2017-02-07 45 1 2 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

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

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Centrelink 1 12:01 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House: (1)acknowledges that Centrelink has, since late 2016, been sending out numerous incorrect notices relating to debt recovery – by its estimation, at least 4,000 of the 20,000 debt notices sent each week are incorrect; (2)notes the severe financial and emotional toll that the debt recovery system has had on thousands of people, including some of the most vulnerable, with some going so far as to talk of suicide; (3)notes the many well-documented problems with the system, including: (a)incorrect debts being raised by a crude data-matching of a person's annual income as reported by the Australian Taxation Office with their fortnightly income reported to Centrelink; (b)alleged debts having been referred to debt collection agencies in a short amount of time, often when the person has not even been made aware of the alleged debt because they have not received adequate notice from Centrelink; (c)people being asked for payslips and other proof of income from periods or in circumstances where they could not reasonably be expected to provide such documentation; and (d)the Department of Human Services often refusing to explain how an alleged debt has been calculated, and in some cases recalculating the alleged debt seemingly at random; (4)notes that while the Minister for Human Services has indicated that some minor changes will be made, the program remains deeply flawed and must be shut down immediately; (5)condemns the Minister for not only refusing to admit that there is a problem with the system, but also for insisting that the system will continue to operate despite it incorrectly targeting thousands of innocent Australians and its failure to treat people fairly and humanely; and (6)calls on the Minister to: (a)ensure that all Centrelink debt recovery activities are timely and accurate, and are conducted in a fair and humane manner; and (b)convene, as a matter of urgency, an expert stakeholder roundtable to design a fair and humane system of debt detection and recovery. The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted? Mr Pyne 9V5 Leave is not granted. The SPEAKER 00APG Leave is not granted. Mr WILKIE C2T I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Denison from moving the following motion immediately—That this House: (1)acknowledges that Centrelink has, since late 2016, been sending out numerous incorrect notices relating to debt recovery – by its estimation, at least 4,000 of the 20,000 debt notices sent each week are incorrect; (2)notes the severe financial and emotional toll that the debt recovery system has had on thousands of people, including some of the most vulnerable, with some going so far as to talk of suicide; (3)notes the many well-documented problems with the system, including: (a)incorrect debts being raised by a crude data-matching of a person's annual income as reported by the Australian Taxation Office with their fortnightly income reported to Centrelink; (b)alleged debts having been referred to debt collection agencies in a short amount of time, often when the person has not even been made aware of the alleged debt because they have not received adequate notice from Centrelink; (c)people being asked for payslips and other proof of income from periods or in circumstances where they could not reasonably be expected to provide such documentation; and (d)the Department of Human Services often refusing to explain how an alleged debt has been calculated, and in some cases recalculating the alleged debt seemingly at random; (4)notes that while the Minister for Human Services has indicated that some minor changes will be made, the program remains deeply flawed and must be shut down immediately; (5)condemns the Minister for not only refusing to admit that there is a problem with the system, but also for insisting that the system will continue to operate despite it incorrectly targeting thousands of innocent Australians and its failure to treat people fairly and humanely; and (6)calls on the Minister to: (a)ensure that all Centrelink debt recovery activities are timely and accurate, and are conducted in a fair and humane manner; and (b)convene, as a matter of urgency, an expert stakeholder roundtable to design a fair and humane system of debt detection and recovery. I regret that the government chose not to grant me leave to progress this matter immediately, but I hope that the government and the opposition would see the sense in at least, now, suspending standing and sessional orders to allow this matter to be dealt with. I would hope that everyone in this place would understand and would agree that we have a very important duty to look after the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community. It is not acceptable that we have a debt recovery program now in place and running its course, where by the government's and by Centrelink's own admission, some 20 per cent of the debt notices that are being distributed are wrong. That is simply not acceptable. Something like 20,000 debt notices are being issued by Centrelink each week right now. That means that in the order of 4,000 debt notices are going out each week from Centrelink, and they are wrong. We know they are wrong, and so far the government has nothing to rectify it. There is no way that can be defended—4,000 incorrect debt notices each and every week. And, although this has now been running for a few months, there is no reason to think that it is about to get any better any time soon. This is an ongoing program. In fact, we have good reason to be concerned not only that things are not going to improve but also that they are about to get a whole lot worse, because we know that the program is soon to be expanded to include recipients of the age pension and the disability support pension. It is not good enough for the government not to allow this matter to be dealt with now. This is a very serious matter and it needs to be dealt with urgently. We cannot wait for the normal processes of this parliament to run their course. This cannot be dealt with next week, next month or next year; it must be dealt with today. In fact, the government today needs to make the decision to axe the program and design a new program that will be timely, accurate and fair. To put a human face to this and to help explain why we must suspend standing orders and deal with this matter right now and not some time down the track it should be noted that real people are being affected by this and being desperately hurt by this as we speak. Today, as I am standing here now, people are opening their mail and they are seeing that they might owe money to Centrelink. It might be only a few hundred dollars or it might be many tens of thousands of dollars. But it does not matter how much it is, because for some people a few hundred dollars is an enormous amount of money. So I do not want to just focus on some of the outrageous figures that are being contained in some letters. I heard of one women, I think from Queensland, who before Christmas was told that she owed $69,000. For a lot of people in my community and communities right around Australia to get a letter saying that they owe few hundred dollars is a big deal. That is enough to send some people into a complete spin. Numerous people who have contacted my office have talked of self-harm. I know of one particular member of the community who has attempted self-harm as a direct result of receiving a letter from Centrelink alleging that he owed a considerable sum of money which he is quite sure that he does not owe. This is a flawed system. It is a flawed system that, among other things, is matching two completely unrelated data sets. But the government knows this. In fact, the government says that it expected there to be something like a 20 per cent error rate. The government figures that that is okay and that it would be quite acceptable for those 20 per cent to simply make the case that they do not owe the money. The problem is that, if they cannot make the case that they do not owe the money, they are assumed to be guilty and are forced to repay the money. What on earth happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty? With this policy, people are guilty until proven innocent. A lot of people cannot prove that they are innocent. I stood with a woman and her two young children at a press conference a few weeks ago. Since 2010, she has held five jobs. Because she received a Centrelink debt notice recently, she is now required to substantiate her income back to 2010. She has had five jobs in that time. One of her former employers is not even business now. She cannot possibly come up with the documentation to prove her innocence, and, because she cannot, she has started to repay the debt—guilty until proven innocent. This is why we need to deal with this now. I am not waving my arms around and screaming and carrying on; I am trying to make a sensible and reasoned argument here to urge the government and the minister to intervene. It is not good enough to roll out some Centrelink manager; this is a job for the government. The relevant minister should stand up here now and explain himself and explain the government's position. And it will not be good enough to simply say that some minor changes have been made around the margins, because none of the changes that have been made around the margins so far deal with the fundamental problem that some 4,000 incorrect debt notices are being sent out by Centrelink each and every week. And not only will that continue; it will increase as Centrelink turns its attention to age care and the disability pension. I am grateful that the government has allowed me to at least have this say. I hope that the government will now support the suspension of standing orders so that we can have a decent debate about this and so that we collectively, as representatives of the Australian people, can start the process of getting rid of this flawed system and putting in place an accurate, timely and fair system that recoups the legitimate debts that need to be recouped. Yes, let's go after that money, but let's go after it in a timely manner, in an accurate manner, in a fair manner and in a manner that stops scaring so many good Australians. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 12:13 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I second the motion. This government are hurting people and this parliament needs to stop them. Over the summer, when most of us were relaxing and spending time with family and friends and winding down, this government were spending time attacking the poorest of the poor and putting them under so much stress that many people were even talking about taking the ultimate step and taking their own life. This is a classic example of when standing orders should be suspended because over the summer it has become apparent that this government, in an attempt to raise revenue, is prepared to oversee a system that tells people to pay money they do not owe and forces people who have very limited resources and who are by definition the ones in our society most in need of a helping hand to prove that they are innocent just because the government has deemed them guilty. My office has been approached by dozens and dozens of constituents. I know that many other members of this place will have been approached as well by people across the country who ring up in enormous distress, saying, 'I've just received this notice; what do I do?' For many of them, the first time they hear that there is an alleged problem with their Centrelink payments is when they get a call from what is effectively a debt collection agent. The Victorian Council of Social Service has made the point that this is like a debt collection agency ringing you up and saying: 'We've got a note from a video store that back in 2009 you borrowed Flying High. You've got several thousands of dollars in overdue fines owing on it. Unless you can prove that you didn't borrow that video we're going to make you pay and we're going to start taking money away from you.' This is happening not to people like us here in parliament who might have the wherewithal to defend ourselves. This is happening to people who are trying to get by on all of a few hundred dollars a week. Why is it happening? It is happening because the government has said, 'In order to do things like fund a $50 billion tax cut to the top end of town and to make sure that the likes of Gina Rinehart can buy cheap and subsidised petrol by giving them a tax break, we are prepared to go after those who don't tend to have a spare $10 million or $26 million lying around to run an ad campaign or to donate to political parties. We're going to go after them to balance the books.' It takes courage to stand up to the top end of town and say, 'You have to pay your fair share to help balance the books.' But it is absolute cowardice to turn the machinery of government onto those who are unable to defend themselves. That is what this government has done. I have heard from an artist who has been repeatedly given misinformation about appropriate ways to report to Centrelink, which has resulted in the issuing of significant debts. In other words, they were told the wrong thing about how to report to Centrelink about their income and all of a sudden they do not get a letter saying, 'Can you please do the right thing?' but they get told, 'You've got to pay a debt.' I have heard from students who have complied with Centrelink and advised of travel periods overseas, only to be issued with debt notices and due dates whilst overseas without any appropriate forums to make contact with Centrelink. I have heard from distressed single parents, some of whom have been issued with debt notices of $45,000. These are people who are already struggling under inadequate Centrelink payments. The government has a choice about to who to get money from to balance the books and the government has a choice about how to deal with those in our society who are most needing our help. The figure of 20 per cent of incorrect notices going out, I suspect, is an understatement. I suspect we are going to see a lot more than that. When the Senate turns its attention to this in coming days we are going to see in a lot more detail just how bad this system is and just how brutal the government's approach has been. Everyone in this place would accept that if someone is not entitled to something then they should not be paid it under the law. The question is: when there is a grey area, what do you do about it? Do you go headstrong and charge at the most vulnerable in our society and say, 'You have to pay tens of thousands of dollars even though you might not owe it'? Or do you take a more sophisticated approach? We need to do this now because it is hurting people. (Time expired) 12:19 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston We will not be supporting this suspension motion. I would like to speak on it and address the points that the member for Denison has raised. The way I will do that will be by stepping back and explaining to the member for Denison and to this House exactly how this process works. It is a process, by the way, which has been around for a very long time. As has been the practice since 1990, when Labor introduced the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act, we check the self-reported income to Centrelink with the income data held at the Australian Taxation Officer. Where there is a discrepancy between those two sets of data an inquiry is made of the recipient as to why there might be a discrepancy. That is not a debt notice, as the member for Denison suggested. The first letter which goes out is stating that a discrepancy has arisen and asks them to please explain why that discrepancy might exist. At all times a person can speak to a Centrelink official in relation to that letter or in relation to any issue which they may raise. Sometimes people can explain why there is a discrepancy between the two sets of data. It could be, for example, that an employer has incorrectly written the dates of employment in his or her report to the ATO. That enables the recipient to be able to correct that record, and that can be the end of the matter. That occurs, to date, in about 20 per cent of occasions. In about 20 per cent of occasions a person receives the correspondence from Centrelink pointing out a discrepancy and is able to validly explain why there is that discrepancy, and that is the end of the matter. In the other 80 per cent of the cases, there has not been a response or there has not been a valid explanation as to why there might be a discrepancy. In that instance, a debt notice may be given. I point out, as I said at the get-go, that this has been a practice going back to 1990, when Graham Richardson introduced the data-matching act. It was then actually refined in 2011 when some automation was introduced by none other than Bill Shorten, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, and the person who is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Of course, in our 2015-16 budget we decided to further expand this amount of work to cover more people, and my department has been implementing that initiative since. But at all times the basic methodology of the data checking has been exactly the same. Why do we have to do this data checking? That is the important question here: why do we have to do this? Unfortunately, amongst the five million people who at any time might be on income support payments, the vast majority do exactly the right thing, but there are some who deliberately defraud the system and there are others who inadvertently do not update their income details correctly and consequently may have received an overpayment. I would like to give some examples of such people. One such person, in a very stark example, was a Queensland gentleman who was receiving Newstart for all of financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and, during the two full years that this man was on Centrelink payments, he had declared less than $5,000 of employment income to Centrelink. However, the Australian Taxation Office data showed that he had in fact earned $100,000 during that time, so consequently the person was given the opportunity to explain, but a debt has been raised against that individual. That was an individual, by the way, who was not picked up by the Labor Party when they were in government, but we have picked it up now, and I think it is quite right that we ask that individual to be able to explain why there is such a stark discrepancy and why they reported $5,000 for those two years but the Australian Taxation Office reported $100,000 for those two years. Another example is another Victorian male who was on Newstart for all of financial years 2010, 2011 and 2012. During that time they declared less than $11,000 of employment income. However, the Australian Taxation Office showed that they had earned more than $65,000 during that time. Again, that had not been picked up in the past, but it has been picked up in this particular example. There are countless examples like this. I point out that even in the single example, I think, that the member for Denison raised publicly in the media, in a doorstop which he did with a particular individual, we looked at her file—as the member would know, the Social Security Act allows us to correct the record if there has been misinformation—and this person was on a Centrelink payment for the duration of full financial years and during that time declared only a very small amount of income, but the Australian Taxation Office records showed that, in fact, she earned quite a considerable amount of income and consequently a debt has been raised with that individual. I should point out, by the way, that between Mr Wilkie and the Labor Party there have been some 52 cases put up to the media. Of the 52 cases that have been highlighted in the media, a third were not even related to the system that we are referring to, including, by the way, the example which the member for Denison referred to. This is Department of Human Services information that they have provided to me. The majority of the cases that were part of this system, which has been operational since last July, have also had examination. In fact, in the majority of cases the evidence to date shows that those people also owe money back to the Commonwealth. These are the ones that have been highlighted in the media, let alone the ones that have not been highlighted in the media. No-one likes to receive a debt notice—no-one likes it; of course they do not—but we have to be fair and reasonable. We have to be reasonable to the recipients of welfare, but we also have to be fair and reasonable to the taxpayers who are working very hard to pay for the welfare system and they expect us to do this checking work to ensure there are not overpayments, which some people have clearly received. How can we be reasonable to recipients? We can do so by not giving them a debt notice straightaway but asking them to validate the information or clarify, and that is exactly what we do. The member for Denison knows we have already put in place some additional refinements to the system and will constantly put in place additional refinements to the system. That includes making the 1800 number more accessible and more easily identified by people so that they can find it. To the member for Melbourne's point, there is always that 1800 number which people can get through quite expediently to talk with an official and be able to address their particular issues. I should point out also to the member for Denison who has moved this motion that, if people receive a request for information and indeed even if a debt notice is subsequently given to them, having updated some information, they still have multiple opportunities to go back and update their information should they choose to. I am sure the member for Denison would have informed his constituents of that. They can get a reassessment, they can have a review and they can appeal on top of that, so they have additional options available, which I am sure the member for Denison would have informed his constituents about if they felt aggrieved in relation to their particular debt notice. I stress this point in the last minute which I have available to speak on this particular matter: the system has to be reasonable to the welfare recipient, but it also has to be fair and reasonable to the taxpayer. Today there are workers across the country who are busting their guts and paying their taxes and a significant part of their taxes goes towards supporting the welfare system. I think they are happy to support the people in need, but they want to be sure that the payments are right, that there is not a payment which is an overpayment and that there is not an underpayment. That is exactly what this system is designed to do. Data checking has always been a feature of successive governments going back to 1990. If there is a discrepancy, the individual is asked to explain why there is a discrepancy and if they cannot they are asked to pay back any debt which they may owe. I think that is fair for the taxpayer and I think what we are putting in place is reasonable to the recipient also. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. I think the noes have it. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item has adjourned. The division will be revisited at 3.30. BILLS 5 BILLS Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2016, Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016, Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016, Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016, Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016, Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016, Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Amendment (Water) Bill 2016, Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill 2016, VET Student Loans Bill 2016, VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016, VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016, Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2016 5

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2016

Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016

Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016

Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016

Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016

Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016

Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Amendment (Water) Bill 2016

Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill 2016

VET Student Loans Bill 2016

VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016

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

Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Assent 5 Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2016 6

Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Returned from Senate 6 COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Membership 6 12:30 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received messages from the Senate informing the House of changes to the membership of certain joint committees. As the list is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read it to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 6 Report 6 12:30 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report incorporating a dissenting report entitled Report 167: nuclear cooperation-Ukraine; extradition-China. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ROBERT HWT by leave—Today, I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report 167, which contains the committee's review of Australia's nuclear cooperation agreement with Ukraine; and the extradition treaty with China. The report was tabled out of session in December. To maintain the supply of electricity to its citizens, the Ukrainian government uses nuclear power and must source nuclear materials from countries other than its traditional supplier, Russia, in the current circumstances. However, prior to the export of any nuclear materials to another country, Australia has a policy of requiring a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement that contains a standard set of provisions. These provisions are intended to prevent Australian nuclear material being used for nuclear weapons or other military uses. This agreement incorporates these standard provisions as well as additional considerations and clauses designed to minimise any safety concerns. Notably, these additional measures provide for Australia to conduct a review of physical protection measures and place a limit on the number of locations where Australian materials may be used or stored. Four main concerns were raised by the public during the committee's inquiry: limitations on the International Atomic Energy Agency, the risks posed by recent instability in Ukraine's border with Russia, general safety concerns regarding nuclear material and the ability to repatriate material if there were to be a breach of obligations. The committee appreciates these concerns, as I think all Australians do, and believes that Australian nuclear material should never be placed in a situation where there is a risk that regulatory control of the material will be lost. Consequently, the committee supports the agreement on the proviso and the recommendation that Australia has a suitable contingency plan for the removal of our nuclear material if the material is at risk of any loss of regulatory control. Report 167 also deals with Australia's bilateral extradition treaty with China, and this the 40th extradition treaty that has been negotiated by Australia through numerous parliament and numerous governments of both persuasions. Bilateral extradition treaties provide for the extradition of individuals who are charged with an offence and living in Australia so they can stand trial in the jurisdiction in which the purported crime was committed. The committee has consistently supported these treaties over its 20 years of life and the role they play in combating domestic and transnational crime. As with previous extradition agreements there are a number of human rights safeguards built into this agreement that reflect the long history of transparency, access to representation and an aversion to harsh and unjust punishment in the Australian legal system. For example, in relation to crimes punishable by the death penalty, an individual cannot be extradited from Australia unless Australia receives an explicit assurance that that individual will not be subjected to that punishment. Further, Australia can refuse extradition of a suspect on the grounds that a fair trial may be prejudiced by a whole range of areas, including their race, gender, religion or political beliefs. Despite these safeguards, which are extensive, not just in the extradition but in the body of extradition law itself, this agreement did attract some public concern about the human rights afforded to suspects in China; about a lack of transparency in the Chinese legal system; allegations of the ill-treatment and, indeed, some allegations torture of prisoners; and the continuing imposition of the death penalty. The committee shared some of these concerns. Consequently, in the report we recommend that when making a decision to extradite an individual to China, the relevant minister take into account the current state of China's criminal justice system as well as the human rights risks to the individual concerned. Only the minister, in this case the justice minister, is able to make a sensible decision about these concerns at the time. The committee also recommends that Australia obtain an undertaking from China prior to the surrender of a suspect in these areas. Finally, I wish to make some remarks about extradition treaties in general. The committee acknowledges the work that has been done by the Attorney-General's Department to address previous recommendations by the committee over the preceding years concerning the welfare of persons extradited from Australia. Nevertheless, the committee believes that a more systematic approach needs to be taken to ensure that individuals are not subject to any human rights violations. Accordingly, the committee makes two additional recommendations to the government to improve Australia's extradition arrangements across the board: firstly, that the department collect and, if possible, report details of an individual's status, including whether a trial had taken place, if the person had been found guilty or not, and what sentence had been imposed. This minimum monitoring would ensure that extradited Australians are accounted for and provide an additional level of protection from execution, ill-treatment or torture or other forms of abuse. Secondly, the committee recommends that to ensure the human rights and welfare of a foreign national to their country of citizenship, the Australian government should be informed of: the details of the trial; whether a consular official is able to attend; the outcome of any prosecution; and on request, the location and general health of the person while in custody as a result of a conviction. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. 12:37 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports by leave—As the deputy chair, I also wish to speak on this report, Report 167 of the treaties committee. This committee, competently chaired by the member for Fadden, examines, as he says, the nuclear cooperation with Ukraine and examines the long proposed extradition treaty with China. Australia is fortunate to have the largest known reserves of uranium in the world, with almost one-third of the internationally known reserves. We have something other countries want. We only supply, at the moment, 10 per cent of global production. Being blessed with a natural resource does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the consequences of selling it. Australia's government must never think, and does not think, that its responsibilities end with uranium leaving its borders. Labor supports this nuclear cooperation treaty with the new democracy in Kiev. Ukraine is reliant on nuclear power, as the member for Fadden pointed out. Until recently, it was dependent on Russia to supply it with uranium to serve its energy needs. Now it is trying to free itself from Mr Putin's grip. Australia has the ability to support the energy needs of an independent fellow democracy, which, to its everlasting credit, now very sorely abused, forsook nuclear weapons at the time of re-establishing its sovereignty—it was a condition, actually, of its sovereignty. Australia requires nuclear cooperation before it sells uranium to another country. This deal with Ukraine is no different in that regard. This means that the nuclear materials cannot be used for weapons or other military purposes. Crucially, therefore, this agreement strengthens our position as a reliable supplier of energy resources while meeting our international obligations. We cannot turn a blind eye—as the Leader of One Nation and, incredibly, the member for Dawson suggested—to the ongoing insurgency from pro-Russian separatists in that area who are taking blood and treasure from Russia to continue to threaten the stability of that entire region. Australia, they should remember, lost 38 of our own residents when Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was blown out of the sky on 17 July 2014. Labor supports this treaty. However, the report does not ignore the pro-Russian insurgency. We recommend an assessment of risks. We recommend a comprehensive contingency plan for the removal of nuclear materials where necessary. The committee's report supports the ratification of the treaty with Ukraine, subject to the Australian government making that assessment and maintaining a suitable contingency plan for the removal of that uranium. Now let me turn to the Chinese extradition treaty. These treaties require a balance between stopping domestic and international crime on the one hand and protecting human rights on the other. Labor views this treaty as failing to achieve that balance. Our concerns about the fairness of the Chinese judicial system and people's right to a fair trial are not sufficiently answered by this report. When Australia surrenders an individual to another country, we are placing great faith in the adequacy of that country's judicial system. At the present time, I think it is naive to place such faith in the Chinese criminal justice system. And, where Australia's faith is misplaced, that has consequences for the person and for Australia itself. For the person being extradited it can mean not receiving a fair trial. It can mean being subjected to forms of cruel punishment such as torture. It can be a matter of life and death. This treaty, indeed, fails to adequately protect these basic human rights, in our view. For Australia itself, it is worth remembering that Australia's duties to a person do not stop when they leave our shores. In Labor's view, Australia has a moral obligation to protect the human rights of extradited persons. It has a duty to the people who are being extradited. It has a duty to ensure that people receive a fair trial where they are. It has a duty to ensure that people are not subjected to torture. And it has a duty to ensure that people are not subjected to capital punishment. The government has made no secret that it is keen to ratify this treaty, which has been lying on the books for almost 10 years since the dying days of the Howard government. In a diplomatic understatement in the report it says: There is a body of evidence suggesting that China's criminal justice system 'does not act in accordance with procedural fairness and rule of law standards in criminal proceedings'. Although things are getting better in China, in all areas—and we praise that country for its great progress—last year the acquittal rate in Chinese courts dropped by 34 per cent. As the political editor of the Herald Sun, James Campbell, noted: China's criminal conviction rate fell from 99.92 in 2015. He notes the numbers are astonishing. That year China's courts found 1,232,000 people guilty and acquitted just 1,039. If our government is to take seriously the issues of criminal fairness in the Chinese judicial system, those numbers would have ended any talk about sending people to be extradited to China. The only thing worse, he argues, than an agreement to hand over intelligence to a country with a 99.92 conviction rate is a secret agreement to hand over intelligence to a country with a 99.92 conviction rate. This government must ensure the rights of people being extradited. What we must not have is this government allowing the country we propose to extradite to to provide a wish list of prisoners it would like to round up. For it to work, China must be willing to provide proof of the crimes of the people who are proposed to be extradited. This treaty does not require the provision of evidence to an Australian court in support of an extradition request. Put simply, evidence presented by the Chinese authorities, according to the report, would be taken at face value. The government must ensure that people receive a fair trial. Protection of this basic human right is missing from the treaty. The government also has a duty to ensure people are not subjected to torture, as I said. They do not have such extradition treaties in the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand and Canada, all of whom have refused to enter into extradition treaties with China, for that reason. China has refused to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the cornerstones of international human rights law. Australia may have entered extradition treaties with others who have failed to ratify this; however, this treaty with China lacks the important safeguards which are otherwise present. In particular, this treaty with China omits a common safeguard, which is the ability to refuse an extradition request where it would be unjust or oppressive. The Attorney-General's Department has been unable to provide an explanation as to why this is, the result being that Australia's whole ability to refuse an extradition request on the basis that the person may be denied a fair trial is placed in doubt. In conclusion, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, concerns about the human rights of extradited persons are nothing new with these sorts of treaties. This is no criticism, especially of China; however, in my view, such concerns take on new importance in an extradition treaty with that country—particularly when Beijing is pursuing what it calls an 'international fox hunt' against business people who may be dual citizens. We in this House must not shy away from our responsibility that Australia's extradition system remains consistent with our legal, moral and ethical obligations without prejudice to China. It is probably a good idea that all extradition treaties be re-examined in this light. The threat of extradition being used on dual citizens who visit China for business or personal reasons may be of great concern to people who have perceived political views or advocacies on human rights that differ from the Beijing government's. I commend the Ukrainian part of the report, but I signal that Labor oppose the Chinese extradition aspects not only because of concerns about China but also because of our consistent concerns about the ethics of human rights in that country. 12:45 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 9 12:46 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs 9 Membership 9 12:46 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler By leave—I move: That: (1) Ms Husar be discharged from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and that, in her place, Ms Lamb be appointed a member of the committee; (2) Ms Lamb be discharged from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and that, in her place, Ms Husar be appointed a member of the committee; Question agreed to. BILLS 9 BILLS Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 9

Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016

Second Reading 9 12:47 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Labor supports the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016. We support this bill because, in fact, it is our own bill. In 2013, Labor in government introduced the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013. That bill, like this one, made it mandatory for regulated entities under the Privacy Act to alert consumers when their personal data had been breached—whether through accident or malice. That 2013 bill followed an extensive report by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2008, which recommended the Privacy Act be amended to provide as follows: An agency or organisation is required to notify the Privacy Commissioner and affected individuals when specified personal information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorised person and the agency, organisation or Privacy Commissioner believes that the unauthorised acquisition may give rise to a real risk of serious harm to any affected individual. A failure to notify it would result in a civil penalty. The ALRC went on to clarify that 'specified personal information' should include personal information as well as sensitive personal information—for instance, a unique identifier that links someone's Medicare number to their name and address. After extensive consultation, Labor responded to that recommendation with our privacy alerts bill, which I introduced as Attorney-General on 29 May 2013. That bill had bipartisan support and passed in this House but, sadly, lapsed at the 2013 election before it could pass in the Senate. With the total absence of action from the Abbott government, Labor introduced a private senators' bill in 2014 to the same effect as the 2013 bill. That, again, lapsed at the 2016 election. The best we got from the Abbott-Turnbull government in the 43rd Parliament was an exposure draft released in 2015, which went nowhere. That followed the February 2015 recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—as part of that committee's report on mandatory data retention—to the effect that a mandatory data breach notification scheme be introduced by the end of 2015. The coalition government agreed, in its response to the intelligence committee's recommendation, that it would do so, but it failed. The government's inertia has been baffling. It has taken the government more than three years to introduce a simple, straightforward bill that has bipartisan support. The reasons for this delay are totally beyond me. Many Australians would be shocked to learn that it is not already mandatory for agencies or companies to notify them when their personal data has been breached. For example, the Department of Health, Department of Social Services, a bank or an online store could accidentally leak your data today, and you may not hear about for another few years—or at all. That is the current situation. If consumers are not informed that their personal data has been breached until months or even years after the fact, it removes their ability to take remedial action. They cannot change their credit card details and they cannot keep a watch for suspicious activity; they are totally powerless because they are unaware. This is clearly unacceptable. And while the government has waited and delayed, the situation has worsened. We have had example after example of data breaches—sometimes serious and sometimes not notified until a very lengthy period has elapsed. A prime example is the Catch of the Day case, where the personal data of some or all of its two million customers was hacked and stolen in 2011, but the customers were not told until 2014. This, rightly, caused outrage when it came to light. Moreover, the company did not report the hack to the Australian Federal Police when it happened in 2011. This bill is designed to prevent exactly this kind of situation. Corporations—or, indeed, Public Service departments—must not be allowed to delay reporting of a serious breach of personal data because of fear of the damage it might cause to the reputation of the company or organisation. They must disclose to affected customers as soon as the breach is known. Australians deserve to know so they can act to protect themselves. The threshold test for an eligible data breach is outlined in proposed section 26WA of the bill. It provides that an eligible data breach happens if it is 'likely to result in serious harm'. In contrast, the threshold test in the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013 was 'real risk of serious harm'. The test 'likely to result in serious harm' could be seen as a slightly higher threshold, particularly when combined with the list of relevant matters for consideration to help guide whether harm is likely or unlikely. However, the ALRC report For your information: Australian privacy law and practice noted that in international law the terms 'likelihood' and 'real risk' are similar and related. The term 'a real risk of serious harm' has been defined to mean 'a reasonable degree of likelihood', 'real and substantial danger' and 'a real and substantial risk'. The Law Council in their submission on the exposure draft of the bill expressed concern that the 'real risk' test was unclear. They view the 2016 bill as an improvement on the exposure draft version of the bill. The new test responds to stakeholder concerns about the practicability of determining what degree of probability and what kind of harm would be captured in the phrase 'real risk of serious harm'. It will provide greater certainty for regulated entities to be able to comply with their obligations. The protections for consumers contained in this bill become even more vital with the worrying trend of this government to outsource the handling of personal data from the public sector to the private sector. This includes the sell-off of ASIC's corporate registry, which holds critical information on more than two million companies in Australia. It holds the names of directors of companies, company names and corporate histories. It is a key resource for journalists and the public who wish to find out more about Australian companies. Business owners are required to lodge a lot of detail with ASIC, not all of which is made public, which undoubtedly they would not want to fall into the wrong hands. In the midst of the election last year, we heard that the Turnbull government would award the contract for managing sensitive medical records to Telstra, which will be in charge of the new national cancer screening registry from next year. The contract, estimated to be worth $180 million over three years, is the first time such sensitive data will have been in corporate hands. Telstra does not have a spotless history in terms of taking care of its customers' data, and has had a number of breaches looked at by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. In 2014, Telstra was fined $10,200 for exposing the personal data of nearly 16,000 customers online. I quote from The Australian in an article dated 11 March 2014: The finding is the latest stain on Telstra's lax privacy record. In 2012 the telco received a similar warning from the Privacy Commissioner for publishing the personal information of more than 730,000 customers online. It also received warnings for breaches of customer data in 2010 when a mailing list error resulted in about 220,000 letters with incorrect addresses being mailed out. In an era such as this, when personal health data is being handed over to a big corporate with a patchy privacy record, the passage of this bill is more important than ever. Then we have the proposed privatisation of the Medicare data system, which the government pledges is no longer going ahead—but who knows whether they will keep to that promise. If it did go ahead, this would possibly be the largest transfer of personal health and financial data from public to private hands ever undertaken by a government. It is vitally important that the protections contained in this bill are in place before that happens—if, indeed, it does happen. To conclude, it is extraordinary that it has taken the coalition government more than 3½ years to introduce a bill almost identical to one passed by this House with bipartisan support in June 2013. I regret that it has taken the government so long to act, but I am glad that it has finally done so. I commend this bill to the House. 12:57 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo This bill is important because it contributes to increased accountability and transparency—a key issue for the Nick Xenophon Team. In particular, its aim is to protect the rights of individuals in an increasingly complex digital world. When passed, it will ensure that an entity that holds data must take action to inform an individual if there is a likely risk of serious harm as a result of unauthorised access or unauthorised disclosure of their information. The Nick Xenophon Team default position is to support legislation that seeks to rebalance the power between corporations and individuals by giving greater protection to ordinary people. This bill has a long history. Its genesis can be traced back to Nick Xenophon and his concerns about safeguards, or lack thereof, in the legislation about data retention and access to metadata—and we remember the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015. At the time my colleague Senator Nick Xenophon expressed concern because the capacity of the state to have everyone's information, in terms of who they have contacted, should carry with it a need for much greater scrutiny and protections. Unfortunately, adequate protections were not built into the legislation at that time. While not completely addressing our concerns about the retention of metadata, this bill attempts to reduce the risk to individuals of their data being accessed or disclosed in an unauthorised way, meaning that they have an opportunity to take their own action to minimise the damage. Of broad concern to the community would be the security of health data. This comes into sharp focus in the context of legislation to establish a cancer screening register that was recently passed by this parliament. Understandably, there have been concerns expressed about the privacy and security of the data held, because the register will be established and operated by a private sector company—Telstra, which won the tender to operate the register. Telstra does not have a good track record in relation to protection of customer data. In 2013 Telstra accidentally released the personal information of almost 16,000 customers, including names, addresses and phone numbers. This information was accessible via Google search for almost a month. At the time the breach was discovered, Telstra was already subject to a direction from the communications watchdog to improve its customer data protection following a 2011 breach which involved 234,000 customers. The National Cancer Screening Register will have two main purposes. The first will be to manage a contact database linked to reminders to undertake cancer screening. The second is of greater concern, because it will hold a further personal cancer health record containing test results, treatments and other sensitive information. The latter is why it is important to have the provisions in this bill before us so that if a breach were to occur, Telstra would be obligated to notify affected individuals. The Red Cross blood donor service recently experienced one of the most significant data breaches ever seen in the health sector. It affected more than 500,000 blood donors. Personal information, including being identified, whether correctly or incorrectly, as having at-risk sexual behaviour was accidentally placed on an insecure computer environment due to human error. The Red Cross acted appropriately under the current voluntary code; it informed individuals and set up an information site. This legislation will ensure that in any similar situation the organisation will be obligated to take such action. Closer to home for me, the South Australian Health Service is experiencing serious internal breaches, resulting in five staff being sacked for inappropriately accessing patient records. Up to 20 additional staff have also been disciplined. It is unclear whether the patients in each of those circumstances were notified of the breach of their privacy. One of the core principles of the Nick Xenophon Team is transparency and, of course, accountability. This must apply to governments, and also corporations must accept the social contract they have with the community. When individuals provide data to companies they expect those companies to protect the privacy of that data. That is at the heart of the social contract. This bill brings corporations to account and forces them to take responsibility for their social contract, especially when things go wrong—as they sometimes do. This is a win for the Nick Xenophon Team; but, more importantly, it is a win for the average citizen who puts their trust in companies to protect the integrity of their personal data. The Nick Xenophon Team will continue to push for increased government and corporate accountability. We have recently negotiated with the government during the passage of the registered organisations legislation to deliver increased whistleblower protections. That will protect informants who shed light on unconscionable dealings. We will continue to push for measures such as a national anticorruption commission. We want to see political donations declared in a more timely manner and we want to review duplicated services at a federal, state and local government level, and to determine the most appropriate entity to deliver those services. We will continue to fight for ordinary Australians who have lost trust in their government. To conclude: members of the public must be advised when there is a privacy breach involving their personal data so that they can access what action they may take to minimise harm to themselves. In an increasingly digital environment, corporations must take responsibility for protecting the data of their clients and their customers, and to do it effectively. And if they fail, they must be held to account. Thank you. 13:04 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I do thank the honourable members for their contributions to this debate, particularly the member for Isaacs and the member for Mayo. The Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 will amend the Privacy Act 1988 to introduce a mandatory data breach notification scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that individuals can take steps to protect themselves in the event that their personal information is compromised by any data breach. The bill implements the government's response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's February 2015 Advisory report on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014. The bill creates a mandatory data breach notification scheme which applies to Australian government agencies and private sector organisations subject to the Privacy Act. These entities will be required to notify an individual whose personal information is subject to unauthorised access, unauthorised disclosure or loss, where a reasonable person would consider the individual is at likely risk of serious harm as a result. The extensive consultation undertaken on this bill has ensured that it strikes an appropriate balance between effectively protected individuals whilst remaining workable for business. The bill complements the existing information security requirement in the Privacy Act, and will provide individuals with confidence that they will be notified in the event of a data breach which places them at likely risk of serious harm. In an environment where entities collect and use growing volumes of personal information in their business activities and where individuals enter into increasing numbers of online transactions, the bill is an important consumer protection measure to build on the strong privacy legislation protections already provided for within existing Australian privacy legislation. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 12 13:07 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2016, Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Levy Bill 2016 12

Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2016

Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Levy Bill 2016

Second Reading 12 13:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 was introduced by the Hawke government to implement the provisions of our obligations under the Basel convention of March 1989 by regulating the export, import and transit of hazardous waste. The act is in place to make sure that hazardous waste is disposed of safely so that people and the environment, both within and outside Australia, are protected from the harmful effects of the waste. Labor believe in action on environmental protection, in particular with respect to hazardous waste and e-waste. We established the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act and we also established the Product Stewardship Act in 2011. It is important that we manage our electronic waste in a way that protects human health and the environment. People, when they think of pollution, often do not think of the extraordinarily dangerous chemicals that can leach into the soil from something as simple as a television set being improperly disposed of. TVs and computers, actually, were the first products regulated under the Product Stewardship Act in work led—though I was minister—by Senator Don Farrell as my parliamentary secretary at the time. The legislation helps to reduce hazardous substances going into landfill, avoid and reduce waste, and increase recycling and resource recovery. Each time you go to your local tip now you will see, as a result of those changes, the special section that is there for those sorts of electronic products. The amendment bill that is before the House will allow for full cost recovery for activities that require a permit under the act and aims to make administrative efficiencies and improvements to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses. The bill also introduces a levy, which is payable on permit applications and would allow for the recovery of the indirect costs of administering the permit system. This is a good levy. This is a good cost-recovery system. Had we introduced it, we would have heard the other side saying that this part of it was 'green tape' and we would have heard that it was a dreadful impost on business. Now, faced with the reality of this in government, they are implementing the exact same thing. The amendment bill and the levy bill will bring the hazardous waste permit scheme in line with requirements and commitments for cost recovery that were put in place during the term of the previous Labor government. The bills mean that the permit system for hazardous waste will continue for waste that is exported from Australia or imported into Australia or that transits Australia. The scheme uses a system where permits are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the requirements of the act. Assessment would take into account issues such as the current domestic capacity to treat the waste, and environmentally sound and sensitive management of the waste in the importing country compared to what is available in Australia. It is important that any movement of hazardous waste is carefully assessed and all options considered. This may not be an issue that is as high-profile as other environmental challenges that we deal with but it is critically important for the environment and human health. It is also an area of the portfolio where departmental officers have always taken a very strong leadership position in dealing with the states and with industry. A number of those officials are present in the chamber, and I certainly commend them for their work. I acknowledge that we in the chamber making the speeches deal with the end product of an extraordinarily long process that officials work very hard on, and in this area in particular they have to deal with a very high level of technical detail. Labor supports the bill, and I commend the officials for their work. 13:12 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am pleased to rise for the first time in this new year to speak on the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2016 together with the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Levy Bill 2016. The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill regulates the export, import and transit of hazardous waste to ensure that it is managed in an environmentally sound manner to minimise its harmful effects on humans and the environment. The act implements Australia's obligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, an international treaty set up to control the movement of hazardous waste from one country to another and its disposal. The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Levy Bill will allow for full cost recovery for permitting activities under the act. The bills will also make administrative amendments to reduce the complexity of the act and the regulatory burden on business. Consequential amendments will also be made to the act. It is very important that we put these cost-recovery methods in place. I think every one of us, at the outset of this parliament and the outset of this new year, should commit to doing everything that we possibly can to get our budget firstly into balance and then into surplus to slowly pay down the debt. Very soon the decisions made in this chamber will have resulted in this country having half a trillion dollars in national debt—$500 billion! What that means is that every single month we must divert more than a billion dollars just to pay the interest bill. That is a billion dollars diverted from our schools, hospitals, roads, our kids with disabilities—all the things in our electorates that make us see how desperate we are for every single cent that we can get. We owe it to future generations of Australians to ensure that we do not make decisions in this parliament that add to the deficit and debt. This bill goes a small way to doing that. We are lifting the cap that was previously set at $8,000 for an import or an export of a piece of hazardous waste, to ensure that there is full cost recovery. I commend this bill to the House, but I ask my friends on the other side of the chamber: this year let us ensure we do every single thing that we can to reduce that deficit and to bring our budget back to surplus, because we owe it to future generations of Australians. I commend the bill to the House. 13:15 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I am here today representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy in summing up this bill, the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2016. I would like to thank all the members for the contributions that they have made on this bill. The amendment bill introduces a modest set of administrative reforms that will deliver more effective and efficient regulation of hazardous waste movements while ensuring that Australia's high standards of human and environmental protection continue to be met. The amendment and levy bills also introduce cost recovery measures that allow the government to recover its costs of administering the system and the permitting scheme under the hazardous waste act. The permit scheme implements Australia's international obligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal—quite a mouthful! The scheme regulates exports, imports and transits of hazardous waste out of, into and through Australia to ensure the waste is dealt with appropriately. Controlling hazardous waste movements through the permit scheme is vital to protecting people and the environment from the harmful effects of exposure to these hazardous materials and waste. The efficiency reforms introduced by the amendment bill focus on removing duplicative and unnecessary permit processes, thereby reducing delays and cost to business and government. The reforms have been designed to streamline the hazardous waste act while maintaining the high standard of human and environmental protection that the act provides. The cost recovery reforms—which the member for Hughes referred to—introduced by the amendment and levy bills aim to ensure the full recovery of the cost of administering the hazardous waste act permitting scheme. Currently the government only recovers approximately 30 per cent of these costs. The cost recovery amendments will allow permit application fees to be raised and indexed annually to cover the direct costs of processing permit applications. The amendments will also impose a levy on all permit applications, which will also be indexed annually, and this will cover the indirect costs of administering the permitting scheme. The cost recovery reforms will ensure that those who require the government's permitting services, because they move hazardous waste, are the ones who pay for the permitting scheme's administration, rather than the Australian community, which up until now have been left with 70 per cent of the bill. The reforms may also help discourage the generation of hazardous waste and encourage the establishment of domestic facilities to deal with this waste. In closing: together, the amendment and levy bills introduce efficiency and cost recovery reforms that represent an important step in the modernisation of the hazardous waste act and its permitting scheme. With these reforms, Australia will be able to comply more easily with its international obligations to ensure the sound management of hazardous waste. Industry will be relieved of unnecessary regulatory burden and delays and will retain certainty about its responsibilities and liabilities under the permitting scheme. Most importantly, the government will continue to fulfil its duty to protect people and the environment from hazardous waste. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 14 13:19 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Levy Bill 2016 14

Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Levy Bill 2016

Second Reading 14 Third Reading 14 13:20 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016 15

Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016

Second Reading 15 13:20 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Nothing gets the juices of parliament going more on its first day back after the break than the Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016! The bill amends the Statute Update Bill 2016 to ensure that relevant Commonwealth legislation continues to apply to the ACT. Presently the applicability of the Commonwealth law in the ACT relies on the A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations following the establishment of self-government in the ACT in 1988. As you know full well, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, the ASGR made modifications to the application of as many as 47 acts. While some of the modifications made by the ASGR were subsequently incorporated into the relevant Commonwealth acts, 18 others were not. The bill will therefore make some minor technical amendments to those remaining 18 acts, across nine portfolios, to incorporate the modifications made by the ASGR. This has not been an issue before now because, while the text of some Commonwealth law does not refer to the ACT, a court currently reads that the Commonwealth acts apply in the ACT because of the operation of the ASGR. Self-government has been in place in the Australian Capital Territory since the Hawke government introduced the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill in 1988. Then Minister for the Arts and Territories Clyde Holding stated: In establishing an ACT government, the Australian Capital Territory will be a body politic under the Crown. It will consist of a legislative arm and an executive arm to exercise powers as set out in the Bill. The dual nature of the Territory—home to both its residents and the nation's capital—will be reflected in the financial arrangements put in place by this Bill. The ACT will have the same legislative and executive powers and responsibility over finances as the States and the Northern Territory. The ACT will be treated by the Commonwealth on the same financial basis as the States and the Northern Territory. Fairness and equity will be assured. Until relatively recently, section 35 of the act permitted the Governor-General to disallow an act of the ACT government or to recommend amendments to a piece of legislation within six months of the Legislative Assembly enacting the bill. It is a matter of record that in November 2011 the Gillard Labor government passed through the federal parliament amendments to the self-government act which abolished the veto power and the power of the Governor-General to amend the ACT laws. In its place, a majority is required in both houses of federal parliament to overturn an enactment of the ACT. That act of this parliament was well received by all citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. The Governor-General infamously utilised the prior veto power in 2006 to disallow the ACT's Civil Unions Act 2006. I recall at the time the rush of enthusiasm within the ACT and, in fact, around the nation as the Civil Unions Act was passed into law. It gave great hopes to same-sex couples that they could at last have their relationships recognised by their government, the nation and the world. Unfortunately, both the optimism and the sunshine of this law were brief. This expression of self-government from the progressive ACT proved too unpalatable for the then Prime Minister, John Howard, and he stepped in to ensure that the ACT law was quashed. In doing this, he extinguished the hopes and dreams of thousands of Australians. Of course, 10 years later the issue of marriage equality continues to dog and haunt the coalition. History shows that a movement for equal rights can be resisted but, ultimately, can never be defeated. I am confident that marriage equality, if not within this parliament then in the next, will be delivered to Australia. Afterwards, many will asking, 'What was all the fuss about?' Nothing demonstrates the powerlessness of Prime Minister Turnbull—a Prime Minister who once proclaimed his support for same-sex marriage but has abandoned principle and instead now hides behind a process—more than the issue of same-sex marriage. Indeed, I recollect very well the Prime Minister's words when he spoke during the debate on my private member's bill in the 43rd Parliament. He had this to say: Were, however, a free vote to be permitted I would support legislation which recognised same-sex couples as being described as in a marriage. If only the Prime Minister were in a position to do something about granting his members a free vote. Where is the person who gave that speech in 2012? The bill that we are debating is about housekeeping, but in this year and in this parliament we need much more than housekeeping; we need a complete renovation. Labor welcomes the opportunity to support this bill and to fix up language and some commas in a small number of Commonwealth acts, but a lot more needs to be done in this parliament. As you cast your eyes over the legislative agenda which is on display today, nothing can be more clear than the fact that this government has lost its way and has no agenda for the people of Australia. We have a lack of agenda, a lack of vision and a complete lack of unity within the coalition's party room. I want to talk about inequality, which is what we should be debating today. We should be devoting much more of this parliament's time to the issue of inequality. A week or so ago, the Prime Minister stood up in Canberra and gave an hour-long address to the National Press Club. He never once mentioned the issue of inequality. He never mentioned the issue of the growing inequality between the people who are living in the cities and the people who are living in regional Australia—but those of us, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, who live in regional Australia know that this is an acute issue. You do not fight growing inequality by introducing laws which give big businesses in this country a $50 billion tax cut. You do not fight inequality, as the former National Party Minister for Education in New South Wales has said, by stripping $30 billion from our school system. You do not fight inequality by cutting paid parental leave to over 80,000 new mums. You do not do it by cutting family payments or leaving young jobseekers without income for over a month. You do not do it by increasing the pension age to 70, which will be the highest pension age of any Western developed country in the world. You do not fight inequality by sending debt letters to innocent people and ruining their Christmas. You do it by addressing the economic reforms that are needed in this country to give hope and opportunity to all Australians but particularly those who are living outside the major cities. As the reports on inequality are growing and growing, month after month, and those of us who are representing constituents in regional areas are seeing the opportunities the people in the cities take for granted—opportunities for decent education and opportunities to get access to decent healthcare services—lost, Labor is pursuing these issues. Labor is addressing them through a positive alternative set of policies. But the Prime Minister, hamstrung, without an agenda and with a backbench which is driven by division, has come to this parliament and this sitting without an agenda and without a plan for the country. We support this legislation, but the country needs much more than housekeeping. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Whitlam will have an opportunity to continue his contribution. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Tasmania: Black Tuesday 16 13:30 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons In the late spring and early summer of 1966, Tasmania experienced wet weather followed by hot, dry conditions that turned lush green growth into a crisp golden brown. The addition of a hot howling wind on this very morning, 50 years ago today, provided the final fatal ingredient for what is now known in Tasmania as Black Tuesday. In four hours, southern Tasmania was aflame and day became night. The township of Snug was destroyed and fires spread across the apple country of the Huon Valley to towns in the Southern Midlands and Derwent Valley. The state capital itself was threatened; its suburban fringes on fire. Sixty-four Tasmanians lost their lives. Thousands of buildings and homes were destroyed and 80,000 head of livestock perished. As is so often the case in a nation forged in flood and fire, heroes emerged: firefighters and farmers who showed uncommon bravery, families who opened their homes to neighbours and strangers, doctors and nurses who worked around the clock to heal the thousands of injured, and even young teenagers who saved the lives of children. I would urge every member of this House to read the Mercury this week. Its commemorative pages are filled with stories and memories from that fateful day. Fifty years on, southern Tasmania has been rebuilt, but we will never forget those who were lost, nor the sacrifice and heroism of so many ordinary Tasmanians who stood tall on that dark and forbidding February day. Boothby Electorate: Oaklands Crossing 16 13:31 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby The Oaklands rail crossing issue has plagued residents in my electorate of Boothby for over 40 years. Thanks to my hard work and that of Corey Wingard MP, the state member for Mitchell, the coalition committed $40 million at the federal election to fixing the crossing. We proudly remain the only government ever to have done so. In comparison, all the incompetent Weatherill-state Labor government have done on this issue is play politics. I have had enough. Residents have had enough. Visitors to the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre and shoppers at Westfield Marion have had enough. We just want Oaklands Crossing fixed. So what have the Weatherill Labor government done? They have failed to submit paperwork to Infrastructure Australia so the project can be properly assessed. They have failed to provide updated project plans. They have failed to budget any new money for this project. Instead, they just keep claiming to have found savings from the Northern Interconnector. Given Labor's track record in my state, we will believe it when we see it. What disappoints me most is that the Weatherill Labor government are hurting my residents from Marion to Warradale and Seacliff to Sturt. Every day state Labor delays this project is another day that residents in my electorate are forced to wait in gridlocked traffic for up to 20 minutes, or sometimes more, just to travel a few hundred metres through a rail crossing. Member for Dawson 17 13:33 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Russia has a long history of exploiting useful idiots in the West, harnessing their blind ideology to obscure unpleasant truths. Unfortunately, the Russians seem to have found another polezniye juraki in the member for Dawson. The Hansard should record that overnight the member for Dawson deleted a series of repugnant and embarrassing tweets about Russia; tweets in which he took Vladimir Putin's word over the Australian Prime Minister's, labelling claims of Russian involvement in the recent hacks of democratic political figures in the United States as fake news; and tweets in which he took Vladimir Putin's word over that of the former Australian Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and the current foreign minister, seemingly denying Russia's responsibility for the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, at the cost of 38 Australian lives, attributing this to separatists. Indeed, despite the current Prime Minister stating that he had 'no doubt' about Russia's culpability for this atrocity, the member for Dawson stated that Russia was 'demonised unfairly' and asked, 'What threat do they cause us or the West?' The Hansard should record this as a warning for our parliament. The post-fact politics that are currently assaulting American democracy through outlets like Infowars and Breitbart are now migrating to Australia through MPs like the member for Dawson and conservative columnists. People who were unwilling, or unable, to distinguish reality from conspiracy weaken our democracy. We do not want this kind of post-fact politics in Australia and if you do not stamp it out now, you will reap the whirlwind in the future. Fisher Electorate 17 13:34 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher As parliamentarians, it is our privilege and our duty to represent the views of our constituents in this place. The foundation of that critical work is a constant process of listening and advocacy. I am committed to always being available to the people of Fisher. The summer recess has given me a wonderful opportunity to get out and about in Fisher. I used that time to hold 11 listening posts last week. These listening posts are my way of bringing my office to the people of Fisher. Last week, I held community barbecues at our picnic spots in Glasshouse Mountains and Conondale, beachside meetings at Mooloolaba and Alexandra Headland and caught up with people as they went about their business in Maleny and on their way to work at Landsborough train station. I am proud to report today to the House what our people told me that they care about. They told me that they want the government to continue its drive to give all Australians access to high-speed internet through our national broadband scheme. They told me that they want us to ensure that we reform superannuation so that it is fair and works for everyone. And they told me that they want a pension system that provides dignity to those who need it most. They also told me that they demand honesty, accountability and transparency from their elected representatives. I am determined to be a federal member who listens. I intend to hold many more listening posts in the future and to go on reporting to the House. (Time expired) Centrelink 17 13:36 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to condemn this government for its incompetent and cruel response to the Centrelink debt recovery debacle. I rise today to defend those in my electorate who have found themselves caught up in this unfair system and to call upon Minister 'I'm on leave' Tudge to account for his lack of attention to detail. On what planet can you start at a 20 per cent error rate, have it continue up to a 40 per cent error rate and think that you are doing a good job? How could you possibly have a system with a 40 per cent error rate and say that the system is working as it should? It tells us a lot about this government. It tells us that this government not only was incompetent in the implementation of the plan but also planned to fail—planned failure. Planned obsolescence has nothing on this government; it is planning to fail the people in my electorate. We have had stories across the country about people caught up cruelly in this, people who have been proven not to owe a cent to Centrelink, people who have been shriven, people who have been made to feel ashamed, people who have been made to think that they could be found guilty of defrauding the Commonwealth and been found to be absolutely innocent. It is a disgrace. Robertson Electorate 17 13:38 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson It is an absolute honour to be back here in this House. I will never forget the faith and the confidence that the people of my electorate have placed in me as their member for Robertson. From Mooney Mooney to Narara, Spencer to Terrigal and across to Erina, Woy Woy, Narara and beyond, it is my pledge to keep listening to the hopes and aspirations of this critical region. This means standing up for our communities, like our families who need to reduce the cost of living, like our local businesses that want to create jobs but need lower taxes and like our commuters who are sick of being left behind on bumpy old roads and with poor mobile coverage. It means fixing local streets like Ryans Road at Umina Beach and Oceano Street at Copacabana and cleaning up our local environment. More than ever, I will fight to ensure that these issues are heard here in this parliament and that each one of these commitments is delivered. This includes a real game-changer, the delivery of 600 new federal jobs into Gosford, which is set to be complete this year, as well as the ongoing work towards the new medical school and medical research institute at Gosford Hospital. My priorities will also include keeping the pressure on local decision-makers, such as council, to make sure we build the long-awaited performing arts centre in Gosford and that we fix the intersection of Langford Drive and Woy Woy at Kariong. I am proud to be part of a government that is determined to keep our borders secure and has a plan to repair our budget. The people of Robertson voted for a Liberal member to represent them and build a better future on the Central Coast—and we will not let you down. Centrelink 18 13:39 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Well, it is time for the human services minister and the Prime Minister to admit that their robo-debt system has been an unmitigated disaster. Over 40 per cent of the letters that have been sent out to people around the country have proven to be false. Government MPs know this to be true, because in electorates all over the country they have been in inundated with complaints from their constituents distressed about the Centrelink robo-debt debacle—real people who have done nothing wrong being treated like petty thieves over fake debt through fake leadership. I want to talk to you about a 77-year-old pensioner from my electorate. Her name is Margaret. She received a debt notice of $467.44 but, after contacting Centrelink to correct the mistake, this was increased to over $1,300. But she did not owe the government one single cent.    Margaret retired in December 2010, did the right thing and reported her final income. Centrelink then claimed she had an unreported earning for the following year, when she was earning nothing. Without consultation, $100 was deducted from every pension payment for this fake debt—an absurd amount of a pensioner's pay. After four months of stress, Centrelink finally resolved the problem. (Time expired) O'Connor Electorate: Indigenous Rangers Program 18 13:41 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to update the House on a new program this government has committed to that will deliver real jobs for Aboriginal people in my electorate of O'Connor. The Indigenous Rangers program has helped disadvantaged youth find real jobs in communities all over the country since it was introduced in 2007. A ranger program founded by Les Schultz and Peter Price for the Ngadju people, traditional custodians of the southern goldfields, has grown in stature since it was launched in 2010. On the back of this success, the government committed $660,000 in November to a new ranger program in the region, run by the Goldfields Land and Sea Council. The youth engaged in this program will help protect and conserve threatened species and cultural places, and address environmental threats such as feral animals and invasive weeds. But the merits of this program go beyond employment opportunities; it is an opportunity to help Indigenous youth connect with their heritage by preserving iconic biodiversity and cultural sites on the Goldfields' Aboriginal Estate. With the government's support, six new rangers have been added to the team and the rangers are currently exploring ways to engage the local business community. I visited Kalgoorlie-Boulder this month to meet the team leader, Trevor Donaldson Jr, and Darren Forster, who was instrumental in helping the Land and Sea Council secure the grant, and also the team members who were doing their induction. It was fantastic to see that funding commitment delivering real jobs within a matter of months. I thank the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, for coming to Kalgoorlie-Boulder with me last year and pledging his support for this program. Centrelink 18 13:42 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I also rise to call on the government again to admit that they have made a mistake with Centrelink and with the robo-Centrelink debt recovery program. The minister's comments this morning go nowhere near satisfying the issue or explaining in any detail or acknowledging that he and his department have made a mistake with this program. We have heard already that at least 40 per cent of the debt notices being sent out are wrong. The government need to acknowledge that they made a mistake. My electorate, like many regional electorates, has been inundated with phone calls from people who have received letters that they claim are wrong and, since, many of these people have been able to prove that these letters are wrong. But that has not stopped the debt recovery agencies hassling and threatening people and saying to them that they will increase the debt by 10 per cent if they do not agree to a payment program—people like a 70-year-old Bendigo resident who is a part-pensioner and earns a part-time income as an integration aide. The ATO and Centrelink assumed that she was working for two different employers. This was wrong. She is not the only one who was sent a letter about mistakes regarding employment. Countless people have contacted my office because the ATO and Centrelink assumed that they were working for two employers when they were not. This government needs to stop going after the most vulnerable in our community. (Time expired) Hakin, Ms Thalia 19 13:44 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Today I would like to join the Goldstein community in grieving for the tragic loss of Thalia Hakin, in the recent Bourke Street carnage that shocked Melbourne in January. In moments of raw despair such as this, we stand with the Hakin family and give our heartfelt best wishes to Thalia's mother, Nathalie, and sister, Maggie, who remain critically injured. It has been deeply moving to see the Bentleigh community, part of the Goldstein community, stand together shoulder to shoulder with Thalia's father, Tony. I would like to also acknowledge those people who have come to the support of the family, and particularly the support of the Jewish community and individuals such as Avi Yemini, who has organised a fundraising campaign on the family's behalf. It has already received over $50,000. Avi's hope is to raise $100,000 to support Tony and his family in this particularly fraught time. If you would like to contribute please visit www.mycause.com.au or contact the Goldstein electorate office on (03)95574644 for assistance. The loss of Thalia is heartbreaking. But the strength of our Goldstein community is in its bonds and efforts to rally and support the entire Hakin family. We wish them all the best in their difficult time. Centrelink 19 13:45 Mr HART 263070 Bass This government fails to understand or does not wish to understand the stress and anxiety it is imposing on ordinary Australians—ordinary workers who are doing the right thing to obtain full-time or part-time employment and leave the Centrelink system. Labor supports a system which properly supervises our pensions and entitlements system. Labor supports proper support of our public servants, who are faced with implementing, in this case, a flawed system. The public's faith and confidence in good administration involves properly resourcing our public service and designing systems that fulfil that public purpose. This government either does not care or has purposefully created a system which is harsh and uncaring in order to maximise the recovery of overpayments, whilst blind to the central question as to whether there is, in fact, an overpayment. There are personal stories when you go out into an electorate like Bass, which is beset with disadvantage. People have contacted my office about an unfair repayment plan, a plan entered into before the debt was even acknowledged as having been properly incurred and a data matching system which is based upon flawed assumptions—a classic case of garbage in, garbage out. There are real lives involved and real stress which is causing harm. There are real people who do not deserve the stress and anxiety associated with lengthy calls to Centrelink offices with extended wait times. There are suggestions that Centrelink staff are being directed to not provide assistance where in many cases they have already done the right thing to ensure compliance. This is not proper administration or good governance. (Time expired) Victoria: Law Enforcement 19 13:47 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Sadly, Victoria is becoming a lawless state where youth gangs have more rights than the community they terrorise. As a former police officer, it is awful to see this happening and especially to see our under-resourced police in some ways being blamed. The Apex gang has led the wave of youth gang violence in Victoria. I am proposing a number of measures. First, a 'one strike and you're out' policy for those who are on visas and who commit serious, violent gang-related crimes such as home invasion, carjacking and serious assault, and are sentenced to any term of imprisonment. Also, I propose that the immigration minister should have the capacity to issue warning notices and increase citizenship waiting times from four to 10 years for those who commit crimes which are not of a serious, violent nature. I propose the setting up of two joint task forces where the Victorian police would work with the Australian Federal Police and Immigration staff, and also having youth workers in the one location in the one building. I am proposing that this be set up in La Trobe, which is a hotspot in the south-east, and also in the west side of Melbourne. We also need the state Labor government and Daniel Andrews to immediately strengthen the bail laws. It is ridiculous that a person who commits violent crimes can be released up to five times on bail. Enough is enough. We need to get strong and we need to get strong now. (Time expired) Gold Coast Airport: Chemical Contamination 20 13:49 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I call on the Turnbull government to ensure there is complete transparency with the investigation into potential PFAS contamination at Gold Coast Airport. In July, Airservices engaged an independent environmental consultant to conduct a preliminary site investigation at the airport. The purpose of the investigation was to identify any potential PFAS contamination through targeted soil, groundwater and surface water testing. I note that whilst the test results on the boundary indicated potentially low risk, Airservices continues to work with relevant agencies to determine further testing. Airservices recently announced on 24 January that it will begin conducting a seafood sampling program in the Cobaki Broadwater adjacent to the Gold Coast Airport. The project is focused on examining if there is any potential historical PFAS contamination affecting local seafood species. In their related media release Airservices stated that they will share the results, which are expected to be available from March, with relevant Commonwealth and state environmental and health regulators and the airport as part of their ongoing work with these stakeholders in taking a risk-based approach to managing PFAS concerns at the Gold Coast Airport. I understand that Airservices will then coordinate with relevant Commonwealth and state agencies to consider the most appropriate approach to keeping the community informed. Given that so many local community members have contacted me about their concerns—quite relevant concerns—about the potential impact of PFAS, I request that the Turnbull government ensure that Airservices provide all of that information from the investigations in an informative and timely manner to all those interested parties throughout our community, as there is a very strong interest in the result of these investigations. North Sydney Electorate: Australia Day 20 13:50 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney Each Australia Day, communities in my electorate gather to celebrate all that makes us such a wonderful nation. At the centre of those celebrations are the citizenship ceremonies arranged by our local councils. It is a reminder of how successful we are as a multicultural nation to see people of every nationality, race and religion come together and take the pledge of loyalty to Australia and all that we as Australians stand for. Australia Day is also an opportunity for our local councils to recognise those residents who have made an outstanding contribution to their community. I want to congratulate those who were honoured this year. In Hunters Hill the Citizen of the Year was awarded to Andrew Curtin for the volunteer work he has done to support our local schools and the broader community. The Young Citizen of the Year is Patrick O'Farrell; the Sportsperson of the Year is Nicholas Wilkinson; and the Community Project of the Year was the Heritage Walks Guide produced by the Hunters Hill Historical Society, under their President Tony Saunders. In Willoughby, Citizen of the Year was shared by two outstanding residents, Janet France and Grant Sheldon. The Cultural and Community Award recognised community leader, the Venerable Ru Yi and her team at the IBAA Buddhist temple in Chatswood. In North Sydney, the Citizen of the Year was awarded to Bryce Gunn for all his work in supporting the community at Greenway in Milsons Point, the Young Citizen of the Year is Alice Zhang and the Community Group of the Year is Community Connect Transport Services. I congratulate these worthy winners and thank them for their work. They inspire others to follow in their footsteps. Centrelink 20 13:52 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter The Turnbull-Joyce government stands condemned for its treatment of Centrelink clients: the elderly, the sick, students, and people in genuine need of assistance. The government must restore Centrelink's resources. This is now becoming a crisis for too many people. The government also stands condemned for the way it has been pursuing people for so-called Centrelink debts. Many of these debts actually do not exist and many of them go back so far—in some cases in my electorate for seven years or more—and people are not in the position to challenge the debt. They no longer have the pay slips and the records from seven years ago. This must stop. Constituents in my electorate are getting letters from external debt collectors before being given any opportunity to respond, appeal or have the decision reviewed. This is a government out of control and dysfunctional. It is deceiving constituents on a regular basis. We just had the big backflip on the defence land grab in Queensland—something Barnaby Joyce said only last week was not happening. I congratulate Queensland graziers for the fight they took up to the government. It is a big backflip. Transparency must be the order of the day in the future. (Time expired) Bennelong Electorate: Korean and Chinese Cultures 21 13:53 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Last Saturday, I had the envious honour to be a guest judge for the annual Lunar New Year Cooking Competition in the heart of my wonderfully diverse electorate of Bennelong. With the Lunar New Year being the Year of the Rooster, it was appropriate that the core ingredient had to be chicken. The blind taste test produced the Ryde Local Area Command police as the winners. Well done, and a big thank you for your service to our community and for keeping us safe. But this event was merely the entree—please excuse the pun! This coming Saturday, Eastwood will again be hosting their Grand Celebration Day. Thousands of people will gather for an extravaganza of Asian cultures, with food, music, sports, dancing and merriment everywhere. All these celebrations are organised by the incredible hand of Hugh Lee and his team. Hugh has been a stalwart of the community for decades. We are very lucky to have him. Thank you again, Hugh. Our community's strength is its diversity. I am always proud to see the large numbers of people from all backgrounds who turn out to see this wonderful display of Korean and Chinese cultures. This fusion is what makes our part of Sydney great and what makes me so proud to be its representative. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 21 13:55 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I want talk about one of the strongest women I have ever met. Leonie Sheedy is one of seven siblings who were sent to 26 different institutions during their childhood. Leonie's brother Anthony was a victim of horrific abuse while a ward of the state at St Augustine's Orphanage in Geelong. Anthony died in 2011. He never saw justice for the horrific abuse committed by people who should have been responsible for his care. Tragically, many survivors did not live long enough to see justice. Anthony's life and the abuse he suffered underline the importance of the royal commission. That is why Australians like Leonie have fought so hard for so long for justice, for the truth, for redress. I say to all of the survivors: I know that nothing will make up for the trauma and for the crimes committed against you. For decades you were ignored or not believed, for decades you have been waiting for justice, and yesterday's shocking evidence at the royal commission was part of that that long journey toward justice and healing. Labor is committed to ensuring you all get the redress that you deserve, to ensuring we do all in our power to prevent these crimes in the future and to make sure that children are loved and protected. Corangamite Electorate: Land 400 21 13:56 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite Today I raise serious concerns about the Andrews Labor government's decision to base the Land 400 project at Fishermans Bend in central Melbourne should Victoria win this lucrative defence contract. Nearly every state government has proposed an incentive package to lure the two down selected primes, BAE and Rheinmetall, to their state. For many months, I have called on the Victorian government to come up with an incentive package to match or better South Australia's $100 million offering. After Daniel Andrews committed to establishing a Victorian defence procurement office in Geelong, our region had high hopes that state Labor would seek to base significant Land 400 operations in our region as part of its bid to win this critical work for Victoria. By choosing Fishermans Bend, not only has Labor betrayed the people of Geelong and Corangamite but has tried to blame the two defence companies for this decision. Industry minister, Wade Noonan, misled Victorians when he wrongly claimed that this was a decision of BAE and Rheinmetall. Both companies have confirmed they are open to basing their operations in Geelong. This has damaged Victoria's standing. Where was the member for Corio in all of this? At Geelong's time of need, the shadow minister for defence was nowhere to be seen. His efforts to bring these jobs to Geelong can only be described as pathetic. As the member for Corangamite, I will keep on fighting for these jobs. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 21 13:58 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Every truth revealed by the royal commission into child abuse is sickening: thousands of crimes; the number of offenders and institutions involved; the average age of the victims—11-year-old boys and 10-year-old girls; and the scale of the deliberate systemic cover-up. It is a shameful betrayal of children they had in their care; a betrayal of the faith that they claimed to serve. It is past time for Cardinal Pell to return to Australia and to account to the commission in person. I want to pay tribute to Julia Gillard for her leadership in establishing this royal commission, and above all I want to salute the survivors who have testified. They are remarkable Australians summoning the courage to tell their stories, some of them for the first time and others carrying the memory of being deliberately ignored or flat-out accused of making up the stories; confronting and reliving the darkest chapters in their lives; speaking up on behalf of all those who could not. By their actions, these survivors have rescued a future generation of children from the abuse and suffering that they have known. These extraordinary people deserve more than the parliament's praise; they deserve a national redress scheme, and that depends on leadership from the Commonwealth government and the parliament. At long last, justice must be done. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 22 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Bourke Street Tragedy 22 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I seek the House's indulgence to speak about the tragic events of 20 January in the Bourke Street mall in Melbourne. On behalf of our parliament and the Australian people, I send our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends who lost loved ones. I send our prayers for a speedy recovery to those who were injured, and our thoughts and sympathy go to all those who witnessed this horrifying criminal act. It was an ordinary day shattered by terrible violence. Six innocent people lost their lives. Another 37 sustained serious injuries. To the Victorian police, paramedics, firefighters and ambulance workers who responded so quickly, selflessly and professionally, but who will carry their own scars of that day too, we are humbled by your service. We offer you all our deepest gratitude. When I visited the memorial of flowers in the days following the attack, I met with the men and women of the Victoria Police, who work night and day to keep the people of Victoria safe, as do our police and security services, the finest in the world, all around the nation. That Friday afternoon, they took on threats and horrors many of us would find almost unimaginable. They and all of our emergency services deserve our solidarity at all times. They will always have our absolute, unequivocal, total support. To the doctors, nurses and ambulance workers who gave each trauma victim first-class care and treated their families with kindness and compassion, we say thank you. I know that all of the first responders would expect us to also thank and honour the bystanders in Bourke Street that afternoon for their extraordinary acts of humanity. There was the young man who tried to stop the car before it drove into the crowd. There were staff from local businesses who used their own first aid kits and defibrillators to begin immediate treatment of the injured. There were shopkeepers who offered the public refuge from the fast-moving vehicle. There were those who shaded the injured from the sun and those who were injured but felt their injuries were not as bad as others, so encouraged the ambulance workers to look at the more severely injured first. There was the cabbie, the office workers, the shop assistants and the law student, who set aside their own fear to offer assistance, a reassuring word or the immeasurable comfort of a human touch. These actions illustrated the strength of the human spirit, and which the paramedics, the police and the fireys praised for making their work so much more ably completed. Our sorrow is tempered by the way Victorians and the Australian people more broadly responded to this senseless act, and that was with love. The community is rallying, contributing to the Bourke Street Fund and offering support through acts of great generosity or words of sympathy, leaving floral and written tributes. That show of solidarity says so much about the people of Melbourne, the people of Victoria and all Australians. I take this moment, as I did in the wake of that shocking crime, to say again to the Premier, the lord mayor and all Victorians: all Australians stand with you as one community as your community heals from this dreadful day. There are important lessons to learn from this. The Victorian government is examining and reviewing the state's bail laws and processes, as it should. Last year, following the terrorist truck attack in Nice, I tasked the counterterrorism coordinator to review the challenge of protecting places of mass gathering. While the review found that we had largely robust protections in place, it was also clear that more work was required. I have therefore commissioned a national strategy for protecting places of mass gathering, and agencies are working closely on this with the states. This is a very real issue. We saw in Nice what a truck was able to do, and we saw in Melbourne what a simple motor car, a widely available vehicle, was able to do. This protection of places of mass gathering is very a important issue. We cannot ever eliminate all threats. We know that, but it is our first duty as governments, at all levels, to keep Australians safe. Today our thoughts and prayers, first and foremost, are reserved for the six families, who are learning to live with the loss of their loved ones. There are no words that will ease their pain. But we hope that they will feel the love, support and absolute resolute solidarity of the Australian people. We hope they draw from this the strength they will need as they travel this most difficult of journeys, reconciling themselves with this shocking loss. 14:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for his words just then. Friday, 20 January was in so many respects a typical Melbourne day. It began with an unexpected rain shower that quickly gave way to sunshine. The Australian Open was on. My home town was packed with tourists, shoppers, workers. And then that day was shattered. I have lived in Melbourne nearly all of my 49 years. The Bourke Street Mall is a place that every Melburnian, every Victorian and probably every Australian knows. We have caught the 86 and the 96 tram along the mall. Many of us can picture the mall with our eyes closed. I visited the Myer Christmas windows as a child, and I have taken my own children to see them. I think perhaps that is why this tragedy has affected us so strongly, because, unlike some of the tragedies and disasters which confront the human condition, this one was not somewhere else; it was one which could have affected any of us, as we have all been there. On the Sunday, like the Prime Minister, the Premier, the Mayor—like thousands of Victorians—I visited the GPO and laid some flowers out the front. It was later in the afternoon when I was in a supermarket in Essendon in my electorate when a strong, burly bloke came up to me, and he summed up the feelings written on so many faces and written on so many cards. He simply said about Bourke Street: 'What is the world coming to?' What is the world coming to when this can happen? This was not an act of political or religious terrorism. It was a crime of senseless violence. The victims were chosen by cruel circumstance—they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time: Matthew Si, a son, a husband to Melinda and a father; Jess Mudie, a daughter and twin sister to Emily; Bhavita Patel, a daughter and a sister; a 25-year-old visitor from Japan whose family have asked for privacy in their grief; and two children: Thalia Hakin, aged 10, a week away from starting grade 5, and Zachary Bryant, who was just three months old. It has been said before: in the English language, a wife who loses her husband is a widow; a husband who loses his wife is a widower; children who lose their parents are orphans; but there is no word for a parent who loses a child. The unfillable hole of pain—that whole body shock of: 'Why my family?'—is too much for a single word. Those of us who do not know cannot imagine; those who do can never explain. Yet in their tributes the families have not spoken of how they died but of how they lived: the brilliant student; the much-admired colleague; the caring father; the 'badass' sister; the beautiful baby. And these families, with all their losses and pain, have thanked their fellow Australians for their kindness and compassion. Such grace in grief is truly remarkable. Like the Prime Minister, many people who were on the scene that day have spoken movingly of the kindness amidst the chaos. At the vigil at Federation Square that I attended, a young man named Henry Dow told the story of Lou, a taxi driver, who, in shirt and tie, took calm command of all around him. In a world where we have seen too much iPhone footage of violence on the street, too many helicopter angles of attacks on the innocent, it would have been entirely understandable of Melburnians to flee the scene in that moment of fear. But the footage only shows our people, our fellow Australians, running towards the danger, administering CPR, comforting the wounded—even as there were still shots ringing out. They did what I think we hope we all would when confronted by the same set of circumstances; but perhaps we wonder in our hearts if we would be as brave as these fellow Australians. They saw strangers in trouble and did not see them and did not think of them as strangers. Ordinary people who were extraordinary. This goes for the police, too; the emergency services personnel; the trauma hospital teams desperately trying to keep people alive. The most important job of every government is the safety of our people. I know that bail laws are different in every state. But what Australians in every state cannot understand is that, when offenders have done horrific things, when the red light should be flashing, they are out—they are on bail. Bourke Street has gone deep into the consciousness of Australians. It stirs the same emotions as the murder of Teresa Bradford in Queensland, and all the others—in particular, women—killed by violent partners at large in the community. At every level of government, we need to get better at identifying the warning signs and using every measure to keep people safe. Today the parliament salutes the courage of our citizens. We honour the care that our people show for one another, even in the hardest times—especially in the hardest of times. We embrace those in mourning and those in pain. And we pay our respects to those stolen from us. May they rest in eternal peace. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. CONDOLENCES 23 CONDOLENCES Gorman, Mr Russell Neville Joseph, Trood, Professor Russell Brunell 23 14:13 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the deaths of Russell Neville Joseph Gorman, a member of this House, and Russell Brunell Trood, a former senator. Russ Gorman died on 3 January this year. He represented the division of Chifley from 1983 and the division of Greenway from 1984 until 1996. Russell Trood died on 9 January. He represented the state of Queensland from 2005 until 2011. As a mark of respect to the memory of both men, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. Deveson, Ms Anne Barbara, AO 24 14:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I rise to acknowledge the passing of Anne Deveson AO on 12 December at the age of 86, and I extend our condolences to her son Joshua and her granddaughter Odessa, who are with us today. Josh, please accept our sympathies, particularly in light of the passing of your sister, Georgia Blain, another award-winning author, just a few days before that of your mother. Anne Deveson, in her own words, led a varied and extraordinary life. Her career took her from broadcast journalist to film-maker to social advocate, in an accomplished and passionate lifetime of work. Her profound appreciation of the humanity of others was evident in her questions to 2GB listeners and in her books on ageing and resilience. 'In essence,' she said, 'we share the same longing for peace and love, the same need for respect, the same fear of pain and suffering, the same desire for joy.' Anne will best be remembered for the way she helped change the approach to mental health care in Australia. She was fundamental in starting the support network that became SANE Australia and in advocating for the carers and the families of those with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. Her calling to advocacy stemmed from her eldest son, Jonathan, being diagnosed with schizophrenia as a teenager. Her book Tell Me I'm Here is one of the most thought-provoking and compelling accounts of the life of a person with schizophrenia—as well as the decisions, the fears, the bravery and the medical advocacy that define the lives of the families and friends who love and support them. Anne was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her services to the media and an Officer of the Order of Australia for her work in community health. I hope—no; I know—that Anne felt the love and respect of the Australian people, who looked up to her as representing the very best in our society: humble, stoic, hardworking and generous. We still have a lot more to do as we address mental illness—something about which there has been a taboo for many years in terms of our acknowledgement and awareness. We have a long way to go until we restore what Professor Ian Hickie has so profoundly called the 'mental wealth of nations'—the profound interest that each of us has in the mental health of every other Australian. Anne Deveson is, in no small measure, the reason why we are on this journey. She pointed the way. She walked with us with encouragement and compassion. For the progress we have made, she can be accorded considerable credit. Our commitment to continue, our determination to succeed, the leadership she chose to give us and the direction we are taking are her legacy. Josh and your family, accept our condolences. Anne Deveson: a great Australian who dedicated so much of her life to helping her fellow Australians. 14:18 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong A few years ago, Anne Deveson was driving down a familiar street and suddenly realised that she could not remember where she was going. She found herself popping around to the neighbours to check the date and then coming back an hour later because she had forgotten the answer. The tests confirmed what she knew: like her mother, her grandmother and her great-aunt, Anne had Alzheimer's. In December last year, only two days after the passing of her daughter, Georgia, Anne's long goodbye came to an end. Today the parliament recognises her extraordinary contribution to Australia: her work on the Royal Commission on Human Relationships, which drove the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the legalisation of abortion and the establishment of the first refuges—safe accommodation for women fleeing violent homes. And, when it came to breaking down stigma, Anne was just getting started. For her time, she was an unusual radio journalist. She did so much work with people on the ground and invited those people into her studio. She was driven by an insatiable curiosity about how Australia worked. In 1991 Anne published her most famous work, Tell Me I'm Here, the story of her son Jonathan and his schizophrenia—an unvarnished, unflinching book full of heartbreaks and hard truths. There is fear in Anne's story, fear for her safety in her son's violent episodes of psychosis and fear of losing her son, the warm, intelligent, funny eldest of her three children—losing him to an illness that shattered his self or losing him to addiction and overdose. There is anger—anger against the unfairness of it all, anger at a system sceptical of schizophrenia's very existence, preferring tough love or a firm hand. And, above all, there is extraordinary honesty and authenticity—as one reviewer put it, a determination to scratch old wounds and feel the pain anew. This clarity of purpose was behind everything that Anne did. Her daughter, Georgia Blain, herself a brilliant writer, inherited this honesty. It is in every line of Births Deaths Marriages, which addresses her postnatal depression—another subject so often considered taboo. The great writers of fiction use their creative powers to take us to an imaginary world. Historians and biographers take us back in time with their gift of storytelling. I think that Anne Deveson and Georgia Blain put themselves on the page. They submit the reader to their frailties and their failures, their pain, their loneliness, the scars on their soul. I think this is not just their gift as writers; it was their gift as people—honesty, integrity, the courage to be who they were without apology. Anne Deveson fought discrimination, she fought stigma and she fought for the people she loved. Her qualities, her inspiration and the power of her example will live long in the story of this nation. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 25 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Tasmania: 50th Anniversary of Black Tuesday Bushfires 25 14:22 The SPEAKER 00APG As members will know, today is the 50th anniversary of the horrific 1967 Tasmanian bushfires, which killed 64 people, injured 900 more and destroyed countless thousands of livestock, buildings, vehicles and property. I grant indulgence to the member for Denison. 14:23 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison The Black Tuesday Tasmanian bushfires are, to this very day, the state's deadliest fires and one of Australia's worst. In total, 110 fires burned throughout large parts of southern Tasmania, including the Derwent Valley, Glenorchy, Hobart, Kingborough and the Huon Valley. The fires stretched from Hamilton and Bothwell down to Snug and the D'Entrecasteaux Channel. Tragically, 64 people died and some 900 were injured. About 1,500 homes and other buildings, and a similar number of vehicles, were destroyed. Stock losses amounted to approximately 62,000. Near where I live, terrific little Fern Tree was virtually wiped off the map, with about two-thirds of the houses destroyed, along with the hotel, the shop and the parish hall. But as is often the case, out of these dreadful events came stories of great heroics and extraordinary generosity—of neighbours helping neighbours and strangers helping strangers. Today, on the 50th anniversary of Black Tuesday, we remember all those who lost their lives, as well the thousands of families affected. We have deep respect for what they endured and thank the survivors for how they rebuilt their lives and laid the foundation of today's Tasmania. 14:24 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth As the honourable member has just described, 50 years ago today south-eastern Tasmania was engulfed in an inferno that is, to this day, the state's most catastrophic natural disaster. Sixty-four people lost their lives; another 900 were injured. A total of 1,400 houses and buildings were destroyed. Thousands were left homeless. Tens of thousands of livestock perished. Livelihoods were destroyed. The disaster received worldwide attention, President Johnson of the United States expressing his profound sympathy for the people of Tasmania and all Australians who had suffered as a result of this misfortune. Time and again, in the face of natural disaster, Australians show grace under pressure and bravery in the face of danger, and rally selflessly, without a second thought, to help each other. Our thoughts today are with the people of Tasmania—those who remember, those who suffered loss and those who rebuilt their lives. We remember all those who helped in those difficult and dangerous times and who, through acts big and small, helped their neighbours recover, repairing communities and restoring infrastructure. We thank the firefighters, the other emergency personnel and the volunteers who courageously put their own lives at risk and coordinated all of the arrangements, all of the logistics, to ensure that the fire could be defeated and, in the aftermath, recovered from. Most of all, we remember and honour with admiration the resilience of the courage of the people of Tasmania. 14:26 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Denison for reminding the House of this anniversary. This day, 7 February—a Tuesday in 1967, a Saturday in 2009—is seared in the memories of Tasmanians and Victorians alike. Black Tuesday remains the worst bushfire in Tasmanian history. Sixty-two Tasmanians lost their lives and over 900 were injured. Thousands more lost homes, pets, crops, livestock and those other countless treasures that fires claim: the photo albums, the films, the scrapbooks, the handmade memories and heirlooms gone for good. In their place was the imprint of fear: the memories of lost loved ones, narrow escapes, the heart-stopping recall of a last-minute decision to flee that nearly was not made. Now 50 years is more than enough time to replant crops, to regrow trees, to rebuild homes and communities. But for many Tasmanians time will have not faded the memories, dimmed the sadness or eased the pain. We stand with them today. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 26 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Reference to Federation Chamber 26 14:27 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That statements on indulgence on the Bourke Street tragedy; the deaths of former member Russell Gorman, former Senator Trood and Anne Deveson; and the 50th anniversary of the Black Tuesday bushfires in Tasmania be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 26 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:28 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I table a revised ministry list. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— TURNBULL MINISTRY    24 January 2017 Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. Mr TURNBULL 885 I take this opportunity to congratulate those who were appointed to new positions on 24 January—Mr Hunt, Senator Sinodinos, Dr Gillespie and Mr Sukkar—and, in particular, note that the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, who was appointed to the ministry, is the first Indigenous Australian to be appointed to the ministry in a Commonwealth government. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 27 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Child Sexual Abuse 27 14:29 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians have been shocked and sickened by the crimes that have been revealed through the royal commission into child sexual abuse, including yesterday's tragic and indefensible revelations. Will the Prime Minister join with me in reassuring the people of Australia that we will do everything in our power together to make sure that this never happens again and that survivors get the justice and redress they deserve? 14:29 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I can assure the honourable member that we are all committed to ensuring that redress is provided to the survivors of child sexual abuse by the responsible institutions. As the honourable member will be aware, we have announced a Commonwealth redress scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse in Commonwealth institutional settings. The scheme will be established by next year, 2018. It will comprise a monetary payment, psychological counselling and a direct personal response to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon survivors. We are inviting the states, territories and other non-government institutions to join in the Commonwealth scheme to deliver redress. This announcement has been widely welcomed by survivor groups, institutions and states. We encourage all institutions, as I said, to participate in this. We call on the opposition to support the Commonwealth scheme. In 2009, honourable members will remember the apology to forgotten Australians had bipartisan support, and we would encourage the Labor Party on this occasion to throw their support behind our scheme. This is a national shame, as the honourable member described it. Redress is available. We have set up a scheme that will do that, but the most critical thing that all of us must remember is that this type of abuse—this abuse—in any context, can never happen again. This is not just a history lesson; this is not just a sad tale from times past. This is a reminder to all of us today, in every part of the nation, to protect the vulnerable in our care—the children in our care—in whatever context. Energy Security 28 14:32 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on how the government is backing hardworking Australians? And what is the government doing to help Australian households get ahead? 14:32 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Everything we do as a government is focused on getting help and support for hardworking Australian families. We are standing up for them. We have put in place the policies that will deliver more jobs and better jobs—more investment, more employment, wider opportunities for their businesses and, of course, providing the security that is the foundation on which that opportunity depends. There is no more important item on the household budget or on the budget of a business than the cost of energy. Indeed, for some businesses, it is the single most important element—as it was when I was there with the member for Wannon at Portland Aluminium, a business for whose survival its workers' members of the Leader of the Opposition's old union, the AWU, work. What does that business need? It needs a big export markets to sell its aluminium and it needs affordable electricity. The Labor Party today—the Labor Party of 2017—is opposed to free trade, trying to dive down into the black hole of protectionism. At the same time it has a set of policies that will absolutely guarantee more expensive electricity and less reliable electricity. Let's look at the facts: when the Labor Party was last in power, electricity prices increased by more than 100 per cent, and by as much as 120 per cent in some parts of the country. The reality is this: the Labor Party's ideologically-driven approach to energy results in more expensive and less reliable electricity. And you do not need to be an economic modeller to know that is true. Look at South Australia: there is a state suffering from a long-term state Labor government, with an energy structure that is giving that state the most expensive and the least reliable electricity. And whether you are an Olympic Dam, or whether you are a tuna fisherman at Port Lincoln or whether you are a family in Adelaide, right across that state you are paying the price of Labor's incompetence when it comes to energy. We stand for more jobs, better jobs, more investment, encouragement for business to invest and bigger markets to send our goods and services to, and, above all, we stand for lower energy prices. Only the coalition has the vision and the objectivity to deliver that. (Time expired) Employment 28 14:35 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. It is a matter of record that 34,000 full-time jobs have been lost in the last year, that underemployment is close to a record high and that wages are growing at the slowest rate on record. Prime Minister, when 34,000 full-time jobs have been lost in the last year alone, why are you only worried about your own job and not theirs? 14:36 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to remind him that in the last year there were 100,000 new jobs in manufacturing. It has been a long time since we have seen growth in manufacturing, and the reason we are seeing it is because of the big export markets we have opened up and that he would like to close in his new populist, protectionist guise. This is the leader of the party that used to be the party of Hawke and Keating, that believed in cutting business taxes because they knew that that would create greater investment and more jobs. They knew that trade was good: trade means jobs! That is what Julia Gillard said—trade means jobs. Not anymore. Not any more—he wants to put the walls up, does the Leader of the Opposition. And, of course, having deprived Australian businesses of their export markets, what he now wants to do is to make energy unaffordable and unreliable. Not only is energy in that Labor testbed of energy management that is South Australia the most expensive in Australia, but businesses in South Australia—and I was with them only a few days ago in South Australia, in Port Lincoln—are having to spend millions of dollars in backup generators because they cannot rely on the electricity system of their state. And why is that? It is because of Labor's utterly unplanned, ideological approach to energy. The fact is: we are creating the jobs and the opportunities in Australia. Everything we are doing, every single policy we have, encourages investment, whether it is our business tax cuts to improve the return on investment—you get more investment, you get more jobs—or the largest investment in defence capability in peace time in our nation's history: cutting-edge advanced manufacturing that is benefiting Australian businesses, right through the supply chain, across the nation. What did the Labor Party do in their six years in office? They did not commission one single naval ship from one Australian yard. The reality is that the only achievements of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to jobs were when he was a trade union leader—when he was a champion at trading away his members' penalty rates in return for contributions from employers to the union—and as a minister, when he was the absolute Olympic champion of 457 visas, never to be outdone. Economy 29 14:39 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House what the government is doing to support the household and small business budget? How will the government's energy policies deliver lower power prices? 