 4,200 students in 2014. That is the average I was speaking about of $237,000 a diploma. If that was not enough of a warning bell, I do not know what would be. A diploma typically takes two years to complete. The analysis of the 2014 data reveals that one of the biggest beneficiaries in the sector was a Sydney based training centre, and it had a completion rate of just 0.12 per cent, earning $46 million while it graduated fewer than five graduates. It cost the public purse, I say again, $9.2 million per diploma. We know that there have been a number of issues in the sector for some time, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has despaired at the current distortions and poor outcomes. A former director of Skills Tasmania said: The once high reputation of VET has now been trashed by the behaviour of unscrupulous VET operators and the arguable naivety of senior government bureaucrats. The Australian education system has been turned into a competition for students, with slick TV, online and radio marketing promising to transform people's lives. TAFEs have been defunded and downsized, with some TAFE colleges forced to hire out premises to private providers. TAFE's market share has plummeted nationally from 74 per cent in 2004 to 52 per cent by 2014, and it is still falling. I know that the member for Burt, as a proud Western Australian, is also fighting against the Barnett government's unfair huge fees that have been introduced. The New South Wales government has massively increased TAFE fees and abandoned many courses deemed unsuitable for a commercial business plan. TAFE students also were being directed to VET FEE-HELP to fund their courses. The Australian Education Union have criticised the commercialisation of the vocational education sector. Tonight, I also want to place on record in this place my strong commitment to those educators—those people who give so much to train our young people. In the assistant minister's second reading speech last week, she said: Australia's economic prosperity depends upon the quality of our graduates, the outcomes of the training they receive and whether they are skilled in the way employers need them to be skilled. I agree with the member for McPherson and Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills; I only wish we did not have to wait through three years of inaction under this government to see improvements. The industry itself has raised concerns. The peak body, the union representing the industry and the skilled professionals have also raised concerns. On the issue of apprenticeships, the ACCI have indicated that there were 308,000 apprentices and trainees in training in mid-2015 compared to almost 400,000 a decade ago, from a high of 446,000 in 2012. So what we have seen over the last couple of years is a 30 per cent drop in volume. That is a huge concern for my electorate. In the federal seat of Oxley, which I am privileged to represent in this chamber, the number of apprenticeships has fallen by a massive 53.6 per cent, from 3,203 in December 2013 to 1,486 in December 2015. So there has been a huge collapse in apprenticeships—and it is not just in my electorate. Apprenticeship numbers in capital city seats are also in crisis, with numbers in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide all decreasing by up to 51.4 per cent. Right across Australia—let me be very clear—apprenticeship numbers have fallen by 136,000 places. We hear a lot from those opposite about jobs and growth. We need more than slogans to deal with the unemployment issues in this nation. The statistics show that in September 2013, when Labor left office, there were 415,000 apprentices in training. So we have seen a sharp decline in the number of apprenticeships under this government. In my home state of Queensland, where the TAFE system plays such a critical role in getting people in training, under the experiment that was the Campbell Newman government we saw a knife taken to higher education and vocational education, with TAFE teachers sacked. Of course, with its the privatisation agenda, the former government wanted to privatise our TAFE system, just as they wanted to sell off our essential assets, but the Palaszczuk government, under the leadership of the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister for Training and Skills, Yvette D'Ath, has begun the rebuilding of the TAFE sector and the training sector in Queensland. We need our state governments to be partnering and working hand in glove with the federal government to deliver training to job-ready people, particularly young people and people in long-term unemployment, so that we can see productivity increased and the unemployment rates drop. One of the things the Newman government did was to axe a successful program called Skilling Queenslanders for Work. I am proud to support the state Labor government, which has made a $60 million investment to help approximately 8,000 Queenslanders get the qualifications and skills they need. Skilling Queenslanders for Work is a four-year, $240 million initiative that will provide training for up to 32,000 jobseekers across the state. This is already paying dividends in my own electorate. I have been to a number of graduations, where I have met and spoken with long-term unemployed people who are reaping the benefits of this successful training program. An axe was taken to the program by the Newman government. It is little wonder that they were turfed out because of their toxic policies, but we are now seeing that sector being rebuilt. That framework goes a long way to making sure that we see improvements in training opportunities for young people. In Queensland, we are seeing student support services that were gutted under the former government reintroduced, and we are also seeing the expanding and improving of regional support programs. So that is providing jobs not only in the sector but also in our region, as well. We have seen a great deal of hypocrisy from the government regarding these bills. We had the Treasurer of this nation say that capping student loans would 'pull the rug out from under the private education industry'. And, of course, we are now seeing caps being introduced. We had one of the former ministers—I mentioned five before—Senator Ryan say Labor's policy was 'classist' and 'a thought bubble'. Now, we are adopting that exact policy this evening. The current minister, Senator Birmingham, said capping student loans was an 'ill-considered flat pack'. So what does the minister do? Does he stand by those words? No, he adopts Labor's strong policies regarding these issues. So we know that under the Liberals the VET system had fallen into crisis. The other issue which we are watching closely is the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, which expires in June 2017. I say to the assistant minister and to the government: there has been zero funding for Queensland coming forward for vital skills and training in my home state. We have seen a cut of $105.4 million less from the Commonwealth government in the training and skills budget. We know that in a matter of weeks the Ministerial Council meeting will be convening. I certainly call on the federal government to lay its cards on the table and enter into those serious negotiations with the states. We have to have the federal government—and this federal government—working closely with the states to make sure that we have a strong vocational educational training system. We have to make sure that we have a strong TAFE system. Ultimately, our responsibility here is to provide that leadership for jobs and training for our young people. (Time expired) 18:54 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to speak on the VET Student Loans Bill 2016, which will overhaul the VET-FEE HELP system so that it is affordable, sustainable and more student focused. It will also undo the damage caused by Labor's failed VET-FEE HELP scheme in the first place. After Labor made these changes to the VET HELP loan scheme in 2012, unscrupulous training providers were allowed to flourish. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, as someone who used to own and operate a registered training organisation, that was most certainly the case. I am sure many of my colleagues heard similar stories in their offices as I did in mine. There were examples where providers preyed on vulnerable people and offered sweeteners, like a free laptop or a free iPad, if you signed up for a course—a course of dubious quality, a course that you did not actually want, a course that you did not need, a course you would never complete and a course that you would never ever pay for. A constituent contacted my office after his son applied online for what was advertised as, and for what he thought was, a vacant job in warehousing with a contract labour hire firm. But instead he has contacted by a registered training organisation. Their email confirmed that he was registered to attend an induction session to enrol in a certificate III in logistics and warehousing. There was, of course, no job vacancy. I share his concern that these online job advertisements were completely misleading. What was also concerning was that the email from the RTO contained all of the documentation that the job seeker would need to provide for enrolment, but did not disclose any information about the course, the course content, the course outcomes, the course costs or the course cancellation fees. Another constituent raised concerns that there were some RTOs who were flaunting the laws that we were supposed to be upholding for their own profit and gain. Can you imagine that: someone who flaunted the law for their own profit and gain! This gentleman in particular was incredulous that students could pass a course for high-risk work after a five-day course when he runs three days of formal training in his operation and his students then need to obtain 120 logbook hours before even being assessed. He said that people had contacted him to say how 'hopelessly inadequate' the training was and also that they themselves were not, in any shape or form, confident in their ability. These are not the outcomes we need in the industries of Australia. These are everyday people, and they are being left massively in debt—a debt the majority will not pay—and they have no qualifications to show for it. There are some interesting stats. The changes made by Labor's schemes resulted in student numbers jumping by almost 400 per cent. Fees more than doubled. Loans increased by 792 per cent and jumped from a cost of $325 million in 2012 to $1.8 billion in 2014, followed by $2.9 billion in 2015. The VET Student Loans Bill 2016 will hit the reset button. It will hit the reset button so that Australians can start to rebuild their trust in vocational education and so that taxpayers can be assure that their money is no longer being rorted. I previously spoke in this place in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015, which was part of the measures that the government introduced a try and fix this problem. The coalition government banned inducements being offered to students to enrol in courses for which they needed a loan and tightened recruitment and marketing practice to make it clear to the students themselves what they were signing up to. While these measures were necessary—and they have made an impact—a reset is needed; a new scheme is needed. The new VET Student Loans program will limit courses eligible for VET student loans to those that align with industry needs. What a novel approach, Mr Deputy Speaker! We will train and provide for people in the areas that we need—the areas where there is a shortage. These will be selected based on analysis of employer, state and territory, and Commonwealth data to ensure that they lead to good employment opportunities. What another novelty! We will train people for employment for jobs that are available. The Minister for Education and Training, Senator the honourable Simon Birmingham, will have the power to approve a course list by legislative instrument for courses and loan caps determination. The list of 347 courses proposed to be eligible for a VET student loan from 1 January 2017 is currently open for consultation, and the coalition government wants to hear your views on the eligible course list. You can have your say by providing feedback by email to VETStudentLoans@education.gov.au. That feedback must be provided by this Sunday—October 23. The determination will give the minister the power to change the list and ensure that it remains flexible to meet changing workplace skills needs. By limiting the courses eligible, the new loan program will be closely aligned with industry needs. We need to end the free-for-all subsidies that Labor started that have seen providers burden students with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt for courses that offer poor employment prospects. Examples are the Graduate Diploma of Veterinary Chinese Herbal Medicine and the Advanced Diploma of Therapeutic Arts in Counselling, to name just a couple. The new scheme also include three bands of loan caps for courses, set at $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000, depending on their delivery cost. These caps were chosen based on an analysis of the course prices set under the New South Wales Smart and Skilled program and validated against the average VET FEE-HELP fees prior to the exorbitant rises in course fees in recent years. I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I experienced much of this before I came into this place, and the capacity for someone to actually quadruple or increase by a factor of 20 the cost of one of the courses they atypically deliver was outrageous. The minister can review the cap rates at any time in the first 12 months of the scheme, and there will be a compulsory review after the first 12 months of VET Student Loans to ensure it is working as intended. Students will be required to log into, and of course engage with, the VET Student Loans online portal to ensure their enrolments are active and legitimate. From 1 July 2017, a student engagement and progression requirement for continued access to the loan is expected to apply. Students will be required to log in periodically to confirm active and legitimate enrolment in the course. This provides greater protection for students by shifting the ability to access the loan away from the approved provider, to the student. It does this by removing the provider's ability to re-enrol failing and absent students without their knowledge. The Commonwealth will have the discretion not to pay the loan amounts if the student is not genuine. A new application process for providers wanting to access VET Student Loans will include a much higher bar to entry by assessing their relationships with industry, their student completion rates, the employment outcomes of their courses and their track records as education institutions. All existing VET FEE-HELP providers will have to apply for approval under the new program. The VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016 will provide for certain bodies, such as TAFEs, to be exempt from the re-application process. Providers will need to meet the new course-provider requirements to be eligible for approval as an approved course provider. Critically, providers must continue to meet these requirements for the duration of their approval. The requirements include having to be a fit and proper person and having to satisfy the provider suitability requirements. The details of these new requirements will include student outcomes, such as completion rates; industry links; experience in providing vocational education; financial performance; strong management and governance; as well as having regard to the provider's course scope, tuition fees and modes of course delivery. It will continue to be a requirement for approval that a provider be a party to a tuition assurance arrangement. This will provide greater protection to students, because they are the ones that need the protection, in the event of a provider ceasing to provide a course, by imposing obligations on the organisation that has agreed to provide the tuition assurance. It is anticipated that applications for provider approvals will be considered only on an annual basis, and an application fee will apply. The bill also introduces a limit on the duration of a provider's approval—a maximum of seven years. Thereafter, the provider will have to apply again. Seven years aligns with the maximum length of registration as a registered training organisation under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and as a higher education provider under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. Having been through two of those, I can tell you they are incredibly thorough and difficult. The bill will prohibit approved providers from using brokers or directly soliciting prospective students, including cold-calling and so-called lead generation, and limiting the subcontracting of training. This new legislation will mirror and retain many of the important student protection reforms to the VET FEE-HELP scheme introduced through the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Act 2015, including the measures such as the ban on prohibited inducements, the requirement to have a parent or guardian's signature for students under the age of 18, and enforcement provisions. The bill introduces a new ban on providers using brokers or agents to interact or engage with students in relation to VET student loans. This includes prohibiting brokers and agents from enrolling students in courses for which the tuition fees will be covered by student loans; assisting students to complete applications for student loans; or providing information or advice to students in relation to the VET student loans. Providers will be required to meet the ongoing information requirements; retain any documents or information, such as student records; and provide students with certain prescribed information. The bill will also require providers to determine tuition fees in accordance with the rules. This measure will continue to enable the Commonwealth to ensure fees are spread across the duration of a course. The fees must be published. Importantly, a provider cannot require a student to pay for tuition fees that are to be covered by a VET student loan. We will also strengthen legislative, compliance and payment conditions, including the ability to cap provider loan amounts and student numbers, and to limit course scope; and powers to suspend poor-performing providers from the program, cancel their payments and revoke their approval. So what will the impact of the VET Student Loans Bill be on the students themselves? There will be greater protections provided for students by shifting the ability to access a loan away from the provider to the student. Student loans will be approved by the Commonwealth, but only if the student is eligible and it is for a course that is an approved course. The bill provides the Commonwealth with the discretion not to pay a loan where it is satisfied a student is non-genuine or where it suspects the approved provider is not complying with the conditions on its approval or the provisions in the bill. In circumstances such as unacceptable conduct by a provider, or if the provider's noncompliance has adversely affected the student, or if it is shown that the student is not eligible or not genuine, the secretary has the discretion to recredit the student's FEE-HELP balance without the student having to apply. Existing VET FEE-HELP students will have the option of staying with their current provider under the old VET FEE-HELP scheme until 31 December 2017, or transitioning to the new VET Student Loans program. Students starting study in 2017 will have access to the new program only. Throughout 2017, students will be assisted to move to an approved course at an approved provider. Over the coming weeks and months, the Department of Education and Training will be communicating with students to ensure they understand the changes and what they need to do. Most importantly, these reforms place a much stronger focus on students successfully completing courses, because quality providers delivering quality courses aligned to industry needs will be a strong driver of completion rates. Ensuring that only high-quality providers with strong track records and industry links are approved to offer the program will have a positive effect on student support and performance. The bill will also have a number of other impacts on providers. While TAFEs and public providers will automatically transition to the new program, they will still face identical new conditions on scope of enrolment, enrolment numbers, loan caps and student participation. These providers are low risk, they have not abused the VET FEE-HELP scheme, and they have significant numbers of state funded students. Granting them entry to the new program minimises transition and administration costs and provides greater certainty to students. Private providers, however, will be required to meet a range of quality measures to be granted an initial six-month trial period under the new program. Current private VET FEE-HELP providers will need to apply later in 2016 to access the new program on a transitional basis from 1 January 2017. They will then need to apply in 2017 to seek formal approval for entry from 1 July 2017. New approval arrangements will: assess applicants' relationships with industry, assess student completion rates and employment outcomes, evaluate any articulation with higher education providers, and appraise a provider's track record of delivering education and training. Suitability against the application criteria will need to be maintained across the entire period of a provider's approval. There will also be a stronger focus on compliance, with the education department working with the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, who I have worked with many times, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to closely scrutinise providers. The coalition government's decision to implement the new VET student loans program follows comprehensive consultation with the sector and takes into account the views of a broad range of stakeholders, including: providers, peak bodies, students, individuals and government bodies. The submissions—which included contributions from providers, peak bodies and students—showed that stakeholders strongly agree that change is needed, and they have been an important part of helping the coalition government redesign the scheme. There is strong support for ensuring we have a high-quality program with a strong reputation for delivering results. Stakeholders agree that completion rates need to improve. These rates have been too low for too long, and we cannot let this continue. They also agree that course costs do need to be addressed. The new program will stop providers from charging students exorbitant fees which are then underwritten by the taxpayer. The VET Student Loans Bill will be a big win for local students, particularly in my electorate, as well as taxpayers. It will ensure public funding is used only to support high-quality vocational and skills courses. I commend the bill to the House. 19:09 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on the VET FEE-HELP reforms. I must say that it is high time the government introduce reforms to the VET FEE-HELP program. For too long the current system has been abused by shonky providers and vulnerable students have felt the brunt of that abuse. The scheme has seen a massive blowout in expenditure, unsustainable increases in course costs, and, most critically, the rise of malicious providers who have used tactics such as offering laptops to vulnerable students as an incentive to sign up, knowing full well they would not be able to complete the course. These students now have large debts hanging over their heads, and some of them might not even know it. Change was necessary, and the government was right to ban the practice of offering inducements last year. But that did not put a stop to the massive amount of taxpayer funded courses that were being provided unchecked. Many, many courses were offered, with little oversight as to what the course involved and how it was taught. Thankfully, the government has finally made a decision to act. The government likes to point out that the scheme was introduced under a Labor government, but that does not give any excuse for the inaction over the last three years. When the reforms were introduced by the Labor government in 2012, the then shadow minister, Sussan Ley, criticised them for not having the skills or the know-how to implement VET fee programs. Four years later we sit here with a government that has shown that they cannot effectively administer a VET program. How many students now unknowingly have debts due to the delayed response from this government? What is the government doing for those students? My strongest fear is that we have many vulnerable students—particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students—who are unaware of the loans they have hanging over their heads. The Minister for Education and Training, through his department, has not confirmed that the government will be able to reach out to all of the students who were duped into signing up for the loans. If these students are unaware that they even have a loan, how can they get that loan waived? These are students who had little understanding of what they were signing up for, who were misled and who in many cases are the most at-risk members of our community. With big debts, how will they get a loan? How will they get a car in the future? That debt will stay with them—possibly for the rest of their life. The government needs to protect these students and reach out to as many as possible to let them know about the debts that they have. The burden of proof in relation to this must be reversed. Who will regulate this new scheme? According to the Minister for Education and Training, it is a job that the department can manage, but we have seen how hard it is for the program to be regulated already. It would simply be a monumental task for the education department to administer, and I hope that there is more consideration given to a third party being in charge. As this House knows, 478 courses have been excluded from the VET FEE-HELP scheme. I believe that the eligible course list is too restrictive and ignores some of the future needs for our country. Australia needs a progressive VET sector, not one based on old data and ignorant of job creation and future projections. Of course we need to crack down on these shonky providers, but what the government is doing with its defunding of so many important courses will mean that good, honest, well-run private providers will also suffer through the funding cuts. How is this fair? These providers have done the right thing, and they are being punished for the actions of wrongdoers. The government's choice to focus on the state skills needs list and prioritise STEM disciplines sounds practical and efficient, but it means that some very valuable course have been defunded. One in 63 students in Australia is diagnosed with autism. The government is removing funding from Diploma of Teaching Students with Autism Disorder. Surely this is a need, given there is one student in nearly every two classrooms who suffers from autism and teachers are saying that they do not know how to best specialise and manage these students so that they can have a solid education experience. The government is also introducing massive cuts to creative arts courses. Our aspiring actors, directors, screenwriters and producers will suffer. Our film and television industry will suffer. Australia is built on every person in our community contributing—not every person in our community contributing to a STEM discipline. We need the arts. We need teachers who are willing to teach students with disability, and who have the specialist skills to do so. We need health treatments for our elderly. Vocational education provides pathways for people to pursue in those very important areas. So I urge the minister to consider a very quick review of the planned culling of courses in legitimate areas. I will give some examples of the narrowing of available courses. We have excluded courses in architecture and building, like the Graduate Diploma of Building Design and the Graduate Diploma of Building Surveying. No-one could say that that is a shonky profession to get into. We know that there will be jobs there in the future. In education, we are cutting the Diploma of Education (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) and the Graduate Diploma in Home Economics Education. These are important areas where we need to ensure we have specialist skills. In health, we are cutting the Advanced Diploma of Oral Health (Dental Hygiene), the Diploma of Community Health and the Graduate Diploma of Oral Medicine. They will no longer be courses where VET assistance can help a student. And we are cutting the Diploma of Dementia Care Leadership. With our ageing population, surely this course needs to be included. In my electorate we do not have any universities, so vocational educational is the most accessible form of further education for our young people. Australia does need a thriving vocational education sector, and we need it to work hand-in-hand with our higher education sector to prepare the next generation for their future. These reforms will strengthen the VET industry, which is why they have my support, but I hope this time around students are protected and they can focus purely on learning the skills needed to contribute to our communities. 19:16 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I am a proud graduate of Holmesglen College of TAFE, where I attended and completed my qualifications for my carpentry and joinery apprenticeship in the mid- to late 1980s. I have listened to the speeches of those opposite in the debate on the second reading of this bill and am dumbfounded at the hypocrisy of those opposite. Australia's vocational education and training sector, VET, is one of the central pillars of our economy and our future. At a time when Australia is competing with the formidable economic power of many North Asian countries, which have highly skilled labour, we must ensure that our vocational educational sector is strong and secure. Our nation's economy and our future depend upon it. Last week the Minister for Education and Training announced sweeping reforms to Australia's VET system. The purpose of the VET Student Loans Bill 2016 is to replace Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP loan scheme from 1 January 2017 and introduce a vastly improved student loan program for vocational education and training. These reforms are essential to safeguard the long-term relevance and integrity of vocational education in this country. They will protect the honest players in the industry and give value for money to both students and, importantly, taxpayers. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I firmly believe that not all VET private suppliers are shonky, but many of them have been proven to have acted inappropriately, and that is something that this government has called out. The need for reform is obvious. In its current form, Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme has a list of more than 800 courses, including many that have been superseded or are lifestyle focused with little relevance to Australia's workforce requirements. Since Labor expanded the scheme in 2012, all diploma-level courses have been automatically eligible for funding under the Labor scheme, leading to unsustainable growth and widespread rorting in the sector. What is more, far too many courses that will never lead to meaningful or paid work are being subsidised by the taxpayer. This has left many students with large debts and, in some cases, little to no training outcome or work prospects. The key statistics tell a sorry tale of waste and rorting that must raise the eyebrows of even the most diehard Labor supporter. From a cost of $325 million in 2012, Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme exploded to a staggering cost of $1.8 billion in 2014 and a whopping $2.9 billion in 2015. Student numbers jumped by 5,000 per cent from 2009. Course fees tripled and loans increased by 11,000 per cent from 2009. Modelling by the Grattan Institute estimates that 40 per cent of Labor's VET FEE-HELP student loans will never be repaid because the students' incomes will never rise above the repayment threshold of $53,000. What does that mean? It means the taxpayer is going to pick up the cost. According to a University of Sydney study, under Labor's deregulated system, where private training colleges are free to set their own fees, some of Australia's largest registered training organisations have profit margins of more than 50 per cent, enabled by loans funded by the Australian taxpayer. The coalition takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and that includes funding education and training programs that have the maximum chance of leading to jobs. To this end, the government has taken a responsible and measured approach to reforming the VET sector by running a test over all of the available diploma-level and above qualifications to ensure they are on at least two state and territory skills needs lists. The government has also looked at other areas of high economic need, such as science, technology engineering and mathematics—the so-called STEM subjects—skills or agricultural skills, to make sure the list meets out national economic priorities. As a result, the government has announced 347 courses that are expected to attract funding support under the new government's affordable, sustainable, student-focused VET Student Loans program. The government's new student loans program will protect prospective students by banning brokers or agents from engaging or recruiting students in relation to loans; prohibiting contact with students regarding the availability of loans, unless the student has expressly consented to contact by the particular provider; and broadening the circumstances for which student loans may be recredited. The government's new loans program will mirror and retain many of the important student protection reforms to Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme, introduced through the government's Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015. This includes measures such as the ban on prohibited inducements and cold calling, the requirement to have a parent's or guardian's signature for students under the age of 18, and relevant enforcement provisions. The government's new program will raise the bar for entry by providers to the program to ensure providers have robust governance and management arrangements and maintain acceptable student outcomes and, importantly, with industry links. The program will introduce an application fee for bodies to apply to become approved course providers, imposing an annual levy on providers. It will link loans to courses that meet industry needs—fancy that: a course that will meet industry needs!