14:39 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. This is the reality that we face: thanks to a failure of policy by state Labor governments over many years, we have a situation where, without any regard to the consequences for the stability of the grid or the affordability of electricity, Labor governments—and would-be governments in the case of the honourable member's opposition—have pursued utterly unrealistic, unaffordable renewables targets without giving any thought to what their consequences will be for the grid, for households, for affordability. We are, here in Australia, blessed with some of the largest gas reserves in our region. We will shortly be the largest exporter of LNG in the world. And yet in Victoria a state Labor government has closed down one large power station—20 per cent of the state's electricity—which has had the result of increasing electricity costs in Victoria. And then, when we all know that, in every assumption, gas is the transition fuel—'You need gas to come in and take over from coal; gas will be the transition'—they have locked up all the gas. The Victorian government will not even allow the exploration of onshore conventional gas in Victoria. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon! Mr TURNBULL 885 So you have massive gas resources there in Victoria and you have people crying out for the energy. Victorian businesses who need gas for their feedstock have been examining the possible importation of LNG into Victoria. Can you believe that? There they are, with this ideological, left approach that the Labor Party adopt, sitting on all of this gas and they are not prepared to touch it. We have a road map that we have set out and it is very simply this: we will deliver— Mr Bowen DZS I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. I am going to the next question. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has not? Okay. The member for McMahon on a point of order. I take him back to last year, and on to the first day, on frivolous points of order. Just before I call him I will give him a second to think. Mr Bowen DZS Has the Prime Minister heard of Gladys Berejiklian? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will leave under 94(a). The member for McMahon then left the chamber— Mr TURNBULL 885 We have a national renewable energy target which will be a challenge to meet as it stands, but we will meet it. But we have, at the same time, state Labor governments with extraordinary renewables targets—50 per cent in Queensland—by 2030. Do you know how many renewables there are now, Mr Speaker? Four per cent. How are they going to get there? They want to get to 50 per cent by 2030. It is a recipe for unaffordable, unreliable electricity. Labor stand in the way of jobs. Climate Change 30 14:43 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Energy Market Commission modelling shows that an emissions intensity scheme would save consumers $15 billion on their power bills, but within hours of Senator Bernardi objecting to the government even considering such a scheme the Prime Minister caved in and ruled it out in December. Given that Senator Bernardi has now quit the Liberal Party, will the Prime Minister reconsider an emissions intensity scheme, or are there still too many government MPs who hold the same views as Senator Bernardi— Mr Joyce interjecting— Mr Pyne interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK to prevent the Prime Minister taking the right action? The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:43 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth We are not going to take energy policy lessons from the Labor Party, because the proof of their pudding is on every electricity bill. They have delivered higher and higher prices for electricity. What we will do is ensure that we have a clear-eyed, objective approach to energy policy, because the objective has to be simply this: to get affordable electricity, reliable electricity, and to meet our emissions-reduction targets. The reality is very simply this: that the Labor Party has pursued renewable energy as an end in itself without having regard to the need for base load power; without having regard to the fact that all of its assumptions about gas prices have been overtaken by both a massive rise in the cost of gas and its constrained availability; and without making any plans for the storage that is needed to make renewables viable. The Labor Party has absolutely failed Australians in energy policy. We are approaching this professionally, objectively and determined to ensure that we keep electricity and energy prices as low as possible, that energy is reliable and that we meet the international commitments that we entered into in the Paris treaty. Economy 30 14:45 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I have a question to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is securing Australian jobs and lifting wages for hardworking Australians? In a globally competitive environment, what are other major economies doing to attract opportunities for small business and for families? 14:4 Mr MORRISON ( E3L Cook — ) ( ): I thank the member for his question about what the government is doing to support investment and to drive the earnings that Australians so desperately want to earn more of in this country as they move forward in a climate of great global uncertainty. The Turnbull government is providing certainty, with policies that support investment in this country and that drive the jobs and growth that are necessary to support ordinary Australian households. That includes the support that we announced in the budget for start-up investments in innovative new companies. It includes the infrastructure investments and the $50 billion of infrastructure that we continue to roll out, which includes dams and things in the north, with roads and infrastructure that are supporting investment across the country. It is the investments in science. It is the investment in defence industry. It is the investment and support of trade, opposed by those opposite. But it is also ensuring that businesses in this country can remain competitive, with a competitive tax rate. We already know that the United Kingdom, at a time when their deficit as a share of the economy was 10 per cent, moved to cut corporate taxes, to stimulate business investment in that country. We know that the Trump administration will also be moving to cut those taxes, to support investment and to support the jobs and wages of workers in those businesses. But I learnt over the last week that the French government—indeed, the French socialist government—have also moved to reduce the French business tax rate, from 33 1/3 to 28 per cent. They have gone beyond that, and they have adopted the same approach that this government has done with the glide path to ensure that those tax cuts start with small and medium sized businesses. Indeed, President Hollande said, 'We need to adapt our regulations, including for taxes, to make Paris a more attractive financial centre.' So even a socialist government in France gets it—that, in order to remain competitive in this highly competitive global economy, you need to have a competitive tax rate. The only two leaders that I am aware of that are standing against tax cuts for businesses that want to employ people are the Leader of the Opposition and Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom. They are the only two leaders of political parties in advanced economies who simply do not get it. What we will continue to do as we work through this session of parliament is we will put it to those opposite, who have described cutting company taxes as 'a Labor thing'—that is what it said in the section on how to promote growth in the shadow Treasurer's book. How do you promote growth? He says, 'You cut the company tax rate.' Well, it is not a Labor thing. It is a Labor excuse. It is a Liberal-National government that actually does it. The SPEAKER 00APG I should have called the member for Mayo. I apologise for that. To keep the sequence right, I will call the opposition and then I will call the member for Mayo next time. Climate Change 31 14:49 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide The Prime Minister's former energy adviser Danny Price said that the Prime Minister's refusal to even consider an emissions intensity scheme: Shows a lack of spine … By doing this, it means they are the party of increasing electricity prices and reduced energy security. Will the Prime Minister confirm that his lack of spine and his failure to stand up to Senator Bernardi have made the Liberal government the party of increasing electricity prices and reduced energy security? 14:49 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I will invite the very capable Minister for the Environment and Energy to elaborate, but I will just make this point: the Labor Party's record on energy is not a theoretical thing; it is there for all to see: a 100 per cent increase during their time in government—and look at South Australia. The honourable member opposite does not like to acknowledge this. I wonder, does the honourable member have a backup generator at home? Does he really do that? I think he probably does. I think he has got it hidden there under a tarp in the garage, because he knows that, in that socialist paradise, you cannot keep the lights on. A government member interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The minister suggests, 'Maybe he's got a bicycle!' Maybe he has become a political version of a squirrel, running around, keeping the lights on in his place in South Australia. This is a deadly serious issue for Australian jobs, for Australian families. We can trade some good humour from time to time, but let me be very clear about this. I was there with the member for Wannon in Portland, with members of your union, Bill, and they know their jobs are at risk from Labor Party policies. It is very simple. Their union is affiliated with the Labor Party, but it is the Labor Party's ideological approach to energy that is putting their jobs at risk. You cannot get around that fact. Unaffordable electricity, unreliable electricity, means less investment, businesses closing and Australians losing their jobs. We stand for jobs. We stand for reliable and affordable electricity. 14:52 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong We know with the Labor Party you do not look at just what they say; you look at what they do—but sometimes you need to look at what they say. So, when it comes to the emissions intensity scheme which they are promoting today, I went and had a look at what Labor's minister for climate change, Penny Wong, said in 2009 about the emissions intensity scheme. This is what she said—listen carefully: … it's a mongrel. It's not a credible alternative; it's a smokescreen. That is what your own minister said about your own policy. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The level of interjection is far too high. The member for Shortland has been interjecting incessantly, particularly through that answer, along, again, with the member for Barker, certainly the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer and a couple of others. I just caution them and I also caution the member for Rankin. Telecommunications 31 14:53 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Prime Minister. Over Christmas, thousands of my constituents endured several days without power, phones or internet after storms damaged electricity infrastructure. In the middle of the fire season, in one of the highest bushfire-risk areas in Australia, we had few to no means of communication, as mobile base station batteries lasted just four hours and, in some areas, our landlines also failed. I understand the downgraded NBN rollout will mean landlines will not work in power outages at all. It is outrageous that, in 2017, telecommunications infrastructure would leave us so vulnerable. Prime Minister, please advise how your government will address this and safeguard telecommunications access, particularly in isolated fire-risk areas such as my electorate of Mayo. 14:54 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. Of course, the fundamental problem that her constituents faced was the consequence of the reckless energy policies of the Labor government in South Australia. I would say to the honourable member: the blackouts in South Australia were the consequence of the state's increasing dependence on Victorian power. Let me explain. This is the absurdity of the Labor Party on energy policy. In order to pursue their ideal of having more renewable energy, more green energy and more lower emissions energy, they have closed a baseload coal fired power station in South Australia, the Northern Power Station, and they have closed a gas fired power station as well. Mr Pyne 9V5 Pelican Point. Mr TURNBULL 885 At Pelican Point—I thank the minister. They have closed both of those and they have a very heavy reliance, therefore, on wind energy. Windmills produce electricity. I make no criticism of wind energy, but it is intermittent, and what this has done is increase the dependence of South Australia on the interconnector with Victoria—and do you know where that energy from Victoria comes from? Burning brown coal, the most emissions intensive form of generating energy in Australia. This is the absurdity and the hypocrisy of the South Australian approach. You say, 'Yes, we're getting rid of fossil fuel fired sources in South Australia'— Ms Sharkie 265980 I raise a point of order in relation to relevance, Mr Speaker. My question to the Prime Minister was about telecommunications. It was not about renewable energy; it was about the fact that landlines failed and mobile towers failed. The SPEAKER 00APG I listened carefully to the member for Mayo— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Those on my right will cease interjecting. I am trying to address the point of order from the member for Mayo. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield is warned. I listened carefully to the member for Mayo's question and, whilst certainly most of the question was about telecommunications, there was a preamble on power in South Australia. So I am listening closely to the Prime Minister, but he is in order. Mr TURNBULL 885 I will conclude, and I say to the honourable member that resilience of telecommunications systems is very important. The government has a mobile phone blackspots program. Remember, in six years of Labor government, not one cent was spent on mobile phone blackspots at all. We have addressed the majority of the notified mobile phone blackspots in Australia, with construction either completed, underway or planned, putting hundreds of millions of dollars to work. There have been fewer mobile phone blackspot towers in South Australia than in other states, and that is because we have looked for co-contributions from states. We have had a very good contribution from Victoria, for example, and an especially good one from Western Australia, but very, very little from South Australia. So, again, in the socialist paradise where the honourable member lives, that is the consequence of failure to invest. Resilience in telecommunications systems is vitally important, but, if the honourable member is concerned about the lights going out in Mayo, that is the consequence of Labor's reckless approach to energy. (Time expired) Live Animal Exports 32 14:58 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the live cattle trade is supporting jobs in regional communities such as Rockhampton? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would stifle opportunities for hardworking Australians? 14:58 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question, and might I congratulate her on the hard work that has been done making sure that we have a better outcome for those proximate to the Shoalwater Bay Defence facilities. We now have made sure that the only purchases that will happen will be voluntary. That goes to show a government that listens, a government that is not arrogant and a government that clearly understands the issues that are there. But it is very important to also understand what has happened in the live cattle trade. I am pleased to tell the House that since 2011-12 we have doubled the amount of live cattle exports and tripled the value. Not only are we selling more; we are getting more for them. This is bringing real money back into an economy which, for the first time, will produce in excess of $60 billion in agricultural production for our nation. This is the difference that good policy makes, when we open up nine new live animal export destinations—Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, Cambodia, Thailand, Lebanon, Mexico, the US and China. I am happy to also say we are about to have our first sea shipment, which will leave from Portland, Victoria, from the seat of Wannon for China. This is all part of the process of how we are making the business of our nation work in a better way. We are making the business so the money comes back into our nation. We are making it so that families get a better return through the farm gate. It is actually happening. It is actually happening that we have record prices in meat sheep. It is actually happening that we are getting a turnaround in the wool market and that we have had record prices in cattle. It is actually happening that we are getting record prices in pork. We have a turnaround in so many of our lines, all the way through to wine and tropical fruits because this is a government that is hard at work delivering a better outcome. And there are policies out there that could stifle all this. I suppose one of the first ones—and the member for Flynn would be very interested in this—is the Labor Party policy for a 50 per cent renewable target. A 50 per cent renewable target to the working men and women at the Boyne smelter would absolutely crucify them. The trouble with the Labor Party these days is they do not have many people who have actually done any labour. The trouble with the Labor Party these days is they are fighting a battle, not for the working men and women of Australia, but they are fighting a battle for Annandale. We have the 'Angel of Annandale' on the other side of the chamber here, in the suit last worn by Barry Gibb by the looks of things, and he is fighting a battle up and down Trafalgar Street, and up and down Johnson Street. He is not looking after what we want to deliver: cheaper power. We are not the party that is scared of talking about new coal-fired powered stations. So we have to ask: does the member for Shortland's constituents understand your position about what is going to happen with their jobs, what is going to happen to the jobs in the Hunter Valley? Does the member for Hunter understand what his policy means for jobs for the people in the Hunter, and for the people in Victoria? (Time expired) Centrelink 33 15:01 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. Tasmania's Liberal Premier Will Hodgman has said the flawed Centrelink data-matching system needs to be fixed, and Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has said Centrelink's robo-debt mess has 'let-down the Australian people'. Is the mess inside the Liberal government the reason the Prime Minister has ignored the mess his government has made of Centrelink? 15:02 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Barton for her question directed to the Prime Minister. I am happy to take this question. I note what the Premier has said today, and I also note what Senator Abetz has said. And what the member did not say that Senator Abetz of course also said was that the policy was good and the principle was right, and that the changes we have made are sensible resolutions to the matter. Of course, the Premier and Senator Abetz also know that we have already made a number of refinements to the system and will continue to make a number of refinements to the system because we want to be reasonable to Centrelink recipients and make it as easy as possible for them to be able to validate their records or correct their records, if that is indeed what they want to do. We also want to be fair to the taxpayer, and that is exactly why we have this system in the first place. What we do is that we look at the self-reported income provided to Centrelink and we compare that to the data provided to the Australian Taxation Office. If there is discrepancy between the two then a person is asked if they can explain that discrepancy. Sometimes they can, but if they are unable to do so then a debt may be issued. This practice has been in place, by the way, since the Labor Party introduced it in 1990 in the data-matching act. Then, of course, automation came into place in 2011, under none other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But why do we have to do this important work? The reason is because it is the unfortunate reality that some people deliberately abuse the system while many others, inadvertently, do not update their employment income. I would like to provide some examples of this. I will give you one. This was a Queensland man, who was on Newstart for all of the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13, and during that time he declared to Centrelink that he had earned income of $5,000. But the Australian Taxation Office, which relies upon income data from employers, showed that he had actually earned $100,000 during this time. This occurred when Labor was in office. Had Labor actually picked up this person at the time, when perhaps Tanya Plibersek was the Minister for Human Services— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will refer to members by their correct titles. Mr TUDGE M2Y When the member for Sydney was the Minister for Human Services, she would not pick that up. We are now doing this hard work. We want to be reasonable to the Centrelink recipients, but we are also going to be fair to taxpayers and they expect us to do this hard work. (Time expired) Electricity Infrastructure 33 15:05 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. He would be well aware that my electorate of Grey bore the brunt of last September's power outages in South Australia—Port Lincoln was out for three days; some places for four days—and how the doubling of electricity prices is effecting our bigger employers, BHP and Olympic Dam, Nyrstar and Arrium. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to strengthen energy security and maintain energy affordability, and what hurdles stand in the way of achieving this security for hardworking Australian families? 15:06 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Grey for that important question because, as he said, in his electorate— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Jagajaga, I will tell you what is going to happen if you keep interjecting. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL they have borne the brunt of energy instability in South Australia, and the major energy users like Nyrstar, Arrium and BHP have paid a very high price. The Prime Minister, in his Press Club speech just a few days ago, outlined what our priorities are when they come to energy policy, energy security and energy affordability as we transition to a lower emissions future. We will be technology neutral in our approach. We recognise that coal and gas, fossil fuels, will play a very big role for years to come, as well as renewables, and we are investing record amounts in storage capacity. In South Australia, we have worked with the Australian Energy Market Operator to reduce some of the pressure on the interconnector from Victoria into South Australia and to strengthen the settings on the windfarms to ensure that they can ride out voltage disturbances. And we have done other things to ensure that there are two synchronous generators at any one time to help stabilise the system. I visited South Australia last week and I visited Ferguson Australia, a major seafood business in the seat of Port Adelaide—in my opposite number's seat. They have seen their electricity bills double over the last year and they have had to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in backup support to ensure that their produce is not ruined before they export it, earning millions of dollars for the state and for the country. All this is put at risk by those opposite. Just today we have heard that their signature policy when it comes to climate change and energy policy, an emissions trading scheme, has been described by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate as: … it is a mongrel. It is not a credible alternative, it is a smokescreen. That is your policy as described in 2009 by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. And what about your 50 per cent RET which will require an $8 billion investment? What about your 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030? What about your decision to force the closure of coal-fired power stations, which the Australian Energy Market Commission—which you quoted here just earlier today—has said will cost $24 billion? And this is all on top of your emissions intensity scheme. It is no wonder Graham Richardson, the original fixer, has said of your policy that it is 'farcical' and that: You can’t set policy on a wing, a hope and a prayer. It is no wonder that the unions have criticised the rush to renewables, putting in jeopardy thousands and thousands of jobs. In fact, according to the ABS, there were only 14,000 jobs in 2014-15 in renewables and nearly one million in Australian manufacturing. That will be our priority—the nearly one million jobs in manufacturing, which are much safer under the coalition. Centrelink 34 15:09 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. Anne Foley is a 67-year-old pensioner who received a Centrelink debt recovery notice for around $36,000. As a result, Centrelink cut off Mrs Foley's pension, causing her considerable stress and anxiety. But, two weeks later, Centrelink admitted they got it completely wrong and reinstated her pension. Are pensioners like Anne suffering because the only thing the Prime Minister is focused on is trying to fix his broken government? 15:10 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I would invite the minister to respond in more detail to the question. I assume the honourable member has given the details of this constituent of hers to the minister beforehand. But, if she has not made that available, then the minister will certainly investigate the matter that you have raised. I just want to repeat what he said: that the focus has been to ensure that, where anomalies are detected consistent with practices put in place long ago under the Labor government, people are able to correct the record. And, of course, if they do owe money to Centrelink, it should be recovered. I will ask the minister to enlarge on that. 15:11 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston As the Prime Minister said, I would be happy to look into the case that the member has identified. I am sure she would have informed that constituent of hers to call the 1800 number. I am sure she would have informed her constituent that that person has an opportunity for a reassessment or a review or a further appeal, because those opportunities have always been the case. I am always very careful when Labor puts up examples of people who have been aggrieved. I make no judgement of this particular case but, over the summer, Labor put up some 52 examples to the media of people who were so-called aggrieved by this process. It transpires that a third of all of those cases had nothing to do with the online compliance system. Of the ones that did, the majority also owed money back to the taxpayer. The member for Barton herself admitted that she could not know whether or not the people she put up to the media actually owed money but she put them up in any case. I will provide some examples of the ones which she did put up to the media. It provides a very clear case as to why we need to do this important work for the taxpayer. Here is one: a Victorian person had received— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. This question deals with one constituent who had received a debt notice of $36,000 and had her pension stopped. That is what is relevant to this question. Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will cease interjecting. Mr Morrison interjecting— Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will cease interjecting, as will the Leader of the House. The Minister for Human Services has the call. Mr TUDGE M2Y As I was saying, here is a case that the Labor Party put up to the media. The person who had received— The SPEAKER 00APG I would just say to the minister that he has had a preamble. There was a very specific element to the question. He is entitled to address— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left will cease interrupting me. He is entitled to address the policy issue but, in the remaining time, he needs to bring himself to the specific part of the question or wind his answer up. Mr TUDGE M2Y As I said, I am very happy to look at that particular case, but here is another example of the ones which they put up to the media. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TUDGE M2Y This goes to the heart of why we need to have a robust system like this. It is a person they put up who had declared income of $9,000 when in fact the ATO data showed $48,000 from a business. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. There are four seconds left. The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to raise another point of order under relevance, I presume. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, you gave a ruling on relevance and the minister is flouting that ruling. The SPEAKER 00APG I will be the judge of that. As I said, the question did have a specific element. It had another element to it as well. With four seconds to go that is probably enough, I think, and I will call the member for Fisher. Building and Construction Industry 35 15:15 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline how industrial relations reform supports the creation of jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any unions who do not support the restoration of the rule of law to building and construction sites around this country? 15:15 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Fisher for his question. I know that he, like the rest of the government, is very interested in the effect that the Australian Building and Construction Commission can bring to the wider economy in Australia, creating jobs, investment and growth. I am very pleased to say that the last time the Australian Building and Construction Commission was in place it saved consumers $7½ billion in costs, it increased productivity in the building and construction industry by 16½ per cent and it led to a very real reduction in days lost due to industrial strife. Last year, as the House would know, the Turnbull government passed legislation to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission—a signature achievement—after many attempts over the previous three years. One would assume that every member of the House, whether they were Labor, crossbench or government, would want to create the kinds of jobs that can be created through higher productivity in building and construction by having less union militant behaviour and by reducing the price to consumers. But it is not so. The Leader of the Opposition led the Labor Party into opposing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Many of us in the national policy area scratched our heads and wondered why. I think we have now picked up a few reasons why. There may well be a coup because of the revelations of the year of funding up to the 2016 federal election. The union movement spent an incredible $26½ million of other people's money campaigning against the Turnbull government. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith has been warned! Mr PYNE 9V5 There was $9.7 million donated directly to the ALP, including $1 million from the CFMEU donated directly to the ALP. There was $16½ million spent on political campaigns, including $300,000 from the CFMEU. So the CFMEU spent $1.3 million in the lead-up to the 2016 election in one year campaigning against the Turnbull government. So the union movement spent $26½ million of other people's money into campaigning against the Turnbull government. The Leader of the Opposition has certainly followed the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The No. 1 priority of the AMWU or the CFMEU or the MUA was to stop the Australian Building and Construction Commission and that is precisely what Labor's policy was. Labor dismantled the ABCC. They opposed it root and branch. That is because this Leader of the Opposition is in hock to the union movement. Turnbull Government 36 15:18 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the member for Warringah that, 'The first duty of the leader is to keep the party together'? How is that going? The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the Prime Minister, I regret to inform the member for Sydney that that question is out of order. I will go to the next question. Trade 36 15:19 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government is promoting Australia's national interests and strengthening our bilateral relationships? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would threaten our national interest? 15:19 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Barker for his question. I can confirm that the Australian government is working hard to strengthen and deepen our bilateral relationships with countries in our region and globally, for it is in our national interests to ensure that we have the strongest possible strategic, political and economic ties. For example, this afternoon I will be hosting Foreign Minister Wang Yi here in Canberra for the fourth Australia-China Foreign and Strategic Dialogue. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P This will be probably the ninth bilateral meeting that I have had with Foreign Minister Wang. This is an opportunity for us to discuss a range of common interests and issues regional and global. Of course, in the bilateral sphere we will be talking about the achievements of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which celebrated its first anniversary on 20 December. Members on this side of the House know that given the size of our population our prosperity and our standard of living depends upon the ability of our businesses—small, medium and large—to export our goods and services to marketplaces around the world. Last year, under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and more broadly, our merchandise exports to China were worth about $75 billion and our services exports to China about $10.7 billion. In relation to the member for Barker's own state of South Australia, last year one-fifth of all exports from South Australia went to China. In particular areas of interest to the member, bottled wine exports increased by 40 per cent, the export of fresh and chilled abalone increased by about 50 per cent and there was an increase in the export of navel oranges by about 55 per cent. Impi Highland, which is a citrus grower in Renmark, said that pursuant to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the implementation of it the Chinese market was now a game changer for the citrus industry. That is another example of how important these free trade deals are. I have been asked if there are any alternative approaches. Sadly, I have to say that the Labor Party has a very patchy record when it comes to trade agreements, even though they are about promoting more Australian jobs. It was up to the coalition to ensure that we negotiated the free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea after years of absolute inactivity. I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition also has form—he encouraged that xenophobic union campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. On this side of the House we know that more marketplaces give more opportunities for export businesses, which means more jobs. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Petrie on a point of order. Mr Howarth 247742 The member for McEwen was making sexist comments to the foreign minister then, at the start of that question, and I would ask him to withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Petrie well knows it is impossible for me to hear everything that is uttered across the chamber. All I can do is ask the member for McEwen whether he used unparliamentary language or reflected upon a member. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E No, I didn't. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Coalition Government 37 15:22 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's print media runs comments from numerous members of the PM's own government airing grievances about the internal workings of the Liberal Party, including today in The Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun— Mr Chester interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is interjecting loudly into my ear. I cannot hear the question. I will ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume and, if there is a repeat of it, I will have to take action. The Manager of Opposition Business can begin his question again. Mr BURKE DYW Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question is to the Prime Minister. Today's print media includes comments from a large number of members of the Prime Minister's own government airing grievances about the internal workings of the Liberal government, including in The Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun, TheAdvertiser, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Courier Mail, the Financial Review, and The Australian. They all have examples of this. Prime Minister, when thousands of people are losing their jobs at Toyota and Holden, why are members of the government only talking about themselves? 15:24 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth It is not so long ago that the Leader of the Opposition spoke at the Press Club—indeed, last week, just the day before I did—and he said that he was going to be focused on people rather than politics, and what we see is one cheap shot after another. How long did that last? Our policies are very clear, very plain, focused on jobs, investment, economic growth, improving and expanding the opportunities for hardworking Australian families. Everything we are doing is focused on that. We are trying to open up more export markets. We have opened up some big ones. The foreign minister just described the very real practical ways in which those big new markets have provided more opportunities for Australian businesses to get ahead and employ more Australians. And what we are doing is ensuring, or seeking to ensure, that businesses get a tax break so that they will invest more and employ more. And what we are seeking to do is build the infrastructure around the country—$50 billion and more in infrastructure—not to speak of completing the NBN years and years ahead of time from what the Labor Party would have done. So we are getting on with the job, and everything we are doing will generate more investment and more jobs. What does Labor present? They do not have one single policy—not one—which would encourage one single business to invest one more dollar. They do not have any policies that will encourage employment. Indeed, they want to have higher taxes, more regulations, higher debt, fewer markets and fewer opportunities to get ahead and, to cap all of that, they have policies that are guaranteed to make energy unaffordable and unreliable. I have to say this: the opposition leader is consistent on one thing alone—he is against jobs, he is against investment, he is against the opportunities that Australians today and generations to come deserve and will only come through more investment, more economic growth, bigger markets and wider horizons for Australians to build their businesses and employ more Australians here. That is what we are doing. Labor is standing in the way—every single policy calculated to stop employment, stop investment and stop the growth we need. Employment 37 15:26 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to ensure foreign workers are a supplement to and not a substitute for Australian workers? And how does this compare with other approaches? 15:27 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. It is an important question because the Prime Minister just made reference to a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition at the Press Club only last week where he trumpeted the fact that he wanted to be the champion of Australian jobs, but do you know what? Do not trust this Leader of the Opposition. Do not trust this Leader of the Opposition because he says one thing to one audience and then he does the complete opposite when he thinks people are not watching. I will tell you what: this Leader of the Opposition, when he was a minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments, did exactly the same. So, when Australians around the country have a hesitation when they see this Leader of the Opposition on their television sets at night time, they have their instinct right, because this Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted. He cannot be trusted because he is more interested in the interests of the union bosses than the workers. He has demonstrated that throughout his working life. That is the lot of this Leader of the Opposition. It is true that this Leader of the Opposition, when he was the employment minister in the good old days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, was the champion of jobs for some workers. The trouble is they were overseas workers. So in his speech last week the Leader of the Opposition wanted Australians to believe that he was going to put Australians first for Australian jobs, but the reality is that, when he was employment minister during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, he did exactly the opposite. He has complained about the 457 visa program where we put workers first. The policy of this government is to find Australian jobs and to put Australian workers into those jobs, and if we cannot fill those jobs then people can come in under 457 visas. This Leader of the Opposition thought it opportunistic last week to come out and criticise the government for the number of 457 visas that we have issued. The trouble is the number was many times more during his period as employment minister. So how can you trust Labor's Leader of the Opposition? He was untrustworthy to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd and he was untrustworthy to workers, whom he pretended to represent as a union leader. He is in this place pretending to represent Australians, when really he has done the complete opposite every day he has been in this place. We know, for example, that in 2015-16 there were just over a thousand 457 visas issued for registered nurses. Do you know the number in 2012-13 under Labor? A government member: Tell us! Mr DUTTON 00AKI There were 2,853. Let me say this in closing: we are not going to be lectured by a hypocrite. We are not going to be lectured by a person who is unworthy of the high office that he holds— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will withdraw the term 'hypocrite'. Mr Dutton 00AKI I withdraw. 15:30 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 38 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliament House: Security 38 15:30 The SPEAKER 00APG Members will recall that on 30 November last year protestors disrupted proceedings here in the chamber in question time that necessitated the suspension of proceedings in the House, and on the following day hung a banner outside the building. At the time, I advised the House that an investigation into the events would be undertaken. At the outset, I can indicate that four briefs of evidence have been referred by ACT Policing to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for evaluation along with the recommendation that charges be laid. The briefs relate to charges of criminal damage to the leather work in the chamber gallery and the Forecourt water feature and to trespass on the facade of the building. The parliamentary departments and the Australian Federal Police are finalising a report to the President of the Senate and me on the incidents and will make recommendations, including those for medium- and longer term implementation. In the interim, members will note a more visible presence by the Parliamentary Security Service in the public galleries, particularly during question time. There will also be a greater presence by the Australian Federal Police outside the galleries and in Members Hall, where people obtain their tickets and queue to enter the galleries. As presiding officers, the President of the Senate and I are responsible for security at Parliament House and for the safety of all occupants and visitors. In reality, it will be difficult to eliminate all risk of protest action in the building without much more intrusive screening measures. We need to strike a balance between welcoming the public to come and see their parliament in action and ensuring that the chambers are not interrupted by a vocal but very small minority of people. We will continue to take advice and seek the most prudent balance between the ease of access to the building by visitors and the needs of security. I will provide additional updates as appropriate. I thank the House. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 38 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 29 to 36 of 2016-17 38 15:32 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 29 to 36 for 2016-17. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 39 DOCUMENTS Presentation 39 15:32 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 39 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 39 15:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That leave of absence from today until 26 February 2017 be given to Mr Hawke for parental leave purposes. Question agreed to. Days and Hours of Meeting 39 15:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I present a chart showing the revised program of sittings for 2017. Copies of the program have been placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the program be agreed to. Leave granted. Mr PYNE 9V5 I move: That the revised program of sittings for 2017 be agreed to. Very briefly, there is no change to the number of sitting days or weeks. But in order to facilitate the Prime Minister's visit to the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Beersheba, the last great successful cavalry charge in world history, we have moved one of the sitting weeks so that the Prime Minister might be able to represent Australia at Beersheba. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 39 15:34 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence from 7 February 2017 until 8 May 2017 be given to Ms Rowland for parental leave purposes. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 39 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Turnbull Government 39 15:34 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to protect the interests of local workers and consumers. 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— 15:35 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth In relation to the government's failure to protect the interests of local workers and consumers, notwithstanding the fact that the government's track record on this issue is lamentable at best, it is fair to say that they have been somewhat distracted of late. It seems that the Prime Minister's summer of discontent continues. We got off to the year on a flying start, but no sooner had the champagne corks stopped popping in Point Piper than hundreds of thousands of Australians had been faced with the distress of being singled out for Centrelink debts, which they were mistakenly accused of. It went from bad to worse, with a senior minister of the government being seen off for a travel scandal. And as of today, as we are well aware, the government now appears to be one senator down. As if that was not enough, you will note that the matter of public importance relates to local workers and local consumers. The story does not get any better closer to home in my state of Perth. In Western Australia right now, as you will be aware, there is a campaign leading up to a state election on 11 March. And what do we see in relation to local workers and consumers in the state of Western Australia? We see them being horribly let down and abandoned at every step of the way, and they have been in that position since 2008. They suffer from a Premier in Mr Colin Barnett, who is arrogant and tired. He has already admitted that he will not hang around, if he is elected, until the end of his term—having handed over the baton to who knows who. And he is hopelessly out of touch. As if parliamentarians of today did not have enough to battle with in the context of the hearts and minds of the voters, you look no further than the track record of the state Liberal government in relation to the wreckage of broken promises over the last eight years. In my own electorate, what should have been an infrastructure project which could have transformed the community, insofar as transport goes, the MAX light rail, has been cast aside by Colin Barnett—by his own admission, as a broken promise. The same goes for another mother-of-all-broken-promises in relation to infrastructure, and that is a supposed rail line to Ellenbrook, a suburb in the north that has been long forgotten and abandoned by the state Liberal Party. In relation to my own portfolio of consumer affairs, one looks no further, in relation to the government's failure to protect the interests of consumers, than the consumer credit legal centres all around the country, suffering, at this stage, from a chronic lack of funding. In Western Australia alone, over $1.67 million has been taken out of Western Australian community legal centres and will not be restored. What does that look like to vulnerable consumers in my community? Well, it looks to me like a failure on the part of the state government but also this federal government. At the moment, we see vulnerable consumers being preyed upon by companies loosely described as 'debt vulture' companies, offering false hope to consumers who find themselves in ever-increasing mountains of debt, mainly due to the increasing cost-of-living prices thrust and inflicted upon them by our local state Liberal government. The story in relation to vulnerable consumers as to consumer leases or rent-to-buy products is not getting any better. In that context, increasing numbers of consumers are being put into positions of hardship and bankruptcy, as a result of poor advice, entering into these contracts, for which there is no remedy or recourse as a result of the millions of dollars that has been ripped out of the consumer legal centres, including the Western Australian consumer law centre. We need look no further, in relation to the tale of woe as to the failure to protect the interests of local workers and consumers in Western Australia, than a snapshot of the debt and deficit scenario as we head into a state election. The story over the course of 10 years could not be more stark. In 2008, the state debt in Western Australia, upon the Liberal Party coming to government, was $3.6 billion. In 2018, as a consequence of what can only be described as irresponsible and reckless spending, the state Liberal government will have accrued $40 billion of state debt—an increase of more than 10-fold in the course of 10 years. The situation does not get any better in relation to unemployment figures. Right now, almost 100,000 Western Australians are out of work and looking for work. We have a record high unemployment level in our state: six per cent, and projected to stay at six per cent over the course of the next four years. That does not include the hundreds of thousands of Western Australians currently underemployed and desperately looking for more work. You do not have to look any further than the resource sector for ways in which Western Australians and Australians are being let down by the coalition government. The flawed design of Brendon Grylls's so-called mining tax, seeking to levy $5 a tonne out of the big miners, is not only doomed to failure and fundamentally flawed but threatens to put thousands of jobs of Western Australians at risk. There are three main reasons as to why this proposal is hopelessly flawed and doomed to fail. First, the design of the tax is one which does not promote investment and does not promote employment. An arbitrary $5-a-tonne mining tax imposed upon the big miners, as a result of Brendon Grylls's desperate grab for attention, is an arbitrary tax, and is in no way linked to production or values. All it will seek to do is simply to disproportionately punish the community, in the context where we do not have sufficiently buoyant iron ore prices. In relation to the precedent it sets, it does not give Western Australians any confidence at all; if one can unilaterally embark upon ripping up a state agreement in relation to iron ore, one must logically ask: what comes next? Even if those two reasons were not sufficient, what we would see in relation to this tax—if, God forbid, it were ever to be implemented—is that the GST effect would simply see most of the proceeds come to this side of the country, leaving Western Australians hopelessly let down. In relation to infrastructure, one looks no further than the flawed projects already underway, as well as the state of affairs as to a couple of election promises put forward by the state Liberal government. On Elizabeth Quay, $450 million was spent over the course of 10 months from February to December in 2015, only for it to be shut down for a 10-month period as a result of chronic water problems causing potential risk and damage to kids playing in the water playground. On the Perth Children's Hospital, $1.2 billion was spent; construction commenced in January 2012; it is hopelessly riddled with asbestos, causing unnecessary and potentially lethal exposure to Western Australian workers; and not only that: there is also a chronic history of the presence of lead in the water at the Children's Hospital, which has led to huge blow-outs, huge delays, and no end in sight as to when this hopelessly-managed project will ever be open. Compare that to the Labor Party's platform going to the election under Mark McGowan and his team: innovative developments in Medihotels; innovative developments in urgent care clinics. In relation to Roe 8,what we see is a hopelessly planned road to nowhere. Compare that to Mark McGowan's METRONET plan—a revolutionary plan to create tens of thousands of jobs as well as a future-proofed public transport system. We look no further than the abject failure of the rollout of the National Broadband Network in Western Australia, leaving millions of Western Australians let down. We look at the flawed idea of privatising Western Power. The choice could not be more clear. Mark McGowan and his team will retain Western Power. And we look at, again, the transformational infrastructure project of the outer harbour: future-proofing Western Australia for years to come. Contrast that with a tired, worn-out team, with no ideas, under Colin Barnett: hopelessly out of touch and willing to do a dance with One Nation and the far right of those in Western Australia. Compare that to Mark McGowan and his state Labor team: clearly offering a fresh start, fresh ideas and responsible management of the economy, which will properly protect workers and consumers in Western Australia. 15:45 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I invite the member for Perth to look around him. We are in the federal parliament. We are not in the Western Australian parliament. That would have been a great stump speech if you were a candidate for the Western Australian election coming up on 11 March, but we are in the Commonwealth parliament, the Parliament of Australia. I did not hear many mentions of the federal government. All we heard was a speech condemning the Western Australian government. I cannot understand it. It was his big moment to lead the matter of public importance, and he failed. He failed because all he wanted to talk about was Western Australia. I appreciate it is his home state and I appreciate there is an election coming up, but we are on this side of the Nullarbor. We are not in Perth. Go anywhere outside this building—outside this federal parliamentary building—and you will hear it. Go anywhere outside this building and you will see it. It is the heartbeat which drives the nation, the sound of ambition and drive. It is the sound of success. It is the hard work of Australia's 2.1 million small businesses. Mr Conroy interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 The member for Shortland gets it. He understands. From the inland to the coast, in the cities and the suburbs, it is a sector which strives every day to better the lives of Australians, to create more jobs and to provide the goods and services that Australians—whether they live regionally or in the capital cities—demand, expect and deserve. And we are a government—a federal government, Member for Perth—which understands how inextricable the bond between success and small business is. Today we are here to talk about the interests of local workers and consumers. The member for Perth might have forgotten that. He wrote the line but forgot to prosecute the argument. Surprising from a barrister, but he forgot to prosecute the argument! We are here to reflect on the findings of soundings taken over summer, and that is why I am pleased to talk up exactly what this federal government has done, and will continue to do, to create jobs and opportunities for Australians and to see small business soar. Mr Husic interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Chifley will sit in silence. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Australia's small businesses number around 2.1 million. They provide an economic boost of $340 billion to our economy. They are as diverse a tapestry as the topography of our country itself. Some are run by families, some by friends and some by those who have found a purpose and a meaning in the jobs and services they are providing. But in each of them is the spirit of small business. In each of them— An opposition member interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You can make out as if you have got a violin. You would not know. The only small businesses you like are those which you would like to run a picket line out the front of. That is the trouble with you. Unlike the Labor Party's, ours is an economic plan which is costed. It is an economic plan which is considered. It is an economic plan which actually makes sense. It has got a vision further out than just the daily headlines that those opposite react to. It is a 10-year economic plan, the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. Its most central consideration is this: it is small business, and not government, which creates jobs. It is small business, and not government, which provides goods and services. It is small business, and not government, which will see higher wages—we all want that—and more opportunities for Australians. To this government, jobs are not the stuff of glossy brochures. They are the stuff of families. They are the stuff of communities. They are a story which varies by location, and they need a champion who is committed to their creation—and that is what we are. This government—this federal government, Member for Perth—is a champion for small business and business right across this nation. On the table today is our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan: a vision for a decade, not just the fly-by-night things that you people bring into this House, that you people dream up after you read the daily headlines. It is a plan which will provide 90,000 more small businesses across this nation with the opportunity to get that lowering of the company tax rate. It is a plan which provides for 90,000 more small businesses to get access to the instant asset write-off. But there is a roadblock in the way of those great small businesses—those in the electorate of Cowper, those in the electorate of Capricornia. Right throughout Australia there is a roadblock, and that is the ALP, led by the member for Maribyrnong, who stands for higher energy costs to small businesses, who stands for and is beholden only to the unions. More than anything, our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan will mean that Australia's small businesses can grow more and can employ more—and, dare I say, if they are able to hire more people, some of them might even be union members. Some of them might even vote for the Labor Party! That is what we are doing: providing jobs, providing hope and providing rewards for those small businesses which want to get ahead. What small businesses do is invest back into their small business. They invest back into their company. They enhance their business. They deliver the most effective of economic injections, empowering their own livelihoods and their own needs to get ahead in life. Those opposite come in here and lecture about the fact that they supposedly care for consumers—I did not hear that word in the member for Perth's MPI—but, as for the support that they offer for small businesses, when push comes to shove: Labor does not trust small business to spend its own money. That is the bottom line. But we in the coalition do. We want to provide more money for those small businesses so that they can generate more jobs. We know that tax cuts for small businesses deliver more jobs, higher wages, better services and expanded opportunities, for a few simple reasons: because we have run our own—successful ones, too, I might add. We have taken risks. We have employed people. We know, from our own experience, that local workers will get a better opportunity from local businesses which are empowered to employ them. We know, from our own experience, that local consumers will be better catered for by local businesses empowered to take risks, to branch out and to pursue a new opportunity. We know this because we listen. We consult. We spend time in our local small business community, and we actually listen to what they have to say. I have listened to businesses everywhere, including the electorate of Cowper—and I am looking forward to going to your electorate very soon, Deputy Speaker Coulton, to hear from the small businesses in your community, and I would love to go and talk to those in the member for Rankin's seat and to hear what they have to say: to hear the fact that they want to get behind a lowering of the company tax rate, to hear that more of them want to take advantage of the instant asset write-off. Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I have been to every state and territory to talk to small businesses. It is more important, member for Rankin, to listen to those small businesses. I went there alongside the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, James Pearson, and that organisation's president, Terry Wetherall. That is where I met people such as Rohan Jewellers in Western Australia, in the member for Perth's electorate. With a turnover between $2 million and $10 million, that jewellery shop has been in operation for nine years. It employs 12 people including casuals. Its owner, Rohan Milne, told me of his plan to grow and expand and of how a reduction in the company tax rate and access to the coalition's crucial instant asset write-off program would benefit him and help him to achieve his dream. Like millions of small businesses right across the country and the five million Australians they employ—many of whom are union members—Rohan Milne knows a turnover of more than $2 million is not a big business. It is the engine room of our economy. And I have a little note to Labor: just because you might be generating anywhere between $2 million and $10 million in turnover does not mean to say that that is what you are putting in your pocket as take-home; it does not mean to say that that is profit. You people seem to think that a company with a turnover of $5 million is in clover, and all you want to do is whack them. We know on this side that our 10-year enterprise tax plan will work. And do you know why? It is because it is backed by small business. It is backed by small businesses right across this wide brown land. Because protection for our workers in small business is central to our economic plan, we are getting out and we are listening to them. Ours is an economic plan which actually understands the economy. It is a plan that wants to see the economy grow and pay back some of Labor's debt and put more Australians into jobs with opportunities for their children and their children's children. It is a plan about confidence. Whether you are in a capital city like Perth or whether you are in a regional community like Dubbo or somewhere like Warialda, the area you represent, Mr Deputy Speaker, or wherever, it gives small business the confidence to grow, the confidence to employ more people and the confidence to take a risk with their own money—not with union money, but with your own money. It is a plan that is already working. Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Listen to them go! You mention the word 'unions' and you get them going. You get them almost jumping out of their seats, because they are beholden to unions. You are self-owned subsidiaries of the union movement, and that is the trouble. Get on board with small business! Do not worry too much about what the leftie unions are telling you. The leftie unions will just take you down a path of higher energy prices and of doing all those things like stop-work meetings. Get on board with small business! Back our 10-year enterprise tax plan. Back the instant asset write-off. Get on board with those companies that are employing Australians, creating employment, creating jobs, creating opportunity, and stop being a roadblock to this great economic plan. 15:55 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan The government has failed to protect the interests of local workers and consumers, especially in Western Australia, where the benefits of the mining and construction boom have been squandered by the Liberal government. The only thing that they have to show is record debt, record deficit and record unemployment. What the Liberal government fails to understand is that to have jobs and growth, to promote local jobs and foster local business, you need infrastructure—the kind of infrastructure that employers need to be able to carry out their business, the kind of infrastructure that local workers and consumers need to be able to live. It is infrastructure that delivers an effective and reliable internet. It delivers people to jobs and jobs to people, consumers to business and business to consumers. You cannot trust the Liberals to deliver. The Liberals and the Nationals have broken too many promises. After announcing a $30 million 'fully funded plan' to upgrade Wanneroo Road and boasting about it on social media—they had videos and everything, let me tell you—the WA Liberal government then turned around and revealed at the mid-year review that only $10 million was actually allocated to the project. Wanneroo Road, which is in my electorate, has already been identified as one of Australia's top 10 most congested roads by 2030. On any given day and at any given time you can spend up to 30 minutes getting through traffic on Wanneroo Road. It takes precious time away from families and it affects productivity, and Labor knows this. We know that everyday West Australians in the outer suburbs need a government that will not waste money on vanity projects and budget blowouts. That is why we have committed to a fully funded plan to ease the congestion on Wanneroo Road, not some half-funded plan that the Liberals have put forward. West Australians also know that you cannot trust the Liberals to deliver on their promises. In just 24 hours they broke their promise to fully fund the Wanneroo Road upgrade. Twenty-four hours—that must be a record. It is a pity that the Liberals cannot be as timely in delivering on their promises as they are on breaking them. The people of Cowan are still waiting on the promise of an effective and affordable internet. By recollection, I think they were told that by the end of 2016 they would have it. Well, the end of 2016 has come and gone, and within my electorate people are being told that they will have to wait another two years. Meanwhile, schoolkids cannot do their homework, businesses have had to close and young entrepreneurs, the very people we should be encouraging, cannot even start up a business. The situation is so dire that in some parts of my electorate you have to drive to the next suburb just to be able to access any form of internet. The member who was speaking before me asked whether or not we have gone out and spoken to businesses. I have. I have gone out and spoken to businesses in my electorate. I speak to them on a daily basis. Let me tell you what my local businesses want. They want this government to fulfil its promise of internet and of an NBN that is reliable and effective and timely and affordable. And they are not getting it. We know that you cannot trust the Liberals to deliver on their promises. The people of Western Australia know that you cannot trust the Liberals to deliver on their promises, whether those promises are about building vital infrastructure to ensure that businesses can continue to do their business or whether those promises are about the NBN and the delivery of an internet that we have been promised for three years now, and there is still nothing—still nothing in Cowan! The Liberals are divided and they are confused. But there is one thing that they can agree on—one thing that they are agreeing on—and that is the privatisation of Western Power. The one promise that they are going to be able to deliver on is the privatisation of Western Power. And why? To pay for their recklessness and their failure to plan for life beyond the mining boom. Thank you. 16:00 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I think we have had nine, maybe 10, weeks without parliament sitting, and here we have the first MPI—an opportunity for the opposition to put forward an important matter of national interest and debate it. Instead, we actually have a running commentary on the Western Australian election. At the end of the day, as important as WA is, it is indicative of the Labor Party's absolute disregard for the importance of this chamber. Admittedly, the last speaker, to her credit, mentioned infrastructure, businesses closing and the importance of entrepreneurship. And so, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me just to address some of those in the context, if I may, of the federal government, since we are indeed here in a federal chamber. On infrastructure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to know that we actually have record spending under this coalition government on infrastructure. Let me say that one more time: we have record spending on infrastructure by this coalition government. This is why we are creating jobs. This is why we are creating confidence in our businesses. My second point is business closures: on this side of the House, the vast majority of people have started businesses and we have run businesses—it is in our DNA. We know the importance of ensuring (1) access to capital and (2) good, solid cash flow. One of the things this coalition government is driving towards is a greater ability for small businesses to raise capital. Indeed, over the coming weeks we will be furthering the debate on the crowdfunding bill, which will make it a lot easier for small businesses. Our former speaker in this debate, the minister, talked about the asset write-offs that this government has enabled, which improve the cash flow for small businesses. What do we have from the other side? We actually have a willingness to keep taxes high. It is pretty simple: on this side of the House we believe that company taxes should go down. Company taxes go down, more money is left in the pockets of the businesses to reinvest and that reinvestment creates jobs. As we have reached out across the House, as any responsible government does, we have said to the Labor Party, 'In the interests of workers, in the interests of the communities that we all serve, will you support tax cuts?' The answer is no. On this side of the House, we believe in energy security. We believe in reducing the cost of electricity, which is a major input for businesses. Once you reduce the input cost for business, it increases their margins—typically, it allows them to grow and to employ more people. Now, of course, as we have announced—as the Prime Minister has announced—that we will be proactively going after coal-fired power stations and ensuring that we have energy diversity across this country, does the opposition agree with that? No, they do not. I am a Queenslander; I am not from WA. And so for my WA colleagues in this House, the Queensland government at the moment, the Labor government, has a renewable energy target of—wait for it—50 per cent! Do you know what it is today, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is four per cent. Think about that—the impact on prices of electricity for consumers and for businesses. We have the opening of markets. Indeed, we have our foreign minister meeting with the foreign minister of China, Wang Yi, as we speak today. Here we have, a year after the China free trade agreement, an enormous amount—over $85 billion of goods and services—going to China. That deal nearly fell through because the opposition tried its best to block it. Now, at the end of the day, we are for open markets—more markets, more trade and more jobs. We are after lower taxes: lower taxes, more profits and more jobs. We are after lower electricity prices and more jobs. Thank you. 16:05 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The last time a Liberal Prime Minister came to Western Australia to announce funding for a new infrastructure project, he was knocked off by his own party the next week. I am of course referring to the Armadale Road duplication project in my electorate, the Labor commitment to which was partly matched by Tony Abbott in the Canning by-election, just days before he was replaced by the current Prime Minister. This may explain why the Prime Minister has been reluctant to visit WA this year, let alone announce new infrastructure funding for Western Australia. Fortunately for WA, and for my electorate of Burt in particular, WA Labor has announced it will build the infrastructure projects our community of transport consumers desperately needs to deal with ever-growing frustration and to get local people back to work: projects that the Abbott government, the Turnbull government and the Barnett state Liberal government have all ignored and refused to support. There is the new Armadale Road bridge, the logical second stage to the Armadale Road duplication project that I mentioned, which will stop the bottleneck at the Kwinana Freeway and which has the support of local councils, businesses and more than 80 per cent of the local residents. Then there is the Thornlie to Cockburn rail line, which will extend through Canning Vale, with two new train stations. The state Liberal MP, Peter Abetz, likes to pretend that he has been advocating for this project for eight years, but it has only been since WA Labor put pressure on through the fantastic local candidate, Terry Healy, that the Liberals matched Labor's commitment for this new rail line. After the broken promises of Ellenbrook and MAX light rail, which we heard of earlier, who could honestly believe that the Liberals will follow through on this promise? And just this week, WA Labor announced that it will remove the Denny Avenue level crossing in Kelmscott, replacing it with a bridge or underpass by 2020. I was proud to secure funding commitments to these projects from the federal Labor team during last year's election, and it was a shame that the Turnbull government did not match those commitments. WA Labor will take the responsible step for our state of not pushing ahead with Roe 8, redirecting that funding to projects like those I have just mentioned and many others. Yet the only response so far from the federal Liberals has been to try to hold WA to ransom—to threaten to withdraw funding rather than let an elected WA Labor government spend that $1.2 billion in allocated funding on infrastructure projects that WA desperately needs and wants. Here's the rub: going off the Turnbull government's MYEFO figures, WA will receive about 12 per cent of the federal infrastructure budget. WA has just under 11 per cent of the national population, so that might seem fair until you recall that WA takes up a third of the landmass of our continent and is one of the biggest economic contributors to our nation. If the funding for the Perth Freight Link were stripped from WA, our share would drop to just seven per cent. That is right: not only would we score only 30c in the dollar on the GST; we would receive a tiny proportion of Commonwealth infrastructure funding. Of course, given that the Liberal government has not funded any new infrastructure projects in WA, are we surprised? Even if we finally do have a state government and a federal government that support these kinds of congestion-busting infrastructure projects, we will need to ensure that the jobs created during construction actually go to Western Australians. The economy has changed but the Liberal-Nationals have done nothing to change the outdated list of occupations which are available to be filled in Western Australia by overseas workers. Occupations currently on the list include fitters, bricklayers, wall and floor tilers, electricians, air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, welfare workers, ambulance offices, firefighters, accountants, surveyors, child-care centre managers, and primary and secondary school teachers. At the same time that it has become easier for overseas workers to be employed in skilled jobs, cuts to TAFE by the Liberal-National government have meant it is harder for local people to get the training to access skilled jobs. By making changes, WA Labor will ensure that we make the most of the job opportunities that will flow from the construction of projects like the new Armadale Road bridge, fixing up Denny Avenue, and a new railway line from Thornlie, through Canning Vale, to Cockburn. There are currently more than 92,000 people unemployed in Western Australia, and Labor's priority will be to ensure that they are first in line for WA jobs. A McGowan Labor government will, on day one, tear up the list of occupations that fast-tracks overseas workers to WA and replace it with a new list that reflects WA's changed economic circumstances. That is the best way to ensure that jobs in local projects go to Western Australians to get our unemployment rates back down to where they were before the Barnett and Abbott-Turnbull Liberal governments took a sledgehammer to Western Australia. The simple truth is that, on local jobs, on transport infrastructure and more, Colin Barnett is exactly like his federal counterparts: out of touch with a state and people struggling after eight years of Liberal neglect. WA Labor will bring a fresh approach to WA and a comprehensive plan for jobs—something we desperately need and will not get from the Liberals. (Time expired) 16:10 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I am grateful to the member for Perth for raising this issue. We have a proud record to defend here, and I am very happy to speak to it. As the representative of the fastest growing economy of any metropolitan electorate on the eastern seaboard of Australia, I know that we are making huge strides. An SGS Economics and Planning report released in the past six months ranked Bennelong as having the fastest growing economy in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Bennelong's economic performance was topped only by four mining based regions in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This result is an indicator of the great success of our region, as people travel from around Sydney to access employment opportunities and high-quality services in our local community. The beating heart of the Bennelong economy is our local small businesses, who have been greatly assisted in the last two federal budgets. Over 7,400 local small and medium-sized businesses have had their taxes cut and received tax breaks on purchases up to $20,000. This facilitates growth, more jobs for local workers, opportunities for local consumers and a stronger community for all local residents. As home to Macquarie Park, the innovation capital of Australia, not only are we creating jobs; we are also creating them in the industries of the future. This is a very exciting place, and I will be talking more about this over the coming weeks. Beyond the confines of Bennelong, New South Wales is famously leading the way and showing other states how it is done. Unemployment continues to fall and is the lowest of all the states. We are also investing in the critical infrastructure needed to create jobs, help consumers and refit our ageing city. WestConnex will generate more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction, including hundreds of apprenticeships. The Commonwealth government has contributed $1.5 billion in addition to a concessional loan of $2 billion to Sydney's WestConnex project. Western Sydney Airport is expected to create over 11,000 jobs throughout construction. The Australian government is investing, over 10 years, $2.9 billion of the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. Pacific Highway duplication is expected to create 4,500 jobs at the peak of construction this year, with an additional 13,500 jobs to be supported indirectly. Over the five years to 2018-19, the government is contributing $5.6 billion to finally complete the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway by the end of the decade. Beyond my state, the Australian government are getting more people into work. Since the coalition came to office in September 2013, over half a million jobs have been created, with employment standing at a record high of just under 12 million in December 2016. Under this government, employment has continued to grow, rising by 0.8 per cent over the past year. We have a plan to grow the economy and create new jobs. We have made tax cuts and incentives for small businesses to employ more Australians. We have invested $1.1 billion in the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which is part of the government's commitment to establishing Australia as a leading innovation system. We are also investing $853 million into youth employment packages to help up to 120,000 young people take advantage of job opportunities as the economy diversifies and transitions to broader based growth. We have a 20-year plan to transform defence, building submarines, frigates, offshore patrol vessels and Pacific patrol boats in Australia, which will directly secure over 3,600 jobs as well as thousands more jobs through the supply chain. We have signed historic free trade agreements with three of our largest trading partners. These are creating jobs and dropping prices for Australian consumers. A few hours ago I spoke here of my good fortune to represent a community with a large, vibrant, engaged diaspora of Chinese-Australians. At many local events we discuss the importance of building bridges between our two countries to allow even stronger linkages as partners in trade business and culture. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement cements that bridge and will create many businesses and employment opportunities for Bennelong residents. Finally, we have made record investments in infrastructure for roads, rail, airports and dams. This includes $220 million into the Regional Jobs and Investment Package to help regions in Australia diversify their economies, stimulate long-term economic growth and deliver sustainable employment. (Time expired) 16:15 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand It is not only the Turnbull-Joyce government that has failed local workers. The Abbott Liberal government started the rot, and it had a committed partner in neglect—the WA state Liberal government, led by Colin Barnett. The voters of Western Australia will soon have the opportunity to turn their state around and get the WA economy moving again, and have the chance to vote to ensure more jobs are created for Western Australian workers and to ensure that there are more opportunities for Western Australian families. Where Liberal governments have failed local workers and Western Australians, WA Labor will not. WA Labor will bring a fresh approach for the state. WA Labor has set out a comprehensive plan for jobs, a plan that will put more Western Australians back into work. Mark McGowan is the member for Rockingham and he understands everyday Western Australians. He lives with his young family in my electorate in Brand, in the beautiful beachside suburb of Rockingham, where I grew up in small business. I have contest with the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, who believes that Labor members of parliament have no experience of small businesses. I am a daughter of a draper and I worked long in small business as I grew up. Mark McGowan lives in the beautiful suburb of Rockingham, as I was saying, it is our own beachside paradise. There is no need for a Premier of Western Australia to seek to annex the Cocos and Christmas islands when we have the wonderful beachside paradises of Shoalwater and Rockingham. I pay tribute to Mark McGowan and his colleagues in my electorate: Roger Cook, the member for Kwinana; Paul Papalia, the member for Warnbro; and Reece Whitby, the Labor candidate for Baldivis. All are working on the frontline of those communities in outer metropolitan Perth that have borne the brunt of the failure of Barnett's Liberal government and the failure of this federal Liberal government to invest in infrastructure projects that will support local workers and create local jobs that will provide a future for WA families. In my electorate it is frankly mind-boggling to witness how this government and its WA state Liberal counterparts have turned their backs on the Kwinana industrial strip. This industrial area has powered both the WA and the national economy since the 1950s. Thanks to the hardworking women and men who work at the many industrial plants, and the commitment by industry itself, this strip is vital to Western Australia and the national economy. It is home to the largest oil refinery in the country, the largest grain-handling facility in the southern hemisphere and it is home to the largest Royal Australian Navy base. It is estimated that the Kwinana industrial area produces an output of $15.7 billion annually into the WA economy. Further investment is needed to ensure the continued productivity of this centre for infrastructure. Investment is needed to ensure local jobs are created in WA for local workers. Since the sixties, there have been plans for an outer harbour in Kwinana, to be ready for the day when port infrastructure at Fremantle inner harbour reaches its full capacity. Since the sixties, successive state governments, both Labor and Liberal, have supported the need for the outer harbour, to ensure WA's further economic development. More plans were considered in the eighties, and in 1996 the Liberal state government gave cabinet endorsement for a new outer harbour to be built in Kwinana. It is a long-term nation-building project that will create much-needed jobs and economic opportunities for the people living in local communities across the electorate of Brand, but moreover for the state generally. Yet this government and Barnett's WA Liberal government failed to support this critical project, and in so doing they both failed WA workers. It is a project that ticks all the boxes. It grows the economy, it creates an estimated 25,000 new direct jobs and will encourage innovation through the application of modern technology to port operations. Despite all of this the federal government does not seem to understand that this is actually necessary infrastructure—unlike an expensive piece of road, known as Roe 8, that has started off smashing through the Beeliar wetlands and will finish as a vanishing road to nowhere some kilometres short of the port. It is an extraordinary failure, not only in infrastructure but in planning. Most Australia's have to wait a little while longer to vote out an incompetent, divided, clueless and failing Liberal government. Western Australians, however, can vote out the incompetent Barnett Liberal government on 11 March. Western Australians can vote out a tired and incompetent Barnet Liberal government and make way for Mark McGowan and WA Labor's fresh and strong approach for Western Australia. Mark McGowan and his Labor government and his excellent team of hardworking women and men will work to build the Metronet, they will stop this road to nowhere and they will invest in planning for the future infrastructure needs of Western Australia. They will build game-changing projects that will support local workers and Western Australians. It is time for Western Australia to move on from the incompetent and clueless Western Australian Liberal government led by Colin Barnett. 16:20 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I also am a proud member of the draper family, and the member for Brand and I caught up on that, as we were doing our work interstate last week. I am a very proud small business person as well, and the heritage that I and the member for Brand bring to this place is an honourable heritage. I am also an unabashed friend of the worker—an unabashed friend of the workers in Gippsland especially. I refer to Ed Gannon's article, 'Saving the environment comes at the cost of jobs', where the Labor Party in Victoria is walking away from 230 workers at the timber mill in Heyfield. Two hundred and thirty workers in Heyfield—a town of 2,000 people—is equivalent to 460,000 jobs in Melbourne. That is what they are threatening. I have been very close to the CFMEU forestry division workers and have worked closely with them over a long period of time, not only on the timber mill issues in the timber industry but more importantly in the paper industry, which is vital to thousands of jobs in Victoria. An opposition member: Thousands! Mr BROADBENT MT4 Thousands, and you cannot mock what I am saying because you are not one of the workers under threat here. Until such time as your livelihood is under threat, do not mock me as I stand here on their behalf. Thousands! Not only is this mill important to Heyfield but it affects 7,000 more jobs across my region and into outer Melbourne. Why 7,000 jobs? Because the seconds taken out of that forest supply the paper mill, which some of the departments in this place use. This is a serious issue about families' livelihoods and it is not to be discounted. At a time when Hazelwood is closing down, with a loss of 1,000 workers and all that goes with that, Theo Theophanous, a former energy minister in the Bracks government, argues that renewing or rebuilding Hazelwood could mean a greener and a cheaper future. In fact, I have had people in my office saying that this closure puts our national electricity grid under threat. On our worst day we could be under threat nationally, not just in South Australia. I do not know whether that argument is correct. I do not know whether it can be tested. The only day it will be tested is the day we run out of power. We have taken 25 per cent of Victoria's power needs off the grid when Theo says that we could have done it a different way. We could have supported Alcoa in a different way. It was put forward to them, but what happened? The Greens stopped this happening in the Labor government. I have spoken to this House about the Labor Party's need to be beholden to the Greens. You are affecting the livelihoods and jobs of ordinary people, people who are basically and truly your base, your voters, your blue-collar workers. Why do they vote for people like me and Gary Blackwood? Because we put their interests first: we argue their interests in our party room, we argue their interests on the floor of this House and we argue for their livelihoods. It means their school. It means their primary school. It means the Heyfield Primary School. It means the Heyfield secondary college. It is all of the issues around the whole town. It is about the drapery store in Heyfield that will not exist if you take 200 workers out. Where is Michael O'Connor? Michael, where are you? You and the CFMEU should be right behind these workers getting this issue fixed with Dan's government. It is time. We have not got any more time to fluff around. We are losing jobs left, right and centre in Gippsland. If you want to really do damage to families, schools, kids and opportunities of the future keep doing what the Labor government is doing in Victoria—pandering to the Greens at every occasion. Some time in this House somebody is going to start to put the national interest first; they are going to put Australia first. 16:25 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the government's failure to protect workers and the social and economic consequences of that failure. I am not glad to speak about the circumstances that prevail currently in Western Australia, because the reality is Western Australia is in a recession. We have the second highest unemployment rate in the country. We have a sequence of falling full-time employment rates that have been unmatched since the deep recession in 1990s. Underemployment is at its highest level since the ABS began keeping those statistics in 1978. As the member for Perth said, there are 100,000 people out of work in my home state. What is most disappointing though is that this was foreseeable. Western Australia does have a resources economy. That resources economy has peaks and troughs. A responsible government prepares for those, yet nothing has been done. The Barnett government has perpetrated a long con on the people of Western Australia, quietly building up a mountain of debt and passively watching as jobs began to disappear. It is entirely appropriate that the federal House of Representatives members from Western Australia speak on this topic because the Barnett government have been aided and abetted by the Turnbull government. The Barnett government should have been prepared for change. They should have ensured there was greater emphasis on local content participation when the resources economy was running strongly. As the economy cooled there should have been a focus on productive infrastructure investment. There has been complete inadequacy when it comes to that investment. WA has been badly let down by the Abbott-Turnbull government in all of those departments. During the last election there were 78 road and rail projects announced or promised by the coalition. How many in WA? Three—three out of 78. Of $860 million worth of road and rail projects, barely $40 million, or 4.6 per cent, was delivered in Western Australia. That was in July last year. Last week the federal government announced projects being funded under the Regional Jobs and Investment Package—$220 million for 10 projects. The goal of the program is 'to help regions in Australia diversify their economies, stimulate long-term economic growth and deliver sustainable employment'. How many of the 10 projects are in Western Australia? None, zero, even though some of the relevant Western Australian regions have unemployment rates three times higher than those selected for funding. It is a bitter irony, as my colleagues have pointed out, that the only sniff of infrastructure funding we have is in relation to the Perth Freight Link— Mr Fletcher L6B That's simply not true. There's $490 million for Forrestfield rail. It's absolutely wrong. What about NorthLink? It's simply untrue. There's millions—hundreds of millions. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 a road without a plan, a road that does not reach the port, the most expensive road in WA's history, the first toll road in WA that will be commercially operated, a road that will not create jobs in the medium to long term, a road that locks us into ever-increasing truck freight and congestion, a road that cuts communities in half and a project that begins by doing unacceptable harm to the Beeliar Wetlands. The fact that 100 hectares of fragile bushland is being smashed down in the shadow of an election that could make the entire project redundant is a scandal. The federal coalition has led the Barnett government by the nose on this project. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure, who has been interrupting me all the way, and the finance minister have taken now to threatening to withhold infrastructure funds from a future Western Australian Labor government, if elected. They are essentially saying that Western Australia will receive less than nothing. That is what you are saying, Minister Fletcher. Western Australia will receive less than nothing. So I hope, Minister, that you and your Western Australian colleagues campaign on that. I hope you campaign on that three-word slogan—for Western Australia, from you and your government: less than nothing. Come to Western Australia and campaign on that. But the people of Western Australia are waking up to Mr Barnett. They know what he has delivered—$40 billion in debt, the highest per capita state debt, the second highest unemployment, the highest inequality and the largest gender pay gap. That is what Mr Barnett has delivered. That is some achievement! It is complacency and mismanagement on a grand scale, aided and abetted by the Abbott-Turnbull government. Well, the people of Western Australia are waking up to Mr Barnett. They are going to get the opportunity shortly to hold the government to account. You have to take responsibility for your actions, and Mr Barnett will get his chance to take responsibility very shortly. The people of Western Australia are going to have the opportunity to choose a premier with a plan for jobs, a plan for productive infrastructure and transport, and a commitment to energetic and long-term leadership—a McGowan WA Labor government. 16:30 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright How the mighty have fallen! Once we used to see a proud Labor Party stand on the other side of this chamber and debate the issues that affected the nation. What we have seen the Labor Party revert to is a small band of merry men and women who are now focused on Western Australia and Western Australia only. On this MPI, 'the government's failure to protect the interests of local workers and consumers', I inform the House that I have local consumers and local workers in Queensland. I have local workers in New South Wales. We heard nothing of that from those on the other side. What we did hear from the other side was some quite eloquent political commentary from the first speaker, the member for Perth, about the Western Australian government and debt and deficit. The member for Cowan spoke about how she wanted to talk about trust, and I am looking forward to having a chat about Labor's track record on trust, given the Medicare scare campaign. The member for Burt kindly informed the House about the MYEFO 12 per cent infrastructure funding, yet Western Australia is 11 per cent of the population. The member for Brand gave us a very comprehensive resume on some state members. The member for Fremantle probably made the most sense out of all of you—so congratulations to the member for Fremantle. I tell you what we did not hear during this debate. We did not hear members from the other side of the House talk about the real effects of Labor on small business. We did not hear them talk about the effect of Labor Party policy on the free-trade agreements when they opposed them. We did not hear those on the other side of this place talk about the effects of Labor Party policy on small businesses in and around the ban on live cattle exports. Northern Western Australia was drastically affected by that. The Northern Territory was affected by that. Northern Queensland was affected by that, and my local operators through those areas. We did not hear them speak about the effect of Labor Party policy on those local communities, those businesses and those farms who may in some circumstances only get one cheque per year. We did not hear about the transport operators that were adversely affected and we did not hear about the maritime operators that were affected. We did not hear those on the other side talk about their leader and how he represented the removal of shift penalties for cleaning staff. We did not hear any of that, yet they want to prosecute a debate about how they supposedly support local workers. We saw more recidivist behaviour by the Leader of the Opposition when we saw him in action in the Chiquita situation. We did not see those on the other side of the House come in and talk about the 35,000 owner-operators that would be forced off the road as a result of Labor's road remuneration tribunal. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 I will stand here and defend those operators in my electorate every day of the week. I am a small business operator. I have trucks on the road. What you guys on the other side of this House did was nothing short of shameful, and you should be condemned for it. It was appalling the way that you handled that piece of policy. Mr Keogh 249147 Saving lives? Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 I want to take that interjection. The member for Burt claimed that the remuneration tribunal was about saving lives. I assure you that it was from a union perspective. It was nothing more than getting owner-operators off the road so that they could have union drivers in company trucks, pushing small businesses out. And then Labor have the audacity to come in here and debate 'the government's failure to protect the interests of local workers and consumers'. It is a joke, an absolute joke, in and around that policy section. We did not see them come in here and talk about the environment and how Labor policies of the future want to shut down the coalmines because they no longer have an appetite for it, and they scoff at us as a government when we say that coal-fired power stations will be part of the energy mix into the future. That is our policy position. We will make sure that our coal-fired power stations are clean into the future. Those opposite did not come in here and talk about Labor's track record on 457 visas. It is appalling. Under the coalition, since we came to office, we have created over half a million jobs, with employment standing at a record high of nearly 12 million since December 2006. We are the only government, a government that is a broad church primarily made up of small business, that can represent small business, consumers and growth in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The discussion has concluded. MOTIONS 49 MOTIONS Centrelink 49 ( The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier by the honourable member for Denison, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by the member for Denison be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 71 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP 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 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, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE (proxy) O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 73 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J 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 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 Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 51 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities 51 Report 51 16:48 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I present the committee's report entitled Harnessing value, delivering infrastructure: inquiry into the role of transport connectivity on stimulating development and economic activity, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ALEXANDER M3M by leave—Improving transport connectivity and finding innovative ways to pay for transport infrastructure is essential to the future development of Australia's cities and regions. The issues of concern that led to this inquiry were the imbalance of settlement and its consequences; the deficit of infrastructure in our major cities and the resulting congestion; the constriction on growth that these cities produce through the lack of long-term planning and timely construction of infrastructure; and the decline of the regions and lack of economic opportunity. These four core challenges defined our problem, and this committee has searched for a suite of recommendations that will commence the process of how to address them. The inquiry heard from those with direct hands-on experience on how other countries have dealt with similar challenges and their outcomes. Australia's settlement and the development of our cities has unfortunately been characterised by an absence of planning for both housing and essential infrastructure. The ad hoc nature, to this point, of planning infrastructure and the lack of process for the determination of land use has produced poor outcomes in terms of cost and current needs. As we continue to grow, this will have drastic consequences. One of our first conclusions is to address the need with a plan for our settlement and our cities with long-term vision. Furthermore, it is essential that this planning take place through engagement across the three levels of government. The extremely high cost of land in our cities has made the cost of resuming land prohibitive, making the retrofitting of infrastructure difficult at best and impossible at worst. It has regularly led to the decision to tunnel, but when tunnelling is too expensive nothing happens. This challenge is exacerbated by the pressure of growth that our cities shoulder. From this evidence, we have come to some inevitable conclusions as to what must occur to remedy this set of challenges. There must be put in place a plan of decentralisation to relieve our cities of the full burden of growth by providing regions with economic opportunity and prospects for settlement. This can be achieved through high-speed connectivity to major urban areas. This respite will allow long-term plans for the retrofitting of infrastructure attached to land use. This will allow us to rebuild our cities to world's best practice models. In both scenarios of decentralisation or urban renewal, the combination of infrastructure and land use optimises land values—this is the essential ingredient to maximise funding through value capture. Value capture represents the most equitable method to fund infrastructure, with the added benefit of relieving demands on consolidated revenues. Long-term master planning and sustainable funding through value capture can only be achieved through the alignment of the three tiers of government, landowners and developers. It is imperative that the three levels of government recognise that the opportunity to sustainably fund infrastructure depends on their ability to cooperate. They must be willing to forgo individual revenues to ultimately maximise total revenues. Vision and innovation needs to replace debilitating political argument to look at these challenges that can be converted to opportunities to rebalance our settlement, rebuild our cities and undertake the facilitating of infrastructure funded by the wealth it creates. The wealth that can be liberated by growth in our regions will come through ready access to the economic powerhouses of our major cities. This is the central purpose of high-speed rail. Contrary to popular belief, high-speed rail's prime purpose is not an alternative mode of transport between capitals. Rather it is a tool to effect dynamic regional growth as land near regional stations will then compete with the most expensive land in the world, namely that of Sydney and Melbourne. Housing affordability is a problem that needs a nuanced solution, but undoubtedly the need for housing supply is an essential component in this discussion. High speed rail has the capability to provide an abundant supply of affordable housing for many generations to come. It will open up our regions and provide the space for this housing stock, with the interconnections with other towns and economic hubs that is currently lacking in our suburbs Further evidence claimed that the corridor between Melbourne and Sydney represents the greatest potential for uplift of land values anywhere in the world when connected with high-speed rail; this can therefore provide the precondition for value capture to completely fund this major infrastructure. It is essential that the government establishes an Australian model of value capture that addresses our unique opportunities. The development of our value capture model should consider the private consortia that are committed to the development of high-speed rail funded by profits of their privately held lands. A comprehensive federal value capture model, when partnered with private consortia highly motivated to play a critical role, should be facilitated by an appropriate government body that will determine when this national transformation should proceed. This plan of urban renewal and decentralisation, facilitated by strategic planning of infrastructure, will deliver an abundant affordable housing supply for generations to come. I would like to thank those who have contributed to this inquiry. The committee received a great deal of high-quality evidence from people committed to the development of Australia. This report will hopefully see that commitment turned to action. I also thank my committee colleagues and the secretariat for their hard work and enthusiasm during the inquiry and their contribution to the report. This inquiry has been run in an exemplary manner, developing policy with a consultative and open approach. Through this inquiry we have confirmed the facts and recommended a course of action. It is now time for policies to be presented to deliver jobs, growth and affordable housing for all Australians. This report prescribes the solution to many of Australia's current planning, financing and housing challenges. I look forward to its recommendations being accepted, and Australia returning to the fast track. I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 53 16:56 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Electoral Matters Committee 53 Report 53 16:57 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report entitled The 2016federal election: interim report on the authorisation of voter communication, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr GILES 243609 This will be a very brief series of remarks in connection with the first of several reports from this important committee. I am very pleased that the six recommendations contained in this report proceed in a bipartisan—or I should probably say consensus—manner. They deal with a small but significant aspect of the committee's work in respect of looking back at the 2016 federal election and its conduct but, much more importantly, in particular in the context of an environment where trust in politics needs to be reaffirmed by the actions of all of us in this place, individually but also through our collective actions to advance the standard of political debate and political engagement. This report deals with the authorisation of voting material, and I am pleased that we have moved beyond what has been a piecemeal approach to various forms of authorisation to an approach which is anchored in principles—three core principles supported by a wider purpose recognising the interests of all Australians in a free and frank exchange of ideas about politics—a free and frank political exchange in election periods in particular. This principles based approach is absolutely critical to ensuring that we can proceed with confidence in respect of these critical questions around campaigning, recognising that, as we stand here today, we do not have a crystal ball which enables us to consider how technological changes will impact on the conduct of future elections. I look forward to the consideration of these recommendations and to participating in the further important work of this committee in improving the democratic standards, accountability and opportunities for all Australians to effectively participate in the political process. I also acknowledge the work of the chair of this committee, Senator Reynolds, her staff, the committee secretariat and the AEC technical adviser for their important, professional and effective work going to the preparation of this interim report but also in the conduct of complex and comprehensive hearings around Australia. Economics Committee 54 Report 54 17:00 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On behalf on the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the inquiry into home ownership, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr COLEMAN 241067 by leave—This inquiry was established to assess issues related to home ownership in Australia, and potential policy responses by government. The committee's report was published in December last year. There is no escaping the fact that prices in all markets are driven by supply and demand. If supply is insufficient to keep up with demand, prices will rise. The committee heard evidence regarding the large increase in property prices, particularly in the Sydney and Melbourne markets, in recent years. The committee also heard evidence that the supply of housing is failing to keep pace with demand. Treasury noted in its appearance before the committee that land release had not been keeping up with population growth. It also noted that New South Wales, where house price increases have been the largest, has had a particularly low level of new housing development in the period since 2004. There was a widespread agreement, across most of those who gave evidence at the inquiry, that more needs to be done to address housing supply issues. As the Urban Development Institute of Australia noted 'planning, zoning and approvals processes in many cities can be extremely slow, adding considerably to the cost of new housing'. Over the past decade, there have been 164,000 more households formed in Australia than new dwellings created. And 56,000 of that undersupply has been in one state—New South Wales. The committee is strongly of the view that more needs to be done to address supply issues in the housing market. This will lead to a better balance between supply and demand, and reduce the upward pressure on prices. As noted in the report, overly bureaucratic approval processes are holding back supply. The committee welcomes the recent statements of the New South Wales government, in particular, that increasing the supply of housing is a high priority. The federal government also has a role to play in initiatives to boost supply, as noted in the report. The committee welcomes the government's Smart Cities initiative, which will partner with state and local governments to help to deliver housing where it is needed most. One of the first City Deals is focused on Western Sydney—an area where housing supply has continually failed to keep up with demand. The committee would also welcome further initiatives to boost housing supply in underserved markets. On the demand side, the key issue discussed in the inquiry was the impact of investors on the housing market. Several witnesses before the inquiry noted that there had been an increased level of investor activity in recent years, particularly in the Sydney and Melbourne markets. In December 2014, APRA acted to address the growth in investor lending, requiring authorised deposit-taking institutions to introduce a 10 per cent growth benchmark for investor loans. While APRA stated in November 2016 that this action has been successful in slowing investor borrowing, the committee notes that it may be appropriate for APRA to use this tool again in the future. The committee will raise this issue with APRA in future hearings. During the inquiry, some witnesses called for increases in taxes on investors, as a means of reducing demand for housing. Those who supported such a change generally called for increased income tax through the whole or partial abolition of negative gearing, and an increase in capital gains tax rates. The committee rejects this approach and strongly opposes any increase to capital gains tax, or increase to income tax through the abolition of negative gearing. There are a number of facts on this issue that need to be pointed out clearly: Those who call for an increase in income tax and capital gains tax on investors say they do so because it will lead to more affordable housing. But they also argue that it will have only a very modest impact on house prices—often saying about one per cent or two per cent. But if the focus of the policy is on affordable housing, why impose a tax increase of more than $32 billion on Australians if you believe that it will make virtually no difference to house prices? Those who also advocate for capital gains tax and income tax increases focus not only on property but on all forms of investment. This is a very important point. If your goal was to address housing affordability issues, why would you increase taxes on things that have absolutely nothing to do with housing? Sixty-one per cent of the value of assets on which capital gains tax is levied—held by individuals—are completely unrelated to property. And within the 39 per cent that is related to real estate, some of that is commercial and industrial real estate, which of course also is completely unrelated to residential real estate. But those who advocate a capital gains tax increase do not advocate it only on residential housing but on all forms of investment, and that is a significant issue. It would also require an increase in capital gains tax on someone who invested in a factory or a farm or a small business like a suburban cafe. If you increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent for everybody, you increase it not only for the housing market but for all forms of investors, including areas that have absolutely nothing to do with housing affordability. The committee strongly rejects those proposed increases to income tax and capital gains tax. The proposed 50 per cent reduction in the capital gains concession would leave Australia with the second-highest rate of capital gains tax in the world and would lead to reductions in house prices and increases in rent as investors exit the market. It is an approach the committee wholly rejects. In summary, the report finds supply issues need to be addressed by all levels of government. More needs to be done to address undersupply. The committee is strongly opposed to increases in income tax and capital gains tax, which would cost Australians tens of billions of dollars. It is a wrongheaded approach which the committee rejects. I commend the report to the House. 17:06 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—The Turnbull government has reached a new low when it comes to doing nothing to help our nation's first home buyers, after releasing this economics committee report on housing affordability, which, unsurprisingly, contains zero recommendations. The government members on this committee have made no recommendations whatsoever. We could perhaps check back through the history books of the parliament because, as far as I am aware, in my time in this place there has never, ever been a committee of the parliament that has made no recommendations as the result of an inquiry. The Australian people are rightly justified in asking, 'What was the point of the inquiry?' What a waste of taxpayers' dollars the government has just put the Australian people through on this very important issue of housing affordability to make zero recommendations—absolutely no recommendations whatsoever. It would be funny—it would be quite hilarious and comical—if the issue was not so serious, because housing affordability is a massive problem. It is a massive issue for many people, particularly those living in our major capital cities, and it is a huge issue in the electorate that I represent, Kingsford Smith. Not a week goes by when someone in my community does not comment to me about skyrocketing house prices and the fact that a No. 1 concern is that their kids or grandkids will never be able to afford to live in the community that they grew up in, where all their family, their support networks and their social services are. The House Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into home ownership and the 55-page report released today represent a new low for the Turnbull government in ignoring the wishes of the Australian people to ease the crisis in housing affordability throughout the country. The Labor members in our dissenting report called this a 'Claytons report'—the report you have when you're not having a report. We have 55 pages here of, basically, bluster and, at the end of the day, it makes no recommendations whatsoever. It is a pathetic effort from the Turnbull government representatives and a complete waste of taxpayers' money and demonstrates the intention of this government to continue to ignore domestic housing affordability issues. In October 2013, the Grattan Institute issued a policy paper that highlighted the impact of capital gains tax and negative gearing on potential homebuyers, with ownership rates falling from 60 per cent to 48 per cent for young people aged 25 to 34. The damning findings were backed in this inquiry by one of the country's most respected and renowned economists, Saul Eslake, who gave evidence to both this inquiry and a similar Senate inquiry, stating that negative gearing had increased the number of investors and the level of investment in housing, making it more expensive than it otherwise would be. Mr Eslake slammed negative gearing for exacerbating the mismatch between the demand for and the supply of housing, distorting the allocation of capital and undermining the equity integrity of the income taxation system. This leading economist was similarly damning with regard to capital gains tax. More than just impacting middle- and low-income Australians and their prospects of ever owning their own home, the government's lack of sound policies around home ownership is failing a large number of Australians and continuing to increase homelessness throughout the country. According to the 2011 census, 105,000 people, or one in 200 Australians, are experiencing homelessness on any given night. Australian Bureau of Statistics data also reports that there were 657,000 low-income households across Australia living in rental stress and 318,000 low-income households in mortgage stress in 2013-14. After being confronted with the reality of the housing affordability crisis, the former chair of this committee, who actually instigated this inquiry—I am speaking, of course, of the member for Bennelong, John Alexander—summed up the problem when he said: Too often we see the young couple getting beaten out at the auction, and then renting out the very place that they were trying to buy. That is the view of the member for Bennelong. More recently, the member for Bennelong and others in the government have been critical of negative gearing and, we understand through leaks to the media, have in the background been pressing the Treasurer and the government to take action on negative gearing because of the detrimental effect that it is having on the housing market. Mr Alexander's empathy and honesty were repaid by the Turnbull government through his removal from the committee. Because he made these comments, what do you know? When the parliament resumed and we came back for the 45th Parliament, have a guess who was no longer the chair of the House economics committee continuing this inquiry into home ownership. That was, of course, the member for Bennelong. He was replaced, magically, by government members who were happy to toe the coalition line when it comes to feigning ignorance and making absolutely no attempts to solve a problem that has reached crisis levels, particularly for our nation's young people in capital cities. In contrast, Labor has been consulting with the community and has listened to the Australian public. We announced a positive set of plans to improve housing affordability in the lead-up to the last election. Our plans ensure that first home buyers are not forced to compete with property speculators who may be seeking to negatively gear their seventh or eighth investment property. It is absolutely ridiculous that in Australia at the moment a couple can go to their first auction to try and buy their first home and be competing against people who may be seeking to negatively gear their seventh or eighth investment property. Those people who are negatively gearing get more support from the government than that young couple seeking to buy their first home. In this inquiry, Labor members recommended negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms that ensure that our tax system is fair and sustainable and targets jobs and growth. The government should limit negative gearing to new housing from 1 July 2017. All investments made before this date will not be affected by our proposed change and will be fully grandfathered. The government should also halve the capital gains tax discount for all assets purchased after 1 July 2017. This will reduce the capital gains discount for assets that are held longer than 12 months from the current 50 per cent to 25 per cent. All investments made before this date, again, will not be affected because they will be grandfathered. In this report, the government members even reach some conclusions, at paragraph 2.124: The committee notes the strong majority view amongst the contributors to this inquiry that stamp duties are inefficient and out-dated. That is the view of the government members, and I said to them in deliberations about this report: 'If that's your view, why not make a recommendation about it? Why not make a recommendation even to get COAG together and have a look at this issue of stamp duty?' But no, they would not even make a recommendation about an issue where they say, 'Stamp duties are inefficient and outdated.' It just shows you how tepid the government members on this committee have been. In conclusion, rather than waste taxpayers dollars by sitting through inquiries that make no recommendations, the Turnbull government needs to contribute to fixing housing affordability in Australia and it should do that by adopting Labor's sensible policies on negative gearing and reform of capital gains tax. 17:15 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 56 17: Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 57 BILLS Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016 57

Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016

Second Reading 57 17:16 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Statute Update (ACT Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016, which will ensure that Commonwealth laws apply more clearly in respect of the ACT and, in the spirit of reducing red tape, simplify and reduce the amount of legislation users need to consult when doing business in the ACT. As it currently stands, some Commonwealth laws apply on the ACT Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations to apply to the ACT. The text of these laws does not explicitly refer to the ACT. Instead, the regulations modify these laws to apply them to the ACT. The bill will amend these Commonwealth laws to directly refer to the ACT and remove the need to consult the regulations. This reform will reduce the complexity associated with the regulations, simplify the application of Commonwealth laws in respect of the ACT and make it easier for users to interpret the law. Without this reform, users may not consider the effect of the regulations and may make errors in interpreting the law. The bill will also address the impending sunsetting of the regulations in 2018. If the regulations sunset and this bill is not passed, the affected Commonwealth laws will no longer apply to the ACT. This bill will ensure the affected Commonwealth laws continue to apply to the ACT. The operation of the law itself will not change. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 57 17:18 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 2) Bill 2016 57

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 2) Bill 2016

Second Reading 57 17:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Shortly after the election, I wrote to the Treasurer affirming Labor's support for the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 2) Bill 2016 and, indeed, calling for its reintroduction. In my letter to the Treasurer, I wrote that this bill is an inherently sensible measure and one that will help streamline the work of our busy parliament. It would assist parliament in not getting bogged down with tweaks to existing legislation and allowing it to instead focus on the challenging tasks at hand. The principal provision of this bill is allowing a remedial power to sit with the tax commissioner that gives employees and businesses a clearer and more certain path to follow when tax and superannuation laws do not operate as intended. My action on behalf of Labor in writing to the Treasurer to encourage the government to bring forward this bill, demonstrates Labor's ongoing, constructive role in this parliament in strengthening the integrity of our tax system, the efficacy of its operation and its enforcements. Our tax system is an integral part of the Australian social fabric. It ensures that the Australian government has the resources it needs to fund our schools, our hospitals, our teachers, our nurses and our police. It ensures, through having a remedial power, that the tax office is able to get appropriate revenue while minimising the cost to taxpayers through compliance. As the old line about taxation goes, 'It's the art of garnering the maximum number of feathers from the goose with the minimum amount of hissing.' And this does, indeed, achieve that goal. But it must be acknowledged that this bill comes before the House at a time when the Abbott-Turnbull government has slashed over 3,000 tax office jobs. Indeed, the effect of cutbacks of so many jobs is to imperil the integrity of our tax system. We have a tax system today being enforced by a tax office that is badly under-resourced. We have recently seen another outage of the tax office website, further evidence that this government cannot keep the digital lights on. We have a Prime Minister who was much touted as a 'techxpert', in contradiction to his predecessor, the member for Warringah, who once said, 'I'm no tech head.' I am carrying no can for the member of Warringah, but I would point out that the ATO website never went down when he was Prime Minister. And yet, we have the ATO website going down and now accountants are bringing claims for damages against the government. The tax office has been under-resourced under this government, and taxpayers are suffering as a result. Labor has been committed to being an important part of the debate over tax integrity in Australia. We brought forward a comprehensive multinational tax avoidance package, part of which was the appropriate resourcing of the tax office. We are hopeful that at some stage the government will fall into the slipstream that Labor has created and push towards a fair and functional tax system. They have occasionally done that. After attacking Labor for our moves on cigarette excise, the government belatedly fell into line. After attacking Labor on our attempts to ensure integrity in superannuation tax concessions, the government eventually fell in line with their own belated measures to close Australia's excessive superannuation tax loopholes. And we have seen some very timid measures towards making multinationals pay their fair share of tax. When we on this side of the House see a measure that arises from those opposite that strikes us as reasonable we stand here ready to support it, as we are doing with the bill before the House today. This bill will facilitate a more timely resolution of unforeseen or unintended outcomes of tax laws, ensuring that they do not lead to lengthy delays and ensuring that we do not have uncertainty for stakeholders. There is broad community support for this measure and for its safeguards. The remaining schedules to the bill are similarly uncontroversial. Schedule 2 amends the act to allow primary producers to access income tax averaging 10 income years after choosing to opt out, instead of that choice being permanent. This was a recommendation of the very late agricultural competitiveness white paper and it was well received by stakeholders. I commend the member for Hunter for his work in finally getting the agricultural competitiveness white paper out of the government. Week after week he called for the white paper to finally be released and eventually, well beyond their schedule, the government did release the white paper. It contains this sensible recommendation and Labor is happy to support it. Schedule 3 exempts public museums, libraries and galleries from the luxury car tax, providing these institutions purchase applicable vehicles solely for the purpose of public display, have been endorsed as deductible gift recipients and are registered for the GST. It is a measure that was announced in the 2015-16 budget and, indeed, has its origins in a virtually identical but ultimately unlegislated measure from the 2011-12 budget. Its revenue impact is small, and it enjoys bipartisan support. Schedule 4 to the bill makes a number of miscellaneous and uncontroversial amendments to taxation, superannuation and other laws, including formatting changes, the repeal of redundant provisions, the correction of anomalous outcomes and corrections to previous acts—straightforward typographical errors, which are the business of government to fix up. The parliament should thank its lucky stars that the government is not deciding to have a typo-fixing day to pat itself on the back for schedule 4. This is just the regular work of government. The red tape repeal days, which themselves appear to have now been repealed, are completely unnecessary. Parliament should, as a regular matter, clean up these formatting errors, and this bill indeed does so. It is a result of a periodic review of tax laws. The periodic review and maintenance of tax laws was a recommendation of the Labor-commissioned Tax Design Review Panel in 2008. Labor, too, supports these measures. When we speak about the closing of tax loopholes, it is critical that we acknowledge—as the member for Kingsford Smith did in a committee debate immediately preceding this legislative conversation—that we need to close down the excesses of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. These two tax rules have had the effect of blowing up the Australian housing market, making housing increasingly unaffordable for low- and middle-income Australian families. The home ownership rate in Australia today is at a 60-year low. Once the party of Menzies used to care about home ownership. They used to be a party that stood for the home owner, not for the investor. But, now, the Liberal and National parties have become the parties of property investors. They care not for the fact that the share of Australians who own their home is as low as it has been in 60 years and that the share of young families who own their own home has plummeted in recent decades. Instead, they trot out furphies, such as suggesting that the benefits of negative gearing go overwhelmingly to those at the bottom. But put together these two benefits and you see how laughable that claim is. More than half the benefits go to the top 10th of the population. Surgeons are 16 times more likely to be negatively geared than nurses. Surgeons are 100 times more likely to be negatively geared than cleaners. This is not a policy that is expanding the supply of the housing stock—a topic about which the Treasurer has had much to say. No, it is a policy that is largely encouraging the bidding up of asset prices in the existing housing stock. Only seven per cent of negative gearing goes to new homes. So, if the aim of the policy is to increase housing supply, it is a policy with a 93 per cent failure rate. Changes to negative gearing have been backed by those across the political spectrum—as the member for Kingsford Smith noted, Saul Eslake, among them, but also Cassandra Goldie, Chris Richardson, the Murray review, the Henry review, the Reserve Bank of Australia, Jeff Kennett, Joe Hockey, in his farewell speech in this place, and Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, in 2005. Many people across the political spectrum have acknowledged that this is a tax loophole that needs to be closed. Labor's policy grandfathers existing assets. So it does not affect those existing investors but only new investors. It continues negative gearing for new-built homes, encouraging investors to put their money into new-built homes. Now, that is a principle the coalition supports when it comes to first homeowner grants. Over the last decade, every state and territory has changed their rules, and so first homeowner grants are either only available for new-built homes or are much more generous for new-built homes. At a state and territory level, the coalition believes that we ought to have a different policy for new-built homes as for the existing stock, but they do not take that approach with negative gearing. When it comes to foreign investors we have a different set of rules for new-built homes as for existing homes. We say to foreign investors, 'You can buy Australian real estate, but only if you are going to add to the total stock.' Again, the coalition supports this principle that we should be encouraging an addition to housing supply. They support that when it comes to foreign investment, but they do not support it when it comes to negative gearing. This hypocritical approach to policy has led the coalition down to the dead end of opposing any changes to negative gearing, despite the fact that this is a policy change which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer themselves took to the cabinet last year. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were rolled in their attempts to phase out the excesses of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Labor continues to lead this policy debate and others. We propose that multinationals not be allowed to use debt shifting to excess and that we use a worldwide gearing ratio rule rather than allowing multinationals to choose their favourite of three debt deduction rules. It has more economic sense behind it and it adds to the budget bottom line. Labor will be supporting this bill, but we do so with a great wish that the government would do more to close tax loopholes in Australia and provide greater integrity to our tax system. 17:31 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to speak on this bill to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and Taxation Administration Act 1953. Largely, these changes to these acts are noncontentious. I thank the previous speaker for his support even though I must admit I was a little bemused when he congratulated the member for Hunter for extracting the agriculture white paper out of the government—something that he was unable to do for the six years that they were in government. There were no agriculture white papers at that stage. It gives some idea of just how much attention the Labor Party applies to agricultural issues in the general matter. This is a fairly small adjustment to law which allows a primary producer to re-access taxation averaging arrangements after a period of 10 years. It might be worthwhile, considering that not everybody in Australia is a farmer, to try and just briefly explain what averaging is about. Farming is an industry of highly fluctuating income lines. It is mostly driven by season, but international prices can be a pretty precarious beast as well. It enables farmers to not average their income but to actually generate a percentage of taxation that should be levied from their income so that it is on a more steady and regular basis. This means that if they have had a couple of particularly high income years which have come after a period of drought they will not be taxed at the extraordinarily high levels that marginal tax would normally generate in that case. What has happened in the past is that it has been a one-way street. If a farmer opts out of this scheme they cannot come back, which of course makes people pretty reluctant to step away from it in the first place. I have had a number of constituents over the years come to me and say: 'Our circumstances have changed greatly since the day we stepped out of the averaging system. We've accumulated more land, we've changed the production platforms and we've changed the mix of the farming enterprise. So why can't we get back onto the averaging system?' I think this is an overdue reform. It is not huge and it will not affect thousands of people, but it is a good reform. It goes along with the government's excellent efforts in other areas to assist farmers—in particular, the reforms to the farm management deposits, which operate on personal taxation schedules on income generated from primary production. It actually provides a financial haystack, if you like, for farmers. I was a farmer when these farm management deposits were first introduced, and I can say it was one of the greatest assistants to good management in farming that I have seen. Previously, farmers would near the end of a financial year and then go rushing into town to buy some merchandise that might help reduce their taxation. Now they can plan for those arrangements and push the money to one side as a full tax deduction in the year in which it is generated, and then bring it back in the years in which their farm income is not so high. But because of a rise in costs of farming, the limits that existed on the farm management deposits were starting to really impact on some of the bigger farming operations. That was a great reform for the farmers in my electorate of Grey. We have some very large farmers, as indeed we do in a lot of the more marginal areas in Australia, in particular where their incomes fluctuate so much and can be of a very high nature or of a great loss in any particular year. It is not the only thing this government has been doing for farmers. We have made some great changes to tax write-offs for things like water storage, fodder storage and fencing, which are all aimed at making farmers more efficient and able to deal with the vagaries of the weather. These policies go hand-in-hand with recognising Australia's agricultural pressure and its special relationship with our economy—the accelerated tax write-offs; the $100 million we put into agricultural research; reform laws surrounding foreign acquisition of agricultural land and business; extra support for biosecurity; and of course, as has been talked about at length in this place, the free trade agreements with China, South Korea and Japan. It is worth pointing out in these free trade agreements—particularly the one with Japan—we are also granted most favoured trading nation status, which means that if they should strike a better deal with another nation Australia will get the same, thank you very much. These bills, outside the issues of agriculture, also deal with the luxury car tax to provide an exemption from the luxury car tax to certain public institutions that import or acquire luxury cars for the sole purpose of public display. This is a very small condition but is plainly common sense. It does raise the issue of the luxury car tax generally and the appropriateness for us to have a luxury car tax at all now that we are on the verge of not having an Australian car manufacturing industry. If the purpose of tax is to provide some kind of protection to our local car builders, then surely it is time for it to go. If it is purely a means of raising tax dollars from those in our community who are better off, well, yes, it works, but one would have to question its efficiency. If someone who has dollars has a penchant for purchasing cars and likes to own motorcars, it seems to me that they should not be any more highly penalised than someone who likes boats or, indeed, likes taking expensive and extensive holidays. That is not on the table at the moment, but, as this government works to bring our budget back into order, it is something that we should give attention to. It seems hardly justifiable to me. Other bills in the omnibus bill refer to giving the power to the taxation commissioner to amend rulings within the spirit of the original legislation by means of a disallowable instrument, basically to give them remedial powers. It is an obvious amendment allowing the commissioner to manage the dynamics of tax payments and avoidance. The bills also make some technical amendments to 10 acts and repeal 45 excise acts, including the Income Tax (War-time Arrangements) Act 1942 on its 75th anniversary, so it is probably high time that one at least was pensioned off. By and large, it is good work of government. These are common-sense things to do. I appreciate the fact that we have the support of the other side of the House. From the government's point of view, we continue, particularly from my interest, to support Australian agriculture. 17:39 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor It is a real privilege to follow my colleague, the member for Grey, today to speak on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 2) Bill 2016. As the member for Grey outlined, as a farmer himself he very much appreciates some of the measures contained in this bill. I will speak specifically about schedule 2, which increases the flexibility around income tax averaging. I want to start by reiterating the strong support for agriculture that this government has shown. One of the key planks of that support has been encouraging farmers to be self-reliant. As the member for Grey mentioned, farming is a very variable game when it comes to income. We are at the vagaries of the season and we also suffer from the vagaries of world commodity prices. Sometimes they can both go against you and you can have very poor returns and it can turn around very quickly when you have a good season and good prices. Then, all of a sudden, you are faced with not only this year's tax liability but also provisional tax, and that creates a big burden for farmers, particularly when they are trying to get some fat into the system and provide for the lean years that are coming up. This measure came out of the ag white paper. In a moment, I will touch on some of the other measures that the ag white paper has delivered. Dealing with the specifics of schedule 2, it increases the flexibility and fairness of income tax averaging for individual primary producers by allowing them to re-access income averaging 10 years after they have chosen to opt out. Currently, if a primary producer elects to opt out of income averaging in circumstances other than where their income is permanently reduced, they can never re-access these benefits. An estimated 12,000 primary producers opt out of income averaging every year, the vast majority because they are going into retirement. This change will benefit those who opt out for other reasons and are currently permanently excluded from re-accessing tax averaging. As I said previously, the government announced this change in the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper released in July 2015. The inflexibility of averaging rules was raised by many stakeholders throughout that process. Income averaging smooths out the tax liability of primary producers over a maximum of five years by creating a rolling average which takes into account good and bad years. Its objective is to ensure that primary producers are not penalised for their fluctuating incomes by paying more tax than those on a comparable steady income. Generally, primary producers will receive a tax offset in years when their income is above average and they pay extra tax in years when their income is below the average. Income averaging will apply automatically 10 years after a farmer has opted out so that farmers do not have to fill out any forms or reapply. It will only apply when it is to the farmer's benefit and they are eligible for a tax offset. They will be alerted through their notice of assessment and can always make the choice to opt out again. If a farmer chooses to opt out again, they will be unable to access income averaging for another 10 years, which makes sense. As I said earlier, the Agriculture Competitiveness White Paper produced many good policies and benefits for farmers across my electorate of O'Connor and, indeed, across the electorate of Grey and all around Australia. One of the key issues that are part of those improvements was the Farm Management Deposits scheme, where we doubled the limit per partner in a business from $400,000 to $800,000. That was a very important change because many farm businesses nowadays, where there might be only two partners, can turn over several million dollars a year, so the $800,000 limit allows a reasonable amount of money to be set aside. We also changed the rules around farm management deposits to allow offset accounts. If money is held in a farm management deposit, it could be offset against the loan account. I notice that in my area the commercial banks have started to roll out a product where, if you have money in farm management deposits, you can offset that. That is a commercial matter for the banks, as it should be, and it is great to see them starting to roll that product out. We also introduced the accelerated depreciation on new water infrastructure, fodder storage and fencing. That is very important for farmers when they do enjoy good seasons and when they do have some surplus cash they can reinvest in their business and build it up for the better times. In my electorate, and I am sure in the electorate of Grey, we have just finished enjoying a pretty good season—16.6 million tonnes of grain delivered across Western Australia. Prices are not the best but that is a record harvest by about 800,000 tonnes. I think that is a great credit to the innovation of the farmers in my region and across Australia. They certainly are a very innovative group of people. We are also experiencing record prices for red meat across the electorate and across Australia, and that is certainly putting a lot of confidence back into the livestock industry. I think the government can take a great deal of credit for that because of the support for live exports. We are seeing a lot of product going overseas through the live export trade, which is increasing demand here locally. I attended a cattle sale in Mount Barker just the other day, when 10-month-old baby beef were selling for between $1,200 and $1,400, which is a fantastic price and a great reward for those producers. We are also seeing wool values pushing up to levels we have not seen since 1988. It is sad to say that it has taken 29 years for wool prices in my region to get back to over 1,000c greasy. So wool growers in my area are experiencing some good times. We have also seen good demand for our grains through the new free trade agreements we have signed with China, Korea and Japan. These free trade agreements are already having a massive impact and are another initiative of this government that has really benefited agriculture. With the China free trade agreement, we have seen massive increases in the amount of wine exported to China, and that has been of great benefit to the wine industry across the Great Southern, Plantagenet and Porongurup regions in my electorate. We are also seeing seafood exported in record quantities. The Southern Forests food region, around Manjimup, which produces some of the world's best horticulture, is also seeing great benefits from those free trade agreements. Some other important deals we have done include the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and the Australia-Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, and there are many other emerging market opportunities. While we are talking about tax here today, I want to touch on the enterprise tax plan. Many farm businesses turn over less than $10 million, so they are very much looking for that tax relief. I see the Assistant Treasurer here and nodding her head, and I urge her to push hard on that particular policy, because it will be a great benefit not only to the farmers across my electorate but to the small businesses that operate in my electorate—those people who supply the farmers. It is very important that we get those tax changes through the parliament, so that people can reinvest in their businesses and look to generate more profits, because they will keep more of that profit in their pocket. That will create more jobs and more opportunities across my electorate. That is the summary of my thoughts on this particular piece of legislation. It is very important for farmers across my electorate and across Australia. I commend the bill to the House. 17:48 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Firstly, I would like to congratulate and thank those members who have contributed to this debate, particularly the member for Grey and also the member for O'Connor. Your contributions have been really superb and have outlined the real impact that this bill will have on farming families and farming businesses, which will enable them to be far more flexible in their approach and ensure that they can be viable and thriving businesses. As the chamber would know, this Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016 amends various taxation laws to improve their flexibility and effectiveness while reducing red tape on individuals, businesses and community organisations. Schedule 1 of this bill will establish a remedial power for the Commissioner of Taxation to allow for a more timely resolution of certain unforeseen or unintended outcomes in the taxation and superannuation laws. The power will help provide greater certainty for taxpayers over their tax affairs while also reducing compliance costs associated with laws that produce anomalous outcomes. The government believes that this bill strikes a good balance between adding a useful degree of flexibility to the administration of our tax and superannuation laws while providing appropriate safeguards for taxpayers against administrative overreach. Taxpayers are protected from adverse outcomes under this power as it will not apply to a taxpayer where it would produce a less favourable result for them. In circumstances where applying the less favourable test would create onerous requirements, use of the remedial power may not be appropriate. This power is expected to create benefits for taxpayers that should outweigh any costs associated with learning about how the power may be used. Certain costs will arise as taxpayers learn and understand the power and how it operates as well as any modifications made as a result of the use of the power. These costs need to be weighed up against the benefits the power will create in terms of resolving unintended and unforeseen outcomes in the tax law and maintaining the tax system. Conferring on the administration an explicit power to remedy defects in legislation requires a compelling justification. The government appreciates that this policy could appear to bestow a lawmaking power on an unelected official. While ensuring the schedule meets the policy objective, it includes strict and precise safeguards to limit the impact of the power and to maintain the respect for the rule of law. The power is to be used as a last resort by the commissioner. Before the commissioner can apply the remedial power, he must have interpreted the law, taking into account its purpose, and sought to use his general powers of administration of tax laws in the first instance. In addition, the commissioner can validly exercise the power only where: the modification is not inconsistent with the intended purpose or object of the provision; the commissioner considers the modification to be reasonable, having regard to both the intended purpose or object of the relevant provision and whether the costs of complying with the provisions are disproportionate to achieving the purpose or object; and any impact on the Commonwealth budget would be negligible. On the last point, the commissioner can create a legislative instrument only where he has been advised by the secretary of the Treasury or the Finance secretary that any budget impact is negligible. If the commissioner acts without this advice, the exercise of the power will be invalid. However, if that advice is for some reason incorrect, the exercise of the power is not invalidated. Importantly, any modification to the operation of the law made by the commissioner using the remedial power cannot have any legal effect until both houses of parliament have had the opportunity to disallow the relevant modification. While the remedial power would usually have prospective application, any retrospective application must not disadvantage the rights of a taxpayer. Prior to exercising the power, it is expected that the commissioner will undertake consultation. The public would be invited to comment and, in addition, the commissioner would consult with the Board of Taxation, relevant agencies and a technical advisory group with private sector representation. Together, these safeguards provide an assurance that the remedial power will not be exercised in a manner that undermines parliamentary sovereignty, the consistent application of our taxation law regime, the separation of powers, parliamentary control over public resources, or the principle against arbitrary use of power. Three years after the remedial power commences, a ministerial review may be undertaken, and the written report of the review would be tabled before each house of parliament. Schedule 2 amends the law so that farmers can re-access the benefits of tax averaging 10 income-years after opting out. Approximately 12,000 farmers opt out of income averaging each year. Currently, a farmer who chooses to opt out of income averaging can never re-access the concession. Income from primary production can be volatile, due to factors outside of a farmer's control, such as drought and fluctuating commodity prices. The averaging rules even out a farmer's income tax liability from year to year so that they pay fairer amounts of tax in relation to taxpayers on comparable but steadier incomes. The government heard from stakeholders in consultation that the current averaging rules are inflexible and do not make sufficient allowance for changing business circumstances. A farmer choosing to opt out of income averaging may later realise that choice was not in their best interest. While the tax law should prevent strategic tax minimisation, it should not be overly harsh. This schedule will ensure farmers eligible for income averaging will be able to regain access after 10 years. This schedule will not disadvantage any farmer, as averaging only recommences when they are eligible for a tax offset. A farmer may always choose to opt out again if it does not suit their circumstances to remain in income averaging. Their choice will be effective for another 10 income years. And this measure forms part of the government's white paper on agricultural competitiveness. Schedule 3 implements the government's 2015-16 budget measure, allowing public museums and art galleries to acquire cars free of luxury car tax where the car is being acquired for the sole purpose of public display. These amendments to the luxury car tax will provide tax relief only to museums and galleries that have been endorsed by the commissioner as deductible gift recipients. Further, to ensure the integrity of these amendments, if the car is no longer used solely for public display, a luxury car tax liability will arise. Relief from luxury car tax when acquiring a car for public display will remove an existing burden faced by public museums and art galleries. Schedule 4 makes a number of amendments across the tax law to provide certainty for taxpayers. These amendments make sure that the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects and removing anomalies and redundant provisions, as well as addressing unintended outcomes. The schedule demonstrates the government's commitment to the care and maintenance of the tax and superannuation laws. Full details of each of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 63 17:57 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016 63

Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016

Second Reading 63 17:57 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016. Since the member for Higgins is in the chamber, it would be remiss of me if I did not move a second reading amendment, so I move the following second reading amendment as circulated in my name: 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: (1) notes that in recent years, numerous cases of inappropriate financial advice have had a negative impact on Australian consumers' confidence in the financial services industry; (2) notes that this lack of trust has become a barrier to consumers seeking financial advice; (3) welcomes this continuation of the Future of Financial Advice reforms which were initiated under the former Labor government; and (4) calls on current Liberal and National Party parliamentarians to apologise for the disregard their colleagues in the 43rd parliament showed for the many victims of bad practice in the financial advice sector when they voted against Labor's Future of Financial Advice measures. Those of us on this side of the House sit in the proud history of reforms to protect consumers. It was a Labor government that introduced the Trade Practices Act in 1974, National Competition Policy in 1995, the Superannuation Guarantee in 1992 and the Future of Financial Advice reforms under the previous Labor government. Labor recognises that regulation has to help the most vulnerable, not simply assist the most powerful. We remember the losses incurred by Australian families. As a result of the Storm Financial collapse, many lost their entire life savings. With Trio, many lost their homes. There have been financial scandals where Australians have not only lost everything but also ended up in debt. In this context, it is critical to remember that there are many good financial planners in Australia who work hard in the best interests of their clients. For those financial planners, it is absolutely critical that the best standards of the industry are upheld. When someone goes to a person who calls themselves a financial adviser or a financial planner, they should be confident that they are going to an expert who can provide them with quality financial advice. This bill will restrict the use of those titles. The Corporations Act imposes a general obligation on licensees to ensure their financial advisers are adequately trained and competent, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has issued guidance on the minimum training standards. But concerns have been raised that the current standards of ASIC's guidance are not commensurate with the level required to ensure appropriate technical and professional competence. As peak consumer group Choice put it, the requirement that financial planners have more qualifications was a 'no-brainer change'. Choice was quoted in the Financial Review last year as saying: It had been apparent from a number of investigations that some advisers had very low education standards. In some instances, ASIC's existing minimum education and training standards have not been applied consistently across the industry. The rigour and the quality of some training courses are questionable. The standards as they presently exist do not specify the duration or standard of training that advisers must undertake, and there are reports that some advisers purport to satisfy the requirements yet have only completed a few hours of studies. In December 2014, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services reported on proposals to lift the standards. The committee considered the interim report of the Financial System Inquiry, which had noted significant issues with the quality of financial advice due, in part, to varying standards of adviser competence. The Financial System Inquiry highlighted consumer outcomes as a critical area for reform, and the committee's report noted that the issues relating to the competence of financial advisers remained unresolved. The parliamentary joint committee and Financial System Inquiry reports highlighted five main deficiencies in the current education and training requirements: that the current education and training requirements in the Corporations Act are low; that the standards are vague; that the standards are not holistic; that the stakeholders have raised concerns that the training requirements do not keep pace with changing market conditions; and that there is no central database with information about the quality of various education and training courses. Currently, financial advisers are not required to adopt or comply with an overarching ethical code. This bill addresses some of these concerns, providing new education and training standards; transitional arrangements that apply to existing advisers; a new requirement that relevant providers comply with a code of ethics; an obligation on an Australian financial services licensee to ensure that its relevant providers comply with the new education standards and are covered by the compliance scheme; restrictions on the terms 'financial adviser' and 'financial planner' so they can only be used by persons who are relevant providers; amendments to the content requirements for the register of relevant providers; appropriate sanctions; and a new standards body. We welcome the belated action from the government to improve the professional standards for financial advisers. But I am old enough to remember being in this place when we had to fight tooth and nail to stop the Abbott-Turnbull government from watering down Labor's Future of Financial Advice reforms, which had been praised by ASIC and which had opt-in requirements and fee disclosure statements, which this government claimed were red tape and too expensive for the big banks to pay for. Labor stood up against the government's attempts to water down the Future of Financial Advice reforms. We were pleased, as Australians were pleased, when the government finally dropped their wrongheaded attempt to scrap consumer protections in the form of the Future of Financial Advice reforms. They were great Labor reforms, opposed by the Abbott and Turnbull governments and stood up for by the Labor opposition. Thanks to our opposition, they continue to exist. Indeed, the attempted scrapping of the Future of Financial Advice reforms says it all about the government's red tape repeal strategy. The original red tape repeal day not only attempted to get rid of the FoFA consumer protections but also attempted to get rid of the charities commission. I am delighted to inform the House that the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission now enjoys bipartisan support. The Abbott-Turnbull government, after fighting tooth and nail to scrap the charities commission, has finally seen the light. It was a pleasure today to join Minister McCormack at a function here in the house with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, presenting research to an ACT charities group, at which Minister McCormack reflected the government's new-found commitment to the charities commission—a body which can do genuine red tape reduction, as we are seeing now through the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania and, probably soon, Victoria; removing redundant red tape which affects charities. That is real red tape reduction. But the government's attempt to take away the FoFA protection was anything but and would indeed have thrown Australian consumers of financial advice into a world of pain. We are going to continue to argue for a royal commission into the banks, because, while we are supporting this bill today, we do not believe that the government's attempts to make sure that egregious wrongdoing in the financial advice sector have been strong enough. Only a royal commission can get to the bottom of the culture and practices that have let misconduct in the financial sector continue to grow. We have seen some of those opposite, including the member for Dawson, say that they support a royal commission into the banks. And, on the last sitting day of last year, we saw this House come within one vote of supporting a royal commission into the banks. That shows you how strongly the Australian community feel about this. I am not one much for surveys, but I could not go by one survey which said that not only Labor voters but also coalition voters supported a royal commission into the banks. It is a measure which is past due. Only a royal commission will allow victims to be heard and identify the systematic changes that will ensure that we have strong banks going forward. Labor supports this bill, but we believe that the government could go further. It is not good enough for them to back down on their attempts to scrap FoFA. It is not good enough for them to put in place these measures, sensible as they are. They need to support a royal commission, as Australians across the political spectrum are calling for. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I second the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The original question was that the bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved an amendment that all the words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that amendment be agreed to. The question is now that the amendment be agreed to. 18:07 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak about the terrific work that this government is doing to improve the standards and efficacy of advice in the financial advice services industry in this country, but I take issue with a couple of comments that the member for Fenner made. He was focused on advisers in a bank setting. There are far more advisers in Australia than those employed by the banks. There are many independent, professional financial advisers in this country who want to see the standards of their industry improved and developed for the future to ensure that the advice that is provided to the Australian public is in their best interests. It is of no interest to these small business owners around the country to provide poor, negligent advice or poor ongoing service to their clients, because then they do not have a business. Many of these people actively support the provisions outlined in the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill, in terms of improving education standards, and many of those people are already at the forefront of pursuing high educational standards in the industry. So it is with great pleasure that I stand here and speak on this bill today, because I know that the people that I speak to in the industry on a regular basis support this bill and support the amendments we have made over time through listening to what the industry has said to us. I, like anybody else in this place, acknowledge that there have been problems in the financial planning sector in years past, but many of the reputable organisations have sought to weed out those advisers who were doing the wrong thing. The dealer groups who had advisers in their ranks who were doing the wrong thing should fully be held to account, because Australians deserve to know that when they go to see a financial adviser they are going to get professional, unbiased advice that is in their best interests. What this government, in the previous term and in this term, is focused on is ensuring that advisers provide advice to Australians that is in their best interests, because we already know that many Australians are underinsured, and insurance is a key component for people's financial arrangements. We know that as people build larger and larger superannuation balances they are going to need advice along the way, in particular when they are close to their retirement years, to make sure that their financial affairs are in order for when they want to retire. So it is critically important that we ensure that the network of financial advisers—both those employed by the banks and those who run their own businesses as small business owners around Australia in small country towns and in suburban locations around our major cities—are capable of providing that professional advice to their clients. This bill seeks to introduce a number of new measures which will require relevant providers to hold a degree, pass regular exams and complete a professional year, just like solicitors, accountants and lawyers do when they finish their degrees. They cannot immediately go and practise. They have a professional year, or maybe a couple of years, where they are under the supervision of somebody who has the experience and the qualifications, not just qualifications from a degree but practical, day-to-day experience providing advice to their clients. So these new entrants to the industry will come in with a degree and a professional year and be taught by somebody who has developed a reputation and the knowledge from day-to-day practice. They will also undertake ongoing, continuing professional development. This is enshrining in law something that already happens for professional financial advisers. I know that when I was an adviser we had a minimum of 30 or 40 continuing professional development points that we had to achieve every year through a variety of subjects. If you read any of the industry literature—a financial planning magazine or an AFA magazine—most have continuing professional development components in them to allow practitioners to ensure that they are meeting their current ongoing professional development requirements. The bill will also ensure compliance with a uniform code of ethics. As I said at the outset, over the past 10 or so years there have been repeated instances of inappropriate financial advice which, quite rightly, have decreased consumer confidence in the financial advice industry. Not all of these circumstances are actually the responsibility of an adviser. There have been many instances over the past 10 years that relate to product failure that the adviser has borne the brunt of. I think that this is something that still needs to be addressed in the structure of our regulation, but this lack of trust and confidence has led to poor outcomes for both consumers and the industry, with consumers often reluctant to seek financial advice, and, as I have said, it is becoming more and more necessary. The latest figures show only one in every five Australians now seeks financial advice, yet at a time when the financial circumstances for many people are becoming more complex. Raising the professional standards of financial advisers seeks to play a significant role in improving consumer trust in the financial advice industry. As a result of that I hope that what we see are significantly improved outcomes in the financial wellbeing of Australians. The government has consulted widely on the measures in this bill, which build on the model proposed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and the recommendations of the financial services inquiry. When investigating underlying causes of the failings and lack of consumer confidence in the industry, concerns were raised for both of these avenues—over the existing education and training requirements for financial advisers—by not only the financial advice industry but also by consumer groups, the government, the parliament, ASIC and the parliamentary joint committee. In its report, it provided proposals to lift the professional, ethical and education standards of the industry. The reforms in this bill seek to commence a journey of delivering on those improvements for consumers by raising education standards to a degree level or equivalent. Both the financial services inquiry and the PJC reviews identified that existing professional standards for advisers were too low and did not ensure all financial advisers have the necessary skills to provide high-quality advice to consumers. And there have been a number of reports subsequent to that which have outlined some of those issues, particularly if we look back at the recent changes to remuneration for life insurance advisers based on an ASIC report into some of the issues in that industry. These reviews recognised the current regulatory framework was not enough to build a broad base of professionalism in the financial advice industry, even though—as I said earlier—there are a number of very successful professional financial planning firms and advisers in the financial services industry already. With this bill it is hoped that we see an encouragement to the industry to itself take the steps to lift its standards. The reviews also found the current framework lacked incentives needed to encourage the industry to go above and beyond. There is widespread support for these changes across industry, consumer groups and the parliament—for the standards to be maintained among practising advisers through continuous learning. To implement these changes, the government will establish a standards body which will set the education standards, exams, a professional year and continuing professional development required, as well as develop a code of ethics. The standards body is expected to consult broadly with the industry and other stakeholders in developing these standards to ensure that concerns raised by stakeholders are addressed and that the standards meet the expectation of consumers and the industry. Importantly, a substantial time frame is being given for advisers to work towards meeting the minimum standards. The new standards body is expected to be established by mid-2017 but, importantly, the changes for advisers do not commence until 1 January 2019. The expectation is that all advisers in the industry will meet the new education standards by 1 January 2024. Under these changes, financial advisers will require a degree, while existing advisers will need to meet a standard equivalent to a degree set by the new standards body. While the detail will ultimately be set by the new standards body, it is important to note that not all existing advisers will have to return to university and complete a three-year degree program. Some may not, but a majority are likely to receive a credit for the education or training they have already completed and will need only to gap-fill or undertake bridging courses to meet the minimum standards required by 1 January 2024. These reforms represent a necessary and valuable change to the current regulatory environment for financial advisers. This bill upholds the government's commitment to raising professional standards in the financial advice industry and forms part of a broader reform plan to more effectively align the interests of the financial advice industry with good consumer outcomes. This bill shows that we are actively taking the reforms necessary to deal with the issues that have been experienced by consumers in the financial services sector around Australia. But that is not to say that there are not a good many professional financial advisers out there today working day in and day out for the best interests of their clients. They are providing professional advice on an initial and ongoing basis. But everybody in the industry recognises the importance and the need to make these changes and to lift the standards. I commend the bill in its original form to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for his contribution and acknowledge his contribution to the financial sector before coming to this place—a worthy contribution. 18:21 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016. This bill makes amendments to the Corporations Act to raise the education, training and ethical standards of financial advisers by requiring relevant providers to hold a degree or a higher or equivalent qualification, to pass an exam, to undertake a professional year, to undertake continuous professional development and to comply with the code. The reason for this legislation is that, in recent years, numerous cases of inappropriate financial advice have been shown to have a negative impact on consumers' confidence in the financial services industry. This lack of trust is said to have become a barrier to consumers seeking legal advice. The financial services industry, consumer groups, the government and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission have raised concerns with the existing education and training requirements for financial advisers. The bill includes the following amendments to the Corporations Act: new education and training standards that must be met by individuals who provide personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients; transitional arrangements that apply to existing advisers; a new requirement that relevant providers comply with a code of ethics; an obligation on an Australian financial services licensee to ensure that its relevant providers comply with the new education standards and are covered by a compliance scheme; a restriction on the titles 'financial adviser' and 'financial planner' so that they can only be used by persons who are relevant providers; amendments to the content requirements for the register of relevant providers; the provision of appropriate sanctions where a relevant provider or licensee fails to comply with the new obligations; recognition of a new standards body which will set out the details of the new education standards and develop the code; specialist knowledge about the specific products an adviser provides advice on, and the markets in which they operate; and generic knowledge requirements, including training on the economic environment, the operation of financial markets and financial products. Having said that, it is very important for members of the public who take financial advice to realise that financial advisers do not always get it right. One of the books I read over the holiday break was titled The Tyranny of Experts. It listed the many times throughout history when so-called experts have got it exactly wrong. Just look at some examples from our recent history. Back in February 2008 the price of oil hit US$140. Oil is a finite resource, the demand from China and India was growing and growing; surely the price of oil would continue to increase? That is what all the expert financial advisers said. But from US$140 in February 2008 oil hit a low of $29 in January 2016. How many experts predicted that? Last year we saw the price of coal stuck around the $50 mark. All the experts told us, 'Coal is on the way out.' There was an abundant supply of coal on the market, therefore nothing would happen. But in the second six months of last year we saw the price of coal increase 100 per cent. Yet again, hardly a single financial expert picked it. Then we have currency fluctuations. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, from over 25 years of watching how the Australian dollar moves against the US dollar and what all the experts predict, that the best advice I can give to anyone is: do exactly the opposite of what the experts tell you when it comes to currency forecasts. And then we had the recent Trump rally. All the experts told us that if Donald Trump were successful in the US presidential election it would be disastrous for the world economy, yet we have seen a Trump rally—an almost 10 per cent increase in US stock prices, almost $2 trillion extra created. Again, it is the complete opposite of what the experts told us. Brexit was meant to be a disaster for the British economy. We were told by the experts that if Britain decided to leave the EU it would be disastrous for the economy. Yet an article in The Australian on 6 January this year said: Britain ended last year as the strongest of the world's advanced economies with growth accelerating in the six months after the Brexit vote … Business activity hit a 17-month high … …   …   …    Andrew Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, suggested that economic forecasters were facing a 'Michael Fish moment' over their mistaken predictions, referring to the BBC weather forecaster. Mr Haldane, comparing the profession's failure to spot the 2008 recession to Mr Fish's infamous assurance of 'no hurricane' on the eve of the great storm of 1987, said: 'It's a fair cop to say that the profession— that is, financial advisers— is to some degree in crisis. He also admitted to shortcomings in pre-Brexit predictions, saying that 'the data has surprised to the upside.' …   …   …    An assessment by Cambridge University criticised 'flawed and partisan' Treasury forecasts of Britain's economy outside the EU. I am glad that the member for Port Adelaide is at the table, because I know he has been one who has been listening to the experts who tell us, 'If we get all this renewable energy, electricity prices will go down.' We have seen—history has shown us—what a complete and utter nonsense that is, and nowhere more than in the member for Port Adelaide's home state of South Australia. If financial advisers are looking at expert advice, there are a few other good examples from history. I have given you some recent examples, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to go back to a few historical examples of how the experts have got it wrong. A prediction from the President of the Michigan Savings Bank was: 'The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is a novelty and a fad.' Thank goodness people did not follow the predictions of that expert. HM Warner of Warner Brothers—who would be more expert in his industry?—in 1927 said, 'Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?' Of course, there is the exact opposite. There are those who have not had the formal education but have had the streetwise sense to get their predictions right. In the time allowed, I would like to go through a few examples. Henry Ford, the founder of Ford Motor Company, was someone who had no real education and yet revolutionised the world with the Ford Motor Company. JD Rockefeller, the business magnate, left school at 16 years of age. Larry Ellison, the co-founder of Oracle—a self-made billionaire—dropped out of two colleges and never completed his degree. Ralph Lauren, that famous fashion designer, left college after two semesters and never attended a fashion school, and yet the Ralph Lauren name is synonymous with high fashion. Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, only graduated from high school and dropped out of college. So did Steve Wozniak, the other co-founder of Apple. Richard Branson never completed high school and dropped out at the age of 16 years—not only that; he was said to be dyslexic and had poor academic performance. I could go on and on. We need to be very careful that we do not think that there is this 'expert opinion' that is always right, because our history tells us it is the opposite. I would also like to make a few comments about what the member for Fenner said when he talked about the need for a royal commission into the banks. The member for Fenner said—and I think I have got the quote right—'Only a royal commission will allow victims to be heard.' That is absolute, complete and utter nonsense, and it shows that the member for Fenner does not understand the problem. The victims need either a tribunal or a one-stop shop or a commissioner that can hear their complaint. And it is not just about hearing their complaint; it is about getting compensation for these people—and that is exactly what we have seen. We have seen the Kate Carnell report recently released—and I congratulate the minister at the table, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, for commissioning that report. That report went and looked at some of these things. Something that a royal commission would take years and years to do, and would cost tens of billions of dollars, has already been done. The Kate Carnell report has found that in several cases there has been unconscionable conduct. What the people who are victims of that unconscionable conduct do not need—the very last thing that they need—is some longwinded royal commission that goes on for years and years. By the time that royal commission was finished, they would be time-barred for their cases under our Trade Practices Act, now called the Competition and Consumer Act. We need the procedures so those people can be heard and they can get their compensation done. If there is unconscionable conduct by the banks, we have the laws; we have the regulation. Let the cases be heard in the tribunal or the courts. That is what this coalition is doing. We are not about grandstanding about a royal commission. We want to get compensation for those people who have been victims of unconscionable conduct by a bank. Those on the other side are only interested in complete grandstanding about a royal commission. It is a different thing. We on this side of the chamber are about getting the job done and about getting results. Those on the other side are just about grandstanding and being show ponies. I say to those on the other side of the chamber: 'Forget your grandstanding. Forget politicking. Do what is right for this country, for this country's economy and for the businesses out there. If you want to get jobs created, if you want to get economic growth going, join with us in our enterprise tax plan. Let's get these tax cuts, this legislation for a reduction in the corporate tax rate, through the House and through the Senate as soon as we possibly can.' And then we may need to go again. 18:36 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I would first like to congratulate those members who contributed to this debate—the member for Forde, particularly, and the member for Hughes. What an eloquent contribution you made to this debate. Your interest in this matter is well known. You have stood up for good financial advice throughout your career and it is great to see that you have been able to voice that here in the chamber this evening. The Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016 is intended to raise the professional, education and ethical standards of financial advisers. Over time, repeated instances of inappropriate advice have led to a reduction in consumers' trust in the financial advice industry. Reduced trust acts as a barrier to consumers seeking financial advice, which is a poor outcome for both consumers and the industry. I recognise that the majority of financial advisers have provided and continue to provide appropriate and high-quality advice to their clients. The measures debated today will help to rebuild confidence in the industry, which has been compromised due to the actions of a minority of advisers. Under the proposed legislation, financial advisers will be required to hold a degree or a qualification equivalent to a degree, complete a professional year, pass an exam, undertake continuous professional development and comply with a code of ethics. This is a momentous step forward. Under the new framework, financial advisers entering the industry for the first time will require a degree, while existing advisers will need to meet a standard equivalent to a degree. Existing advisers will not be required to return to undertake a bachelor's degree; they will be able to reach degree equivalent status by undertaking relevant bridging courses. The new professional standards regime will commence on 1 January 2019. From this date, new advisers will be required to hold a relevant degree. This will ensure that, from the start of their careers, financial advisers are adhering to standards that are consistent with the provision of high-quality advice and in the best interests of consumers. Existing financial advisers will have access to transitional arrangements allowing them two years until 1 January 2021 to pass the exam and five years until 1 January 2024 to meet the education requirements. The transition period recognises that existing advisers may need to complete the education requirements on a part-time basis while continuing to service their existing clients. The government will establish an independent standards body as a Commonwealth company limited by guarantee to administer the new professional standards regime. It is anticipated that the new standards body will be established by mid-2017. From the date of the establishment until the regime commences on 1 January 2019, the body will be responsible for developing and setting the industry exam, developing the code of ethics and setting the education requirements. This is a tight but achievable time frame. The standards body will develop the exam, the code and the education and training standards in accordance with international best practice and will consult broadly with stakeholders throughout this process. All advisers, both new and existing, will be required to pass the exam and to undertake continuing professional development. The exam will test the practical and ethical knowledge of advisers and will represent a common benchmark across the whole industry. The exam requirement also lifts Australia's standards to a global level. The United States, Britain and Hong Kong, amongst others, require advisers to complete an exam before they are authorised to provide advice to clients. A single uniform code of ethics will set the ethical principles that advisers will operate under. Professional associations and other independent third-party monitoring bodies will develop compliance schemes to monitor and enforce advisers' adherence to the code, and these compliance schemes will be approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The code will ensure that financial advisers are held to a high standard of ethics, with non-compliant advisers subject to disciplinary actions and sanctions. A key feature of the reforms for new advisers will be the requirement to complete a professional year under the supervision of an experienced financial adviser. Through this direct mentoring relationship, new advisers will be able to develop their technical knowledge and the soft skills critical to a client-facing role. These proposed reforms follow important steps already taken by the government to improve the transparency and accountability of financial advisers. We have already established a register of financial advisers that allows consumers to verify advisers' credentials so as to be confident that the adviser is appropriately qualified and experienced. The proposed legislation will further enhance the register of financial advisers by allowing consumers to access additional relevant information about an adviser, such as where the adviser has been found to have breached the code of ethics and, if so, what disciplinary action has been taken in response to the breach. Consumers will also be able to search for financial advisers in their area by using a postcode or information about the financial adviser's principal place of business. This function is currently not available on the register. The reforms respond to two significant reports: the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into proposals to lift the professional, ethical and education standards in the financial services industry; and the financial systems inquiry. Both reports were released in December 2014 and both recommended raising the professional, educational and ethical standards of financial advisers. These reforms have also been welcomed by the industry. Industry understands that these reforms are an important step towards the professionalisation of financial advice and will go a long way to building trust and confidence in the sector. The government will continue to consult with industry in developing the detail on these new standards so that the financial advisers have a say and a stake in the future of their profession. The educational requirements ensure that, in the years to come, financial advice will be considered, in the same vein as accounting or law, as a true profession. Right now, we know that only one in five Australians seeks financial advice. This means that only one in five of us is receiving professional advice on setting financial goals, making the most of our savings and protecting our assets. The Turnbull government wants more Australians to have the confidence to seek financial advice, and that means making sure that people have access to financial advisers who will put their interests first and who are professionally competent and ethical. The bill will achieve this incredibly important objective for the benefit of all Australians and will play an instrumental role in renewing trust and confidence in financial advice. I commend this bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time.