—and will also address skills shortages and improve the quality of the course delivery by only enabling providers to subcontract training to other approved course providers or higher education providers. It will toughen entry requirements for providers, with properly considered loan caps on courses, stronger course eligibility criteria aligned to industry needs, mandatory student engagement measures and a stronger focus on students successfully completing courses. It will strengthen compliance, governance and payment arrangements, including by triggering relevant regulatory powers from the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. It will limit eligible courses to those that align with industry needs and are based on analysis of employer and government data to ensure they lead to good employment opportunities. It will include three bands of loan caps, set at $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000 for courses, depending on their delivery cost, putting downward pressure on fees and addressing cost blow-outs. It will require students to log in and engage with the VET Student Loans online portal to ensure they are active and legitimate enrolments. The new program will feature a new application process, with a much higher bar to entry for providers wanting to access VET Student Loans, including examining student completion rates, the employment outcomes of courses offered and their track record as education institutions. As part of these important reforms, the government will also strengthen legislative, compliance and payment conditions, including the ability to cap provider loan amounts and student numbers and to limit course scope. The government will also assume powers to suspend poor-performing providers from the program, cancel their payments and revoke their approval. While TAFEs and public providers will automatically transition to the new program, private providers will be required to meet a range of quality measures to be granted an initial six-month trial period under the new program. Private providers will then need to apply, later in 2016, to access the new program from 1 July 2017. Providers that are not successful will not be able to access the new program. There will also be a stronger focus on compliance, with the education department working with VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to closely scrutinise providers. These measures will reduce the value of new student loans being issued by more than $2.4 billion per year by the end of the forward estimates in 2019-20. This will in turn lead to an estimated reduction in otherwise total outstanding HELP debt of more than $7 billion by June 2020 and by more than $25 billion by June 2026. The Turnbull government wants to get the balance right and is consulting with stakeholders to finalise the list of courses to be funded from next year. If a case can be made that a course has very strong employment outcomes, then it will be reinstated. Alternatively, if a course that is included on the revised list should not be, we will reconsider that also. VET Student Loans hits the 'reset button' on Labor's flawed VET FEE- HELP scheme, so that Australians can start to rebuild their trust in vocational education and taxpayers can ensure their money is not wasted. VET Student Loans will only support legitimate students to undertake worthwhile and value-for-money courses at quality training providers. I call on my parliamentary colleagues to work with the government to help us ensure the new VET Student Loans program is legislated in time for commencement on 1 January 2017. 19:29 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham In the very short period I have, I will indicate that I have a significant amount to say, so I will certainly be seeking to extend my comments when the debate reconvenes at a future date. It is particularly important, I think, for the parliament to consider the amendment to this bill that has been moved by the shadow minister. I will seek the opportunity when I have more time to speak in the debate to go through a bit of the history of what has happened to the VET FEE-HELP scheme and to discuss some of the proposals that the government has put forward. The SPEAKER 00APG Order! The member for Cunningham will have leave to continue her remarks at a later hour. ADJOURNMENT 78 ADJOURNMENT Freind, Major Geoffrey 78 19:30 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I rise to pay tribute to Geoff Freind, a constituent of the federal electorate of Perth, my electorate, and a major in the Salvation Army, who tragically passed away in September whilst on a preaching tour in Africa. I also give my condolences to his wife, Lyn, and his sons, Ashley, Steven, Nathan and Samuel, as well as his parents, Allan and Mabel. I also acknowledge in the gallery Lieutenant-Colonel Samuel Pho, who has come along to listen to this tribute to Major Freind. I acknowledge Lieutenant-Colonel Pho. Major Freind was a Salvation Army officer for 34 years and spent his life ministering to some of our community's neediest and most marginalised people across Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. He was a 'hands on' officer; he would be regularly be seen on Friday nights in pubs throughout Perth selling the Salvation Army's publication the Warcry, and offering a listening ear as well as a kind face to anyone who needed it. Indeed, I came across Major Freind a couple of times in this context at my local watering hole, The Flying Scotsman in Mount Lawley. Whilst I did not know him well, by all reports Major Freind was the sort of person who was not having fun unless he was helping others. In his 'time off', or so to speak, he coached local junior basketball teams in my federal electorate of Perth. One of his most recent appointments was as the commanding officer of the Salvation Army's Morley Corps. Indeed, his parents have worshipped at that corps for decades. In this context he was not only a respected community leader in my electorate but one of the local Salvos' favourite sons. As an MP, I can only envy what must have been his profound knowledge of, and deep connection with, his local community. Major Freind loved people. His three books—Enjoy the Journey, A Great Journey and Thank You for the Journey—drew heavily on his experiences as a Salvation Army officer journeying with and supporting people who were experiencing difficulties. The proceeds of sales from his books went to supporting hospitals in Africa. He sent $60,000 to the Chikankata Hospital in Zambia, which paid for an ambulance, electricity to the mortuary, air conditioning to the pharmacy and plumbing to the operating theatre. He also sent a sea container full of medical supplies, bedding and clothing to the Salvation Army's Howard Hospital in Zimbabwe. Major Freind also loved God. His deep and unwavering faith motivated the dedication of his life to the service of others. One of the things that his family has emphasised in eulogising him was that: 'Geoff loved Jesus, and wanted the world to know him.' Sadly and tragically, Major Freind was attacked as he went about his business in Malawi just a few weeks ago. In the aftermath of the incident, the outcry from the community—both the Salvation Army in Western Australia and the community more broadly—is indicative of a man who lived a big life, who profoundly touched many souls. He died in hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 21 September this year, surrounded by his wife and children. The Freind family has asked for donations in memoriam to be made to the Salvation Army's youth ministry in my home electorate of Morley. The ministry provides a range of services for young people in my electorate, including case management, school holiday programs, mentoring local high school students and running a large youth group on Friday evenings. In the Salvation Army's official notice of Major Freind's death, they quote Philippians chapter 1, verses 20 to 21: It is my expectation and hope that I won't be put to shame in anything. Rather, I hope with daring courage that Christ's greatness will be seen in my body, now as always, whether I live or die. Because for me, living serves Christ and dying is even better— the Common English Bible. The Salvation Army has a custom that when one of their own passes away it is referred to as being 'promoted to glory'. For a man who gave his life faithfully serving the lost, the last and the least in God's name, I congratulate Major Freind on his promotion. Freind, Major Geoffrey, South Perth: Mends Street 79 19:35 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I add my words of condolence to those of the member for Perth for Major Freind, who was a great servant of the community in Western Australia. Those of you who know Western Australia—I know the member for Perth knows Western Australia intimately, and also South Perth—will understand what I mean when I say 'Mends Street', which is the gateway to South Perth and my electorate. For those who do not know, let me explain a little bit. South Perth is a riverfront suburb in my electorate. With wide public spaces on the banks of the iconic Swan River, it is the perfect spot to watch the lights of the CBD. South Perth is visited frequently visited by locals and tourists and is connected by footpath and cycling path to the Perth CBD, Victoria Park and East Perth. On any given day you can visit the South Perth foreshore and find people walking their dogs, cycling the paths or having a picnic in the open green spaces. One of the best ways to get to South Perth is by ferry. Mends Street is the first street visitors walk up when disembarking the ferry and making their way to the iconic Perth Zoo. With the development of Elizabeth Quay on the CBD side of the river, it is now even easier to hop onto a ferry to South Perth. For the last several years I have been meeting with the stakeholders in this precinct and campaigning for funds to help revitalise this area. The retailers and local community agree that the precinct lacks amenities and is not as vibrant as it should be. In 2013, I hosted a forum with the Mends Street retailers and stakeholders. The precinct's amenities and its lack of access were raised as major concerns for the local businesses. So it was with great pleasure that, earlier this month, I was joined on the Mends Street jetty by City of South Perth Mayor Sue Doherty, CEO Geoff Glass and South Perth councillors to announce that Connect South, the City of South Perth's project to revitalise the precinct, would receive $2.5 million funding for Stage 1. As part of the coalition's National Stronger Regions Fund the coalition will fund $2.5 million of the $7.5 million Connect South project stage 1 which will revitalise the precinct with a new piazza area for space activation and promote better access, connection and linkages between Perth CBD, the Swan River, Mends Street and Perth Zoo. This project will create an environment to support the growth of the South Perth peninsula and greater region. It will improve access to transport and public amenity and provide greater economic opportunity. This project will revitalise the Mends Street precinct and create an active pedestrian thoroughfare. Importantly, this project will create more engaged shopfronts which will encourage local businesses to expand and attract new business to the area and provide the capacity for an additional 40 full-time equivalent employees in industries such as retail and food services. Commercial and retail traders and property owners within the Mends Street precinct are key stakeholders. As I said earlier, I have met with local traders and they have sought support from the City of South Perth to assist with economic improvements and development in the area. South Perth will work with these businesses for the design input and the project implementation. Connect South is a key project. It is part of the larger South Perth Foreshore Strategy and Management Plan, which has established a vision for the future management of the larger South Perth foreshore. The community, which was consulted during the development of the South Perth Foreshore Strategy and Management Plan, prioritised the Mends Street area as the most important area to start the foreshore redevelopment works. The local community will also be engaged in the development of the Connect South project. The City of South Perth will also be working with the Western Australian Department of Transport for the redevelopment of the Mends Street jetty as it no longer meets the standards of access and amenity, particularly when compared to the Ferry Port at Elizabeth Quay across the river. Before I finish, I want to let you know about another very exciting project that the City of South Perth is already currently trialling. Australia's first driverless shuttle bus is being trialled along the foreshore in South Perth—for those who have the courage to get on it, I encourage them to do so. The RAC Intellibus can perform all safety-critical driving functions without anyone actually driving it from behind the wheel. It can carry 11 passengers and travel at up to 45 kilometres per hour. At the moment, I think it is travelling at about 25 kilometres per hour during the trialling period. There are systems in place to avoid an accident, including front and rear cameras, GPS technology and an emergency stop button. It also has the ability to detect other vehicles and read traffic lights. The bus is currently travelling down a pre-programmed route along the foreshore Once again, I congratulate the City of South Perth on its successful application for Stronger Regions funding and look forward to seeing the revitalisation of this important and iconic area and the local business community. Attorney-General 80 19:40 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Over the past week we have seen an extraordinary and disastrous performance by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, who has doubled down on his deception. Senator Brandis has misled the parliament and he has misled the Australian people. Australians already knew, before last week, that Senator Brandis had misled the parliament about the new law that he has made to require that his written permission is given before the Solicitor-General advises anyone, anywhere, in the Australian government. This is the law which a former Solicitor-General who served the Commonwealth for 14 years, Dr Gavan Griffith AO QC, said brought to mind 'the image of a dog on a lead'. What is now clear is that Senator Brandis has misled the parliament on another occasion. And what is mind-boggling is that he continues to deny what he has done. What is mindboggling is that he continues to engage in these slippery acts instead of owning up to his own egregious behaviour. At a Senate hearing last week we learned that the Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson QC, was not asked to advise on the final version of the citizenship bill that strips dual citizens of their Australian citizenship. He was asked to advise on a piece of legislation that was, to use the Solicitor-General's own words, 'materially different' from the bill that was introduced to the parliament. This means Senator Brandis misled the parliament, the intelligence committee and the Prime Minister on this matter as well. He has continued to say that the bill is constitutionally valid on the basis of advice from the Solicitor-General. We now know that that advice was based on an earlier draft of the bill. It is astonishing that the Attorney-General is now doing exactly the same thing, and this time it is on another bill of the utmost importance. The Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 is currently being considered by the parliament and by the intelligence committee. It will mean terrorist offenders can be detained after they have finished their sentence. I wrote to the Prime Minister two days ago seeking his assurance that the Solicitor-General has advised on the bill. I got a response yesterday but it was not from the Prime Minister; it was from Senator Brandis. And he gave me the same slippery response he has been giving on the citizenship bill. He responded that the Solicitor-General advised on the original draft of the High Risk Terrorist Offenders bill—just like the Solicitor-General advised on the original draft of the citizenship bill. Advising on an original draft does not mean that you have advised on the final product—namely, the bill that comes to the parliament. I would say to Senator Brandis that he can't just make up his own definition of the word 'advised'. Words actually mean things. You can't just make up a new definition of a word to suit your own purposes. What Senator Brandis is doing is putting the Solicitor-General in the freezer. He is effectively sidelining him and preventing him from doing his job—the job that the Commonwealth needs him to do, which is to provide frank and fearless legal advice on important legal matters. That obviously includes important pieces of legislation that are coming to this parliament—in particular, pieces of legislation about which doubts have been raised as to their constitutionality. And that certainly applies to both the citizenship bill and the latest bill that is now before the parliament, the High Risk Terrorist Offenders bill. And, of course, Senator Brandis continues to mislead the parliament about all these matters. I have sought further assurances on whether the Solicitor-General advised on the final version of the High Risk Terrorist Offenders bill that has now been introduced to the parliament. It has been over 24 hours now and I still have not received a response—and this is in the context of the intelligence committee having been asked by this same Attorney-General to urgently consider and report on the High Risk Terrorist Offenders bill. Labor wants to be certain that we have at our disposal as much reliable information as possible when making decisions about national security legislation. We must do everything within our power to ensure we do our jobs properly as parliamentarians. We must do everything we can to keep Australians safe. And that means making sure that the legislation we pass is workable, effective and constitutional. We must do our due diligence and, sadly, that means we have to call out the Attorney-General when he is being slippery about the advice he has received. If the Attorney-General won't resign, Mr Turnbull must sack him. It is beyond doubt, as the Solicitor-General has made clear, that Senator Brandis has misrepresented advice and misled the parliament. Mr Turnbull has said that misleading the parliament is a serious offence and the penalty is resignation It is time for Mr Turnbull to act, and sack this disgraceful Attorney-General. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 81 19:45 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Early last year, on 7 January, we watched our television sets and were horrified at the massacre by Islamic terrorists of cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. We thought: how could it be that people could be so offended and insulted about a mere cartoon that they would take such drastic action? But that was not the only instance of cartoonists being attacked around the world in recent years. The Syrian cartoonist, Ali Farzat, had his hands broken by Assad-supporting militia after he drew a cartoon showing the Syrian leader, Assad, fleeing with a briefcase, running to a car with the engine running and being driven away by Gaddafi. There was also the female cartoonist, Atena Farghadani, who spent 18 months in prison in Iran because she drew cartoons on the subject of birth control which criticised members of the Iranian government. There is also the Malaysian cartoonist, known as Zunar, who was arrested earlier this year and is facing 43 years in jail because he drew cartoons criticising the government and the waste of public funds. We think to ourselves: how could it be that someone holding coloured pencils or textas could be seen as a threat that needs government intervention? Yet, this is happening in our country today. We have had the Australian Human Rights Commission out soliciting for complaints against a cartoonist in Bill Leak. We have the Australian Human Rights Commission actually going after him. As the editorial in The Australian today said: It is this process, as much as any intended outcome, that looms as a punishment in such cases and that goes a long way to stifling free speech. The penalty for raising unpopular, unpalatable or controversial ideas or opinions can be the imposition of such a government-funded, burdensome, legally sanctioned, time-consuming and infuriating process. Opposition members interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I hear members opposite interjecting, and I would ask them: do you want to see cartoonists shut down? You may want to shut debate down in this country. I say it is a disgrace and it is an outrage that a cartoonist in this country can be pursued by a government entity. I say that is a disgrace. Today we have the Australian Human Rights Commission operating something you would expect in a George Orwell novel. The most important human right that we can have is the right of free speech. Yet we have an organisation, under the banner of human rights, going after the cartoonists of this nation. I put to you, Deputy Speaker, that there could be a way of moving ahead. I know that the opposition have locked themselves into a position that they cannot amend 18C. As much as we could debate it, we know that if we tried to in this House it would be blocked in the Senate. I would like to offer another solution. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act says: Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith … My proposition is to amend 18D to remove the words 'done reasonably' and 'in good faith'. That would make any artistic work free from 18D. It would enable a cartoonist to go about their work, to criticise the government and to bring up political issues and be free of the sanctions of 18C. I would hope that the opposition could agree with this. I would hope that they could work with us in the coalition, because I do not believe that they believe that cartoonists should be censored for their political opinion. Malabar Headland 81 19:50 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith In May this year the Turnbull coalition government stitched up a secret, dirty backroom deal to lock the community that I represent out of 177 hectares of historically and environmentally significant green space at Malabar headland. Made in the shadows with the crossbench senator and gun enthusiast David Leyonhjelm, the agreement to lease out the central portion of Malabar headland to the New South Wales Rifle Association for the next 50 years has been met with anger, frustration and disbelief in our community. I have nothing against the New South Wales Rifle Association or any of its members. In fact, they have invited me to some of their events and functions. They are good people and they are dedicated to their sport. But there are now many young families, elderly people and a large number of residents living in the vicinity of Malabar headland, and shooting is no longer consistent with the family environment that lives on the back door of where these shooting activities are taking place. Having grown up in Maroubra, I have a deep appreciation for the headland and the place that it holds in the hearts of residents, who overwhelmingly want to see the government do what has been promised and find an alternative site for the shooters so that the beautiful and unique headland can be protected from development and returned to the people as public open space. This is the last remaining tract of native bushland that exists in Sydney between the harbour and Botany Bay. Every other spare spot of native bushland along that coastline has been developed. We must preserve and maintain this historic green space for use and enjoyment by the people of Australia. The former Labor government commenced work to see this goal achieved to preserve the headland. The western portion of the headland was cleaned up at a cost of $2 million and handed back to the New South Wales government to be made a national park. The eastern portion near the ocean was remediated at a cost of $9 million and is now a national park. The central portion requires much more work, given that it was a former waste dump site. Independent reports indicate asbestos and leachate contamination. Under the coalition government, however, progress towards returning this headland to the people has been slow and is now going backwards. In January this year, it was revealed that the government had commissioned a secret report into development options for the headland, which said that the headland was 'surplus to requirements' and would generate 'significant returns if sold'. Upon release of the report, the member for Maroubra, Michael Daley, and I, with the Friends of Malabar Headland, strongly campaigned against any development on the headland, and, in one day, the environment minister at the time, Greg Hunt, backed down and now claims there will be no such development. The coalition government had promised at the 2013 election to return the horse riding school that was on the headland back to the headland within six months. It is now over three years and not one horse has returned to the headland. Now the coalition government appears intent on delaying the relocation of the shooters, with Mr Hunt declaring in January this year that they had a 'long-term future' on Malabar Headland and that finding the shooters an alternative range could take 'three, five or 17 years'. The shooting club must be relocated to an alternative premises. Meanwhile, residents are facing an increase in the frequency of shooting activities on the site. The rifle association has been offered a paltry $25,000 per year to lease the site and gain restricted access. The number of days of shooting has increased. Locals have been locked out by security guards from entering the site. We have a national park that no-one can go into on the days that the shooting is occurring because it is a safety risk. The situation is a direct result of the Turnbull government's tenuous hold on power, which has led to this joke of a deal being done with Senator Leyonhjelm. It completely ignores the wishes of the community that I represent and locks them out of the headland for 50 years. The government needs to get its act together. It needs to find an alternative site for the shooting club, bring the horses back and provide the local community with safe access to the national park and this headland treasure. It is Labor's plan to turn this area into a parkland that is open to the people and a national park with walking tracks on the headland. We demand to know when the government will end this farce. Tobacco 82 19:51 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Thanks to the nocturnal antics of the opposition, I have unfettered access to the entire House for this graveyard shift. I might as well use the five minutes available before the House concludes to update members, and particularly those interested in health outcomes, on advances in alternatives to smoking. Most of you will know that many in this parliament have worked very hard in the campaign against smoking and are very proud that Australia has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world, beaten only by potentially Singapore, a number of smaller US states and some northern European economies. The headline figure for smoking is 18 per cent; 13 per cent of Australians are daily smokers. This is a great victory for public health. The cost, as I have pointed out before, I think, in previous speeches, is that 15,000 Australians lose their lives to smoking. The cost of smoking in just 18 months is the equivalent of current estimates for the cost of constructing the NBN. We know that those most affected are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who have the least money to spend on this habit. We know that older smokers are the least price sensitive, meaning they are least likely to give it up as a result of increases in taxation. Younger Australians are still experimenting in significant numbers: 15 to 24 is the highest demographic for smoking. A very important discussion that most wealthy economies are having right now is on the role of alternative and tobacco substitutes, including e-smoking and tobacco-heating products that give the same dose of nicotine. Currently, as a schedule 7 poison—as it is otherwise known on the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons—any nicotine product is not able to be purchased without a prescription. The argument that the UK, Canada and New Zealand are having this year in the face of contemporary evidence is that we should contemplate changing that, certainly for nicotine solutions less than 3.6 per cent. The paradox here is that strong nicotine products like tobacco are legal, and low concentrations of nicotine, such that used in e-cigarettes, is actually illegal. What we are talking about here is delivering an alternative to tobacco. Nicotine is addictive but it has almost no health impacts, apart from, with overdose, nausea and vomiting. The bigger work here is about behaviour. So, with the introduction of e-cigarettes, some very important points for public health to ask would be whether the vast majority of e-cigarette use is by smokers who are trying to shake the habit. Also, does it risk being an attractive product to those who have never smoked before? It would be a massive concern were that the case. Expert reviews have assessed the risk of harm from e-cigarettes as being no more than five per cent of equivalent smoking activity. Nicotine toxicity is around 10 per cent of a similar smoking activity. We know that, overseas, young people from are not trying e-cigarettes in significant numbers. There is no credible risk for people in the vicinity inhaling vapour from e-cigarettes. Also, of course, low concentrations of nicotine for harm reduction has already helped many smokers to quit the habit. So we should be looking at this more closely in Australia. We know from research here that about 45 per cent of Queenslanders have tried an e-cigarette—that is a very high figure; 64 per cent of Queenslanders are aware that e-cigarettes are tobacco free, meaning that you are not subjected to the cancer-causing effect of tobacco; 62 per cent of smokers would cut down, if given the chance to use e-cigarettes; and 70 per cent of Queenslanders would like to see at least a trial of legalisation of e-cigarettes because of the potential benefits. We do not always want to rely on international evidence. For those who do not know an e-cigarette, you basically pop a battery-powered heating element against a refillable tank or a replaceable cartridge that is filled with a nicotine solution that vaporises. There is some concern that with the nicotine comes polypropylene glycol, glycerin, water and flavourings. There are about 4½ thousand flavouring alternatives. So there are questions that we should be asking here in Australia. We need to look at the patterns or trends of use in places like the UK, where the evidence is gold-plated. We need to look at the current market and see that in the UK it is the fastest growing supermarket segment in the country. We also need to be aware that there are perceptions of harm around the use of e-cigarettes, noting that already some UK hospitals have lifted the ban on vaping on hospital grounds. We are worried about whether it is an effective smoking tool, and these things should be investigated in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! It being 8 pm, the House now stands adjourned. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 83 NOTICES

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): took the chair at 12:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 85 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 12:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I inform the Federation Chamber that it has been agreed that members’ constituency statements will commence at 4pm. BILLS 85 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 85

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017

Consideration in Detail 85 12:31 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to speak in support of the budget in general and on the health portfolio in particular today to emphasise our very real commitment to sustainable health spending that continues to increase, that continues to take the path of sensible measured reform. We are not standing still, we are not avoiding the tough decisions but, most importantly, we are doing two things: we are putting patients at the centre of health care and we are making sure that every single health dollar is as efficient as it possibly can be. If you look at the twin priorities of any federal health minister anywhere in the world, those two should be absolutely front and centre. The reform that we commenced prior to the election, that were enhanced by genuine commitments during the election is continuing. It is continuing in two key areas. Firstly, the review of the Medicare benefits schedule is ongoing, done by clinicians with, again, the practice of medicine at the centre. The numbers of clinical committees and the work that is being led by Professor Bruce Robinson has not happened at any stage within the Australian health system. In fact it has been 30 years since the MBS was reviewed. If you talk to anyone who uses the MBS—doctors, general practitioners, specialists—they say they want it to reflect contemporary clinical practice. And sometimes the things that they do in their operating theatres or consulting rooms every day are not even in there and they have to manage workarounds instead. Or they see things in there that are quite laughably out of date. So this is important work, it is bipartisan work and it is necessary work. Secondly, the other key plank of our reform is our Health Care Homes model, which is a new way of remunerating general practice if you look at it from the provider aspect. But importantly it is a new way of treating patients with chronic and complex conditions if you look at it from the patient's point of view. So if you are in the top 25 per cent of patients in Australia with chronic or complex conditions, we have for you a reform that enrols you into a health care home. The trials of Health Care Homes are starting now and the lead up to this work has been about 12 months because we wanted to get it right. As with our other reform measures, codesign is vital. Doctors, nurses, consumers and allied health professionals were part of the design of Health Care Homes. We are now in 10 primary health networks across Australia, rolling out the trials in 200 practices with about 65,000 patients. The modern GP might be a younger person compared to the older style general practitioner who opens their doors at nine o'clock and closes their doors at five o'clock. I am constantly being approached by younger doctors who say, 'I would like to trial some innovative methods of practice. I would like to be in touch with some of my newly diagnosed patients at the end of the day. I would like to bring technology to bear in a much more exciting way to look after their needs. I would like to visit the aged-care home and spent half a day there doing some different things—for example, training the nurses. I'd like to have the pharmacist more involved in my general practice. Where I live is a low socioeconomic area; I would like to try having a pharmacist here every day, helping people manage their medicines.' All of these things are perfectly possible within the Health Care Homes model. But instead what we have now is a very regimented, transaction based Medicare system. At no stage are we judging the outcomes in the way that we should. The Health Care Homes model is going to do exactly that. I have touched on two key reforms but, as I said, they were enhanced by genuine commitment in the budget—$20 million for a Zero Childhood Cancer initiative and $7 million for clinical trials. I have just come from a rare cancers event in Parliament House. It is very clear to me that access early on to medicines that would not normally be listed on the PBS is vital. Our commitment to medicines when compared with the opposition is incredibly different. We have listed three times as many medicines at $4.5 billion compared to Labor, who listed $1 billion worth of medicines and, at some points in their stewardship of the health portfolio, actually refused to list medicines at all because their budget could not pay for it. 12:36 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Let's be frank about this: there are a lot of very bad measures in this appropriation bill when it comes to health, particularly extending the Medicare freeze for six years. That might just be the very worst in the whole appropriation bill. It is worth reflecting on the history of this freeze, though, because we hear from the other side a lot about the history of this freeze. Let's be truthful about it. The Abbott government tried and failed to impose the GP tax three times. When they failed, they introduced this freeze on the Medicare rebate—a co-payment or GP tax by stealth. The current Prime Minister sat in the Abbott ministry, as did the minister. So the GP tax or co-payment by stealth is as much the minister's and the Prime Minister's as it is the member for Warringah's. I want to give credit where credit is due. GP rates were indexed in July 2014, as the last Labor government had budgeted for. When the current minister says that Labor initiated this freeze on the Medicare rebate, she is talking rubbish and she clearly knows it. She is not being truthful. Even though the member for Warringah and the member for Dickson indexed GP rates, it is something that this minister and the current Prime Minister may never do. In his very first budget the current Prime Minister not only kept the freeze on the Medicare rebate but extended it for six years. He did that in spite of the assurances the minister had given to doctors. We understand the minister went around and consulted with doctors and whispered to them or whatever, keeping them in the tent and telling them that this freeze would be lifted. So you can imagine the surprise of doctors when the freeze was actually extended. Instead of four years, which was bad enough, the freeze will now run for what the Rural Doctors Association are calling an ice age—a very long time, indeed. Everybody in this place knows that that freeze will drive down bulk-billing and drive up out-of-pocket costs for patients. We know that GPs simply cannot afford to keep bulk-billing if Medicare does not keep pace with the rising costs. It is pretty much economics 101. If costs go up and you do not get more costs coming in, it works out like that. Now we have heard the current minister cherrypicking the statistics and arguing against this inevitability. She is trying to use different statistics and be a bit clever about it, but the minister should come clean with the Australian public and answer some basic questions about what percentage of patients, not services, are currently bulk-billed and what percentage of GP services for those patients—not all services but GP services—are currently bulk-billed. We know that this is changing, and that, as this freeze goes on longer, it will change more. We know that the minister is unlikely to answer those questions because she knows what the answers are going to be. But, try as she might, she cannot really hide the impact of that freeze from Australians, because of course, every time they go to a GP or they are referred to a specialist, the freeze will hit them where it hurts. Out-of-pocket costs are a really serious issue out there in the community. Australians who are not bulk-billed already pay an average of $35 to see a GP. That is up 20 per cent in just three years under this government. Around Australia we are seeing practices abandoning bulk-billing. In my home town of Hobart, the Grosvenor and Collins Street General Practices have been forced to charge pensioners and Health Care Card holders for the first time. Their sign actually says it is due to the freeze on the rebate. This is at a time when we already know that one in 20 Australians does not see their GP because of the cost. So we already know that people are making a decision not to go to the GP because of the cost. The government knows the impact that this is going to have. What has the minister said? Interestingly, during the campaign she did say something. She said: I've said to doctors I want that freeze lifted as soon as possible but I appreciate that Treasury and Finance aren't allowing me to do it just yet. Then of course she went into hiding because it was a bit of a gaffe. They did not say very much about GP tax—and she certainly did not come out and say very much at all—until just before the election day, when the Prime Minister went on Sunrise and guaranteed that no Australians would pay more to see a doctor as a result of this government's freeze. So the health minister must have known the Prime Minister was wrong when he made this undertaking. 12:41 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman After five minutes of kabuki from the other side of this chamber about bulk-billing rates, we might inject some numbers so that we can have an informed discussion in this chamber. The pinnacle of bulk-billing under Labor was 79 per cent for all services. That is now up to 85 per cent. Looking specifically at GP services, over 75 per cent of services are now bulk-billed, something that the Labor Party could only ever dream of while they were in government. The reality is that, with supply and demand—with your University of Tasmania degree and your understanding of basic economics, yes, you are correct—it is the supply of doctors to bulk-bill as much as it is the supply and demand of patients. It is actually doctor provision and distribution around the country that is far more important in this debate. But it is fascinating to see, Minister, that we have an opposition asking questions about recutting the data and counting it differently: 'We don't like the answer about services bulk-billed, so let's recut it.' Of course they are not going to recut backwards and look at how bad the data looks from when they were in government. They just do not like the results of bulk-billing figures going up under a coalition government. Let us just think of the numbers here too. If we are talking about 85 per cent of services being bulk-billed—and that is presumably roughly either side of 85 per cent of individuals being bulk-billed, although it will vary slightly—who are the Labor Party fighting for when they ask these questions of the minister? Is it the 15 per cent of Australians who are not being bulk-billed, who are predominantly in areas of regional Australia, where in fact we are getting more services out and being delivered? In the city areas, of course, bulk-billing rates in many electorates are far higher. I think, just on the general pub test, most Australians would say that one in 10 of us can afford to pay to see a GP. One in 10 of us, at the highest income levels, can probably afford to—and do every day without blinking, because they know it is a very important quality signal they send to their GP about the services they are receiving. I am not talking about the bottom 10 per cent; I am talking about the wealthiest 10 per cent in society. You are trying to conflate this debate. You are concerned that only 85 per cent of services are bulk-billed. It is extraordinary that most of us in this building walk into a bulk-billing GP and do not pay for our services. We are incredibly lucky to be in a nation that achieves that, and we have had a Labor government that, yes, is fixated on nothing but how much 40 bucks is for someone who is on $250,000 a year, as you are on the opposition frontbench. It really comes down to this. We have a Labor Party that, when in government, when we were asking questions of the minister, could only come up with a debate about how much money there is in the system and yet deliberately ran down the money in the system until the cupboard was bare and then deferred, indefinitely, the listing of essential medicines. How is that not emblematic of their economic management? I would like you to remember, Minister, if you could, a couple of those examples of very important mental health drugs that were simply deferred indefinitely. How is it a deferral if you do not say how long it is going to be deferred for, Minister? That is actually a refusal of an approval. To call it a deferral was just to ameliorate the reality that this opposition when in government utterly ran out of money. That was the true situation. Then they come in here and nickel and dime because there are 10 per cent or 15 per cent of Australians left who are not being bulk-billed. You have managed to argue over the minors here, desperately trying to find a general practice that says, 'We're going to have to start to charge.' Well, there are plenty of general practices opening that are fully bulk-billing. I would love to get to the bottom of those bulk-billing numbers as we go around the country. I see a member here who was quite happy to have a big billboard saying 'Save Medicare' with his scone on it. The minister might remember that the billboard got him elected but that bulk-billing was in fact beautiful in your part of the world. Mr Dick interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H That is right, and I am one of those. So I know a bit more about it than just sitting in a waiting room of a general practice. As a doctor, I know a bit more about it than the visiting hours of the local hospital which you represent. I know when you walk in you have people in there who know way more than just indexation, and that is what I am going to turn my mind to here in the last few seconds. This is about the quality of the service that Australia is promising. There is a focus on primary care, which never happened under the Labor Party. The notion of spending more cleverly never crossed the minds of those over there. So, Minister, I would love to know more about the work that is being done by Steve Hambleton and by Professor Robinson—genuinely picking apart these items and putting in the ones we need and replacing those that we do not—and look at primary health care and healthcare homes and, finally, the commissioning of our primary healthcare networks and, for the first time, having KPIs around stuff that is very important to Australians. Medicare locals just ambled along with no direction, and the change to PHNs, which are absolutely aligned with health and hospital regions at a state level, promises a new beginning. We would love to know more about that, Minister. 12:46 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Perhaps when the minister has her turn she might repeat the guarantee of the Prime Minister—if they want to assert that the Prime Minister is right—when he said that out-of-pocket costs will not increase for GP visits. In the 100 days since the election, we have not had anyone from that side repeat that guarantee. We have asked the Prime Minister about it in the parliament, and he has not wanted to repeat it. So perhaps when the minister next gets to her feet and has her go she could actually guarantee that people's out-of-pocket costs to go and see a GP will not increase as a result of her indexation. That is what the Prime Minister guaranteed, and we have not heard anything from the government since. In fact, we have not heard very much from the government since we heard the Prime Minister have his little dummy spit after the election. We all remember having to wait up really late to see what the Prime Minister might say. Then he settled down a little bit and four days later came out with this quote: We have to do more to reaffirm the faith of the Australian people in our commitment to health and to Medicare. But what have we seen in that 100 or so days since the last election? We have seen nothing—zero; not a single thing. Indeed, every single health cut that this government took to the election remains on the table—every single one. They are as committed as ever to gutting Medicare, and we have just heard them try to justify making Australians pay more. That is their GP tax by stealth, which we know will reduce bulk-billing and drive even more patients into the overcrowded emergency departments. We know that really nothing has changed. We know that the policy around making people pay more for vital tests and scans, including pap smears, has not changed. Nothing has changed since the election when it comes to that either. We also know that hiking up the costs of prescriptions has not changed. We have not heard very much from the other side about the cost of medicines. They are talking about putting more medicines on the PBS. Of course, some great reforms that Labor put in place when we were in office have allowed them to do that. Then of course we get to abolishing the Child Dental Benefits Scheme, pushing those five million children onto long public dental waiting lists. Nothing has changed from the government. I am not sure whether the minister understands the Child Dental Benefits Scheme. In Tasmania, if you go on the public waiting list, you wait for three years—three years! Under the current scheme, people can spend up to $1,000 over that two-year period for children and they get in to see a dentist when they need to. Then we get the changes to the Medicare safety net—the taking of money out of the Medicare safety net. Again, nothing here has changed, and it appears that the government really has not learnt its lesson at all. Clearly the government does not understand what it is doing to people who are unwell. Clearly it does not get that people who do not have the funds in their pocket at the time are not going to get the health support that they need. Indeed, just last week we had the minister come out and say that the current policy settings are correct and that it was the campaigning that was wrong. The government really believes that it only lost all of those seats at the election, that Medicare was only an issue at the election, because it got its campaigning wrong. Clearly it is not listening to the people. At a town hall meeting just outside my electorate on Sunday, our leader, Bill Shorten, got a question from a women with chronic illness. She talked constantly about her out-of-pocket costs and about how she is in pain and cannot get the services that she needs because of the costs. It is really serious. The AMA has said that this government's policies mean that the poorest, the sickest and the most vulnerable will be the hardest hit, and the government do not seem to care. The Prime Minister showed a bit of contrition a couple of days after the election, but nothing changed. Now the minister has come out saying that the policy settings are correct. Clearly they do not understand. Just two weeks ago we had the health minister come out and say, 'I'm not going to accept that bulk-billing rates are falling, because they are not.' She is clearly backing in the Prime Minister with his guarantee. When I conclude here, I hope that the minister gets up and repeats the Prime Minister's guarantee that people will not be paying more out-of-pocket costs to visit the GP because of their indexation freeze. It would actually be nice to have the minister show a bit of empathy and understanding when she talks to people out and about in the community as health minister. This is really a very serious issue here, and the government need to do much more about it. They need to actually get out and about and they need to answer the questions of real people. 12:52 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I would firstly like to congratulate the Minister for Health and Aged Care for the tremendous job she is doing not only nationally but in the Dunkley electorate. The minister came down to Dunkley electorate twice during my recent campaign and announced several health initiatives for the local community. On home and community care, the minister announced increased funding for a number of local organisations who do wonderful work assisting with mental health issues, health issues, homelessness and other issues. For example, Mentis Assist is an organisation in my electorate, led by Dawn Fisher, the chair, and a wonderful team around her, and they received increased HACC funding, as did Andrew Kerr and the Village Baxter. I would like to congratulation the minister for that increased funding in my electorate, which will really make a difference to people's lives. Locally in Dunkley as well, the minister for health came down and announced $6 million for MRI services at Frankston Hospital, which will mean a full MBS licence for MRI at the hospital. This will positively impact over 2,000 patients every year. I note that, under the watch of the former Labor government, this licence lapsed at the hospital, so it is a Liberal government offering those services to the local community. That will make an enormous difference to people and patients in my community. Instead of going outside the region or having to pay for access to MRI at the local private hospital, they can receive free MRI services. In addition, in my electorate $536,000 was committed by the minister for health for Peninsula Home Hospice, which provides home based palliative care in the community. That not only impacts Mornington, where the Peninsula Home Hospice centre is based but it impacts right across the peninsula, the Frankston region and beyond. That is a tremendous announcement, and it is a community-led organisation who will greatly benefit. The minister for health also increased Headspace funding for Frankston Headspace, through the local PHN. That will mean increased funding for specific and lead-site services to assist in mental health issues, particularly for young people in the community. We really need to assist young people in our community who have mental health issues. As the youngest MP in parliament myself, I am passionate about making a difference to young people in my community. In addition, the minister for health also committed $5.6 million for ice and drug rehabilitation services in my community. Not only has she committed those several other things that I mentioned but also this will really help those who are dealing with ice and drug use issues locally. As we know, the Turnbull government has committed over $300 million to tackling ice across Australia. I know that not only Frankston is impacted by ice and drug use but communities across Australia are impacted. So I greatly thank the minister for that commitment. I also note that as the minister has outlined previously the Labor Party is continuing to lie to the Australian public about Medicare. We saw it during my campaign in Dunkley, in particular, but also across Australia where lies and a scare campaign were being spread about Medicare. In fact, Medicare funding is increasing each and every year. Under the Turnbull government, we have made it quite clear that Medicare will never be privatised, so it was quite disgraceful during the campaign to have text messages sent out to constituents that did not have any authorisation or indication to say that they did not come from Medicare. It was also quite disgraceful to see little Medicare cards being handed out and Medicare logos used on billboards and signage throughout my electorate. The Prime Minister has committed to the fact that Medicare is a core government service that will never be sold. He committed to the fact that every element of Medicare currently delivered by government will continue to be delivered by this government and will increase year to year. We have a very strong record when it comes to Medicare funding and this year we are investing more than $22 billion to Medicare, over $1 billion more than last year. This will increase to nearly $26 billion by 2019-20. We are the party with an economic plan but we are also the party—thanks to the leadership of the minister for health—with a strong health plan. 12:57 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Perhaps the minister would care to answer some questions, given that she has not answered my colleagues questions so far. I presume she assumes that by putting them all off that will limit her time to speak and therefore she will not have to get to them. I ask the minister about her attempts to outsource and privatise our health system, many of which are contained in these bills. The minister sleeps at night by telling herself the election turned on a text message. She does not want to admit that Australians were scared by her cuts and scared by her attempts to flog off our universal public health insurance scheme. But Australians know the truth, and so do to the doctors and GPs I speak to. On 2 July they voted to save Medicare. Minister, isn't it the case that you tried to privatise the Medicare payments system? Unlike some of the minister's other policies, the rural health commissioner comes to mind. This was no thought bubble. The government spent years and at least $5 million on its secret plan to give Medicare to a bank or another corporation. The minister and the Prime Minister claim that they have changed their minds. They can say the plan never went to cabinet, while making relevant documents cabinet-in-confidence, but Australians are not fooled. As Bob Hawke so rightly put it: 'Everybody knows you do not set up a Medicare privatisation task force unless you aim to privatise Medicare.' I now turn to the National Cancer Screening Register. Minister, isn't it the case that you outsourced the National Cancer Screening Register to Telstra? The national register is a good idea and Labor supported the bills to establish it, but the register will hold Australians' most sensitive data—like results of cervical and bowel cancer screenings—so who did you pick to operate the register? Was it the human services department, which runs the National Bowel Cancer Screening Register? Was it the Victorian Cytology Service, which has been operating cervical screening registers for almost 30 years? No. The minister picked Telstra and signed a $220 million contract, on the eve of the election, before parliament even saw the necessary legislation. This is a telecommunications corporation with no experience in handling sensitive health data on this scale. As the Senate inquiry heard, this is the first time that a for-profit corporation will operate a cancer screening register anywhere in the world. The minister knows her contract stinks, because she cannot bring herself to mention the word Telstra in parliament. Today could be the first time, Minister. I wish it ended there, Australians wished it ended there, but, Minister, isn't it the case that you put profits before patients time and time again? Today there are new reports that the minister has backed away from the reforming the prosthesis list. Just last month the minister said she would reform the list to: … make private health insurance more affordable. But the corporate giants who dominate the sector came knocking in the middle of the election campaign, and now we learn that cabinet has decided against reform this year. Imagine my surprise. It is the same story as the minister's deal with Sonic, the multinational corporation that dominates pathology services. When the minister cut Medicare bulk-billing incentives for vital tests, patients reacted furiously: 600,000 Australians signed a petition against the cuts. So this minister did a desperate pre-election deal: Sonic accepted the abolition of its patients' bulk-billing payments in exchange for reregulation of pathology rents. We have not seen the draft regulations yet, but there is a very real chance they will hurt patients and GPs. Sonic profits again before pathology patients. I could go on, because this is the minister who is watching on as her mates in New South Wales privatise public hospitals. This is the minister who still wants to privatise Australian Hearing—and we have not heard too much about that either. I am aware that there were discussions before the election about doing just that, but they seemed to go quiet in the lead-up to the election because clearly the minister knew that any thought of privatising Australian Hearing would not have gone down well before the election. And this is the minister who, with her mate Alan Tudge, is now running Medicare into the ground to justify another attempt at privatisation. But time is short, so I ask the minister: is there any part of our health system you will not outsource or privatise? Will there be a time when you put patients before profits? 13:01 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I just want to offer some gratuitous advice to the member for Franklin and the member for Makin. Member for Franklin, niggling interruptions are never a substitute for the power of good argument. And Member for Makin, from the screed that you read out, try next time to have a small component of fact in there which would actually give me an opportunity to respond. But you did actually raise something that made me think. You said that I sleep at night because of certain things. But I will tell you what does keep me awake at night—and this is a completely bipartisan comment; it would be the case with every health minister—when you know that someone has a rare cancer and they do not have access to a life-saving drug, when you know that someone cannot get the treatment they need because the Australian health system cannot afford it, when you know that your medicines policy is not meeting everyone's needs everywhere. I am happy to say that ours is striving to meet that need, but there will always be more to go. These are the things that all health ministers worry about. We worry about the patients at the centre of our health system. The member for Oxley started talking about doctors campaigning. Hey, I love the doctors; we get on very well. I do not build the health system for the doctors; I build the health system for the patients. And if you put the patients at the centre of everything you do, you cannot get it wrong. The member for Dunkley talked about some of the achievements in his electorate, and I just want to make the point that only a health system that is well managed, that is using every dollar as efficiently as possible, that is driving always harder every day to do the most they can with those dollars. What the Labor Party does not understand is there is a finite number of those dollars. With our gross debt approaching $450 billion, with our interest payments where they are thanks to the mess that was left to us by Labor—we will not go there because people do not necessarily want to hear about that today—there is only a finite amount of dollars. It is not like the years when I first came into parliament, Madam Chair Vamvakinou, as you did too, where we could add dollars from outside the health system for patient care. We cannot do that, so we have to make every dollar count. The investments that the member for Dunkley talked about in palliative care, in mental health, in MRI for his communities can be paid for because this government recognises that you sometimes have to make the tough decisions and everybody does not always get everything they want. The member for Franklin comes from Tasmania—she is lucky; it is a lovely state—and she talked about dental care. The dental policy that I proposed was warmly welcomed by the health minister in Tasmania for precisely the reason the member for Franklin mentioned, which was that access to public dental health was taking too long. What we intended doing—and hopefully can still do, because Labor hasn't accepted the dental reforms that we have proposed—was to introduce a truly public dental health benefit for truly public patients. What Labor introduced was something called the child dental benefits scheme. Only a third of those who were eligible accessed the scheme, and the scheme could be accessed by those who were at the top level of family tax benefit part A, which can be paid at a very generous level of income. Quite a few people who accessed the CDBS had private health insurance. Quite a few people were quite happy to access it—of course they were, because effectively it was subsidising the dental treatment, but it was treatment they would have got anywhere. I have been in schools across this wonderful country and I have seen children who have never seen a toothbrush, let alone a dentist, children whose parents would never take them to a dentist because those parents themselves—perhaps they have dysfunctional and chaotic lives through no fault of their own—are not going to make an appointment with a private dentist. They are the public dental patients. In constructing the national partnership that I wanted to construct with the states, and I still hope to do, my intention with every state government was to say, 'You build your public dental infrastructure for the long term so that you can have somewhere to treat your truly public patients, not just children but adults as well.' Unfortunately, Labor did not see the wisdom of this and is persisting in hanging on to a scheme that, let us face it, is poorly targeted and underutilised, but most importantly does not treat the people who need it the most, the people who, as I said, we should be building the health system for. When I listen to members of the Labor Party I hear a couple of refrains. It is all about a Medicare lie—which is pretty much accepted as a Medicare lie—and it is all about a pause on GP payments, but it is never about Labor's plan for the health system. Not one shred of what is ever presented to me it describes Labor's plan for the health system. Labor hasn't a single policy. I know those opposite will say they have, but if you cannot pay for it you cannot deliver. 13:06 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Given that the minister does not want to talk about the Medicare freeze very much at all and she does not want to re-give the Prime Minister's guarantee—clearly she does not want to talk about the Medicare freeze in broad terms and give us some proper data on it—I might move on and ask the minister some questions on aged care. As the minister would know, Australia's baby boomers are moving or are about to move into retirement. Over the coming decades, the need for affordable and sustainable aged-care services is going to increase dramatically. We are all aware that that is coming. That is why we had Labor's reforms—the living longer, living better aged-care package, $3.7 billion over 10 years—that were bipartisan and followed a Productivity Commission report Caring for older Australians. We did a lot of work. What we are really concerned about now is some of the implementation around the living longer, living better reforms. We are concerned that it will put at risk some older vulnerable Australians. We are particularly concerned about the way the government has implemented some of the recent cuts to the aged-care sector. In December 2015 the minister announced of $472 million for residential aged care. Six months later in the budget there was $1.2 billion worth of cuts to aged care. So I am curious about the modelling and the predictability. Obviously it is demand driven with the ACFI funding model—I get that—but surely we have better modelling from the government and the department about what the projection is going to be so that we know into the future what this is going to look like. If we don't, we certainly to do a lot more work around that. Indeed, I moved a private member's bill on it. It would be interesting to know whether the minister supports the inclusion in the living longer living better review of a review of ACFI, the aged-care funding instrument, because it is a very complex, demand driven instrument. The Federal Court and others have said it is very complex. The minister knows the sector is saying it is very, very complex and needs some sort of reform so that we can get some predictability and sustainability into the system both for the providers but importantly also for older Australians who are going to be moving into the aged-care system. We need to make sure that as we go forward we have predictability and sustainability in the system. We have had bipartisan support, as I said, on living longer living better. It would be good to know whether the government is going to include a review of ACFI as part of the legislative reform that she has appointed David Tune to do, because we would really want to have ACFI looked at because is going to be critical going forward. We have also got coming up in February the changes to in-home care. I have been briefed by the department, for which I thank the minister, but I still remain concerned. I just want to make sure that consumers and the public are prepared for the changes. Importantly, the government's My Aged Care website has had some really serious issues. It has been clunky and I have had a lot of feedback that it is still very difficult to use for people who want to access the aged-care system. I want some reassurances from the minister that we are ready for the reforms that are coming in February, understanding that the government are going to write out to a whole heap of people who have been assessed through the ACAT process as being eligible for a package and the government are going to do a whole heap of work around trying to predict what the unmet need is. I have asked some questions of the minister's department around that. We really need to make sure that the system is ready and also that the public understands the changes that are coming and are able to use the tools that the government are providing to them to access what should be a fair and reasonable aged-care system to make sure people get the support they need and deserve. If we are serious about keeping people in their homes longer so that we do not have such a reliance on residential aged care going into the future, it is really critical that we get this in-home care right. It is really critical that we make sure that vulnerable older Australians and their families and carers know how to use this system and that it is not going to let them down. So I would appreciate the minister answering those questions. 13:11 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I will answer just briefly because the member for Franklin has indicated that she has had a briefing from my department and it has explained how we will transition a sector that is providing aged-care packages in a somewhat limited way now to a sector where the consumer has more choice over the providers of those packages in, as she said, February 2017. She correctly identified that this is an important area to get right. The member for Franklin also mentioned a saving that both her party and our party have agreed was necessary in the aged-care funding instrument of $1.2 billion, given that the budget for that funding instrument had blown out by $3.8 billion over the forward estimates. It happened once before under Labor and they took the same corrective action that we are now. We have agreed that that corrective action needs to be taken, and I am consulting with the sector about what we will do to make sure it does not happen for a third time. We also need to recognise that the certainty that is needed when you are a provider of aged care is very important. It is not a cut. It is not going to be described by me as a cut because it is actually a growth that is continuing at about 5.1 per cent. So our spend in aged care is budgeted to continue at 5.1 per cent, and it will. But if that expected growth blows out, as it did with this aged-care funding instrument, we will bring it back to trend. We will have no choice, to come back to my point about the scarce health dollars. By the way, even if they were not scarce, it would still be the right thing to do to properly manage the system. You just cannot let expenditure in one area run away. We are very excited about the reforms in aged care. They are going to make a difference to every single older Australian. They are going to bring the consumer to the centre of their care. I am looking forward to older Australians becoming empowered and able to make their own choices and not to feel like they are passive recipients of packages and that they have to do certain things because that is what the package does. They will have choice and control. They can say, 'I don't want my house cleaned this week; I want to go down to the club and have a few drinks with my mates. I don't care about the dishes in the sink today.' Just to have that flexibility and choice is absolutely vital. Why should we ever expect that older Australians somehow have to have this one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to policy and funding support from Canberra? This is, indeed, a transformation in aged care and one that I very much hope the Labor Party will join us in supporting. 13:14 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I appreciate that the minister did make some attempt to answer those questions. I am still curious as to whether she is going to consider a review of the ACFI as part of the Living Longer, Living Better legislative review that Mr David Tune is doing. Hopefully she will be able to answer that. I also have some questions I want to ask about some statements around mental health. We have had bipartisanship on mental health in the past and the minister made some comments earlier, as did the member for Dunkley, that I certainly agree with about making sure that people who need to access mental health services have an opportunity to do so. Obviously the minister is very busy with a very broad portfolio. One of the issues she talked about, as did member for Dunkley, was reforming through the PHNs. I am really keen to hear from the minister about how the rollout of reforms is going, particularly around the PHNs and around mental health commissioning. I am concerned that some of the PHNs might not have the expertise or experience in mental health to be able to commission those. I am also concerned of course that there is no gap in existing services to the PHNs commissioning those services. These are vulnerable people with mental health issues out and about in the community, and we want to make sure that that they can access the services that they need at the time that that they need them. Continuing on with the reforms that are happening, we have the fifth national mental health plan. We know that it is in draft and that it is going out to consultation but the fifth mental health plan, I understand, from COAG will not be signed off on until April 2017 and the last one expired in 2014. So I am a bit curious as to why we have had three years with no agreed national mental health plan. I am also really concerned that after four national mental health plans, we do not know if they actually worked because we did not have any measured outcomes in those first four mental health plans. So I am curious as to whether the draft fifth plan actually will have some measurable outcomes in it rather than just measure activity to see if the reforms that are so critical are making a difference. I think we really need to make sure that whatever we are doing when it comes to mental health—and we are investing, as the minister likes to use the term, 'scarce health dollars'—that we are actually getting results and making a difference to the mental health of the community, so that is really critical. The National Mental Health Commission talked about a suicide prevention target, which I want to ask the minister about. Labor did say that we would agree to this in the lead-up to the election. The commission recommended a 50 per cent reduction over 10 years. We have not heard from the government about whether or not they support that target or whether the fifth national health has a target for suicide reduction in it. I think we would all agree that one death is too many and we all need to do everything we can given the latest ABS statistics in this area, which are really quite heartbreaking. There is so much more that needs to occur. I appreciate that mental health is in reform at the moment. There is a lot of reform going on and I ask the minister these questions genuinely. I am genuinely concerned that with some of the programs that exist at the moment and with some of the things that we are doing at the moment, we do not know whether they are working. With the programs at the moment, we need to make sure that the PHNs do have the expertise around mental health, make sure that there is continuity of service as this commissioning occurs, and make sure that existing programs and the people accessing them are not going to be at any risk. I am sure there are transition plans, so I would be really keen to hear what they are. The one thing that we do argue about with mental health is the dollars. I have also got a question for the minister about the dollars. In the last MYEFO, the government did cut or make savings of $141 million from mental health programs. Then of course there was an election commitment of $192 million over the forwards. I am just wondering whether that $192 million is on top of the health funding before the cut of $141 million or whether it is minus $141 million plus $192 million so therefore an increase overall of $50 million. I am curious as to when the minister says 'effectively new mental health money' whether she means it actually is $192 million on top of where it should have been or whether it is just the $50 million. I ask the minister these questions around mental health genuinely because it is a bipartisan area and we have been trying to work with the government in this area in the past. I am concerned about vulnerable Australians in this area. 13:19 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I will keep my questions brief given that we are almost running out of time. Earlier on, when the minister was talking about the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, she talked about a third of the people accessing it. In my state of South Australia, my understanding is that nearly 40 per cent of the eligible families accessed that scheme. But more particularly, I ask the minister: how will families in remote Australia get to a public dental service if they live hours away from it? And how will families get to a public dental service if the services are not expanded out into rural and remote regions? How will they get to them if they need to see a dentist urgently when in some states there are waiting lists of several years? What does the minister intend to do to improve accessibility to those public dental services and reduce the waiting list? I hope the minister does not simply say that is a problem for the states. Secondly, in her responses earlier on the minister failed to mention the matter of prostheses. Again I ask the minister: what does the minister intend to do to bring down the cost of prostheses? Nor did the minister mention the regulation of pathology rents. Again, how does the minister intend to do that, when does she intend to do that and what mechanism does she intend to use to bring down the pathology rents in the doctors' surgeries? (Farrer—Minister for Sport and Minister for Health and Aged Care) (13:20): Ms LEY 00AMN As the member for Makin said, we are running out of time, so I will try to address as many points that have been raised as I can. On the public dental benefits services in South Australia: it is the role of the state government, not the Commonwealth government, to establish public dental infrastructure. South Australia is actually quite good at using the private dental service to do what the public dental service should have, and quite a few of your dentists have made me aware of that. In terms of building infrastructure, some states have done it well—Queensland, for example. Some states have in fact relied on dollars in what is I think an easy way of channelling them into private dentists to do what really should be public dental work. No-one argues that public dental services are the preserve of state governments. So there might be some questions for your South Australian colleagues there. Around pathology the misunderstandings continue to abound. I wanted to say that the agreements that were made between the government and Pathology Australia, representing the pathology sector, have indicated that bulk-billing will continue. We are having ongoing discussions about addressing the circumstances of pathology rents, and there is genuine agreement around the table. Much of that is on the public record. On mental health: I know that, if he had time, the member for Dunkley would have talked further about the valuable work that his headspace does and the young people that it helps. I am glad the member for Franklin understands the allocation of scarce dollars in mental health even though she does not seem to appreciate the allocation of scarce dollars across the health portfolio generally or she would not continue to make the repetitive comments she does about Medicare. But I assure her that the purpose of Primary Health Networks is to commission the dollars to the services that provide the front-line support and to get those services where they are needed in the best possible way. The people in the Primary Health Network do not provide services. They should not be service providers. But they are people who are very good at getting the best value out of the health dollar. Importantly, their decisions are informed by clinical committees and consumer committees, so every Primary Health Network has those networks that inform it where the dollars should go to meet the need. For example, severe youth mental health, anxiety and depression the organisations that do the best on the ground are the ones that will get the dollars, and you as consumers can be satisfied that we are getting the best possible spend. If you have one size fits all from Canberra, you have what sometimes almost seems a historical accident that certain organisations get funded and certain organisations do not. Some will say, 'Here's an organisation that is doing really good work.' It may be doing really good work and it may continue to get funded, but our job is to have the very best front-line services, particularly for young people with mental health. The shadow minister speaks about the Fifth National Mental Health Plan and, if she looks at the history, she will see what the first four plans achieved. She will also note that a previous Labor Prime Minister said that they would make mental health a second-term priority. It is not something I say very often, Member for Franklin, because I want to be bipartisan about mental health, but I think you can be really reassured that we are not holding back when it comes to reforms in mental health. There is the $192 million that the Prime Minister allocated during the campaign because of his personal passion for suicide prevention. We are starting to work out how we can absolutely provide that to the organisations that can do the very best work in suicide prevention, in research—because we really do not know what works and what does not work—in severe psychosis and in our commitment to 10 more headspaces, all of which is being funded. I end where I always begin with health: if you cannot fund it, you cannot deliver it. 13:24 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Minister, I would like to ask you some questions in relation to aged care and mental health for young people in my electorate of Mayo. In relation to aged care services, I would like to ask some questions in relation to the Commonwealth Home Support Program. My understanding is that the first step to access this program is through the My Aged Care website and a call centre that acts as a screening gateway. Are the call centre operators required to have qualifications and experience in aged care and, if not, how are they suitably qualified to assess eligibility? Previously, as you are aware, eligibility for this program was determined by the local level, with a site visit from a local provider. Now an applicant must go through a screening gateway and is deemed eligible or not through an arms-length process. For many older people it is quite hard to articulate their needs over the phone. If this process assesses them to be eligible, my understanding is that a site visit is conducted by a regional assessment service; however, they also have a large geographic area to cover, particularly in my electorate. Then the client is referred to their local service provider, who must also conduct a site visit before a service can be put in place. So one site visit holistic assessment has now been replaced by a gateway assessment, via telephone, with two site visits carried out by two different organisations, sometimes for a service as simple as a once-off gutter clean. Can the minister explain why this level of complexity has been introduced, how many people in total have applied for this service since the introduction of the online gateway and how many have been deemed eligible or not eligible? Would the minister also please advise, through her department, whether they are considering alternatives to the screening gateway, because the online gateway and call centre frequently acts as a barrier for older people who should be eligible for these low level support services? It is a barrier for them to stay safely living in their community. I would also like to ask the minister what sort of wait times elderly people are experiencing between their first call and receiving a service and whether those wait times have increased since the introduction of this service. In relation to mental health, I have been advocating very strongly for a headspace in my electorate of Mayo. My understanding is that there will be some sort of outreach service delivered shortly in Mayo. Would the minister please advise me what that looks like, how many young people it is expected to support and whether it will allow a proper outreach that will go down the peninsula, considering I have 9,300 square kilometres with no youth mental health specialists, such as headspace? 13:27 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer As time is reasonably short I might try to answer the member for Mayo's questions quickly. The detailed questions she has asked about, regarding My Aged Care and the Commonwealth Home Support Program, we can take on notice and provide her with the statistics she has asked for. It is, indeed, the case that when you call My Aged Care you are referred to a regional assessment service, and that service makes a follow-up call or visit, depending on your circumstances, to assess you for the need. When My Aged Care began there were issues—and I am certainly not going to walk away from that—but now, I understand, the wait times are shorter, the referral pathways are quicker and so on. In fact, we added about $102 million in the budget in order to improve My Aged Care. So I am very happy to give the member for Mayo a briefing, particularly to pick up the detailed questions that she has asked. In terms of headspace, as I noted in my previous answer, we have undertaken to provide 10 more headspace centres as part of our election commitments and my intention is that they go in the areas that need them. Meanwhile—and until such an application might be made, and I cannot forecast whether it will be successful—it is important that your existing service be able to provide the outreach that it seems to be able to do. So I am very happy to have a further conversation with you about how we can support the access for your young people. 13:29 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Given the short time available, I just want to correct the minister on a few things. When I said 'scarce health dollars' I was quoting the minister. We really need to get away, Minister, from this fact that health is a zero-sum situation. The government is still committed to $50 billion in tax cuts, of course, of which $7 billion is going to the big banks—and we know how much they like to protect the big banks. So this assumption that somehow there is no more money at all in the whole of government—ever—for health from hereon in is a wrong position for the minister to take. The minister unwittingly referred to a comment where she said the PM allocated $192 million to mental health. That shows the minister does not have a lot of credibility around the cabinet table. She has clearly indicated that she has struggled to get Treasury and Finance and the rest of the cabinet to agree to put more money into the health portfolio more broadly. She has not given a guarantee about the GP rebate and the no-increased costs. We have not had very many answers from her on some of the serious issues that are affecting consumers and patients out there—with the freeze, the pathology cuts, the diagnostic cuts, the imaging cuts, the child dental scheme, the PBS co-payments, the increased costs of medicine and the Medicare safety net. The list goes on about the number of things that the minister has not answered as she has been here today and has been required to do. The public remain bitterly disappointed in the minister. She has made it abundantly clear that she does not have the authority she needs around the cabinet table to get the money. The health-scarce dollars that she refers to are only scarce because she does not have the ability to get any more money into the health portfolio. When you are talking mental health you are talking ageing, and you are talking health care for vulnerable Australians who are sick, unwell, old or have mental ill-health. Clearly, more money is needed and, clearly, this minister does not have the ability to get it out of the government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The question is that the proposed expenditure for the health portfolio be agreed to. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Sitting suspended from 13:31 to 16:01 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 95 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Western Sydney 95 16:01 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I grew up and continue to live in Sydney's western suburbs. Through the years of growing up and chasing work, I, like many Western Sydney residents, have had to endure that regular exodus from the west to the east and the east back to the west every single day, either through crowded trains or packed motorways. We often would think, 'What is the best way to break that link?' We certainly had thought for quite some time that one of the ways to do it is obviously to look at the areas where we expect population growth to occur and to support development in that area. Last year, for example, I got up and I indicated that the site of the next major CBD within Sydney should be located in south-west Sydney. At that point in time it was derided by one of the critics as 'one of the stupidest ideas ever heard'. I was thinking of that quote today when I got to see the paper of choice for announcing new things—and here it is, The Daily Telegraph. '"Aero" city set to soar'. Here it is. It just happens to be in the same place that I referred to last year, where I believed we needed to be able to capitalise on the fact that for quite some time the south-west growth centres had been earmarked for growth—nearly 300,000 people going in there—and the north-west centres earmarked for growth as well, which are actually, coincidentally, used as the platform for that story. It is championed by none other than Chris Brown. Chris Brown has become a voice of Western Sydney. He loves Western Sydney; he just does not want to live there. He champions our region from Balmain, and why wouldn't he when he gets to support organisations that actually make a quid off that. For example, through the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue, if you pay $400 to an organisation he supports you will get to hear about what is happening with Sydney's second airport. He is also supported by David Borger—David Borger, who believes that Western Sydney starts and ends at Parramatta and that its jobs plan revolves purely around Sydney's second airport. Both of these people talk about Western Sydney. They never champion better schools, they never champion better hospitals; all they do is champion the dedication of funds into a particular pet project, which in some cases they think they can make some money off. I end on this point: last year when I referred to the fact that we should use the south-west growth centre to create a second CBD, I was labelled as putting forward an idea that was 'the stupidest idea I've ever heard'. And the person who owned that quote? Sydney Business Chamber's David Borger. Wow! Twelve months and everything changes, but you can still make a quid off making those types of statements. Congratulations on today's TheDaily Telegraph piece. Hummingbird House 96 16:04 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I rise today to celebrate the opening of Hummingbird House in Brisbane. I was humbled to represent Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and health minister Sussan Ley recently at the opening of Queensland's first children's hospice to meet some of the families and the children who will ultimately benefit from this amazing facility. It was families like Mark and Fiona Engwirda, who have loved and lost a child to life-limiting conditions, who understood the need for a children's hospice in Queensland. Their daughter, Kate, suffered from a weak heart and microcephaly, which caused severe epilepsy and respiratory difficulties. At only nine months old Kate had open heart surgery to fix her heart condition, but the heart did not repair the way doctors had hoped. The Engwirda family did all they could to make the most of every moment with Kate, while ensuring she received the 24-hour care she required for the next 15 months. The family travelled interstate to a purpose-built facility to get respite. 'We were in a hospice in New South Wales when we kissed Kate, told her we loved her, and said goodbye,' they said. They had travelled over 1,000 kilometres to that hospice, because there was nowhere for them to go in Queensland. Hummingbird House will change that. It is stories like the Engwirdas' that led to the creation of Hummingbird House. I want to sincerely thank and congratulate Paul and Gabrielle Quilliam, co-founders of Hummingbird House, and everyone who was involved in making this inspiring project a reality. Too often, for too many, living past childhood or even school or university will never be a reality. Hummingbird House will care for children from right across Queensland. This government has contributed $5.5 million over six years to the establishment and operation of Hummingbird House, which will provide essential end-of-life care and support for up to 3,700 children and their families in Queensland. This is a reflection of this government's commitment to implementing initiatives which improve access to high-quality palliative care for all Australians, including children, as they require it. Paul and Gabrielle Quilliam's efforts, in partnership with Wesley Mission Queensland, have resulted in a world-class facility which will greatly improve the quality of life for terminally ill children and their families. It is a tribute to their passion and their vision, as well as to the commitment and strength of their supporters and partners, that they have been able to secure the personal support of not just one, but two prime ministers. I want to pay tribute to the member for Warringah's personal commitment and contribution to this project, modelling Hummingbird House on Bear Cottage, a children's hospice in his own electorate. I also want to thank and acknowledge the hard work and dedication to this project of the member for Petrie, Luke Howarth, and the member for Dickson, Peter Dutton, who personally fought for the federal funding for this project and played an important role in securing a suitable site on Brisbane's north side. Greenway Electorate: Family and Domestic Violence 96 16:08 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to raise some incredible initiatives in my local community to combat the scourge of family violence. On 21 November the Blacktown Workers Club will again host their annual White Ribbon breakfast. The breakfast starts with the arrival of the White Ribbon team awareness ride. The team comprises police officers and community members who have dedicated their time to take part in the ride from Newcastle to Blacktown. The purpose of the ride is to raise awareness of and promote community involvement to stamp out the insidious crime of family violence that continues to plague many communities across Australia. Last year the event attracted around 750 attendees who were there to walk and 50 cyclists who took part in the ride. A staggering $92,000 was raised for important groups such as the Mount Druitt WASH House, Blacktown Women's and Girls' Health Centre and White Ribbon Australia. These groups provide help and education programs for family violence victims. The work they do is vital—and, sadly, necessary—to help those who are most in need in our community. The Blacktown Workers Club has also fielded a team in the annual City to Surf event for the past couple of years. All funds raised from the run went to the White Ribbon foundation. In May this year the club held a race meeting at the Hawkesbury Race Club to proudly raise funds and awareness of the 'Say no to domestic violence' initiative. This year the bar has been set high: to repeat the enormous efforts of all those involved in previous White Ribbon breakfasts. I have no doubt that, with the dedication of the volunteers, participants and staff involved, they will exceed the target set by last year's event. According to the New South Wales government's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, a staggering 2,014 incidents of family violence were recorded within the Blacktown local government area from July 2015 to June this year. This figure, I am so sad to say, is almost double the number of incidents recorded in the neighbouring Penrith local government area, with 1,037 incidents, and almost three times that of the Parramatta local government area, with 738 incidents. These figures are way too high. They are too alarming to contemplate, but, contemplate them and take action on them these community groups do. I am also proud to say that in March this year the Blacktown City Council became a White Ribbon accredited workplace, and, at the time, was one of only two New South Wales local councils with the White Ribbon accreditation. Initiatives like this will assist those affected by family violence by providing them with a flexible, understanding and safe workplace. I think it is important that other workplaces adopt this approach for the benefit of employees who, sadly, may be victims of this insidious crime. I would like to recognise the hard work and dedication to this cause by the General Manager of the Blacktown Workers Club, Neale Vaughan, President Kay Kelly and the team of directors. They have shown that by coming together as a community we can continue to fight and beat this awful crime. I want to also mention the tireless work done by our local police officers, community agencies and members of the public. Without community involvement such as this, family violence will continue to be a silent crime that affects so many. Allen, Ms Lorna, Page Electorate: Cricket, Page Electorate: Northern Rivers Business Awards 97 16:11 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page For many people, getting older means winding down and having a quieter life. This is definitely not the case for 97-year-old Lorna Allen. Lorna lives in her own self-care unit. Her week revolves around volunteering for 25 to 30 hours at the Caroona Jarman Nursing Home. She has been volunteering at Caroona for nearly 50 years. Lorna helps the residents get ready for outings, with bus trips and with their shopping. There has been many a time when Lorna has just sat with a resident in their time of sickness or need so they are not alone. She also helps with cooking for special functions as well as with their annual fete and their fortnightly happy-hour functions. There is good news, too. As a volunteer, Lorna, even though she is 97, had to undergo a police check to volunteer at the home. She passed, which was great news. Lorna, thank you. The cricket season is well underway and there are many local players who are representing our region at an elite level. I would like to congratulate them all. Olivia Osborne, who attends St Johns College at Woodlawn, was named in the country under-15s squad. Grace Parsons, who is at Trinity Catholic College, was named in the under-15s metro team. Both girls will attend the Under-15s national championships in Canberra in January next year. Amy Riddell, who attends Grafton High, was named in the under-18s country team. Carly Leeson from Maclean High was named in the under-18s metro team. Carly and Amy will both attend the under-18s national championships in November in Hobart. Two local boys, Jack Cooper, who also attends Woodlawn, and Kaleb Auld, from Trinity Catholic College, were selected in the state under-17s squad. They will play in Queensland later this month. Congratulations go to all those cricketers. The Northern Rivers Business Awards were held last month. These awards recognise excellence across the Northern Rivers. I would like to congratulate Alstonville Meats, who won the retail category. Owner Ashley Thompson and his team, Bruce Hall, Lachlan Thompson and Thomas Brown, do a great job at this local butcher. Congratulations also go to Kirsty Christensen from the Fresh Dental Care team in Grafton, who took out the young business executive award. Congratulation also go to Mareeba Aged Care in Maclean, who were the winners in the aged care and wellbeing category. Well done to Rachel Bennett, the Director of Nursing, and her deputy, Marie Connell, who do a fantastic job overseeing the care of 118 residents. Lastly, congratulations go to the Casino RSM Club, who took out the excellence in business award. Well done to all the staff at this great community club. All these business will now all go on to represent the Northern Rivers region in the NSW Business Chamber State Awards in November, and I would like to wish these wonderful local businesses all the very best at this event. Lysicrates Foundation, Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards 97 16:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The Lysicrates Foundation was created to support and inspire original Australian theatre. The Lysicrates monument in the Sydney botanic gardens has recently been refurbished. It is next to the lotus pond and pays homage to the tradition of performance going back to ancient Greece. The foundation was started by Patricia and John Azarias. Together, they have endowed the foundation with their passion for performance and visual arts. The foundation hosts the Lysicrates Prize for original Australian plays, and the winning play will be staged next year. I would like to congratulate the finalists for this year: Melissa Bubnic, Jennifer Compton and Nick Coyle. Organisations and prizes such as these are fantastic way to celebrate Australian culture and encourage original Australian writing. We have a proud heritage for creative works, and I am glad to be celebrating contemporary artists who continue to inspire with their words and performances. Patricia and John Azarias were inspired to start the foundation when they walked past the Lysicrates monument in the botanic gardens. Built in 1868, the monument was originally on private property and was rescued from destruction by Sir William McKell in 1943, when it was placed in its current location. It was in need of repair and ,with the help of government support, it has been restored to its former glory. Congratulations to John and Patricia and the whole foundation. I look forward to seeing the plays that are produced in the future. The fifth annual Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards dinner was held last Friday night in Sydney. The event was hosted by its founder, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane MLC. The awards are a wonderful opportunity to highlight the work that is being done by multicultural and Indigenous communities. Australians have made many different journeys to be here today. We are a nation of many languages and stories. People who have the gift of speaking other languages will know there is no such thing as perfect translation. There are words and ideas that do not translate into English exactly, but these writers, reporters and editors who are being celebrated have transcended the limitations of language and are allowing their stories to thrive. They keep a strong grounding of their culture and have worked hard and played an important role by sharing those stories and putting important issues on the mainstream agenda. I would like to congratulate the winners: Ms Namita Gohil from India Link Media as young journalist of the year; Mr Nerses Baliozian from Armenia Media as photographer of the year; Ana Sevo from Iraqi TV for online news coverage, Laura Murphy-Oates from SBS National Indigenous TV, Usha Arvind from India Link Media for journalist of the year in print, Susannah Lolohea from Koori Radio, Mike Sweet, freelancer, for editorial reporting and Raymond Selvaraj from SBS Radio for coverage of community affairs. Swan Electorate: Mr Gem Gautam 98 16:16 Mr IRONS HYM Swan As you know, all of our electorates have characters, and I rise to talk about one of my constituents, Gem Gautam. Gem is the owner of the Busy Bee Deli in the suburb of Como in my electorate. It is a popular corner deli frequently visited by locals. Constituents often comment to me on how caring and friendly Gem is and how much they love his deli, which is more of a mini-market catering to the local community. Gem bought the Busy Bee Deli in May 2014 and worked hard to develop the great relationships he has with his customers. Sadly, in 2015 a fire which began in the adjoining shop caused extensive damage to Gem's deli and destroyed most of the shop and the produce. Unfortunately, Gem was not able to save the shop and had to close the deli, which he worked so hard to build to become a local identity. Gem's enthusiasm for his community has not wavered and he began the Busy Bee Deli Bushfire Relief Team to raise funds for the Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund because he could really understand what it was like to lose everything he worked so hard for in a fire. Gem would set up a drinks stall outside his shop and visit the local park on weekends to sell soft drink and water to raise money for the Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund in response to the Yarloop bushfires, which destroyed more than 180 properties and burnt through about 70,000 hectares of forest and farmland around Waroona and Harvey in Western Australia. I am pleased to say that, after about a year with no deli, Gem has received the keys to the shop and is planning on reopening this month. I am sure that the local Como community will be pleased to see Gem behind the counter again. I know the hardworking South Perth MLA John McGrath was also aware of Gem's unfortunate events and I thank him for the support he showed Gem and his family during that time. But Gem story does not end there. I met with Gem at the end of last month, and he shared with me a story that took him all the way back to India. While out of work, Gem visited a garage sale near his house where he came across a medieval Indian manuscript. Gem tells me the manuscript is handwritten in Sanskrit, which is the ancient of Hinduism, and has 400 double-sided pages. In September this year Gem travelled to India to meet experts in the field who all told him the manuscript was quite a find. Gem is still trying to find information and understand the cultural significance of the manuscript and I wish him luck in his endeavour. He has recently had the manuscript carbon-dated and it has been dated back to, plus or minus 55 years, 1725 A.D. The actual manuscript is covered in engraved wood. I have a copy of the pages which he has given to me. He has had one collector in Australia, based on the carbon dating, offer $15 million for it. He wants to have it translated so he can see whether the value of the book might be higher. He has offered it to the Indian government. I will keep the house informed on how it progresses. Barton Electorate: Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre 99 16:19 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I have always been passionate about ensuring vulnerable people have access to services they need. I understand the importance of community support. In the electorate of Barton, we are lucky to have a strong sense of community in which individuals are always happy to lend a helping hand to their neighbours. Our community is a diverse one and it is also a community which above all values the importance of respecting and supporting others. The Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre in the Barton electorate is an excellent example of this history of community support. The centre was set up by a coalition of church and community groups and social services agencies and professionals in the 60s. Staffed entirely back then by volunteers, Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre provided health care and social services for the elderly in the local area. In the 1970s, services expanded as volunteers from the Kingsgrove area worked hard to provide support for women and children in the form of support groups and childcare services. I was privileged to attend the 50th anniversary celebration of the Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre earlier this month to celebrate this occasion with many of my constituents in Barton. This was a fantastic event which really captured the community spirit of the electorate. The celebration was also a great moment to recognise the hard work of those involved in the centre, which now employs a staff of 35 with 50 additional volunteers. Many groups from the local community were there on the day with representatives from schools, church groups and other community organisations, who mingled with the locals and those who take advantage of the services provided by the community centre. What united these groups was a real sense of pride for community service. It was humbling to see the real dedication of these people to serving others. I was particularly touched by a conversation with an older man who had been involved in Kingsgrove community centre for over 50 years. But certainly the highlight of the day was a presentation by the Walangari group, who performed a traditional Indigenous dance. The wonderful performance from the Walangari dancers highlighted the real diversity represented in the Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre and the people of Barton. The centre has become a community hub not only far older residents but for young families in new mums. Locals can access services such as senior's daycare program, playgroups for children of the Indigenous community and also mental health support. The Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre and many other organisations like it play a very important role in Barton. In the electorates all across Australia we have these community centres—you all know what I am talking about. I would like to thank Anne Farrah Hill and the team of extraordinary volunteers at Kingsgrove community centre. Thank you for your hard work, for your dedication to supporting others and thank you for allowing me to be a part of celebrating this great occasion. Fifty years is a very substantial record for any community organisation. What a fantastic representation of the diverse and robust community of Barton. Welfare Reform 99 16:22 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Nothing is more at the heart of Australia's psyche than a fair go and making a fair effort in return for someone's kindness. Welfare is not an entitlement; it is a privilege that we in Australia can enjoy. And we expect in return certain levels of mutual obligation to receive those payments that range from $528.70 a fortnight up to around $700 under certain circumstances. But everyone in this parliament would agree that if you are receiving those payments you have to do something in return for it and that means, in good faith, searching for work. Where you are not exempted in stream B or stream C, we expect just that. So it is very alarming that 44 per cent of all participation breaches identified by employment providers were overturned by a compliance element of Centrelink that decided either the excuse was adequate or there was a technical mistake made by the employment services provider. We need to get those numbers down. That is 58,000 acceptable excuses; it is way too many per year. I would encourage both sides of parliament to come together and come up with a more watertight system. Because we know, if you are fighting for a chance at a job, let alone securing one, that is the only way to find your way out of your personal crises. Complex chronic lives are led by many and, with the difficult circumstances that they do juggle, we know often the best way out of those circumstances is with a job. The current excuses, I think, are way too broad. We need some more conditionality. So if those bona fides excuses occur, I think it is only reasonable that the jobseeker does actually go out and find a solution to reconnect themselves. This should not be an automatic exemption and then they just go back to 'go' without collecting at $200. We should be encouraging jobseekers. If homelessness is an issue, if a personal crisis is an issue and if transport difficulties or caring obligations are an issue, they should come back and say, 'I have resolved that and can fulfil my obligations by coming back at a later date,' and the ball should be in their court. We are asking for a more equal contribution from both the jobseeker and the agencies. At the moment, I think that 44 per cent is way too high, but it really is a product of the boondoggle approach to Human Services legislation that we saw under the previous government. I call on individual members—they are smart people; we want them stepping up and taking a commonsense approach, because 58,000 exemptions every year are simply too many. Within that, there are 29,000 situations where smart people with masters degrees in Centrelink are overruling smart people with masters degrees in the Job Services offices. We can do way better than that. I do not think we should have a world of 150 overrulings of Job Services providers every working day of every year. If they go to the trouble and they do breach someone, we should be making sure that that absolutely is reported to Centrelink, and if there is an issue of a small, very minor, breach, that can be agreed between the agencies without adding to the burden on the sector. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:26 to 16:38 Broadband 100 16:38 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Deputy Speaker, I am bringing up an issue that you, as the member for Canning, will be well familiar with in your electorate. It has been nearly a year since the Prime Minister launched his innovation statement—the National Innovation and Science Agenda—with a view to creating a 'modern, dynamic, 21st-century economy' for Australia. It has been three years since the Prime Minister scrapped Labor's world-class fibre-to-the-premises NBN, an innovative infrastructure project which would have delivered the fibre-optic technology needed to provide our businesses, entrepreneurs and students with the tools necessary to compete in the 21st century global economy. It will likely be another six long years before the government's second-rate copper NBN is delivered to this country in an infrastructure failing that makes a mockery of any national innovation agenda. In the meantime, many residents living in Baldivis are left without a guaranteed internet connection—that is, businesses, entrepreneurs, students and families are all living the absurd 21st century reality that comes from the Turnbull government's outdated and obsolete copper NBN. Added to the shameful lack of internet connectivity is the often non-existent mobile coverage in one of the fastest-growing suburbs in the country only 30 minutes from the Perth CBD. It is no wonder that Baldivis residents feel as though they are living in a communications black hole, even though they have bought into some of the newest housing developments in the country, with new schools, shops and transport links. These residents could not have foreseen that they would not count in the Prime Minister's innovation agenda, that their business, education and social needs were to be confined to a buffering backwater of substandard infrastructure—that is, if they are lucky enough to connect online at all. The lack of investment in communications infrastructure at Baldivis is impacting on people's lives. Mr Dewald Pretorius is one local resident, an engineer, who works from home and relies on the internet to do so. By all accounts, he is striving to be part of a 21st century modern economy. But, as he has told me, he had better internet connection in South Africa than he does in Baldivis. How on earth is he supposed to be part of an innovative future and how is he supposed to compete? While waiting on the NBN to be delivered, residents in Baldivis are left with old infrastructure without ADSL ports to connect to. The delay in delivering the NBN means that outdated infrastructure is struggling to cope with a population that has grown from 16½ thousand people in 2011 to 31½ thousand residents in 2016. In another five years, the population is expected to reach 44,000 residents. The government needs to address the communications issues facing Baldivis now. Baldivis residents deserve internet and mobile phone connectivity to be part of a modern Australia. I pay tribute to the representatives of the Baldivis community who have continually raised this, including Reece Whitby, the Labor candidate for the upcoming state election in the seat of Baldivis, and also Roger Cook and Paul Papalia, who have represented the community of Baldivis in their existing electorates for many years. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 101 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 101

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017

Consideration in Detail 101 16:42 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I want to start today with paid parental leave. The minister will recall that in the 2015 budget the then Abbott government announced that they were going to end what they called double dipping and that they were going to crack down on new mothers—that was the way Mr Hockey put it at the time—and their paid parental leave entitlements. This was an extraordinary attack on new mothers on Mother's Day. It was unbelievable. The comment from many people at the time was that this was the mother of all insults from the Treasurer of the day. I understand that Minister Porter also intends to pursue these cuts. What we know is that, if the minister gets his way, around 80,000 families with new babies will be as much as $11, 800 worse off. I am very pleased that Labor so far has been able to block these cuts, and that means that we have been able to protect new parents from cuts to paid parental leave. Of course, it was a Labor government that introduced Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme, and one of the great things that has happened as a result is that 730,000 families have been given extra support to spend more time at home in those critical early months of their child's life. Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme gives eligible new parents 18 weeks pay at the national minimum wage. It is a modest and affordable scheme that appropriately targets assistance to women on low and middle incomes. As the minister should know, more than 75 per cent of parents receiving Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme are on incomes of less than $70,000 a year. I understand from the minister's public comments that he does intend to reintroduce this legislation into the parliament and to try to cut support for new mothers. Given that there are many, many families around the country who are either expecting a new baby already or wanting to plan their family, could the minister say exactly when he proposes to reintroduce the legislation that will cut Paid Parental Leave? When will he put that legislation into parliament? And, in the interest of giving expectant mothers especially as much time as possible to plan for their parental leave, on what date will the proposed changes take effect? 16:45 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. The measures that she was specifically referring to were the measures outlined in the 2015-16 budget. Of course the member's— Ms Macklin PG6 That is what I said. Mr PORTER 208884 That was sentence one, so just be a little bit calm and we will get through it. That was sentence one. Ms Macklin PG6 We do not need too much condescension. Mr PORTER 208884 Well, we have just started. So that was the 2015-16 measure. The member would also be aware that a reconfiguration of the savings around that measure was announced in the 2015-16 MYEFO. The measure that will be the subject of the introduction of legislation, which will happen very soon, is a different measure. I am on the public record describing the new measure. Rather than what was the case in the 2015-16 budget measure, the new measure would guarantee a minimum of 18 weeks paid parental leave at the minimum wage. That is what the new measure would guarantee. What the previous measure did in 2015-16 budget was, in effect, guarantee a minimum amount which was, at that stage, $11,826, I recall, which was 18 weeks times the minimum wage. So rather than the 2015-16 proposal, which was that we would pay from the taxpayer funded PPL up to that amount, the proposal that we will put forward soon in legislation is that we will pay the residual on top of any employer paid parental leave up to 18 weeks. So every single mother in Australia—if they are a qualifying mother under the existing system—would be guaranteed 18 weeks of paid parental leave of at least the minimum wage. The reason for both the original measure and the reconfiguration of the measure, which will be the subject of legislation to be introduced soon, is that there is a real problem that exists with the present system. As the member is aware, the access rules around the present paid parental leave system are relatively generous. They are that an applicant need only have worked for 330 hours in 10 of the past 13 months—that is to say, about one day per week. There is presently a rule that says there should be no more than an eight-week break between two working days. In fact, that eight-week break is, again, something we have announced we will change so that women who are working in physical or dangerous professions can get access when previously they have not been able to. Those access rules also have an allied provision where the income test for a new parent must be that they earn less than $150,000 per year. The difficulty that exists in the present system is that you will have a situation often where a parent might be on an income, say, of $140,000. A standard 12-week employer provided Paid Parental Leave scheme for an income of around $140,000 might generally look like this: $32,200 over 12 weeks. And that is merely the parent of the child who is earning the $140,000; that is not a calculation of family income. But if that individual receives, as is presently the case, another full $12,000 of taxpayer funded paid parental leave, that person ends up receiving over an eight-week period a combined employer and taxpayer paid parental leave of $44,000. That is notwithstanding that that person's income is $140,000. Their family income might be significantly greater than that. It might be double that. It might be more than double that. So the situation under the present legislation arises—and it may be that the member agrees that this is not fair—when a person on $140,000 with a generous employer Paid Parental Leave scheme earns more in an 18-week period than the median wage in Australia. That is more that the median wage in an 18-week period from the combination of the taxpayer funded PPL and their employer funded PPL. A cashier working at a supermarket who earns $42,000 and has no employer paid parental leave receives the $12,000 over 18 weeks. In fact, the person earning $140,000 whose family income might be even larger than that receives more in paid parental leave—taxpayer funded plus employer based—over an 18-week period than a cashier working at Coles receives working full-time for an entire year. That is the problem we are seeking to fix by legislation. I must say, it is hard to conceive how that problem is not one that is acknowledged by members opposite as a real difficulty with the present scheme. 16:50 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I do not know whether the minister did not hear the question or has ignored it: what will be the date of effect so that mothers can plan ahead? What will be the date that this legislation takes effect? If you do not know you can take it on notice. 16:51 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce The legislation will be introduced very soon, in a matter of weeks. The date of effect will be in that legislation but I will need to wait for the introduction of that legislation. I understand the point about planning, but the legislation will include a start date that will allow a very significant time for planning. Again, the legislation is not as you have described. You have described, here, legislation as would have been based on the 2015-16 budget measure. The legislation that we will produce, very shortly, is based on a principle that every Australian mother will have 18 weeks paid parental leave at the minimum wage, at least. What that legislation does is fix a problem in the present system where there are very large amounts of money that are able to be received jointly through an employer Paid Parental Leave scheme and the $12,000 taxpayer funded amount by a group of parents at the very high end, on a comparative sense, of the income scale. What this legislation seeks to do is different from that which was announced in the 2015-16 budget. It refines that very significantly by trying to deal with that problem. An honourable member interjecting— Mr PORTER 208884 There is a starting date. It will allow for a very significant planning time, and that will be announced when the legislation is put into parliament, which is imminent. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:53 to 17:05 17:05 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I of course welcome the opportunity to ask questions of the minister in this consideration in detail process. I wanted to speak to the minister about the National plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010-22, which was introduced by Labor in government. The 12-year national plan was the result of the excellent report, Time for action, which was prepared and published by a very important group of people looking at the issue of family violence and domestic violence in Australia, headed by Heather Nancarrow. Under that plan, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, four three-year action plans were to be published. The period of the second action plan concluded at the end of the last financial year. The third action plan was due to commence in July 2016, some months ago now. In March, the government indicated that the third action plan would be released in mid-2016. I wrote to you, Minister, on 4 August and received a response from you on 16 September advising that the third action plan is not expected to be released until after the ACT elections. The ACT elections have of course now passed, and we welcome the return of the Barr Labor government, but we are yet to see the third action plan. Minister, can you confirm whether we can expect to see the third action plan next week at the National Family Violence Summit? That was also Labor policy, which we announced way back in March 2015. We are very pleased that it has come into existence as a national summit to be held next week, and I would appreciate confirmation that it will be provided then. We also note that the 2014 plan for the evaluation of the action plans recommended that there would be an annual progress report. Since then there has been one annual progress report, but the progress reports are intended to be published annually, hence the name. Yet, more than 12 months later, we have not seen the next annual progress report. I would ask that Minister Porter advise when the annual progress report 2015-16 for the national plan will be released. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will also recall that, when the now Prime Minister became the Prime Minister in September, a women's safety package was announced, and I would ask the minister to give us an update specifically from that package on the progress of the trial of the use of innovative technology to keep women safe, such as GPS trackers for perpetrators. How many GPS trackers have been provided to perpetrators? What other innovative technology has been used in relation to that measure under that package? Of the $17 million to keep women safe in their homes, how much has been spent and which organisations have received the funding? Mr Deputy Speaker, you would also be aware that during this year's election the coalition made some commitments in relation to family violence. On 12 May the coalition announced that $30 million of the $100 million set aside in the budget this year for the third action plan—which, of course, we have not seen yet and had not at the time the announcement was made—would go towards frontline legal assistance providers. At the time, the national spokesperson for the National Association of Community Legal Centres, NACLC, said: It is difficult to understand why the Government would provide CLCs with some share of $10 million per year as part of this funding, but during the same period cut CLCs by 30% nationally. It is tantamount to paying for a new roof on a house but removing the foundations at the same time. He described the amount of money as: … totally inadequate amount for legal assistance services in the face of rising demand and funding cuts. CLCs alone are facing funding cuts of $34.83 million over three years from 1 July next year. So I would ask the minister why the government is not, in its women's safety package and the third action plan funding that has been announced, reversing its cuts to legal centres. I would also note that, in relation to that funding that was announced on 12 May, there has been no publication, as far as I am aware, of where the money is going. Has the money been allocated? Which frontline services will be receiving the money? Will the money go to CLCs, FVPLSs, ATSILS or legal aid and, if so, which of those and how much will each receive? There was another announcement during the election, on 21 June, where the coalition announced that $15 million of the $100 million set aside in the budget for the third action plan would go towards frontline services. I would appreciate it if the minister would confirm whether that $15 million was in addition to the $30 million that had been announced on 12 May, or whether it was part of that $30 million. The announcement said: 'The precise programs to be funded will be decided in conjunction with the states and territories.' I would ask that the minister advise how this money will be allocated, and what services will be funded using the $15 million. 17:10 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney Firstly, I congratulate the minister on the approach he has taken to dealing with welfare in our society, particularly trying to move people away from the dependency of welfare and into more meaningful work—something driven not by ideology but by the data, in order to make lives better. It is a very, very important approach to this task which is facing our nation. My question, specifically, to the minister is in relation to the NDIS. How will the NDIS savings fund operate, and how will the establishment of that fund assist in ensuring that the NDIS is fully funded? 17:11 Mr HART 263070 Bass My question to the minister is directed towards the funding and support that is supplied towards carers. As we know, we have approximately 2.8 million unpaid carers who work tirelessly every day to care for children with additional needs, sick or elderly family members and people with a disability. This is, of course, National Carers Week, which is a great opportunity to celebrate their extraordinary contribution. We should thank them every day for what they do for all of us. However, instead of acknowledging their fantastic contribution towards society, in the past this Liberal government has attempted to cut carers payments. Indeed, in the horror 2014 budget, the Liberal government launched an unprecedented attack on carers by attempting to slash the indexation arrangements which existed, then, for the carers payment. Labor stood, at that time in my electorate, to stand up for Bass carers to block that unfair carer payment and pension cut but, of course, the battle is not over. We think that this minister is softening up the public for cuts to financial support for carers—of course, in association with other reviews such as reviews of the disability payment which, incidentally, has been the subject of an editorial in The Age today. That editorial highlighted how this government's cruel and unfair processes are materially affecting people who are severely disabled in our community. Under the cover of a review of whether somebody who is profoundly disabled is able to return to work, people who have been longstanding recipients of disability payments are being asked to re-establish their entitlement to disability entitlements, to pensions that they have long enjoyed. Some of this can be extremely offensive. If somebody is, for example, suffering from cerebral palsy—a condition which is unlikely to change—then their ability to work, their ability to earn an income, is not going to be affected. In other words, to use the simplest language, they are not going to get better. If somebody has another severe disability then they can be reassessed every day of the week, and their condition will be unchanged. In some respects, the criticism of the government in this area is entirely warranted, but, of course, when we look at the issue with carers, we have the interaction between the people who are currently in receipt of the disability support pension and those who are caring for them. In light of The Age's criticism—Fairfax's criticism—of the unfair treatment of those who are in receipt of disability support payments, is the minister able to reassure the House that, if he is signalling a new direction for review of entitlements to welfare in this country, he is going to take a view which is, on the whole, better than that which is currently being employed with respect to review of disability support payments? In other words, the people who are currently suffering from severe disability will not be required to have their family prove to Centrelink that their condition has got better and that their present disability is going to remain as the key criterion for their entitlement to be paid a carers pension. I would like the minister to be honest with all recipients of carers payment. Is he planning to cut the carers payment or is he planning to push people off the payment entirely? His language up to now, which talks about the number of people who are in receipt of the carers payment increasing significantly over an extended period of time, speaks of something that is other than a reasonable assessment of people by reference to disability, certainly when we are talking about severely disabled people in this community. 17:16 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I ask the minister, in relation to the issue of young carers who provide essential, very important support for the people that they care for: can the minister advise this chamber what effect, in some cases, the care that a young carer provides to their family member might have on the future of that young carer once that caring relationship has finished? Does that relationship or that caring role that that young carer played set them up for the future or does it actually, in some cases, leave them without the tools they need in order to be employed and live a fulsome life? Is the government looking at ways to address the issue of young carers? 17:17 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Minister, I would like to talk about homeless services. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness was extended in 2015 for just two years, and it is going to end next July 2017. This cycle of short-term funding impacts greatly upon the capacity of homeless services to make forward plans and operate efficiently. The uncertainty about future funding is crippling the sector and preventing long-term investment. Has your department conducted an evaluation of the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness? If so, what were the main findings? If not, why not? Will funding for homeless services under a national framework be continued post-June 2015? When will details of such funding be released? Will the minister guarantee funding for homeless services will not be reduced by the Commonwealth? The homeless service sector loses staff and momentum every day. There are delays in funding commitments, and with these funding commitments there have only been short-term time frames. If the government enters into a new national partnership with the states and territories on homelessness, will it commit to at least five years of funding to provide certainty for the sector and, if not, what time frame are you considering? 17:19 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce The member for Griffith had some questions about both the Women's Safety Package and the third action plan. I think the first of those questions was whether or not the third action plan will be released and announced at next week's meeting. That is the Commonwealth's intention. Of course, that depends upon agreement from each and every state and territory jurisdiction. I am anticipating that that agreement will arrive. I cannot say unilaterally that that will be the case, but that is the intention. Your second question then was with respect to the budget for the women's safety initiative and the Women's Safety Package implementation. The Australian government committed$100 million as part of the 2016-17 budget to deliver the third action plan that we anticipate will be released next week but that is dependent on jurisdictional agreement. The commitment is in broad directional terms so the $100 million involves: a $30 million commitment to legal services; $25 million to assist Indigenous communities; $20 million for prevention and early intervention initiatives; $15 million for front-line services; and $10 million for research and education, including addressing sexual violence and revenge pornography. That investment is in addition to and builds on the ongoing funding of around $25 million a year that underpins the 12-year national plan. The ongoing funding supports key services like 1800Respect, which was the subject of a structural announcement earlier this year. That money that I have just described also builds on the $100 million Women's Safety Package launched by the Prime Minister in September 2015 and the $30 million national campaign to reduce violence against women and their children that was jointly funded by state and territory governments. The Commonwealth's much broader investments that drive a reduction in violence include the $230 million to extend the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which the member for Mayo just raised and which I will address shortly, and of course there is $1.6 billion in legal assistance, income support, education and health. That is the way in which the funding overlaps and sits with each other in context. The WSP technology trials were to provide $12.031 million to state and territory governments. That money was required to be matched by each of the state and territory governments and it was to promote innovative technologies to keep women safe. Obviously that will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from suggestion to suggestion. Under the measure, the department has already provided $180,000 in funding to the South Australian government for the D3 Digital Challenge to keep women safe in 2015-16. That technology was being trialled and included a digital tool kit to support women in abusive relationships and an app that helps young people understand the consequences of a variety of behaviours. I can inform the member that nine projects across six jurisdictions have now been approved. The one I have just been described was the one that has been announced. Of course the announcement on the others will follow in the not too distant future. An opposition member interjecting— Mr PORTER 208884 No, the money has been allocated but the projects have not yet been announced other than the $180,000 so it is not true to say that the money has not been allocated. But because those grants and the trials are done in cooperation with state and territory jurisdictions, they rely on a bilateral rather than unilateral announcement of those projects. I think that covers off those matters that you raise. In respect to the member for Bass, you put some assertions and raised some questions. Effectively your question was whether or not carers payment will be subject to any of the types of processes that DSP payments are presently subject to and then you determined to misrepresent the processes that the DSP payment are subject to. Let me describe to you what is with the DSP at present. There are in the vicinity of 30,000 reviews a year. The member for Bass, the reason that those reviews are being conducted is because your government in 2012 changed the disability assessment criteria for the DSP such that people who were assessed post that change in late 2012, 2013 and subsequent years, were assessed to the new criteria that you developed. That of course meant, as a matter of practice, that many people had been included into and assessed into the DSP according to criteria which are no longer used and are outdated. It seems a perfectly fair and reasonable measure to go back and reassess those, and of course you need to do that in an appropriate and fair way, which we are endeavouring to do. The one example that was raised, I think, in question time yesterday was an indication of the person who received a letter. Information was sent back, and the review—if you can call it that—ended at precisely that point. But those reviews are continuing. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Given that it has gone past 5:20, the Federation Chamber will now consider the Human Services segment of the Social Services Portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. 17:24 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I appreciate the opportunity this evening to look at the appropriation bill in a little bit more detail. The minister has delivered a very nice, sound assessment of some of his programs but he has not even come close to explaining why his department is failing on so many customer service standards. Earlier in the House of Representatives we had a debate about these standards. A good welfare system needs to be accessible but, increasingly, ours is difficult to negotiate and treats those who need assistance with absolute contempt. Falling service standards are a key feature of what we are seeing of the system. According to the last available figures, 30 per cent of customers hang up after being left on hold for far too long. Complaints are up 18.8 per cent and customer satisfaction is down almost 10 per cent. Whatever the minister wants to spin, these are his own figures. People cannot get hold of customer service operators let alone get access to much needed support payments in a timely manner. People are waiting months—absolutely months—for the aged pension, months for disability support pensions and months for youth allowance. That is too long for the payments they need to support themselves. One thousand jobs have gone in the last budget alone. I have come from the state government and I know about service delivery. How is this about service delivery? These are not the actions of a government that wants to solve problems. For all this government's talk of welfare reform, only one thing is clear: clients are receiving worse services and declining access and declining standards. Staff are being treated with contempt. This cannot all be the result of poor management. It is a deliberate strategy for this government that sees welfare only in terms of the budget bottom line. Not only are these service standards falling but the services provided to clients are being slashed, starting with this government's No. 1 target: Medicare. No longer will individuals be able to make Medicare claims at their local Centrelink office. The offices that do still accept paper forms will simply ship them off to a processing centre, where they will sit in a rapidly growing backlog. And we know what that backlog is. The minister knows this because his government does not like Medicare and it cannot stand the welfare system. These people are just leaners to them. With this in mind, I call on the minister to explain to this chamber a couple of things. Minister: pay attention. Firstly, I want to know why call waiting times continue to be out of control. Is the minister addressing the fact that on the last available figures 30 per cent of calls made to Centrelink were abandoned by callers, and can the minister explain how cutting 1,000 staff is going to address this? If people on welfare cannot get through, if they only have a mobile phone with credit to a certain level, how are they possibly going to hang on for over an hour? And please do not tell me that it is a 10- or 15-minute wait. It is not. Tell us the truth about this. Secondly, can you provide any explanation as to how the removal of face-to-face processing of Medicare claims and forcing people to wait four to six weeks for payments can possibly deliver better outcomes for some of the most disadvantaged in our community? I am talking about people that are unwell. I am talking about people that are elderly. I am talking about people that do not have access—as we do in this room—to the sort of technology that you think is the answer. I agree with the Prime Minister and I agree with you that people that cheat and take advantage of the welfare system have to be dealt with. But you know and I know that most people, the majority of people, do not fall into that category. I find it offensive that this government paints people on welfare as leaners. These people are people that rely on people like you and me to provide them with a hand up. 17:29 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I am happy to address a couple of those points which the member for Barton raised, and two in particular that she asked me about—call wait times and the removal of face-to-face Medicare claims. If I could start with the second one. I know the Labor Party has been saying this for some time, but there has been no removal of face-to-face Medicare claims. I would like to point out a few facts. On 96 per cent of occasions, a patient will go to a doctor or a specialist and they will literally swipe their Medicare card and have to do no more—all of the rebates are processed electronically. We hope to get that figure up even higher. With the remaining four per cent of claims, it is typically because a doctor or a specialist will not have that Medicare facility in his or her clinic and so they will be given an invoice and they will have to take that to Medicare office—post it or take it in in person. Nothing has changed in relation to that. People can still post it or upload it on the app or they can take it to anyone of the service centres or agents around Australia—there are 700 of them—to put in their Medicare claim. That Medicare claim 99 per cent of the time will be processed within 10 days. We have made some administrative changes to our back office, which I know the member for Barton has raised, but that makes no difference to that metric—99 per cent will still be addressed and dealt with within 10 days so that the money is back into the patient's pocket. Let me address the issue of call wait times in the time I have available. The current call wait time is 11 minutes. I appreciate that that is the average call-waiting time when a person rings the Centrelink number and, of course, there is a distribution across that when you have an average. Some people are waiting a short amount of time; some people are waiting a lot longer than 11 minutes. The member for Barton made the accusation that the reason this is happening is that we have pulled out so many staff. I would simply point out to the member for Barton who admittedly as a new member of parliament—she was not part of the Labor government at this particular time—but in 2010-11, when the Labor Party was in government, the call wait time was three minutes and five seconds. The times ballooned out to 11 minutes and 45 seconds in 2011-12. Why did they balloon out at that particular time? This was documented by the Australian National Audit Office: the Labor Party ripped 1100 telephone staff out. Again, I appreciate that the member for Barton was not part of that government, which we had to endure for six long years, but I ask her to understand a little bit of the history of this issue. We take this issue seriously; we do want to reduce call wait times so that people do not have to wait any longer than necessary. We have just invested $600 million in a new telephony system which helps to manage the phone calls across the nation and, of course, we are investing, as we speak, up to $1 billion on a new overall welfare payments system. Once this new system is fully installed it will mean that so few people will have to call the call centre or go into a Medicare office in order to find out the status of their claim, because that information will often be seamless. You will be able to apply online; it will be straight-through processing; and you will have the answer almost instantaneously. For example, if you think about a student claim at the moment—they will put in an online claim; it will be looked at a Centrelink office; they will have to interrogate an ATO file; then interrogate a university file; and in the meantime the student is ringing up to find out the status of their claim. In the not-too-distant future, because of this government's decision to invest in the welfare payments structure, that could be an instantaneous decision because our systems will automatically interrogate the ATO and automatically link into the university's course load data and that student could know instantaneously or within 24 hours. That is what will reduce the call volumes and make a big difference to service quality. Only this government has been prepared to bite the bullet and make that type of investment. 17:34 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Budgets, as we know, are about choices and priorities but I think it is also fair to say they carry with them an expectation of efficient and effective administration. There have been disturbing and growing questions in the last week about the government's welfare crackdown and approach to the disability support pension reviews arising from this budget measure. Both ministers, as it turns out, are aware of the case of Andrew Johnson, one of my constituents, who we have discussed through the media and in question time and here. Two things arise. In relation to the actual review under this budget measure, it is unclear on what basis, how and by whom these decisions are being made. It requires answers, as Minister Porter's advice to the House of Representatives yesterday does not appear correct. Yesterday the Minister for Social Services advised the House: Upon receiving the letter, information was received from Andrew's mother and … the matter came to an end … But, straight after question time, I received a call from Andrew's mother. Andrew's mother had not and still has not provided the information from specialists treating Andrew's conditions to Centrelink. In fact, she received a call out of the blue last Thursday from a Centrelink officer, after the media inquiries came to The Age, who told her that the review was completed. She asked the Centrelink officer, 'How can the review be completed, because I have not provided the medical evidence which I spent the last two or three weeks of my life gathering, and hours of time waiting for four specialists'—the specialists who are responsible and capable of providing the expert advice in relation to the disabilities which warrant Andrew's disability pension. She said to the Centrelink officer that she had it assembled and she was bringing it in on the Friday, but was told on Thursday by the Centrelink officer it just would not be needed because the review was complete. So who is right—the minister or the mother? On what basis was this decision made, and should everyone in Australia with a severe disability go to the media and the minister? Further, Mrs Johnson was also told by the Centrelink officer she could expect further reviews into Andrew and her other son, Will, yet later that day I understand Minister Tudge told The Age's journalist that there would be no further reviews into Andrew or Will. I could have that wrong and I am happy to have it corrected. On what basis, then, was that decision made given Will's review had not even started? Further, general questions arise, in relation to this review, which go to all Australians on the disability support pension. The question I put is: why was the review conducted and under what policy direction? Yesterday the Minister for Social Services again told the House the government was 'looking at all those people in the system under 35 to ensure that those people in the disability support pension system are properly assessed for that.' The government's budget measure from 2014-15, at page 196, states that reviews would apply to DSP recipients aged under 35 who were granted the DSP between 2008 and 2011, and that recipients granted the DSP before 1 January 2008 would be exempt. The 2016-17 budget papers, of course, announced a much greater expansion of reviews, in this welfare crackdown—in fact, 90,000 reviews plus up to 30,000 disability medical assessments for current DSP recipients to be considered at a high risk of not being eligible for the payment. Questions then arise: who are the 90,000 who are being reviewed, and in relation to the 30,000 who are undertaking or experiencing medical assessments, how is 'high risk', to quote the budget papers, determined for them? If it is government policy, as we have learned, that everyone under 35 is going to be reviewed and can expect that letter to turn up telling them to race off to the doctor, running up Medicare bills to tell Centrelink what they should already know, does that mean that everyone under 35 with Down syndrome in Australia will get a review letter to check if they have grown out of it? Indeed, a constituent contacted me in relation to this and she was incredibly distressed because she does not consider there is anything medically wrong with her son—he simply has Down syndrome. She does not have any medical records to prove this except for his annual vaccinations. She is now going to have to truck off to the doctor to prove that he is not going to be cured. Other questions are: how are they protecting the manifestly disabled like Andrew; under what policy direction are these reviews happening; when can vulnerable Australians expect their letters; and due to the costs of the review mentioned in the budget papers do these costs factor in the cost to Medicare of people getting pointless letters to confirm that these conditions cannot be cured? The other question that is raised as a matter of governance—it is good that we have both ministers here—is who is in charge of this? I thought, rightly, that Centrelink was administered by the Minister for Human Services, so we write to him. The Prime Minister waffled on for a minute or so—a minute was short for a waffle—and then pointed at another minister who got up and talked about something that obviously he did not know about, because another minister had already been commenting to the paper. When you read the Auditor-General's reports, these are serious issues—I get policy, I get delivery but it is unclear who is in charge. We will talk about references to call wait times in the Auditor-General's report at another time. I am curious to know whether those stats include hang-ups. 17:39 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman It has been a very important contribution today, and it has been excellent having both ministers here, particularly with their pre-existing interest in this field. I think an important role is being played by both sides of parliament today. Both ministers would agree that we have had high acuity questions from the opposition about the user interface with the Public Service and Centrelink in particular. I can understand that they were very important questions—how long you wait; how often the phone hangs up while you are waiting; whether it is 11 minutes or nine minutes that you wait; and how often paperwork is lost. I am sure, Minister, that these would be elements that are very important for us to make sure we are doing as well as possible given the large case load that Centrelink faces. You then have the other side of the parliament which is, I think ministers would agree, working on how you exit the system in a constructive and productive way, so that we can as Australians aspire for more than a life trapped in welfare and waiting on the phones for a service. Self-evidently, Australians actually aspire to not have to wait on that phone and want to have a shot in the real economy—sending their kids to school and university; attaining a job; and having an opportunity in welfare to work and Work for the Dole. You will see this side of the parliament very much engaged in the high acuity questions around how you leave welfare for something better. That does not mean that we in any way degrade the Centrelink system and it does not mean you are leaner. 'Leaner' refers, I think, to what is known as a persistent evader—someone who fails to turn up to what are completely reasonable job interviews and Work for the Dole when you are a stream A recipient—already identified as not having the logical and compassionate exclusions that every Australian would expect should exist. There are 74,000 non-attendance measures every year. I would argue to you, Minister, that, if that is occurring over and over again in those 74,000 cases, I think it is quite reasonable to refer that person, who does not think that receiving $728.50 a fortnight is sufficient grounds to turn up to a perfectly reasonable job interview. Ms Burney interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H I can appreciate that we have some new blood on the opposition benches who appear to have the intellect and the appetite to make the system better. Minister, I have a very important question about this healthy welfare card being trialled in various parts of Australia. Ms Burney interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H The member for Barton would do well to travel to Ceduna. With an open mind that does not exist with some of her frontbench colleagues, she should go and visit Ceduna and meet those people. Sit down in the dirt or sit under a tree. Ms Burney interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H The colour of your skin does not matter. Sit down and listen. Keep your ears open and ask them what they think about the welfare card. If you did that with the BasicsCard, instead of just presuming the BasicsCard was unpopular, you would find, Member for Barton, that your own party when they were in government made the BasicsCard non-compulsory and over 50 per cent of holders of the BasicsCard elected to keep it even though it was no longer mandatory. That is a very important signal about the power and the damage of cash. Minister, we would like to know more about the detailed consultation that occurred with this welfare card. Let's remember that the BasicsCard did come in the sunset of a Howard government era. We implemented a tool that gave the Labor Party in government six years to get it right. But, instead, they walked two sides of the street, telling mainstream Australia that they found it absolutely outrageous that the BasicsCard existed in the Northern Territory and then going up into the Territory and listening but never improving the system. So, on the one hand, you were telling the Northern Territory how made it was and then, back with mainstream Australia, never end it. You could have ended it any time, but you knew that it was working. Hence, we have moved to the healthy welfare card. Minister, it would be very good to know about the technology behind it. This is not about stigmatising a recipient of welfare; it is about having a commercially available card where they can get the services from vendors in the town in which they live. We need to make sure that gaming is reduced as much as possible. I have seen the Labor Party making much hay about this idea that you can trade out elements of a welfare card and turn it into cash by taking an object back or getting somebody else to purchase something and swapping it. For goodness sake; these are the problems you want to have in Ceduna. The problem you do not want to have is endemic alcohol consumption fuelled by uncontained cash. Minister, I would like to know what has happened with alcohol consumption in Ceduna. What has happened in the Kimberley? There is evidence of reduced morbidity. Some of these achievements were never even contemplated in their six years of government. For that party over there—Minister, you would have to agree—it was all about the entitlement being available and the user experience being as comfortable as possible, while you are sitting on a phone waiting for a service. (Time expired) Proposed expenditure agreed to. Treasury Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $2,642,640,000 17:45 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I have a range of serious questions to direct towards the minister, who I note has just entered the chamber. This is, of course, the minister who very kindly voted for my second reading amendment last week, calling upon the government to explain why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia. Given that the government is yet to honour its votes by actually explaining to the House why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia, I hope the minister will use this opportunity to do so. Minister, I first draw your attention to the announcement from the Australian Bureau of Statistics of cuts to critical Australian Bureau of Statistics collections, among these statistics on housing finance, retail sales, early childhood, foreign ownership and crime victimisation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics head, David Kalisch, has said: The ABS does not have the resources to undertake all the activities that fall within our legislative mandate that our users would like. He specifically named statistics on housing affordability and retail sales as being in the firing line. Minister, is it the case that the government deliberately does not want statistics on housing affordability to be in the public domain given that the government has no plan for housing affordability? It has a scare campaign against Labor's carefully calibrated and grandfathered changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount but no plan of its own to address housing affordability. Is it the case that the government intends to cut the patient experience survey because its war on Medicare has left the experience of many Australian patients much worse than it was in past years? Is it the case that the government intends to cut the internet activity survey because its second-rate, copper national broadband network is unable to cope with the demands of a 21st-century economy? Minister, I draw your attention in particular to issues around multinational taxation. We know that, prior to the budget, The Australian reported that the government was going to act on thin capitalisation. Then, after the budget, on 5 May, The Australian reported that the government had failed to act on thin capitalisation but had come close. How do they know this? The journalist pointed out that there was an orphan definition in the budget—a definition of a term which appeared nowhere in the budget. 'Thin capitalisation' was defined, but nothing was done with that definition. Minister, is it the case that the government was willing to act on thin capitalisation until pressured by special interest groups? Is it the case that the government had gone down the path of wanting to do the right thing on thin capitalisation but finally pulled back from following Labor into good tax reform on closing debt deduction loopholes under pressure from special interests? Minister, has Treasury modelled the impact of a reduction in the safe-harbour threshold in this term of government or in the previous term of government? What would be the revenue implications of a reduction in the safe-harbour threshold from 60 per cent to 50 per cent as was being mooted prior to the last budget? Minister, setting aside the extra staff of the ATO to enforce existing multinational tax avoidance measures, would a reduction in the safe-harbour threshold from 60 per cent to 50 per cent result in more revenue than the forecast revenue of the diverted profits tax? Minister, why was 'thin capitalisation' defined in the budget glossary but not mentioned anywhere else in the budget? Has the government got a practice of defining terms that it thinks it might use in the budget but ultimately decides not to use? Minister, why was the government backgrounding journalists, prior to the budget, that it intended to act on thin capitalisation but then failed to do anything? I ask further about revenue commitments from compliance measures. On 12 September, the Australian National Audit Office reported its findings on the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office in achieving revenue commitments established under specific budget-funded compliance measures. The report found that it was unclear if the ATO had achieved the revenue commitments made to government for all budget-funded compliance measures over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. I ask whether the Audit Office's concern is realised and whether the government has taken it upon itself to address that particular concern? 17:50 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I will be very pleased to respond to the member for Fenner. I think he has truly missed his calling. He had a calling for the stage, and I am so sorry that more people could not see the performance we had here today. The member has asked a number of questions. I will specifically refer to the ABS question first. The member asked, 'Have there been cuts to the ABS?' He is absolutely right to say that there have been. Under the previous government, of which he was a member, there were very, very significant cuts to the Australia Bureau of Statistics—$44 million worth. So much so, there was very significant criticism that, because of the cuts made by Labor, the statistical data that the ABS was putting out could not be relied upon—in particular, the labour force figures, which are so fundamental to our economic understanding in this country. I can say very proudly that, as a member of this government and as parliamentary secretary at the time, I was able to announce, with the Treasurer, that we were providing the Australian Bureau of Statistics with an investment of $257 million. That is right: we put $257 million into the Australian Bureau of Statistics to make sure that it could do its job after the cuts that were made by the previous Labor government. I think the member for Fenner is in somewhat of a glass house when he asks about cuts to the ABS. If the member would like to ask some more questions about the ABS, I am sure my colleague will be more than happy to expand in a bit more detail. I am also very keen to touch on a couple of the other elements of his question. He asked about housing affordability and why it is that the government does not support Labor's negative gearing proposal. I remind the member for Fenner that he has said a few things about this himself. The member for Fenner worried that negative gearing changes, such as those proposed by his own party, would have an impact on investment properties that people thought they could rely on. That is something that he said on 21 May 2013. I know he is very flexible in his approach to policy, but I do feel that he ought to be reminded of the statements that he has made. Of course we all know that Labor's negative gearing policy would be very detrimental to those people who have made investments in property and would, in fact, hit people on very average incomes while advantaging those people who have very high other investment incomes, because under Labor's plan they would still be able to negatively gear—they would not be penalised in any way whatsoever. This brings me to my final point in the time that I have remaining—multinational tax avoidance. It is an issue that is very dear to the government because we know it is important. It is absolutely important to have integrity in our taxation system. It is not enough to simply talk about it and to pretend that you care about it. You actually have to do something about it. You actually need to take action on it. Our government has done that through passing the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. There was no help from Labor in getting this passed—no help at all. When the vote came in the House, was the member for Fenner voting with the government or was he voting against the government? He was voting against passing the government's changes that gave the Australian Taxation Office increased powers to raise penalties and raise assessments against those people who are doing the wrong thing by the Australia taxpayer. We have taken action here. We have also increased the resources in the Australian Taxation Office's international division. It is much larger than it was under the Labor Party because we know that, if you are going to increase and strengthen the powers of the Australian Taxation Office, you need to also strengthen the enforcement capability. It is quite logical. That is why we have taken the approach that we have. We also established the Tax Avoidance Taskforce in this year's budget. I would have thought that the member opposite would have read about this in the budget papers. We are providing more than $667 million to establish the Tax Avoidance Taskforce, which will bring in over the forward estimates period around $3.7 billion from those people who ought to be paying tax in Australia. On behalf of the rest of Australian taxpayers the Australian government will make sure that they do. 17:56 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I had intended to direct my question to the honourable Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, but I see I have the great pleasure of being joined by the Minister for Small Business, under whose portfolio consumer affairs quite rightly sits. That is where I would like to direct my question; however, I am happy for either of you to provide the answer. My question relates to a very serious issue that is affecting children all around Australia—button batteries. By way of background: button batteries are, as the name suggests, small coin-shaped batteries that are used in a range of electrical products. They are also quite often used in the retail and supply of small toys. This is a very pertinent issue as we head towards the Christmas period when toys containing button batteries will be increasingly available on the market. They will be on the shelves and will eventually end up under Christmas trees in the homes of Australians all over the country. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:5 7 to 18:13 Mr HAMMOND 80109 As I was saying, button batteries present significant risks to young children. If they are swallowed by toddlers they can become lodged in the throat, resulting in severe oesophageal burns. It has been estimated that 20 children are hospitalised each week from swallowing button batteries. The harm they cause can be long term, sometimes lasting the course of a lifetime. In some tragic and regrettable cases, it has even resulted in death. Section 104(1) in part 3-3 of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 empowers the minister, through a simple declaratory instrument, to declare a mandatory safety standard for a consumer product. But, in this case, the minister has declined to do so. Instead, in a move that brings us back to an episode of The Hollowmen, we seem to have a voluntary code of conduct only, instead of a declaratory instrument with a public awareness campaign to follow it. As a general proposition, it is reasonable to suggest that rules exist less to define the good but rather to regulate the behaviour of the bad. The risk of a voluntary industry code is that only those businesses who adopt a best-practice approach will implement it. There is no doubt that some businesses are already doing so. The concern we have is that there is nothing within the context of a voluntary code of practice to necessarily deter those cowboys from doing the wrong thing. My questions to the minister are as follows. When was the minister first aware of the issue of deleterious effects to health and safety in relation to button batteries, and why did the minister decline to declare a mandatory safety standard for button batteries and the products that contain them? Minister, did any representations made by companies that make and sell button batteries and products that contain them have any bearing on your decision not to implement a declaratory instrument? Given the harm caused by button batteries to our nation's toddlers—that is continuing to be caused—is the minister monitoring rates of hospitalisation caused by these harmful batteries, and will the minister implement a mandatory safety standard for button batteries and products that contain them if the voluntary code fails to arrest the harm? We all know that our children are precious, and as we go into this Christmas season one child who is in hospital as a result of ingesting a button battery is one child too many. A mandatory code of conduct will not be sufficient to deter those who put children at risk. Will the minister undertake to implement a mandatory safety standard for button batteries if the voluntary code fails to arrest the harm and the injuries continuing? 18:17 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Minister, I have a couple of questions that I will get to at the end of this. But first—and I am sure you understand a lot of this—I will talk about small business. I have over 12,000 small businesses in my electorate of Page. They are, far and away, the biggest employer in my community. They are the lifeblood of every regional town and every community within our sector—small business is it! It is very important. I am sure you are also aware that taxes from the private sector—small business taxes, private sector taxes, big business taxes and taxes from people who work within the private sector—fund everything. They fund every public sector job in our community; every welfare organisation and institution. All the health services and education services are funded by the taxes from the private sector. I know you would understand this. The private sector—the business sector—is an important part of our community and our society. I am many decades older than you, Minister. I probably have a longer life memory than you, given that I have been around a long time. I want to go back to the Hawke-Keating years. I must say, to be a bit bipartisan, Hawke and Keating, as a Labor government, had it! When they came in—you would know this, Minister, but you probably do not remember it physically; I do, because I am that old—business taxes were 49 per cent. Hawke and Keating understood that we needed to grow the private sector. They wanted business—big business and small business—to thrive. So what did Hawke and Keating do? They lowered company tax rates. It started at 49, and I forget the exact way it was gradually put down—from 49 to 45, to 42, to 39, all the way down. Obviously, within the Howard years they understood that as well, until we got to the point that company tax rates are where they are. Well might you say, 'What happened to tax collections for the government, given that we had lowered company tax rates and small business tax rates?' People talk about things being 'evidence based' at the moment. If you go to the health system or any type of system, they always say, 'We have to look at evidence based practice here.' What happened, Minister—and I am sure you are aware of this—is that not only did GDP grow as our private sector grew with these tax cuts, but the percentage of company taxes and business taxes grew as well. Unlike this lot opposite, we understand that this is not a zero-sum game—if you cut business taxes, it does not mean that suddenly there is no more money coming in on that side and that less money comes in. We understand that they grow. Businesses employ more people, they make more money and their percentage of taxes as a percentage of GDP actually grows. Minister, you may well be aware, as it is quite a famous case around the world, that in Ireland back in the eighties—though they have some banking issues now that are unrelated—they had a corporate tax rate of over 60 per cent. They were going broke. No company wanted to go there; no company wanted to set up there. So what did they do? They cut taxes to close to 10 per cent and, within three years, they were collecting more money at 10 per cent than they had been at 60 per cent. I remember that because I am old enough, though I know you do not. The small business minister is probably old enough to remember it as well. I certainly do. On this evidence based stuff that we need to look at when we are looking to grow the economy—we want our businesses to grow, we want our small businesses to grow and we want our big businesses to grow—because tax is competitive and we live in a global environment, like everything else, we need to be competitive, because we want companies to thrive and grow here. In the context of that, Minister, my question is: how does the 2016-17 budget, through these bills, support small and medium enterprise by backing businesses to invest and create jobs locally? How is the government backing small businesses? What are the alternatives? I am aware, as you are, Minister, that there are alternatives, and I think it is very important that you explain those alternatives to us today. 18:22 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I have a number of questions for the minister, relating to the register of beneficial ownership for shell companies, the proposed sale of the ASIC corporate register and the announcement in the budget regarding greater protection for whistleblowers to the ATO. This government is big on rhetoric, big on talk, when it comes to tax transparency, but not very big on action. We have seen some of the decisions that have been made by this government, with some of the proposals and policies that were put in place by the previous Labor government that improved tax transparency in this country actually being watered down by this government. I am speaking predominantly of the deal that was done between the coalition government and the tax transparency traitors, the Greens, in the Senate when they increased the threshold for— Government members interjecting— Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 I have hit a raw nerve over there! They increased the threshold for transparency of private companies to disclose their private tax affairs from $100 million to $200 million, thereby letting off the hook about 600 Australian private companies that would have been forced to disclose, through their general purpose accounts, their taxation arrangements and their tax payments to the Australian government. In doing so, they have let 600 Australian companies off the hook. We saw this ridiculous scenario where you had these coalition members in the House of Representatives claiming, 'If we reduce the threshold for tax transparency for private companies, our families are going to be kidnapped! Shock, horror! People are going to be threatened because of this legal change!' The Labor Party and no-one in the Australian public believed any of that. Through a freedom of information request, we actually asked the coalition government to disclose the number of complaints that they have had from the Australian public about these so-called kidnapping threats—a big fat doughnut—zero. There was not one complaint from one Australian about the threat of kidnapping from this ridiculous proposal that they cooked up with the Greens to reduce tax transparency, so that is their record on tax transparency. The first question I have for the minister relates to the register of ultimate beneficial ownership of shell companies. In April 2016, the minister announced publicly and committed the coalition to a register of beneficial ownership of shell companies. This was another tax transparency initiative which should shed light on who own legal entities which can be hidden by a web of offshore accounts and shell companies. My questions to the minister are: was the ATO consulted on this announcement? What advice did the ATO offer the minister? Was Treasury consulted and, if so, what was the advice of Treasury? Were any other departments or agencies consulted and, if so, what advice did they offer? On that issue, again, I wish to ask the minister further: does the register only apply to corporations or to all legal entities? A recent report in the Australian Financial Review said that Treasury was pushing back on a proposal from the finance department for the sale of the ASIC corporate register. My question to the minister is: was this pushback from Treasury because it would adversely affect a publicly assessable beneficial ownership register? Further, since April the government has backtracked on this commitment of a publicly available beneficial register to exploring options around the registry. Why is this minister? Why is the government now backtracking on this important policy and what has gone wrong? My final issue relates to the announcement that was made by the Treasurer on budget night, on 3 May 2016. This relates to protections for whistleblowers who disclose information to the ATO about potential tax misconduct. It was announced with such fanfare as part of the Treasurer's media release on that evening, a tax plan for Australia's future. On the second page of that, they used tough rhetoric: We are introducing tough new laws and much harsher penalties including: … New protections for whistleblowers who disclose information about tax misconduct to the ATO. My second set of questions relates to the government announcement for better protection for whistleblowers. Where is it? What consultations are currently occurring regarding this announcement? If they have not begun yet, when will they begin? (Time expired) 18:27 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Mindful of time, the minister has advised me that the member for Kingsford Smith's questions will be answered in writing to him by the minister. In answer to the member for Page's very learned questions about the Australian government's taxation policies, we are reducing company tax rate to 27½ per cent, the lowest it has been since the late 1960s. It forms part of a ten-year enterprise tax plan, which is going to make small businesses in your electorate of Page very happy and indeed small businesses, 2.1 million of them right across Australia, very happy. If Labor gets on board and wants to help us push through the legislation to enable even more businesses as part of the 10-year enterprise tax plan to be beneficiaries of that lowering of the company tax rate then I would very much encourage them and advise them to do so because it will help businesses, particularly small businesses, in their electorates as well. The member for Perth, the shadow minister, has also asked me questions about button batteries. I can assure him in answer to his question, when did I become first aware, that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission provided me with a brief on button batteries when I first became the Minister for Small Business. Have I received any representations from companies? The answer is no. In answer to his final question as to the monitoring of it, yes, I am being kept up to date about the button battery situation by the ACCC, by the Commissioner Rod Sims and by the Deputy Commissioner Michael Schaper. In fact, I am having a meeting with the commissioner tomorrow. It is an important issue, and I look forward, as we discussed yesterday, to you and I having a discussion about button batteries and other important aspects of consumer law. The ACCC is working with industry, with government and with consumer stakeholders to improve the— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 It being 6.30 pm, I put the question that the proposed expenditure for the Treasury portfolio be agreed to. Proposed expenditure agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 113 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Broadband 113 18:30 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh It gives me great pleasure to be here, to stand up and speak in the grievance debate. It gives us the opportunity to talk about infrastructure and other things that are happening within our electorates—or maybe not happening within our electorates. One of the issues I want to raise tonight in the grievance debate is the cost of the second-rate NBN that is currently being rolled out. Through the many people who have contacted me within my electorate, my constituents, we know that the Prime Minister has made an absolute mess of the NBN. The cost of this second-rate NBN has nearly doubled. The time it will take to build has more than doubled. The choice of technology will not provide Australians with a futureproofed 21st century broadband network. We know that in 2013 the Prime Minister, who was the then Minister for Communications, labelled his NBN as 'fast, affordable and sooner'. He was wrong on the cost, he was wrong on the timing and he was certainly wrong on the technology. The PM promised he could build a second-rate copper NBN for $29.5 billion, but it is now costing us up to $54 billion. This means the Prime Minister's NBN has blown out by $24.5 billion. The PM promised all Australians they would have access to minimum speeds on the NBN by this year. That timing has also blown out to 2020. Under this PM's second-rate NBN, Australians are not getting the NBN that they need or deserve to compete with the rest of the world and the fast-growing technology of our neighbouring countries. All the PM is offering Australians is a slower, second-rate copper NBN. This government has said yes to copper and no to fibre. There are many problems that using this second-rate model creates. For example, the NBN has advised service providers that phone services cannot be guaranteed to work during a power outage over the NBN. This has implications for individuals who rely on personal medical alarms connected to their phone line to notify family and/or emergency services. We have had people who have contacted us, from providers of medical alarms to people who require the medical alarms. There are two types of medical alarm services. One type is called the monitored alarm. This system dials out to a human operator, who can then direct the call to a family member or emergency service. The other type of alarm is the nonmonitored alarm. I understand that this uses automatic dialling technology to dial out to family members, and, when they are not available, it automatically dials the emergency services. These consumers are now finding themselves in a very difficult situation, in a very difficult position, as they become aware that these services are basically becoming obsolete. They may not work over the copper based NBN. What has come to light is that the NBN has set up a subsidy scheme to assist users of monitored alarms to migrate their alarms to mobile based services; however, users of nonmonitored alarms have been excluded from accessing the subsidy. People often use a nonmonitored alarm because it is more affordable and cheaper compared to a monitored service, which may cost an extra $30 per month. And when you are talking an extra $30 per month for a pensioner—because they are usually the people who have these emergency monitored alarms. If something goes wrong, they want to be connected to the emergency services, to their families et cetera. A lot of this was raised on the Leon Byner program early last week. Listeners with this issue were calling in. We had a few of them referred to my office. Many people are finding themselves in that situation. We have absolutely no transparency of the role the government has played in excluding users of non-monitored alarms. I know there were some questions asked in estimates today. Yet we have no answers. The department is blaming the NBN; the NBN are wiping their hands of it; and the providers of the monitored alarms are wiping their hands of it. We have been trying to seek some clarity with the inquiries that we have had. Of course today in estimates the minister refused to take any responsibility. I have had a number of inquiries from people in my electorate about whether their medical alarms are going to work with the new network. No-one can give them an answer. Everyone is wiping their hands of it. This is causing real concern amongst many pensioners within my electorate. When constituents have inquired about the issue they were given a glossy brochure by NBN Co, which tells them two things: it could impact on their medical alarm and they should check with their provider. This is just not good enough. On something that could be the difference between life and death people need as much information and explanation as possible. They need to be able to make decisions around this because it is an extremely serious issue, particularly for elderly and vulnerable people. We are going to continue to seek greater transparency from the government on this issue. We understand that broadband creates jobs for Australians but we want to provide Australians with the opportunity to have access and be able to compete with overseas markets and drive innovation. The PM talks big about the innovation boom, but when it comes to the detail and delivering real results the government clearly falls short. It is not just in the NBN area where the government has fallen short; infrastructure funding, for example, has been slashed by 35 per cent. We cannot talk about a growing economy with jobs growth without funding infrastructure properly. For example, in my electorate there has been $92 million cut from one project. Of course cuts have been made to a multitude of projects around the country, but I am most concerned about the Adelaide South Road upgrade, which cuts through my electorate of Hindmarsh. To be specific, in the 2014 forward estimates there was $92 million extra for the north-south corridor. In the 2015-16 budget there is $92 million less. In addition, in 2014 we had $232 million announced for the Goodwood-Torrens project. Again in the 2015-16 budget this investment has disappeared. How can this government profess to be for jobs and for growth when all they do is pretend to invest in infrastructure? There is $92 million less in the 2015-16 budget, for example. How many jobs and apprenticeships would that create? The infrastructure would have been better. This goes to the heart of what infrastructure is all about. It is about providing good projects for the community and also injecting money into the economy, creating jobs and having our kids who want to learn trades do apprenticeships and a whole range of things. Hindmarsh has a number of highly congested roads that need urgent attention, including Marion Road, Brighton Road, the Oaklands crossing and West Beach Road in West Beach. West Beach Road was knocked back from getting Roads to Recovery funding last year, even though it has been given top priority from the two local councils that cover that road—the West Torrens council and the City of Charles Sturt. This is a popular, growing beachside area with many leisure and recreational activities for the people of Adelaide. The traffic on the weekends, especially in the summer, is bumper to bumper on West Beach Road. West Beach Road residents are up in arms. Something needs to be done to alleviate this problem. This is a vital project. Adelaide Shores is expanding and creating activity down there and there is a boat harbour down the road. As I said, if you were to go down there pretty well any day of the week, but especially on weekends, you would know that it is a narrow road which was built many years ago to service the residents, but the whole area has absolutely changed. If there is one particular project that needs urgent attention, it is the upgrade of West Beach Road, which would alleviate some of the problems for the residents living on that road. It is a vital project because it improves services for everyone using the road, not just for the residents and people who visit the beach and use the leisure services on the weekend. It also creates jobs—I go back to that. The more infrastructure we have, the more jobs we create, the more apprentices we have and the more economic activity there is. These are important issues for the electorate of Hindmarsh but also for Australia. During the global financial crisis, when we were in government, we were able to create thousands of jobs through infrastructure projects and through the money that we provided. I urge the government to take heed of some of the things that I have raised tonight. Building and Construction Industry 115 18:40 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to support the government's tenacity in re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I am proud to be part of a government that seeks to clean up the building and construction industry and I am very pleased and proud to see that the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 was passed in the lower house this afternoon. The building and construction industry is one of the largest industries and employers in our nation. It employs one in 10 Australians. It represents eight per cent of our gross domestic product. The building and construction industry is the third largest industry on the Sunshine Coast. Indeed, based on 2011 statistics, more than 6,550 individuals in the electorate of Fisher were employed in the construction industry. I expect, given the current building boom on the coast, that figure is likely to have become significantly higher since 2011. I have had the privilege of being intimately involved in the building industry in Victoria and in Queensland as a carpenter and joiner, a builder, a barrister, a mediator and an adjudicator over the past 30 years. In my maiden speech I advised the House that the building and construction industry was racked with self-interest and corruption. I saw that self-interest and corruption firsthand from day one of my apprenticeship. At the age of 19, I started my carpentry apprenticeship. With all the bright-eyed enthusiasm of a young person starting out in a new career, I reported for duty on a commercial high-rise building site in the city of Melbourne. This was in the days of the now deregistered Builders Labourers Federation, run by the infamous Norm Gallagher. At morning smoko, I was confronted by two BLF henchmen. Whilst both standing over me—bearing in mind I was 19 years of age, probably about 65 kilos wringing wet—these two grown men, these two brave souls from the BLF, sought to intimidate me verbally and physically. It appears that the productivity of a first-year apprentice on his first day on the job was to great for these two fearless advocates of the union movement. Anyone who has ever worked on a building site would understand that the productivity of a first-year apprentice, let alone on their first day, is not exactly earth-shattering. It appears that I was sweeping the floor with too much energy and enthusiasm for these two heroes. One of them, poking me in the chest, warned me in a menacing fashion to, 'Slow down, son, slow down.' I learnt that day to be very cautious of the union movement. Coming from a family of small-business operators, prior to that day I had no involvement with unions, least of all the militant unionism that was badly damaging the building industry in Victoria, which would see strike after strike bring the industry to its knees in the late 1980s. That same militant unionism is now rife in the Queensland building and construction sector, perpetrated by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. I should point out that I am not anti-union. Although I have had a number of unfortunate experiences with the standover tactics of some union organisers, I actually believe that unions fulfil an important role in our modern-day society. Without unions, some unscrupulous employers would take advantage of their workers. But what I am opposed to is any form of corruption in our society, and that includes union corruption. We on this side believe in the freedom-of-association laws that were introduced by the Howard government in 1996. Those reforms saw what we thought was an end to the signs that hung on almost every gate of every building site around the nation which boldly stated, 'No ticket, no start'. Some 20 years on, the signs have not returned, but the effect of those signs has. But now it is not just the unions that are enforcing forced unionism; it is the building companies themselves, who do the unions' bidding for the sake of industrial harmony. I reiterate: I am not anti-union, just anti-union corruption. Union members around this country would be well within their rights to demand answers of their union delegates and organisers, when we have seen recent proven, flagrant cases of stealing and fraud from union members' hard-earned membership fees. What we need in this country is workers to be able to choose who they want to represent them, if they want anyone at all, rather than be forced to be represented by some conglomerate, all-powerful, supposedly all-knowing super union. The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption has found that union corruption in the building and construction industry is rife in almost every state and territory in this country. There has been conduct that the royal commission has referred to regulatory authorities and police for further investigation. Time does not permit me to go into the specific details of the many and varied case histories examined by the royal commission, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so in this venue whilst criminal proceedings are pending. However, the findings of the royal commissioner are a chilling reminder of how badly damaged the building and construction sector has become in this country—damage that has been caused by greed, self-interest, lawlessness and a misplaced belief in individual impunity. Indeed, the culture of lawlessness in the building and construction industry is so endemic that many of its participants seem to have lost all perspective of what is considered to be appropriate conduct. It is time to restore the rule of law into the building and construction sector in this country. It is time to adopt the recommendations of Commissioner Dyson Heydon, a retired High Court judge and one of the most respected jurists in this country. In support of His Honour's recommendations, let us just take a quick look at history, when the ABCC was in existence between June 2005 and June 2012, until it was dismantled by Labor. When the ABCC was in operation, labour productivity in the construction industry grew by 20.6 per cent, or an average of 2.8 per cent per annum, while labour productivity for the whole of the economy grew by 8.2 per cent, or 1.1 per cent per annum. In other words, labour productivity in the building industry was three times greater than in the whole economy when the ABCC was operational. In the following three years post abolition, between June 2012 and June 2015, labour productivity in construction grew by 2.8 per cent, or 0.9 per cent per annum, while labour productivity for the whole economy grew by 6.2 per cent, or two per cent per annum. Between June 2005 and June 2012, when the ABCC was operating, an average of 10.6 working days were lost per 1,000 employees per quarter in the construction industry, which compares with just 4.3 working days lost per 1,000 employees for all industries. In the period post the ABCC, between June 2012 and June 2014, an average of 13.4 working days were lost per 1,000 employees per quarter in the building and construction industry, which compares with just 2.8 working days lost for all industries. While all industries' lost working days are on a downward trajectory, the building industry has been increasing post the abolition of the ABCC. It should be remembered that, for every corrupt payment made in the building and construction industry, for every person receiving an illegal or inappropriate benefit, there is a party that writes the cheque or performs the work. Corruption is a two-way street that leads to increased costs for the building and construction industry. There seems to be a misconception in the community that these increased costs are somehow confined to those within the industry itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. Collusion, third-line forcing, secondary boycotts and illegal strike activity, all of these types of activity, lead to increased costs for contractors, subcontractors, principals and ultimately the end user. Every dollar overspent in the building and construction industry is a dollar that is diverted from another worthy recipient project. It is a dollar that is not spent where it should be, with the mum and dad subcontractors, who have continuously to fight tooth and nail for every cent they earn. When government is the principal, every dollar that is overspent on a project is a dollar that is not spent on the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. I call upon those opposite and those on the crossbench in the Senate to put partisan politics aside. (Time expired) Building and Construction Industry, Workplace Relations 116 18:50 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo The contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, is totally bizarre. If the government had not gagged debate on the ABCC bill he could have made that presentation downstairs where people were actually debating it. It just demonstrates the pure politics of this place and this government. They have gagged their own member of parliament. The member for Fisher is a new member who wanted to put in the Hansard in his words his opinion of the ABCC and of the CFMEU, but the government, his own government, did not give him the chance. It gagged debate. I too was on the speaking list. I was looking forward to debating the bill again. It is a bill over which the government forced us to an election, saying, 'We have to do this as a matter of urgency.' Yet the Prime Minister mentioned the term 'ABCC' only four times during the election. It wasn't a short election; it was a very long election. It went for two months in the middle of winter, yet the Prime Minister could say 'ABCC' only four times. That just demonstrates how the government was looking for any excuse to go to the polls. There we were, today, with an opportunity to debate the bills, not in the Federation Chamber during the grievance debate but in the lower house. Instead, the government gagged debate—obviously not liking the media—and cut off its own members from having a say. It is disappointing. In response to the common to the previous member, I say that nobody in the workplace should be intimidated. Let me say that straight out. There should be no workplace bullying. We should have strict workplace health and safety laws in place. If people feel intimidated or if they feel harassed they should call the police. That is the reality. If there is intimidating behaviour going on, report it to the supervisor and call the police. There is no place for criminal activity in Australian workplaces. However, this is where the government misrepresents what it is doing not just with this bill but with the other bill, the registered organisations bill, that will come up and with so many other bills. The bills we are debating in this House do not deal with criminal law but with civil law only. All that the ABCC can do, or that can be done under the registered organisations bill or the Fair Work Act, is to refer matters to the police if it believes the matters are criminal. That can already be done. We already have the rule of law in all of our workplaces, in every single element of Australia. We have it in this place. We have it in our communities. The rule of law already exists. I reiterate what I said earlier: it doesn't matter whether you are a union official, a boss, a mum, a dad or somebody who is just walking down the street. If you are threatened or feel intimidated, call the police. What happened last Monday on a workplace, however, is that the police weren't called when a worker fell to her death. She was a backpacker, here on a temporary visa. She was 27 years of age. She was not wearing her safety harness. She was working for substandard wages for a labour hire firm. She fell to her death. The supervisor and the company did not even stop work. The union officials arrived and said that needed to happen. An ABC journalist was the one who called the police. The government are so quick to defend their mates in business that they are leaving the workers behind. They are leaving people in the community behind. They are not standing up for the ordinary Australian worker. They are quick to union bash in this place, whether that be at the doors out the front or in the speeches we have heard today from the Prime Minister downstairs in the House—because apparently only the Prime Minister can speak in the House now, and everybody else has to speak up here in the Federation Chamber. He gags everyone else from debate. The government are not interested in the voices of ordinary workers, and we have seen that time and time again. The Fair Work Ombudsman's report was released over the weekend; I cannot believe the government's failure to respond to that this week. We should be debating legislation on how we are going to clean up the exploration of vulnerable backpackers in our country. A third of backpackers surveyed are being underpaid. There are backpackers who had to pay for the right to work, who had money taken out of their pay packets and who reported being sexually harassed and sexually assaulted. Where is the government's outcry for those workers? Where is the government using every single minute of this parliament to condemn those employers and supervisors? Where is the Prime Minister standing up and condemning the employers, supervisors and labour hire firms for sexually harassing and intimidating vulnerable workers that are here in our country? These people just cop it, because they are so desperate to get their visa extended so that they can stay in this country. The worst thing about it is that not only did the Fair Work Ombudsman's report expose the gross vulnerability of these workers; government backbenchers know about it as well. They will say, 'I know it is a problem.' They will talk about it with you in the corridors, but they will not talk about it here in this place. They will not put it on the record and condemn the exploitation of vulnerable backpackers. The reason for this is that backpackers are a cheap labour source. On the one hand, the government members like to rant about higher wages, saying that the government are going to create higher wages. Yet, on the other hand, they are quite happy to have an exploited workforce that undercuts local jobs and local wages. That is what happens when we have labour hire firms. On the weekend, I had the privilege of meeting the Middlemount community, three hours west of Rockhampton. Although it was a privilege to meet them, it was under a circumstance which I wish was not so. It is a mining community, and whilst there has been a turndown in production, mining is still doing quite well, particularly in parts of Queensland. These workers are fighting not just for their jobs but for their town. I thought the whole point of labour hire was to fill workforce shortages, but we are seeing employers, even in Middlemount, trying to replace directly employed staff with labour hire staff. If you have a turndown in production, then surely the fair thing to do for those workers who have committed decades of service to you is to say to the labour hire people, 'You're here on a casual contractual basis. We are going to keep our permanents first.' However, I have never met a labour hire person who does not want a full-time job—but those jobs are becoming rarer and rarer. There have been too many manufacturing sites, too many mining sites and too many construction sites that last directly hired a full-time person five or six or sometimes 10 years ago. Instead, they are bringing in labour hire. Over a decade, in some of these manufacturing places it has now become a ratio of 50 to 40, with 10 per cent being whoever else they could get on the day. This is not acceptable. It is a demonstration, again, of how this government likes to rant about jobs and rant about growth but do nothing to ensure that those jobs exist. You cannot just stand up here and say, 'Jobs, jobs, jobs' without having the policy to back it up. Not every job is a good job. In fact, today many jobs are insecure, low paid, part time and casual. We have seen very little of this government's focus on creating full-time, secure jobs. There are some easy things the government could do, like supporting a number of policies that Labor put forward—supporting our bill to stamp out worker exploitation or to crack down on unscrupulous employers who exploit their workforce. These are not the words that we will hear this week from the government, but we should. If we are serious about reversing underemployment and unemployment and rebuilding full-time jobs, then the government needs to partner with the people in the community to make that happen. We do need to review the Fair Work Act to make sure that directly employed workers are the ones who get to stay and that companies do not use labour hire to undercut them. We need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to strengthen and support workers' safety so that we do not have the horrible tragic situation of young backpackers falling to their deaths on construction sites because the company has ignored safety standards. This government needs to get serious about jobs, serious about workplace safety and stop their union bashing. Pakistan: Human Rights 118 19:00 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I rise this evening to speak about a matter of great importance to me and many people in the Australian community and, I hope and believe, to many people throughout our world: that is, the persecution of Christians around the world. We hear much in the media commentariat and elsewhere about the persecution of various groups globally. Often this is warranted, and it is important to recognise that our efforts as Australians and as part of the Western world to fight against these injustices are often informed by the Judaeo-Christian values that underpin the values of our country and our civilisation more broadly. Yet in our world today, the undeniable reality is that it is those of a Christian faith who are the most persecuted people in the world. This persecution can often be at the hands intolerant majorities of other faiths or militant groups, but it is more often than not state sponsored persecution against Christians that is becoming increasingly widespread. Of even greater concern is that this state sponsored persecution often comes at the hands of governments who receive foreign aid from Australia as well as other Western nominally Christian countries. One shocking recent example is that of Asia Bibi, a mother of five in Pakistan who has essentially been sentenced to death for the crime of being Christian in a Muslim majority country after a recent sentence hearing on a charge of blasphemy. You may ask: What was her crime? She was alleged to have told colleagues that Jesus would have taken a different viewpoint to Mohammed when she was asked not to drink from the same water supply as the Muslim residents in her village. They believed that she would foul the water supply with her unclean Christian hands. After Asia Bibi allegedly said that Jesus would take a different view, a Muslim replied: 'How dare you question the prophet, you dirty animal.' Three other women joined in shouting, 'It's true, you're nothing but a dirty Christian.' This is sadly just another example of the ongoing persecution and terror that Christians face in Pakistan. Christian women and girls are regularly abducted in Pakistan; some are killed, others are forced to convert and marry; and many never heard from again. This is all occurring at a time when Pakistan is a huge beneficiary of foreign aid funding from a number of Western nations. From Australia alone, Pakistan will receive more than $55 million in aid this year. Other places such as the United States and the United Kingdom give at even higher levels. Clearly, it is a grave concern that Australian taxpayer dollars would go to a country and government that carries out such egregious human rights abuses directed at a particular minority—in this case, Pakistani Christians. If Pakistani does carry out the execution or refuses to release Bibi, Australia should cut all aid and consider further sanctions, including sporting bans which would necessarily affect the Pakistan cricket team. This would send a strong message to the world that Australia will always stand up for persecuted minorities, not least the Christian communities that the world seems to have turned its back on. Unfortunately, this intolerable situation is not limited to Pakistan. In the Middle East the starry-eyed optimism of the Arab Spring in 2011 has long since given way to disorder and chaos, with the religious minorities of the region, including Christians, suffering the most. In those territories that have fallen under the control of the Islamic State, some of the world's oldest Christian communities have become victims of a killing spree, with savagery seldom seen since medieval times. Captured Christian and Yazidi men have been ritually beheaded on camera in obscene jihadi snuff films, while captive women are cast into a lifetime of sexual slavery. Early last year, for example, IS publicised a video featuring the choreographed decapitation of 21 Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach. This sort of persecution is not just a problem in territory held by IS. In Egypt, since the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government of President el-Sisi has made a genuine effort to improve the status of Egypt's besieged Coptic Christian community. But old cultural prejudices and patterns of socioeconomic oppression at the hands of its Muslim majority continue to exist and have proved to be deeply entrenched in their society. A US state department human rights report on Egypt confirms 'repeated instances of sectarian violence against Coptic Christians', detailing how a primary school teacher was dragged into court and convicted of the crime of 'insulting Islam' when teaching the history of religion. In Lebanon, the birthplace of my father, the Maronites of that country, a successful and influential part of its society, are caught between the Shiah group Hezbollah on one side and the Sunni jihadism of IS on the other—again, an intolerable situation for that minority. Sadly, the Christian population throughout the Middle East continues to decline due to this systematic persecution, and it has been all but wiped out in places where it was once the strongest and indeed in places where it has existed since the birth of Christianity. Over the last decade, almost 80 per cent of Iraq's Christian population have fled their own country. In Syria, a country that only a few years ago boasted a Christian population of two million people, there is only one-tenth remaining. Millions of some of the most productive and entrepreneurial members of that society have been forced to leave their homeland, and their homeland is the worse for it. Only in Israel, where freedom of religion is guaranteed, has there been a steady increase in the Christian population in the Middle East. If it were not for the work of organisations such as the Barnabas Fund and others, the crisis which I have very, very briefly touched on this evening would be receiving even less focus. Our media do not seem interested in this issue and do not seem interested in championing the cause of these persecuted Christian minorities. That is why I am taking this step in speaking about it in our parliament tonight. We must continue to do more through our foreign policy. We must ensure that this crisis of Christian persecution gets the attention that it deserves within the international community, let alone our own community. Where necessary, sanctions must be deployed against countries that continue to allow this systematic and state sponsored persecution to continue. Otherwise, how will we address it? Should this form of state sanctioned persecution—such as the case of Asia Bibi in Pakistan—continue, a swift response is required and, as I have said, so is a withdrawal of foreign aid. The world is rightly concerned and appalled by the use of the death penalty for various crimes in our region. Then why do we not talk more about the death penalty that is applied to, often, Christians on trumped-up charges of blasphemy? This is one of those cases. So the question we must therefore ask ourselves is: how do we turn our backs on this barbarism meted out to those whose practice of faith is the bedrock of many of the values that we hold dear? In concluding, I would like to commend those who have chosen to highlight these issues, including Herald Sun columnist Rita Panahi. It is not popular but she has chosen to highlight these issues, along with many other people in our community who have brought this crisis into focus. In doing so, I urge the wider Australian and international community to urgently pressure your representatives and your governments to treat this problem with the attention it so desperately needs. The Northern Territory: Domestic and Family Violence 119 19:10 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari This evening, in this grievance debate, I would like to talk about family violence, particularly in the Northern Territory. Nationally, police deal with 5,000 domestic violence matters, on average, each week. To put that into context, so far today police in Australia will have dealt with an average of 452 domestic violence cases. In my electorate of Lingiari, in total, a third of NT police time is spent dealing with domestic violence. Aboriginal women are victims in 72 per cent of cases. Sixty per cent of assaults in the Northern Territory are associated with domestic violence, and 72 per cent of those subject to that are Aboriginal women. Fifty-six per cent of homicides in the Northern Territory are the result of domestic violence. Sixty per cent of all assaults are committed despite the presence of DVOs. Violence is endemic against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. It devastates communities and destroys families. In comparison with other women in Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised from family violence and 10 times more likely to be killed as a result of a violent assault. In September of this year the Northern Territory coroner, Greg Cavanagh, undertook an inquest into two domestic violence cases. He said at the introduction of his findings: 1. Domestic violence is a contagion. In the Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory it is literally out of control. As a Local Court Judge I witness it most days. As the Coroner I see the terrible lives these women endure and their horrifying deaths. 2. To cast light on the true horror I determined to hold an inquest into two such deaths … These were into the deaths of Kwementyaye Murphy and Kwementyaye McCormack. His findings are insightful but they just portray, yet again, the horrendous nature of domestic violence and the suffering that is occurring across this country—particularly in Aboriginal communities—and the impact that has on the women themselves and their families. Mr Cavanagh said in his findings that the criminal justice system had failed to protect women from domestic violence. Domestic violence, as we know, is at a crisis point. Sadly, the Turnbull government, instead of handing it as a national crisis and showing more leadership, is cutting funding to front-line services. Aboriginal women, as I have portrayed, are completely over-represented in all the data. The electorate of Lingiari is home to particularly hardworking women's legal services: Central Australian Women's Legal Service, CAWLS; Katherine Women's Information Legal Service, KWILS; North Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Service; Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council Domestic and Family Violence Service; and the Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit. Nationally, over the last five years, Family Violence Prevention Legal Services have delivered 15,900 legal advices, 4,200 non-legal advices and support, on average, 2,384 clients per year. A recent report by the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services found that 30 to 40 per cent of their clients were turned away because there was not the capacity to support them. These services are on the front line, dealing with unique legal and difficult domestic violence cases, which continue to be a significant issue. In June 2016 in Katherine, 80 per cent of reported assaults were associated with domestic violence. In Tennant Creek it was 67 per cent and in Alice Springs it was 57 per cent. The situation is getting worse. KWILS, in Katherine, had a 14 per cent increase in service delivery last year and CAWLS in Alice Springs had a 17.3 per cent increase in domestic violence related assaults. The prevalence of domestic violence and its negative impacts on families and the community at large, and the cost it incurs, cannot be ignored any longer. Yet, sadly, instead of doing more, the Turnbull government is doing less. Both CAWLS and KWILS are now dealing with increased demand for their critical services, but both of them have had their funding cut by the Turnbull government by 30 per cent. Almost six per cent of clients of CAWLS and KWILS are Aboriginal women. KWILS provides legal services to clients based in Katherine, 59 per cent, and in outreach and remote communities, 41 per cent. The cuts in funding will mean KWILS will experience even further pressure on their two lawyers who are already stretched, managing over 520 cases a year. KWILS had a 14 per cent increase in service delivery compared to last year, which continued to rise. In June 2016, 83 per cent of reported assaults in Katherine were associated with domestic violence. Similarly, CAWLS in Alice Springs will have no choice but to limit the services that it provides. It will limit the number of clients it can assist, limit its ability to run complex matters in contested hearings and limit their outreach programs to remote Aboriginal communities. This is a national disgrace. Yesterday I met with a Yolngu woman, Rhonda, from Galiwinku. The first issue she wanted to raise with me was domestic violence. She talked to me about the work she had been doing through the school to educate and prevent the cycle of domestic violence in her community and the frequency of it in that place—in partnership with the NO MORE campaign. The NO MORE campaign is a homage to those Indigenous men in remote Territory communities taking action in their communities. Men link arms as a symbolic gesture to the NO MORE violence campaign. A very great Aboriginal broadcaster is responsible for doing that work. Charlie King, who operates out of the ABC in Darwin, does this work magnificently. As the campaign grows, the NO MORE aim says the same: to reduce family violence by engaging men in the community. The issue of family and domestic violence is not going away. Through grassroots agendas and campaigns such as NO MORE there is the potential to influence the national agenda. I want to commend the recently elected Northern Territory government on their announcement of a specialised domestic violence court that will be trialled in Alice Springs in light of the harrowing findings from Mr Cavanagh, the Northern Territory Coroner. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-22 is currently in its third action plan, promising results from 2016-19. One of the six outcomes in the plan is 'Indigenous communities are strengthened'. It is specifically in place to address the national priority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family violence in communities. However, how can this priority be addressed if the funding resources to key services such as CAWLS and KWILS and those other legal services that I referred to are cut? That is a national disgrace. It deeply saddens me that we are in the sixth year of a 12-year plan and we are still at a crisis point. The Turnbull government's 2015 $100 million package to stop violence against women, announced in September last year, made little commitment to direct funding to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Their frontline services were given a marginal $5 million of the $100 million commitment. We need to be doing a lot more. This should be a national priority. It is a national disgrace. But I want to make mention of the work not only of CAWLS and the magnificent work of KWILS and the other legal services and the NO MORE campaign but also of men right around this country who are standing up to talk about violence. This is a really important thing. Aboriginal men in my community of Alice Springs. For example, Johnny Liddle, of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, has been at the forefront of the NO MORE violence campaign. We had marches up and down the Stuart Highway in Katherine and in Alice Springs—men bringing the attention of their community to their responsibility as men to look after the interests of their families and their children. We know if we do not address this scourge there will be an inevitable result—the horrendous suffering that we now see amongst children in these communities will be exacerbated. It is no mystery to any of us who work and live in these places—I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, of your own experience—but unless we work with communities to resolve the underlying issues that cause family violence we will not get a result that we want. But, at the same time, we have to make sure the frontline services are there because if they are not there as sure as night follows day the people who will suffer most will be the victims of family violence—the women and their children. I say to the government, you have a real opportunity here, and an obligation and a responsibility, to provide appropriate funding for these services to ensure that they can provide the required services to their current and future clients so that they do not miss out, so that they are given fair and proper treatment, fair and proper legal advice and the counselling and support that they deserve. This is a national disgrace. It should be a national priority, and I would like to think that everyone in this parliament sees it as I do. Mallee Electorate: Education 121 19:20 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, it gives me great pleasure to speak in front of someone such as you—someone who understands rural Australia and can relate to some of the social disadvantages I hope to touch on as I talk this evening. We kept the election campaign for Mallee very simple—we said people who live in the Wimmera-Mallee contribute $5.3 billion to the Australian economy and all they ask is that they be able to drive on a decent road, be able to make a decent phone call—have access to telecommunications—have good educational opportunities for their children and know that when they go to the doctor they are going to be treated. I want to touch on education this evening. In Mallee, the federal government has given $444 million, and from 2014 to 2017 the federal government's contribution has increased to the tune of 27 per cent. To give some macro figures, we are now spending $13 billion from 2013 and by 2020 we will be increasing that to $20 billion. But more money does not necessarily equal a better outcome. That is a challenge we have had to address. I want to touch on some of the social disadvantages that I think also feed into this. There are three things that constitute a good education. It is not just school facilities. School facilities are very much part of it, but it is school culture, and what I see in some of my schools that do not have great facilities is really hardworking teachers—teachers who go above and beyond, who care about what is going on in their school. The other thing that is very important in a child's development is home life. If children do not have parents who read to them and if they do not have access to a good breakfast, that is going to be detrimental to their education. So there are school facilities, school culture and home life. I want to talk about school culture for a moment, because there are some quite innovative things happening in the Mallee. The Robinvale school has 415 students and 54 first languages. Have a think about that. It is arguably one of the most multicultural schools in Australia. They have a very active community and they have used Clontarf, which is an AFL football incentive, to get our Indigenous population engaged in school. They are now broadening that across to rugby. I got tasked with the role of playing football with the Clontarf boys, and it damned near killed me. I thought that was tough on me, until I played rugby with the girls. If you want to learn how to be tackled, just watch them—they can wipe you out. There has been a unique culture in that school, and they have fostered higher education outcomes. It is my hope that in 2018 I will take some of the students from Robinvale, which is the sister city of Villers-Bretonneux, across for the 100th anniversary of the battle of Villers-Bretonneux. The other college I want to talk about, with their school culture, is Tyrell College in Sea Lake. Tyrell College has embraced the fact that they live in an agriculture community. The local John Deere dealership donates a tractor to them every year. They are the experts in no-till farming and they are doing some outside-of-the-square stuff with agriculture. They are saying that there is a strong future for agriculture. We are an agricultural town, of course, in Sea Lake. Around that culture, they are really developing a sense of belief in the industry that drives to that town and also a sense of self-worth for those children. Just on that, I think school career teachers play a big part in a child's development and pathway. I fear sometimes that our school career teachers talk down our rural industries and country industries. They sometimes have a message to country students that if you do not leave, you have not been successful. Something that we need to foster in our career teachers is seeing just how dynamic the agriculture industry is in their own patch are. One thing I want to touch on a little bit is about home life. There is a lot of talk that goes on all the time about Gonski, Gonski and Gonski. People in my patch will say, 'We want Gonski.' I say, 'What is that?' They say, 'I have no idea, but it sounds good. We want it.' I say, 'Well, that's fine.' If you look at the breakdown of Gonski, largely in Victoria and as administered by Victoria, all it is simply doing is giving more money to the school but it is taking away the maintenance program for the school to actually put the hammer on the nail and fix the roof. You would be very surprised when you look at the Victorian breakdown. If you want to breakdown what is the thing that is really holding back some of the students in my patch, it is the home life. The electorate of Mallee is the 10th poorest electorate. Ms Ryan 249224 It is an excuse. Mr BROAD 30379 It is not an excuse. You can sit here and argue, if you want to, all day in the Federation Chamber or you could listen about a patch that I represent— Ms Ryan 249224 You should learn something about the AEU. Mr BROAD 30379 Yes, you might learn something. Ms Ryan 249224 I doubt it. Mr BROAD 30379 You might. Well, you will not if you do not listen. I will continue on. I want to point out, about the home life, that we now have one in seven children going to school without breakfast. It is very hard for a child to have a creative mind if they are hungry. My mother is a schoolteacher, my sister is a schoolteacher, my other sister is a schoolteacher and my two aunties are school teachers. It seems to be in my family you are either schoolteachers or farmers. They are very engaged in working with some of the more disadvantaged children. They will tell you that if a child is not fed, then they are not able to concentrate on their education and they are not able to develop. When we start talking about education funding, I believe there is an argument for the federal government to be directing money towards breakfast programs. I commend James Merlino, who is the Victorian Minister for Education. To his credit, they have put $13.7 million into a breakfast program that will address 500 schools. Many of those schools are in my patch; I think there are about 30 of those schools in my patch that are getting this breakfast program. It is something to be rolled out; it is something to be really considered. In the area that I represent, which is a large food producing electorate, it hurts me that children are not going to school after having been adequately fed. There is some work that can be done to bring those things together. I am really pleased to say that, a couple of days ago, I met up with FLO Connect in Swan Hill, which provides flexible learning options. They are taking some the children who have dropped out of the traditional education stream and are trying to re-engage them. One of the ways they are re-engaging them is that Woolworths and the local supermarkets in the community are donating food to that organisation, so those children are coming up there. They are coming up because they are getting fed and they are getting breakfast. Often, they would not have turned up. That was their motivation: they can come and get breakfast. They are then able to be engaged in the long-term programs that take those children, who I believe the system has failed, and get them re-engaged. There is also the next challenge for us. A few weeks ago, I had a breakfast with the business community and they were saying, 'We cannot find skilled labour or low-skilled labour for the great opportunities that we have developed through the free trade agreement.' However, we also have these children. I went and met with them. They are saying, 'We can't find the next step for employment.' I think there is a link that needs to be made between the two. We are taking these children who are from homes where they have not had breakfast and the community is donating the food and the children are eating it. They are now getting engaged. We need an extra link in there, somehow, to take those children from that level to having enough sense of self-worth to be job ready. I think the pathways program has some merit. It is, essentially, saying that we are going to train these young adults so that they pass the OH&S level and get a sense of some job skills. We are then going to put them in an intern-type program in an active workplace and then subsidise the employer to keep them on. That is something I hope will work. Many governments, over many periods of time, have tried different policies. I do not think anyone has hit the nail on the head yet for the perfect policy. I think this will breathe life into it. Regarding school facilities and school culture, we have a lot to be proud of. Home life is a great challenge for us, and I strongly believe in breakfast programs. There are great ideas happening in our rural communities, and adopting those is a lesson the opposition could learn from. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time allotted for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day setting. F ederation Chamber adjourned at 19:31