The House divided. [18:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP 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 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, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 75 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J 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 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 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 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 72 18:55 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 72 BUSINESS Rearrangement 72 18:55 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 18, government business, be postponed until the next sitting. 18:56 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I just want to seek information from the government as to why we are moving this motion. My understanding from what was put on the Notice Paper is that the government on day one has run out of business. If that is what is going on, the government should be up-front with the parliament that they have run out of business on day one of the new year and, because the parliament had nothing to do, they have had to move a special resolution to bring forward legislation from another day. What we have is a situation where the assistant minister has moved something without giving a speech and without telling us what has happened. But it looks to me like we have in fact run out of business. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister has moved the motion and I am now going to put the motion. The question is that the motion moved by the assistant minister be agreed to.

The House divided. [19:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 73 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J 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 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 Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 68 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP 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 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, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 73 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 73

Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016

Second Reading 73 19:11 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner It is day No. 1 of the 2017 sittings year and the government have run out of business. Not only are they running out of senators; they are running out of business. With this bill, Labor will do the right thing and support the passage of the bill, despite the drama, despite the chaos, despite the dysfunction in this government. This bill contains five measures addressing a wide variety of issues: terrorism insurance, employee share schemes, deductible gift recipient status, fairer tax treatment of disaster payments for New Zealanders, and protecting client moneys. I shall not detain the House by going through the detail of each of these measures, but it is worth touching on each of them briefly. Honourable members interjecting— Dr LEIGH BU8 Well, maybe I shall. Mr Husic 91219 You've got 29 minutes. Dr LEIGH BU8 Twenty-nine minutes. The member for Chifley is keen for me to see out my full duration. The terrorism insurance scheme has received bipartisan support since its introduction in 2001. The act requires the scheme to be reviewed every three years at a minimum, with the minister preparing a report on the scheme's continued operation. Labor supports that process. The terrorism insurance scheme was established to minimise the wider economic impacts that flowed from the withdrawal of terrorism insurance in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The Terrorism Insurance Act 2003 ensured continued provision of terrorism insurance coverage for commercial property and associated business interruption, losses and public liability claims. As Abadie and Gardeazabal found in their European Economic Review paper, 'Terrorism and the World Economy,' terrorism can have profound economic effects beyond the immediate physical damage. Terrorism insurance is part of the way in which we ameliorate those effects should such atrocious acts happen in future. This bill carries the original intent of the scheme and ensures that losses resulting from chemical and biological terrorist attacks are unequivocally covered. The additional certainty that provides is welcomed by this side of the House. Schedule 2 deals with the public availability of employee share scheme documents. Last November, I was pleased to announce Labor's reform commitments to grow worker owned firms and member owned firms. A range of economists, including Thomas Piketty and Joseph Stiglitz, have spoken on the importance of participatory governance and worker ownership. Employee share schemes are part of this. There are good moral arguments and good economic arguments in favour of worker ownership. Indeed, as the conservative British Prime Minister, Teresa May, has noted, success and solidarity should not be incompatible. From a productivity perspective, we know from work by Harvard's Richard Freeman that employees with ownership tend to be more productive and tend to have higher levels of workplace satisfaction. Labor supports start-ups and, naturally, we support removing unnecessary impediments for those start-ups to have employee share schemes. We do at this stage put on record certain concerns about the way the government has approached this particular schedule. On its face, it is straightforward but deals with an issue that has not received widespread airplay. We have not seen a spate of stories in the press suggesting that the requirement to lodge disclosure documents with ASIC has discouraged start-ups from using employee share schemes in their formative stages. The government has apparently carried out consultation, but, as is its want, has not shared with the Australian people the result of that consultation. The member for Chifley—this House knows no greater champion of start-ups—will deal in his remarks with this particular issue. Labor wishes to have more detail from the government as to this particular schedule and the reason that the government has chosen to bring it forward at this stage. Schedule 3 deals with deductible gift recipients. I would be remiss if I did not deal with this schedule and mention that, as shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits, I am the first person on either side of the House to hold that title. Labor has seen fit to have a shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits because we believe that this is a critical sector. Labor is committed to arresting the decline in social capital that has occurred in Australia over the past generation—the way in which Australians have become more disconnected and less likely to volunteer, to cast a valid vote, to give charitable donations and to join civic organisations, ranging from the Scouts and the Guides to Rotary clubs and Lions clubs. Labor is keen to foster a national conversation about the way in which charities can learn from one another to turn around that national problem. But we also need to ensure that the charities that need it get deductible gift recipient status. This reform extends deductible gift recipient status to a range of different charities. It adds six organisations to those that have specific listing. As members know, there are two ways of getting deductible gift recipient status: either endorsement by the Australian Taxation Office or listing by name in taxation law. Labor extends a warm welcome to six organisations whose DGR status has bipartisan support: the Australasian College of Dermatologists, the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists, Australian Science Innovations Incorporated, The Ethics Centre Incorporated, and Cambridge Australia Scholarships Limited. The coalition went to the 2013 election with an attack on charities in the form of wanting to scrap the charities commission. Labor welcomes the coalition's backflip. We welcome the fact that the government have gone from being public enemy No. 1 to the charities commission to wanting to work with the charities commission. I commend the government on their welcome backflip, ceasing their attack on the charities and not-for-profit sector and now looking for ways to work with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission in order to reduce the paperwork burden on Australian charities. ACNC head, Susan Pascoe, has done an outstanding job over recent years, during a period in which the government wanted to abolish her organisation. She had to contend with a quarter of her staff leaving every year—not unreasonably because they were concerned about the uncertainty that hung over their heads. That uncertainty has now been removed. The coalition needs to work harder to ensure that states and territories remove duplicate regulation and make the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission a one-stop shop for charities, just as the corporate law reforms of the early 1990s made ASIC a one-stop shop for corporations regulation. Schedule 4 of the bill deals with income tax relief to New Zealanders impacted by disasters. Labor welcomes the simplification regarding disaster payments for affected New Zealanders working in Australia. The Australian government makes certain payments to eligible people to assist when a major disaster happens, and these payments are exempt from income tax, or an income tax rebate is available. This measure amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to provide a tax rebate for recipients of the income support allowance and amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide an income tax exemption for the disaster recovery payment—in both cases, for New Zealanders on the special category visa that allows them to reside, work and study indefinitely in Australia, as long as they remain New Zealand citizens. Tax relief for those in need is a rare occasion for this government. Let's face it: it marks something very different for a government whose No. 1 tax priority these days seems to be to give a $50 billion tax cut to some of the biggest companies in Australia, of whom, as we heard last December, one in three pay no tax. Schedule 5 deals with client money for over-the-counter derivatives. It is welcomed by those of us on this side of the House, who have long stood on the side of investors. This provides additional protections when an investor may not be fully able to assess the risks of their money being used by the financial service licensee to meet other obligations of the licensee. This is a measure which will protect consumers and it is a measure which is of a range of Labor pro-consumer reforms. We introduced the Future of Financial Advice reforms, which the coalition voted against and then tried to scrap under the guise of repealing red tape. Only a Liberal would say that consumer protections against dodgy rip-offs like Storm or Trio is red tape. We are pleased that we managed to force the government to back down on scrapping FoFA. The protection of consumers is why Labor went to the last election arguing for higher penalties under the Australian Consumer Law. We believe that penalties like the $1.1 million fines available to the judge in the Nurofen case were too low. We believe that these fines should be increased to $10 million, and we are still waiting for the government to follow what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Productivity Commission have said is the right course: to raise the penalties for ripping off consumers. Supporting this pro-consumer measure is also a natural step for a Labor Party that has continued to fight for a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector. A royal commission is the only way in which victims' stories can be heard and in which systematic reforms can be developed. We on this side of the House support the bill, bearing in mind the reservations, which the member for Chifley will detail, relating to employee share ownership. 19:18 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I am grateful for the opportunity to follow on from the shadow Assistant Treasurer in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016. As indicated, the opposition is not opposed per se to those provisions of the bill that relate to changes that will be made to the employee share scheme and some things that the government has flagged in the second reading speech. I note that the second reading speech makes reference to the fact that it is giving life to a commitment made in the National Innovation and Science Agenda that was released in December 2015. That commitment said it would look at whether or not disclosure documents used as part of the employee share scheme regime, documents that are used by early-stage innovators and start-ups, be made public. The government had said back in December 2015 it would look at it. A second reading speech was made on 1 December last year, almost a year after the government made that commitment. What was interesting is that the Treasury consultation around this bill closed on 7 December. We had a second reading speech and legislation introduced on 1 December, saying that it had consulted with the start-up community on this, but then the consultations actually closed a week after this. As the member for Fenner, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, indicated, there has been very little released as to what happened in those consultations and how that was managed and, importantly, how it was translated into this bill in terms of what we are discussing. The second reading speech makes reference to the fact that this could be a problem and says that it wants to avoid it. The second reading speech indicates that it is a reflection of a commitment granted in the National Innovation and Science Agenda, but it does not actually highlight (1) what the problem is (2) if it has been validated within the sector and (3) what measures, as raised by the sector, by start-ups, have been picked up by the government and reflected in this bill. I will be interested to hear from the minister at the table how that has been managed, because there are some concerns. Again, I would ask the government to respond to these concerns. It is usually the case that a start-up will hold a percentage of equity that is going to be divided amongst all employees so that individual shares may fluctuate between a team. The share registry, when it is put into the disclosure document and made public, will be quite transparent about the way the shares have been divided. What the government is saying is that some of the assumptions about the business and some sensitive business information will not be made public through the share registry. We totally understand that, because it may be the case for some early-stage innovators and start-ups, particularly at their point of development, that they do not want to reveal that information publicly. But bear in mind that when a disclosure document has been made public, employees will want the transparency of that to be made available. They will also want to know that any changes to the share arrangements will be updated in the disclosure document. How will those updated changes or supplementary documents be made available, as is provided for under the legislation—the Corporations Act 2001? And what I will be interested to hear from the minister is: how will employees know (1) how any changes in the share arrangements will be reflected in the document and (2) that they will have access to them? The other thing is: there will be employees in start-ups not necessarily covered off by the particular share arrangements of one start-up. Those employees will want to know how share arrangements are made in other start-ups. They will use them as a way of being able to negotiate for their share arrangements in other instances. My other concern is that employees of start-ups may have their bargaining power limited by virtue of the fact that there is a lot less information made public. Again, on the face of it, you would think that what is being proposed is straightforward, and I certainly appreciate that. You do not want to necessarily provide a lot of business information in the public domain for some of those early-stage companies. But it is a problem (1) if it has an impact on employees' shares and the way that they are treated and updated and those changes are reflected, and (2) if it inhibits, by virtue of the fact that this information is no longer available to employees of start-ups, their negotiating power. The other thing that I want to raise with the minister while we are here is this. You have got this set of changes that are being put forward now to the parliament in relation to employee share schemes and whether or not disclosure documents will be made public via the share registry anymore. So you will have disclosure documents that spell out what the business is, what it predicts future business or industry conditions will be, and how that will impact on earnings. What is being proposed here is that that type of detail no longer be made public. That is what is being proposed in this case. But we are also debating an arrangement, elsewhere, in other legislation, that will make this quite evident, and that is in equity crowdfunding legislation where disclosure documents will have to be made public. There may be a case where some firms who have an ESS available to their employees may choose to raise capital through an equity crowdfunding campaign, but their document there will have to be made public. So what we are interested to find out from the government—and I hope that this can be addressed, Minister, in the summing up in response to the bill—is: how will the operation of these changes work in tandem with a situation where a firm that has got an ESS in place has then decided to seek an equity crowdfunding campaign to raise funds, but will also provide a disclosure document where there may be variations to those disclosure documents. I would be very interested to see how that will operate—that you will have one disclosure document that is not made public but another disclosure document that will need to be made public through the process of equity crowdfunding. I think these are serious issues that should be responded to. Again, I say to the minister: I am very interested to hear again where they intend to make public the type of feedback that is being provided by the start-up sector to the legislation that was proposed, bearing in mind that you tabled this legislation one week before you closed the consultation process off on 7 December— Ms O'Dwyer interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 Absolutely. And if there is confusion to this, I am certainly happy to stand corrected. But I am interested to know: what has been raised, and how the bill reflects what has been raised, in the consultation; and, importantly, how—quite separate to this—there might be situations where there is a conflict between one disclosure document regime being made private and another disclosure document regime, in terms of equity crowdfunding, being made public, and what happens in those circumstances. Again, we do not seek to oppose the bill on this basis, but I do think it is important that some of these matters be addressed and attended to, because I think it will give a lot more certainty in the broader public space, particularly for start-ups, about what might happen to them. I will just contain my remarks to that. 19:27 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would just like to make a few comments on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 in response to some of the comments from the member for Fenner during this debate where he complained about the government's enterprise tax scheme being a $50 billion giveaway. Firstly, the member for Fenner may be interested in the example of what happened in New Zealand, given his belief that it is a $50 billion tax giveaway when you reduce the corporate tax rate. In the 2010 New Zealand budget, the then Prime Minister, John Key, made an announcement that he was lowering company tax rates from 30 per cent to 28 per cent—very similar to what we in Australia are currently proposing. As they were lowering the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent, a natural question for someone who really did not have any understanding of economics or business or how the economy works would have been: 'Well, how much is that going to cost? We're reducing the tax rate. Surely that is a handout to all New Zealand companies at the expense of the New Zealand budget.' Well, what happened is a very salient tale and is something we should learn about. In New Zealand in 2010, their corporate tax receipts at the 30 per cent rate were $6.3 billion; in the next year, 2011, where they were split between the 30 per cent tax rate and the 28 per cent tax rate, they were $6.4 billion. So, in 2012, when they had a 28 per cent tax rate—when they had reduced it—how much did the tax receipts go down? Well, they did not go down. They actually increased. They went up by 24.9 per cent. So they got 25 per cent more tax—got more government revenue being paid—at 20 per cent than they did at 30 per cent. The following year, again at that lower tax rate, they again got a six per cent increase; in 2015 an 11 per cent increase; and in 2016 a five per cent increase. In those five years from 2011 to 2016— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 77 ADJOURNMENT Centrelink 77 19:30 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Today I rise to talk about a big issue that is concerning my electorate: this government's mismanagement of Centrelink. Every single day, my office has been flooded with complaints about Centrelink and the way that it has dealt with the recent automated debt recovery fiasco—and 'fiasco' is the only way that it can be described. Centrelink is an essential government service that is relied upon by millions: young people who rely on youth allowance, families who rely on family payments and pensioners who deserve a comfortable and well-lived retirement. We know that Medicare has been moved into many Centrelink offices, which are the only places you can get on-the-ground assistance. We also know that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been moved into Centrelink in many places. Centrelink is meant to be the one-stop shop for many people. Many Australians access Centrelink at some point in their lives, often when they are at their most vulnerable: when something unforeseen, unexpected or unavoidable happens. We should be proud as a country to have a strong safety net to catch people when they need help. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that this safety net remains intact and is run appropriately and responsibly. Since taking office, this government has dismantled the safety net bit by bit, and it is continuing to cut services and understaff the department. Of course I support measures which effectively recover wrongfully paid welfare, but it is unacceptable for this government to use an automated debt collection system which is falsely accusing thousands of innocent Australians. It has been alarming to hear stories of constituents in my electorate who feel they have been falsely accused and to hear how distraught they are. The Minister for Human Services may claim he is not aware of people who are convinced they do not owe money. Well, Minister, maybe you should spend a day in my office or, indeed, the offices of any of the members of parliament, because, right around the country, I am being contacted by distraught people who do not know where to turn. One such person—I am not going to provide her name—a woman in her 60s, contacted me after she received a debt letter with regard to temporary income support she claimed in 2010. This constituent described the heartbreaking effect this ordeal had had on her mental health, as she spent Christmas frantically trying to track down pay slips to prove her innocence. By the time she called my office in January, she had resigned herself to the fact that she could not prove her innocence by the deadline and would be forced to pay back a debt she did not believe she owed. This constituent is a single parent who worked hard her entire life to raise her children and gain a university qualification. She expressed the guilt she already felt about needing Centrelink for the short period of time she did in 2010. She said that this ordeal had made her feel like a criminal and had brought such shame on her that she would never turn to Centrelink again, even if she needed help. Another person, a mum who contacted me about her son who accessed youth allowance five years ago, when he was at university, said: Our family is anxious regarding the outcome, as we somehow try to work our way through this very difficult online system, to organise a reassessment. I am sick to my stomach with the thought that this may not be possible and that Centrelink will steal over $1000 from my son and, I might add, he earnt less than $15,000 for the year in question. These are just two examples of people who have brought stories to me indicating that this government has failed—failed to protect and support individuals who needed help. The minister's response to this mess—and we heard it in question time today—has been, 'Simply ring the contact number to prove your innocence.' Apart from the fact that many people are not able to find the paperwork and are not able to gather all that information, try ringing Centrelink! The claim that it only takes 12 minutes to reach Centrelink is an absolute farce. The minister should actually live in the real world. Of course, it is not the fault of the staff—staff at Centrelink offices like Noarlunga and Marion—it is this government's fault. It this government's mismanagement. To put his head in the sand, as this minister does, is outrageous. It is time that this government heeded the serious concerns of thousands of Australians and actually fixed the system. Domestic and Family Violence 78 19:35 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt In recent weeks we have seen, again, the tragedy of domestic and family violence in the headlines. The murder of Gold Coast mother Teresa Bradford by her estranged husband, while he was out on bail on domestic violence charges, beggars belief. It has renewed calls for victims of domestic violence to be told if the perpetrator is being released from jail and pushes to make sure that bail is not available for these perpetrators. The focus needs to be put back on the victims. They are the ones whose rights are really important here. In Leichhardt, the local headlines over the past seven days have been just as sobering. On 31 January I read of a man jailed for eight years for the manslaughter of a woman he described as the love of his life. On Christmas Day 2014 in Pormpuraaw, after a party where they had been drinking, high school sweethearts Frederick Bramwell and Clareen Edwards fought. He dragged her outside, punched her, hit her in the face and kicked her in the back. She was taken away by ambulance, but they got back together later in the night and had another fight. The next morning, she was found unconscious in a pool of blood—cause of death: blunt force trauma. On 1 February there was an article about a jail term for a man found guilty of raping his cousin at a wedding in a Far North Queensland Indigenous community a year ago. As a result of his alcohol-fuelled actions, a woman's life has been torn apart, with people in the community judging her, and her relationship with her partner ruined. Even today a court case is continuing for a Yarrabah man accused of murdering his partner in December 2014 after a party where they had been drinking. The Cairns Post reports that witnesses saw Isaac Barlow kicking and punching his partner, Christine Fourmile, in the head. The 20-year-old was knocked down onto the road, unconscious. She never woke up. These cases are a sickening wake-up call to the violence in Indigenous communities and the ongoing issues that need our urgent attention. In the broader community, there is certainly a much greater level of understanding about the support services that are available to women seeking to escape domestic or family violence. In Indigenous communities, unfortunately, it is much more difficult. These communities are often small and geographically isolated. Refuges are available, but it is often the woman and her child who must go out into hiding, rather than removing the perpetrator from the situation. Add to this the chronic problem of alcohol and drug abuse, disadvantage and the normalisation of violence, and you have a recipe for absolute disaster. During the 2016 election, I welcomed the coalition's commitment of $25 million to address domestic violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. We know that Indigenous women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised and 10 times more likely to be killed as a result of domestic violence than women in the broader community. Targeting investment is critical to saving lives and to disrupting intergenerational cycles of violence, dysfunction and disadvantage. The $25 million is for initiatives that could include: improving the quality and accessibility of services available to those experiencing or at risk of domestic and family violence; training a skilled Indigenous workforce to deliver family violence support services within their local communities; providing culturally appropriate and community-led perpetrator programs; providing enhanced Family Violence Prevention Legal Services; supporting Indigenous children through technology to access age-appropriate information; engaging with perpetrators using men's referral services; and building on the national Stop it at the Start campaign. The government is certainly making a significant investment in a range of activities to address the drivers of violence, including alcohol and drug treatment services, support to improve remote policing and activities to prevent offending and re-offending and to reduce violence. Experience has also shown that additional approaches that go beyond the justice system are required in order to break ongoing cycles of family violence. The rollout of the $25 million package of measures is underway, including allowing time for consultation with Indigenous communities and stakeholders. Any solutions, if they are to work, must have ownership within those communities. We have to be unwavering in our commitment to ensuring that women and children are safe in their homes, safe on the streets and, certainly, safe online. Northern Territory: World War II projects and commemorations 79 19:40 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise in the House to provide an update on a couple of relevant World War II events and projects that are happening in my electorate of Solomon in the Top End. The first concerns the status of the salvage of the MV Rushcutter, a World War II vessel, and then I will touch on the upcoming commemorations for the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. As the House may remember, I spoke some months ago about the Rushcutter, which saw service in World War II with Z Special Unit forces to the north of Papua New Guinea, dropping off a group of Z Special Unit soldiers, all but one of whom were killed in that operation. It then went on to serve at other naval bases after the war. We are trying to restore it. We are getting some great assistance from the Australian National Maritime Museum, and a small community group has now been launched and incorporated. It is called Save Motor Launch 1321, which the Rushcutter was also known as. This small group is working with Defence and with some of the private operators in and around the harbour, including the port of Darwin itself. It was great that the port of Darwin, through their insurance, was able to get the boat up from the bottom of Darwin harbour and over to the World War II Catalina ramp. The challenge now for all boat enthusiasts who are rallying around this World War II boat and trying to restore it is that it needs to go from that World War II Catalina ramp to the yard of the Paspaley Pearling Company. I want to thank the Paspaley Pearling Company for making yard space available for that restoration process, but we still need to lift this beautiful boat, which is made of Huon pine and was built in Hobart before the war and which, as I said, served our country well. This small group of volunteers are doing excellent work, and the aim is that we assist them in any ways that we can. They may, in time, be able to apply for some funding through the Department of Veterans' Affairs Saluting Their Service program or something like that. When we can restore this vessel it will be only the fifth World War II vessel on display in Australia. I commend the people who are working on that project. They are very passionate and they are putting hours and hours of their own time into the project. Those efforts have been acknowledged by the Naval Historical Society, who are getting behind the project, and a massive event, the national Wooden Boat Festival, that is going to be held down in Hobart. A whole heap of wooden boat enthusiasts from around Australia will be coming down to Hobart to share information and keep this quite ancient art of wooden boat building alive. This boat is in Darwin, in my electorate on the harbour, and we are hoping that this small community group, Save Motor Launch 1321, can raise about $50,000 through a variety of sources to move the boat to the Paspaley yard, where it can be restored. It is important. Our World War II heritage is very important. As I said, this will be one of only five boats remaining in our country that served during that time. Just in the time remaining, I want to acknowledge and let the House know that 19 February coming up is the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin, which occurred in 1942. More bombs dropped on Darwin than were dropped on Pearl Harbor. We will be having events up in Darwin, but we are also going to have an event here in the House, hosted by the NT federal parliamentarians—Minister Nigel Scullion, obviously; Warren Snowdon, myself and Malarndirri McCarthy. The aim of that event is to share this story of national significance but also a reconciliation story from World War II. But you have to come along to the event to find out about that! Brisbane Electorate, Turnbull Government 79 19:45 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I rise to mark a victory in the campaign against Labor's lockout laws in Queensland. The Queensland Labor government has finally backflipped and it has scrapped its lockouts. Brisbane will get to keep its vibrant nightlife, and thousands of jobs—especially youth jobs—will be saved. We can keep supporting our live music and arts industry, and aspiring musicians and DJs, plus all the small businesses we love in places like the CBD and Fortitude Valley. With the support of many Brisbane locals, I campaigned strongly against the lockout laws—not just against the impacts on our nightlife and local jobs but also against a nanny-state approach that would seek to punish the majority for the sins of a few. I believed, and I still believe, that more targeted policy, new technology and evidence-based decision making would be better than a blanket ban, and indeed it seems the government has signalled that it will look at other ways, like ID scanning or targeting repeat offenders, which I support. The fight is not completely won; there is more to be achieved. While the l am lockout laws have been defeated and scrapped, the first tranche of Labor's nightlife regulations still exist and deserve review. But most critically, as a next step we have to come together to tackle violence in our nightlife precincts. Some of my election commitments will help, such as community safety and crime prevention measures in the CBD and the valley. But there is also an ongoing need to address behaviours and attitudes around violence. The campaign that has been launched by our safe night precinct, called 'Don't Stop the Fun', is one the best educational campaigns I have seen in this space, and it should help to connect with the intended audience. Changing behaviour can of course be a gradual process, but as a community we can do something to curb binge drinking and all forms of violence. I encourage everyone concerned to check out the campaign at dontstopthefun.com.au. As a relatively new MP still, it does feel good, I must admit, to see proof that we can work together as a community and make a real difference, and there is a significant list of priorities for us to keep working on. We have been fortunate in Brisbane to have the Prime Minister visit us several times in recent months. Firstly, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure visited Brisbane to meet with the state government, as well as with the Brisbane Lord Mayor, Councillor Graham Quirk, to make a funding commitment towards our city's infrastructure planning. The additional funding is being provided, I am very pleased to say, specifically to ensure that early planning works by the state government for the Cross River Rail project can begin in a way that will complement the Brisbane City Council's Brisbane Metro project. Brisbane needs infrastructure investments to tackle looming bottlenecks for both buses and trains, so I am keen to ensure that all three levels of government work together to achieve complementary outcomes. Bus and train infrastructure of the future will need to be integrated, in the sense that we need transport hubs to allow people to change modes of transport as efficiently as possible. I have been worried, especially with a state election looming, that politics would intervene and the two projects would be conflated or may even be seen as conflicting rather than complimentary. Time will tell, but the funding commitment we just made, I hope, should ameliorate some of those risks. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister and I also visited the Women's Big Bash League—the Brisbane Heat in training at the Allan Border Field in Albion. It was great to support women's sport, as well as look at some local facilities and highlight the importance, as well as the challenges, around sporting participation in city areas. This year, I am looking forward to working hard to deliver on many more of my election commitments. In 2017 I have a long list of projects that I fought for—for local schools and community groups. Some highlights certainly include the Brisbane Broncos Centre of Excellence in Red Hill, which will be boosted to ensure all locals can better access and enjoy the facilities and the nearby bike paths. A further $760,000 will be delivered, going to projects cleaning up the Brisbane River and rejuvenating local creek catchments. On the national scene, in the last six months and since this government became the first Commonwealth government in 12 years to be re-elected in its own right, we have delivered tax cuts for middle-income Australians; made $11 billion of budget repair so far, and counting; we have fixed some of Labor's rorted schemes in child care and VET FEE-HELP; we have listed 2,000 new medicines on the PBS; we have delivered landmark funding for the prevention of domestic violence—and I would like to highlight the member for Leichhardt's contribution just before me on that topic; and, obviously, we have reintroduced the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. Next up, I am looking forward to achieving tax cuts for my local small businesses; further hard-fought gains, of course, in the ongoing challenge around budget repair; and, hopefully; stripping out the ideology from energy policy and looking at how a focus on technology, science and engineering solutions can help us to provide more reliable and more affordable energy while we simultaneously continue to meet and beat our international environmental obligations. Bring on 2017! Northern Territory: Radio Services 80 19:50 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari The decision by the ABC to cease operation of the shortwave radio services in the Northern Territory is both irresponsible and ill informed—and, I might say, just plain wrong. Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, the member for Solomon, Mr Gosling, and I have made it unequivocally clear to the ABC management that we disagree with their decision to switch off shortwave services and that it was done without consultation. And not only was it done without consultation it was done without any appropriate alternative technology in place to replace the shortwave services that are currently relied upon by so many people across the north of Australia. This service has provided the only reliable source of information and entertainment to remote communities, pastoral stations and their employees, rangers, truck drivers, campers, fishermen, travellers and a multitude of other people who live in the north, and yet their views have been totally disregarded by the ABC, which took this decision without any intent to consult with or to consider the views of those listeners—those most loyal listeners—to the ABC who live in these remote regions of Australia. Anyone who drives up the Stuart Highway—just the Stuart Highway, let alone going off the Stuart Highway—will soon understand and appreciate the importance of having access to shortwave services, because the AM and FM services just do not cut it. What we have learnt is that this decision was made by the ABC—apparently around a $1.2 million or $1.3 million saving—to allow the expansion of digital services to urban areas. What does this say about what the ABC thinks of the bush? The decision has been treated with dismay and anger across the north, and that anger has not dissipated despite the fact that these services were closed down at the end of last month. Tracey Hayes, the chief executive of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, has said: The issue that is of concern is that the ABC has failed to have a discussion with people in the bush to consult and provide any reasonable notice or explanation— about the intended cuts to the shortwave radio service in the NT. ABC will be providing digital radio to people in the city (who already have a magnitude of options to connect) and taking away the only option for bush people—people who don't have reliable internet access, mobile reception— mobile satellite services— or radio. Louise Bilato, Executive Officer of the Northern Territory Road Transport Association, said: Is this yet another example of double standards with those who live and work in remote Australia simply being expected to put up and shut up? The ABC should be proud to deliver services to the bush where they’ve probably got a greater listenership audience per capita than they do in the city. Hear, hear to that! This issue now belongs squarely in the lap of the government. The Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, has been all but absent in the discussion, yet in response to a letter from the honourable member for Whitlam, Stephen Jones MP, he said, 'This decision is in no way related to government funding, which was confirmed for the last three years in the last budget.' So there we have it: Pontius Pilate wiping his hands. He goes on: 'While the ABC has since confirmed its decision, the government is confident the public broadcaster has learned some valuable lessons about community consultation and engagement in regional and remote areas.' In this new post-truth world, where the fake news of the ABC relating to this issue is abundantly clear to all who care to have a look, this decision could be quickly dealt with by the government making available the $1.2 million or $1.3 million that is required to reinstate this service. This service should be reinstated so that the ABC can undertake a process of consultation to properly understand the impact of the decision on remote areas of the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia—which they clearly do not understand—and to make sure there is an appropriate available technology to take its place, which currently there is not. Why should people who live in remote Australia suffer because of the idiocy of the ABC management and the ignorance of the Australian government? Clearly, it is not up to us to direct the ABC board, but it is up to us to say to the government, 'You have in your hands the capacity to change this decision by giving the ABC the money that is required to restart shortwave transmitter services across the North of Australia.' The Prime Minister has been written to by the Hon. Bill Shorten and there has been no response. I say to the Prime Minister: show people in remote Australia what you really think of them and do something positive for once, instead of sitting on your hands. Mackellar Electorate: B-Line Bus Service 81 19:55 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar There are two bridges out of my electorate. One is a drawbridge, which can be used in times of national emergency such as the election of a Labor government, and the other, the Roseville Bridge, traverses a ridge 400 metres long. My constituents have an innate fear of crossing bridges, not only because they are leaving God's country but because, on the Northern Beaches, when you cross a bridge it means hours in traffic, hours away from family, precious time wasted. My electorate has three of the most congested roads in New South Wales. Every single day, 15,000 Northern Beaches residents, mostly from my electorate, cross one of these two bridges to catch a bus into the city. I welcome steps that the state government is taking to ease congestion on Northern Beaches roads. The Berejiklian government is spending $500 million on improving our Northern Beaches bus network through the B-Line project. By 2019, the B-Line will include a fleet of double-decker buses to improve capacity, with a bus frequency of every five minutes during peak hour and every 10 minutes outside that. The service will have stops at Mona Vale, Warriewood, Narrabeen, Dee Why and the Sydney CBD. If delivered and operated right, the B-Line will make a difference to the travel times of my constituents, making life a little easier and a little better. It will allow a working parent to get home a little earlier to tuck their kid into bed. Too often, governments pour money into projects and programs that fail to achieve their stated goals. Government is great at spending money but not so great at delivering outcomes. In education, governments around Australia are investing more, yet outcomes are getting worse. More money does not equal better outcomes. An expensive B-Line will not improve travel times for the people of the Northern Beaches if it is not delivered correctly. In New South Wales, the B-Line can be operated by a local bus operator or by the union dominated and government owned State Transit Authority. According to the New South Wales Auditor-General, the STA provides 50 per cent of bus trips in metro Sydney yet receives 60 per cent of government funding. Local bus operators provide the other 50 per cent and receive less than 40 per cent of allocated funds. That is a difference of nearly $200 million. Local bus operators deliver bus services efficiently and effectively. When it comes to key performance indicators, the STA loses to local bus operators on almost every measure. Fewer people pay their bus fares on STA buses. More complaints are made about STA buses, and those complaints are not handled properly. STA customers are less satisfied. STA buses are less presentable. STA buses are less safe and less reliable, and have more major defects. Most importantly, STA bus rides are twice as likely to be late. One in four STA buses runs late. A sure-fire way to ensure one in four B-Line bus rides arrives late is to ensure that the STA runs the B-Line. A sure-fire way to ensure B-Line buses are more complained about, less safe and less reliable is to allow the STA to operate them. A sure-fire way to get the worst return on the B-Line is to allow the STA to operate it. Based on the Auditor-General's findings, handing over the B-Line to the STA and the RBTU without giving local businesses the chance to tender for it is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. I call on Premier Berejiklian to ensure that the operation of the B-Line project is put out to competitive tender; that local bus operators, who diligently provide bus services better than the government's STA, are given a fair go and a chance. I hope that Premier Berejiklian and the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Andrew Constance, do not kowtow to the might of the RBTU if it demands that the B-Line operation stays within government ownership. Give local bus operators, which provide a better service at a better price, a go. For the sake of the people, the commuters and their families, put it out to tender. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow. House adjourned at 20:00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ) took the chair at 16:00.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 83 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Bendigo Electorate: Schools 83 16:00 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Thousands of school students across my electorate started back at school last week, all excited. There were some nervous parents at the school gates as well. But one of the things that really hit home for a number of the parents of school students, the staff and the teachers was that this would be the last year of guaranteed Gonski funding, which is the needs based funding that was introduced by the former Labor government to ensure that every school had the resources and the funding that it needed to educate our youngest Australians, our schoolchildren. Just to demonstrate the amount that is being cut by this government from next year: Bendigo Senior Secondary College, which is the largest school that delivers VCE in the state of Victoria, will lose $1.6 million in funding next year. The following year, in 2018, it will lose $1.9 million in funding. The principal spoke out about this last week at the front of his school. He said it creates uncertainty for students; it creates uncertainty for families; and it creates uncertainty for his teachers and for the courses that they are delivering. You have to ask yourself what programs will be cut because this government has scrapped the needs based funding which was committed by the former government. It is not just our big schools like Senior Secondary that will be hit hard by the government's funding cuts. Small schools like Elmore Primary School and Axedale Primary School will lose $100,000 each. That may not sound a lot to some of our biggest schools, to some of our wealthiest schools in Melbourne metro areas, but to Axedale Primary School, which has 99 local children, and to Elmore Primary School, which has fewer than 50 children, $100,000 is a lot. It helps to pay for integration aides. It helps to pay for their sports programs, and it helps to pay for their art programs. All of these programs are now at risk because this government has cut the needs based funding which is necessary for these schools. Other programs at risk are the NETschool program and the SWITCh program, programs that help kids who are not currently engaged in education to re-engage. These are students who stop attending schools, the school nonattenders. These programs get them back into school and back into the classroom and have been incredibly successful, with the Crusoe College SWITCh program ensuring that 60 students stayed in school and returned to mainstream schooling this year. The government has a chance in the upcoming budget to reverse the ideology, to reverse these cuts and to restore the funding: $26 million to Bendigo electorate schools. Swan Electorate: Australia Day 83 16:03 Mr IRONS HYM Swan It is great to be back in Canberra for the first sitting day of the year. One of the highlights of the summer break is getting to spend time in the electorate with the people we represent. One of my favourite occasions to do this is on Australia Day each year. This year was no different. The local MC at the city's South Perth foreshore ceremony, Gerry Gannon, who is also a local radio identity, had the same sentiments. Australia Day is a very important day for me, and it gives us all time to reflect on just how lucky we are to be part of this great nation. Whether you spent the day with friends or family around the barbie or watching the cricket or are an Aussie who celebrated abroad, it is our day to enjoy everything Australian, and I hope your Australia Day this year was as good as mine, Madam Deputy Speaker. Australia Day is also a day to reflect on the many achievements of some of our great Australians. I would like to congratulate those awarded as Australians of the Year for 2017. We are all very proud of you and your achievements. I would also like to congratulate the local council winners who won awards on Australia Day as well. In the lead-up to Australia Day this year, I sent out a small package to each of my constituents, consisting of an Australia Day newsletter which listed each of the local Australia Day events to be held in my electorate of Swan. In addition to this, I included an Australia Day magnet with our nation's anthem. Following the receipt of the Australia Day package, we also had a number of constituents who called into the office to collect an Australian flag to wave proudly on Australia Day. My office received such positive feedback about the Australia Day package. Many noted how proud they are to be Australian and shared their plans for 26 January. One of the thankyou emails I received from a constituent read: We moved here in Perth with our little 4 year old daughter in September and I'm really grateful for being part of this country. This year, Australia Day is also a little bit mine and I'm really proud of it—I really feel Australia is my country. This email resonated with me because Australia Day is a little bit mine too, as it is yours and as it is with every single Australian from Carnarvon to Coolangatta to Katherine to Port Lincoln. It belongs to all of us. This year I attended the City of South Perth's Australia Day citizenship ceremony on the South Perth foreshore before joining the City of Belmont's citizenship ceremony at the RSL club branch. It was great to see so many Australians out and about and getting involved in our local community events, along with those who became new citizens. Gerry Gannon had five of his family members from Ireland out, and they were confirmed as citizens on the day. I would like to formally congratulate and welcome to this wonderful country our newest Aussies. You have adopted Australia as your home, and I am certain you will have a wonderful future here, and your contributions will only strengthen this wonderful country of ours. I also take this opportunity to pass on my condolences to the family of those who were involved in the plane accident on the Swan River, Peter Lynch and Endah Cakrawati, who died on the foreshore that day. Petition: Telecommunications 84 16:06 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I rise today to reiterate an issue which is very important to the people of my electorate. In the previous parliament, my predecessor, the former Liberal member for Braddon, presented a petition on behalf of residents of Sulphur Creek in relation to a lack of mobile phone reception in the area. However, despite the former member's presentation of the petition in August 2015 and a subsequent promise, in the lead-up to the federal election, for mobile black-spot funding, Sulphur Creek residents have been left with no guarantee of when this commitment will be forthcoming and were misled that this commitment would be delivered sooner rather than later. Thanks to the many hours of work put in by Sulphur Creek resident Brian Britt and the intervention of my office, we have received some hope that Telstra is now taking this issue very seriously. To support this work, I would like to table at the end of my contribution an additional petition which has met the requirements of the Petitions Committee and has been approved for tabling. This petition will hopefully bring to the House's attention the ongoing failure of this government to deliver on its commitments. In May last year, the former Liberal member told Sulphur Creek residents: 'A re-elected coalition government will immediately invite mobile network operators to bid for this new funding to provide coverage in the identified locations at the earliest opportunity.' But a funding announcement in December for new mobile phone base stations at Temma and Yolla saw residents of Sulphur Creek, Gunns Plains and Devonport missing out on promised mobile black-spot funding. While I welcome the allocation of funding for Temma and Yolla, I ask the minister and her Tasmanian Liberal Senate colleagues to tell me when Sulphur Creek, Gunns Plains and black-spot areas of Devonport will have mobile reception. Is it therefore conceivable that the residents of Sulphur Creek will be waiting possibly until the end of this year for the third mobile black-spot funding round for confirmation of the commitment? Will they then be waiting several more years for the required infrastructure to become operational? I have zero confidence in the Turnbull government's approach to this program. For example, Sisters Beach residents have been waiting for two years since the funding was allocated in round 1 and are still waiting for a final date when the new equipment will be operational. Following a meeting last year with residents and businesses at Sulphur Creek with the shadow minister for regional communications, Stephen Jones, I wrote to the minister about this issue and have not received a response. Additionally, late last year, I convened a public meeting at Sulphur Creek with Telstra, and it is pleasing that Telstra is now proactively working to find a solution for these residents sooner rather than later. I table the petition and sincerely hope this matter will now be given the attention it deserves by this government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the member for Braddon. For the benefit of all members, I note that this petition has been received and approved by the Petitions Committee. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives This Petition of residents and visitors of Sulphur Creek on the North-West Coast of Tasmania draws to the attention of the House, the lack of mobile phone coverage at Sulphur Creek and the difficulty this causes residents and business owners. We therefore ask the House to consider allocating finding under the next round of Liberal Coalition's Mobile Phone Black Spot funding programme to the Heybridge, Preservation Bay and Sulphur Creek community to ensure all residents and visitors have access to essential Services. from 78 citizens Petition received. Renewable Energy Target 85 16:08 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Firstly, I would like to note the change we have here of the artwork in the Federation Chamber. It is very pleasing to have Billy Hughes, whom my seat is named after, standing behind me as I give an address here. It has certainly been a very warm summer in Sydney. We have had many long and hot nights. But the reality is we actually did not beat the heatwave we had back in 1896, that record of nine consecutive days above 35 degrees. The reason I raise this is that, due to the cost of electricity, there are many people in Sydney and in Western Sydney especially, where the temperature is several degrees hotter than the coast, who have been unable to afford to turn on their air conditioning. I know that many on the other side of this House like to go on about inequality. The greatest inequality that we have in our country at the moment is for those who, on a hot day, are unable to afford to turn their air conditioning on. We have an obligation. It should be an obligation upon every single one of us in this parliament to do everything we can to make electricity affordable. And yet we see those on the other side still continuing with the most absurd 50 per cent renewable energy target. That may have been a nice ideological position to have one or two years ago, but today we have the living experiment in South Australia of what happens when you have these unrealistic renewable energy targets. It doesn't only make your energy supply intermittent and unreliable; it doesn't only drive businesses out of business; it has a real effect on households and families, and the effect is greater on low-income households and low-income families. If you cannot afford to turn on your air conditioning on a hot day when the temperature gets above 40 degrees, there is something very, very wrong with the policies coming out of this parliament. I would call on those on the other side of the chamber to please reconsider your policy. Think what you are doing. Think about the harm that you are doing to the very people you profess that you are trying to assist. I hope that, in the years to come, both sides of this parliament get together to ensure that we do everything we can to put pressure on to lower electricity prices. (Time expired) Medicare, Centrelink 85 16:12 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Over the summer recess my office has been flooded with constituents concerned about Medicare and the payment system and also with people who have been issued with debt recovery notices from Centrelink. Time and time again the coalition have tried to tear holes in the social safety net and to smash and remove Medicare, but the Australian public has supported these programs on every occasion, and the Liberal Party have failed in that endeavour, but they are at it again. The coalition are out there now white-anting Medicare and white-anting the social safety net by degrading service levels in Centrelink offices and cluttering up and stopping the payment system in Medicare. They are simply white-anting the safety net to send it on the nose, and then they claim the dysfunctions are the fault of the policy, not the fault of the government that is degrading service levels. Centrelink and Medicare have a long, proud history of high-quality service provision for the Australian people. Indeed, we celebrated the 33rd anniversary of Medicare just last week. But it now looks a lot different, and if the coalition have their way it will be destroyed and smashed. The dedicated officers are gone. The smiling, local, award-winning staff have gone with huge cuts in DHS. The professional and timely service has gone. Rebates are lower or, in some cases, gone entirely. Service apps, frustrated staff, hours of waiting times at offices and on the phone and errors made due to inadequate staffing are all the reality of Centrelink and the Medicare system today. The Prime Minister claimed during the campaign that Medicare was safe, but the truth is that, every day since the campaign finished, the government has been pulling it apart step by step. Staff are under strict instructions to push customers to digital claiming at point of service. Then the myGov Express Plus app is servicing all paper claims in the office drop box, yet there are reports that there is a backlog of 266,000 outpatient claims and that the Medicare claims-processing service is crippled by backlogs and delays. My constituents are reporting delays of four to five weeks for app claims that used to take two to three days. The result has been a dramatic increase in waiting periods for patient claims. Before local claims processing stopped, rebates took two to three days; they are currently taking four to six weeks. This Prime Minister might cry crocodile tears about what we said about Medicare in the campaign but, step by step, he is crippling service delivery in Medicare and through Centrelink. In doing so, his party is trying to withdraw Australian support for these valid programs that they know Australians support. They are trying to send these programs down the tube through these terrible service levels. Similarly, we are getting it in Centrelink. People who do not have debts are getting debt notices. People are being pushed by Centrelink to— (Time expired) Capricornia Electorate: Infrastructure 86 16:15 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I take this opportunity to update the House on several significant projects that the Liberal-National coalition has invested in to improve community infrastructure in the town of Yeppoon and the City of Rockhampton. Firstly, the summer break saw the soft launch of the multimillion dollar Yeppoon town centre car park. The multistorey facility is a key stage of supporting infrastructure to be built under the Yeppoon Foreshore and Town Centre Revitalisation Project. I am pleased to remind the House that the federal coalition government committed $10 million towards this revitalisation plan from the National Stronger Regions Fund. The car park will eventually take vehicles off the main beachfront, allowing that area to be used for other activities to attract more visitors and business opportunities along the Yeppoon esplanade. The car park opened just in time for the busy Christmas shopping season and peak Capricorn Coast holiday period. The Livingstone Shire Council has made car parking at the new centre free, which will help to stimulate the local economy by encouraging more people to visit the redeveloped foreshore itself. The anticipated increased visitor numbers are expected to inject up to $6 million a year into the local economy and $60 million to the wider region. Meanwhile, I was also fortunate to attend the official opening of stage 1 of the Rockhampton Riverbank Revitalisation. The riverbank development will be a significant asset to the city when all stages have been completed. Every city has a focal point for visitors, and this will be the start of a revitalised Rockhampton. I am pleased the federal coalition government was able to contribute $7 million into the project, also from the National Stronger Regions Fund. The Fitzroy River is a great, underutilised asset, and this project will enhance its value. What is also important is the development provides a blank canvas and opportunity for increased economic activity along the river and historic Quay Street, which will help to create future jobs in the region. We have already seen a lot of investment in hotel apartments along the river foreshore, and Rockhampton is on the cusp of harnessing even more growth from its river precinct. Over many stages, advances at the river foreshore will make it a wonderful place to visit and will make us very proud of our city. Congratulations to all involved, and to the Rockhampton Regional Council. We look forward to watching Rockhampton city develop even further into a modern and more sophisticated regional hub. Wakefield Electorate: Holden 86 16:18 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield On 13 January this year Holden announced their closure date of 20 October. While we expected a date to be announced, these announcements are always shocking to those in the local community and to the workforce. I want to make a few observations in a nonpartisan way. We have to remember that 30,000 vehicles will be built before manufacturing at the plant ends. That is a massive tribute to the workforce at Holden, who have been subject on more than one occasion to comments in this parliament and in newspapers about their work ethic and their professionalism. One of the things I want to report to the House is that, at the moment, the Holden Elizabeth operation is achieving a 96 per cent right-first-time quality rate, which puts it in the top five per cent of General Motors manufacturing plants around the world—the top five per cent globally. This is a tribute to the workforce of Elizabeth, to their professionalism, to their work ethic and to their commitment to the brand. I have to say that I am terribly proud of them, and Australia should be too. One of the saddest things you have to do as a local member is assist people through times of redundancy. I have done it as a union official and as a local member. I have been down to the Holden Transition Centre, which, somewhat ironically, is in the old employment office where I and others used to go to apply for a job at Holden. I was unsuccessful, but many of my mates were not. The transition centre is helping workers as they leave the plant. I thank Ashley Winnett, Jamie Getgood, Sally Renshaw, Toni Frost and the rest of the transition team for their efforts, because 70 per cent of employees who have left Holden have been successful in gaining employment within 12 months of leaving. That is a very good figure. The transition centre is doing all it can to nurse people—to help people—through what is one of the most traumatic things that anybody can go through: a period of redundancy. I wish them continued good luck in finding the Holden workforce work. We know it will get more difficult as time gets on. We know that the government needs to respond more fully to the enormous dislocation that is going to go on in the South Australian, Victorian and national economies as these workers find themselves unemployed. I commend to the House the idea that the government should be more fully involved. (Time expired) Youngcare, Specialist Disability Accommodation Initiative 87 16:21 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I recently visited a house set up and operated by Youngcare in Wooloowin, in my electorate, along with the Youngcare CEO, Anthony Ryan, and the Queensland deputy opposition leader Deb Frecklington. I wish to advise colleagues of some of the things I learnt at the Youngcare house and about the great work that Youngcare does, both in Brisbane and more widely. Youngcare's mission is to help young people exit or avoid being placed in the aged-care system, which is, unfortunately, an all-too-common outcome in the absence of appropriate housing for young people with high needs due to a disability or similar. Youngcare is working at developing viable models to solve the problem once and for all, giving young people with high needs choice in care and accommodation that they deserve. My experiences with Youngcare have taught me that it is solutions focused. It is trying and finding significant success in connecting industry leaders, government and community to drive much-needed change. At Youngcare's Wooloowin share house we met with some of the housemates, who showed us some of the innovative and exciting things Youngcare has provided for their high-care needs. The house was light and bright and of high quality. The care being provided by Wesley Mission Queensland was truly commendable. Thanks to Youngcare, the four young residents there are empowered to live with the dignity we all deserve. Subsequent to my visit I have had further conversations with Youngcare about the urgent need to do more to address the shortage of appropriate housing for people with high-care needs. I want to highlight the opportunity that is presented by the specialist disability accommodation, SDA, funding program which is provided alongside the NDIS but separately funded and assessed. The SDA is intended to help some Australians living with disability who require high levels of support. It is a program that helps to meet the cost of the physical building, including the land that it is situated on, to ensure that there are incentives to construct suitable accommodation and to provide the accommodation to participants in such a way that they do not have to pay more for their homes because of their disability. Through encouraging conversations and bringing different people together there is an opportunity for us to make further great things happen, which could really help so many more young people who are either already within or at risk of entering the aged-care system at a time when it is inappropriate for them to do so. I want to encourage Youngcare to continue to do the great work that it does for some very vulnerable people in our local community in Brisbane and around Queensland. Equally, I want to take this opportunity to encourage potential providers or investors who are considering the specialist disability accommodation program to contact Youngcare themselves to explore the value that Youngcare could provider in identifying young people in need and helping to form meaningful partnerships to help really solve this problem. Community Legal Centres 87 16:24 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Across Australia, community legal centres provide support every day to some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people facing what is often one of life's most difficult legal challenges and significant crises in their life, be it domestic violence, tenancy disputes, debt, consumer problems or employment issues. Community legal centres offer assistance to people who are without the means to obtain private legal advice. In 2014-15, CLCs across the country assisted over 216,000 clients with advice and casework services, provided over $250,000 referrals and responded to around 190,000 requests for legal information from the public. Of the many people they assisted, 50 per cent of their clients received social welfare, 25 per cent had a disability and 13 per cent were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. We are talking about some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in our community. In the area that I represent at Kingsford Smith, we have an outstanding Community Legal Centre in the Kingsford Legal Centre which is located at the University of New South Wales. A wonderful local team there, led by Anna Cody, recently celebrated their 25th anniversary. I want to congratulate Anna, who in 2016 was awarded the 2016 Human Rights Law Award for her work over the last many, many years with Community Legal Centres. Because of this good work at the Kingsford CLC—which deserves support—Labor announced in the lead-up to the recent election that we would provide an additional $43 million in frontline legal services working to help people, in particular those suffering from incidences of domestic violence. Community Legal Centres have long been valued for their outstanding work. DV survivor and Australian of the Year Rosie Batty has personally praised legal centres for this work. But, unfortunately, in stark contrast to what Labor proposed at the last election, the Liberals have done nothing but attack Community Legal Centres and the services they provide, cutting $52 million from CLCs, legal aid commissions and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services. As a result of the Turnbull government's failure to recognise the important work of these centres, CLCs face a 30 per cent funding cut in June this year. For Kingsford Legal Centre, this will mean that of their five solicitors they will have to cut one of them. They will have to cut many of their outreach services and have a dramatic reduction in the services they provide. This is unfair and unconscionable, and will affect some of the most vulnerable people in our community. These impacts will be felt Australia wide. I call on the government to reverse these heartless cuts to CLCs. (Time expired) Dunkley Electorate: headspace Frankston 88 16:27 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Since my election as the member for Dunkley, I have been contacted by many Dunkley residents who have raised with me their thoughts and needs with respect to mental health and the needs of those suffering from mental health issues in the community. Headspace in Frankston—which I am very fond of—is one of the local support centres in my electorate which assists many young people locally who are living with mental health challenges. Headspace does remarkable work with young people who are experiencing emotional health challenges. As an active centre in Frankston, it is a place where friendships can be built, confidence can be nurtured and the knowledge and support of youth service providers in our community can be utilised. On January 30, I was pleased to host the federal Minister for Health. the Hon. Greg Hunt, in my electorate of Dunkley. Along with the manager of headspace in Frankston, Rose-Mary Dowling, as well as the new CEO of headspace nationally, I was thrilled to be able to announce the delivery of an additional $240,000 in funding for the Frankston headspace, ensuring vital mental health services are available to young people in their local community for the next two years. This delivers, in fact doubles, the commitment I made to headspace during my recent election campaign to deliver on a local lead site for mental health services. A total of $750,000 will fund youth mental health services from St Kilda to the Mornington Peninsula through the South Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network—one of the few PHNs in Australia to be a lead site for mental health services. Frankston headspace is now developing and trialling new initiatives to tackle severe youth mental health issues, such as training youth workers to engage with young people and connect them with the right services. This funding builds on the work already undertaken to deliver regionally-focused mental health services through the South Eastern Melbourne PHN in partnership with the Victorian government and local service providers. Mental health is a key priority for the Turnbull government and this funding will help improve the lives of many young people and their families. It delivers on our election commitment to improve assistance for young people with mental-health issues in Frankston and on the Mornington Peninsula. It is a demonstration of the hard work and effort of those who are working in my electorate to assist young people who are living with mental-health challenges. Listening to my electorate and delivering results is what I do as the federal member for Dunkley. As I have listened to my community about the importance of supporting mental-health initiatives, I also call on the state government members along the Frankston rail line to listen to their community who are clearly opposed to things like the sky rail, which will devastate many homeowners along the line. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Unless any member objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. Corio Electorate: Centrelink 88 16:30 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Daniel, a constituent of mine from Central Geelong, received in September last year a $5,600 debt issued to him by Centrelink. He was already under financial strain and about to get married. He was contacted by a debt collector who informed him of the debt. He asked the debt collector why he was being issued this one as he had not had a dealing with Centrelink for two years. It is important to understand that prior to the debt collector contacting Daniel there had been no contact between Centrelink and Daniel, directly, other than the letter that he received. Centrelink was then contacted by Daniel. When he spoke to Centrelink they said the case had been referred to the debt collector as they did not have the capacity to handle the current load of debt collection cases and they were not even in a position to inform Daniel of exactly what the debt related to. This is just one example of many that has been received by me in our constituent office over the last few months, and this has been an issue of as much concern as any local issue that I have dealt with since my time of being an MP. What we now understand is that since July of last year the Turnbull government has been sending out 20,000 letters, which have been accusing—in many cases, falsely accusing—people, in relation to income that is allegedly owed to Centrelink. What we now understand is that previously data matching was carried out with human supervision but now that scrutiny is not occurring by Centrelink employees and, as a result, these letters are going out anyway. We have a situation where the Minister for Social Services has now accepted the fact that one in five of these letters is understood to be incorrect—and yet it is intended to send out another 1.7 million of these letters over the next three years. The government tells us that many debt notices that have been sent out are now, clearly, incorrect. According to the Minister for Human Services, 40 per cent of those who raise their issue publicly are found to have owed no debt. We have seen ACOSS, Disabled People's Organisations Australia, People with Disability Australia, the Welfare Rights Alliance, the Unemployed Workers Union, come and speak out against this. Indeed, even Senator Eric Abetz, a government senator, has spoken out about this. This has been a disaster from the start. Too many people in Geelong have been hurt by a government when they have done nothing wrong. Government ministers simply cannot be allowed to keep saying the system is working fine. Clearly, it is not. It is a total debacle. (Time expired) Berowra Electorate: Chinese and Korean Communities 89 16:33 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise today and wish you a happy new year—not just a happy new year in the sense of the Australian calendar but also a happy Lunar New Year, which is what I want to talk about today. The Lunar New Year is an extremely important festival, which is celebrated by, among others, Australia's vibrant and strong Chinese and Korean communities. This year, under the Chinese zodiac, we welcome the Year of the Rooster. More than 12½ thousand people of Chinese ancestry have made their home in my electorate of Berowra. The Chinese have been in Australia since the 1840s and have made an important and long-lasting contribution to our society. In my electorate, the Cherrybrook Chinese Community Association—led by their president, the indefatigable Jenny Lau—fosters Chinese culture and language skills and broader community participation. I was delighted to join the Cherrybrook Chinese Community Association for their new year's dinner on Sunday night for the ninth year in a row. There were wonderful lion dancers and a magnificent banquet. Jenny Lau was recently named the Epping electorate woman of the year, and I acknowledge the good judgement of my state colleague Damien Tudehope in that regard. Congratulations, Jenny, for all of your hard work, and also congratulations to your vice-president, Stephen Lang, treasurer, Dennis Loh, secretary, Polly Chan, and assistant treasurer, Alice Ho, for the continued success and prosperity of the association. I also acknowledge the work over many, many years of the great calligrapher and former president Yue-yan Chan. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge several other important Chinese community associations making a fantastic contribution across Sydney. The Chinese Australian Services Society provides excellent services to seniors in the Chinese community, and I acknowledge the enormous contribution made by Henry Pan, who was the founder of the association, and Tony Pang, their tireless executive director. I also recognise the Chinese Australian Forum, a group dedicated to providing the Chinese community with a voice in the Australian political process. I was delighted to speak at the forum's federal election debate last year, and I thank former president Patrick Voon and current president, Kenrick Cheah, for the positive way in which they provide a voice to the Chinese community. Members may be surprised to know that I am actually the first member of the Chinese Australian Forum to be elected to this parliament. I want to thank the following members of the Chinese community for their support and friendship for many years: Ben Chow; Hudson and Eve Chen, who run the Liberal Party's Chinese council; Helen Sham-Ho, a friend and mentor of 20 years; Eugene and Hayley Liao; Steve Khouw; Matthew Lo; Sherry Wang and John Shu; Greg Dy; Beth Goh; Geoffrey Li; Vincent So; David and Maria Chin— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 36 to 16 : 50 Mr LEESER 109556 Felix Lam; and Jane Li and Stephen Loh. Lunar New Year is also celebrated by the Korean community. More than 2,600 Koreans live in my electorate, and I acknowledge their contribution to our community, including people like Paul Jung, Paul Kim and Hansie Joo. I wish all my Chinese constituents 'Gong ci fa cai', and my Korean constituents 'Saehae bok mani badeuseyo'! Griffith Electorate: Australia Day Awards 89 16:51 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to advise that on the weekend over the break we held the ceremony for the 2017 Griffith Australia Day Awards, the 18th annual Griffith Australia Day Awards. They were instigated by my predecessor as the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd. I want to express my thanks to Dr Bill Glasson, who honoured me by agreeing to serve as the chair of the Australia Day awards committee this year, and I also thank the other members of the committee: Penny McClelland, Terry Wahry, Desley Graham and Alex Skinner. The recipients of the Griffith Australia Day Awards included: Lois Angus, who is in her 80s and has been a long-term volunteer at the Cannon Hill Community Sports Club and the Cannon Hill Ladies Bowling Club; Lloyd Barron, who has been the voluntary warden at St Paul's Anglican Church for 42 years; Captain Elaine Callick, known as 'Dixie', who has been with the Girl Guides for 52 years; Geoff Cave, who has been on the management committee at Flexi Care—a really wonderful organisation supporting people with disabilities; Kenneth Cort, from the nasho subbranch of the RSL; George Gee, who is 94 and still volunteering, who was a founder of the Queensland Maritime Museum in 1972; Trish Gollschewski, who is a volunteer at UnitingCare, including Lifeline's book fest; Nasreen Herold, from the Annerley Community Hub, who does a lot of work with the Small Change Cafe team among others; Harold Holland, known as 'Happy', who is a long-serving volunteer at 60 and Better Cannon Hill; Keith Kirkpatrick at the Annerley Friendship Club; Norma McInturff, from Seville Road State School; Jim McNeill, who is a volunteer at Balmoral Uniting Community Centre; Ernie Melville, who was the founder and inaugural president of the Brisbane Amateur Beer Brewers in 1977, who are still going strong and about to celebrate their 40th anniversary; Susie Molloy, from Meals on Wheels, Rosies and Balmoral Uniting Community Centre; Don Neander, who was one of the people on the St Oliver P&F back in 1967 and who still serves on the parish committee and also helps out with Southern Cross Care, Bulimba hockey club, Cannon Hills Bowls Club and more; Hannah Nelson, from Speech and Language Development Australia; Bev Perry, who is from the Belmont Services Ladies Bowling Club; Louise Pierce of the Casserole Bank at St Peter and Paul's church in Bulimba; Heather Williams, an amazing cancer fundraiser and someone who is also a volunteer at 60 and Better Cannon Hill; Stewart Wyer, a life member of Carina Junior Rugby League Football Club; the Bulimba Judo Club's Robert Borchert and Meryl Power; Greening Australia's Gordon Watson and Robert Matthews; San Sisto College Volunteers Phil Jackson, Georgia Robinson and Lisa Anthony; Campbell's Club by Micah Projects' Mary MacMahon, Joy Reiken, Kate Doolan, Nancye Reid, Kris Bentley, Jenny Dex and Teresa Smyth; Renee and Aiden Lamberth, who founded the Scarlett May Foundation after they lost their 10-month old daughter; Gary and Myriam Goldman, who made sure the South Brisbane Hebrew Congregation was celebrated; and the Mental Awareness Foundation Walk For Awareness guys. Congratulations to all recipients. Pitman, Mr Mitchell 90 16:54 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page This year's far North Coast winner of ABC's Heywire is Mitchell Pitman. He is a 17-year-old boy from Leeville, who has faced many challenges. Born eight weeks premature and with cerebral palsy, Mitchell was also deaf. He was told he would never walk and never hear. Mitchell and his parents, Melanie and David, were determined to prove the doctors wrong. At age two Mitchell got a cochlear implant so he could hear, and, after a couple of years wearing splints, he could walk. But Mitchell's winning entry is not about the problems he faced in life: it is about how his school, Leeville primary, turned his life around and made him the person he is today. He says he was treated as a normal kid at school, playing touch footy on sharp gravel, and when he was down his friends would pick him up because that is what friends do. He says, 'I am really thankful.' Mitchell currently attends Casino High School and is studying year 12, as well as doing a traineeship at Richmond Valley Council. After being told he would never walk, Mitchell has competed at state level, taking out bronze for running in the 'athletes with disabilities' category. I am looking forward to catching up with Mitchell, and Melanie and David, in Parliament House tomorrow with the other ABC Heywire winners. They are an inspirational family and I would like to congratulate Mitchell on his inspiring story, and his mum and dad for producing such a wonderful young man. The ANZ Tennis Hot Shot of the Year competition recognises and rewards a hot shot participant every month. Last year, there were three from the electorate of Page: Eva Skeet from the Lismore Tennis Centre's Raising Aces program was nominated in February, Rahni McGrath from the Grafton City Tennis Club was nominated for December, and the overall winner was nominated for October, and that was Jack McLean from the Casino Town Tennis Club. During the Australian Open recently, he was named the ANZ Tennis Hot Shot of the Year on Rod Laver Arena. As part of his nomination, the player receives a VIP Australian Open experience including a behind-the-scenes tour during the tournament, a meet and greet with Novak Djokovic and the opportunity to watch some of his favourite tennis players on court. He was selected as the winner by a panel of judges from Tennis Australia and the program sponsor, ANZ. His prize is a free year of tennis coaching, one private coaching session with Alicia Molik and $5,000 in cash. Congratulations to Jack. Gellibrand Electorate: Centrelink 90 16:56 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I am pleased that parliament has returned today and we have this opportunity to make a constituency statement about an issue that has been affecting, I think, all MPs over the summer break, and this is the issue of the very large number of inaccurate Centrelink debt notices that have been sent to Australians for the last couple of months. This Christmas, many residents of Melbourne's west received a very unpleasant Christmas present: an inaccurate Centrelink debt notice. This is symptomatic of a broader problem that we have with the Australian welfare system and with government in Australia in general, and that is the failure of government and instruments of our government to see the individual people within the system: a faceless bureaucratic system that does not see the individuals that it is designed to serve. Over the past two months, we have seen Centrelink automatically issuing thousands of debt notices based on new computer data analysis. However, this data has been shown to be inaccurate or at least outdated. My office has been inundated by calls from frightened constituents who have been issued with these inaccurate notices. My office has been filled over the Christmas break with people literally in tears over this issue, and my constituents, like many Australians, have been unfairly and inaccurately targeted. This dodgy program is not just a computer stuff-up: it affects real people's lives and it has caused enormous disruption and distress. One constituent wrote and told me: 'This process took three months, at least one week off work collectively on the phones talking to Centrelink. One day I spent six hours on the phone and was transferred to 10 separate people. Seven complaint letters to Centrelink and hours of time collecting the documents they requested for information that they already had. Each time I complained, I would get a letter with the debt slightly reduced. I would then have to go through the whole process again to unpick their errors and fight the new debt.' This is just one example. They are not alone. Four thousand people a week have been receiving inaccurate debt notices. Twenty per cent of the notices issued each month have been shown to be wrong. This dodgy program is wrong. It is unfair for governments to make individuals prove their innocence, particularly in the threatening and intimidating way that these letters have been provided in the shadows of Christmas. There is a huge amount of fear in my community of receiving one of these letters in the future, not just ones that have already been received. The government is not checking the facts and not doing the right thing. The government is not seeing the individuals that it is supposed to serve. Some in this country wonder why we have such public alienation from our government and our democratic institutions in Australia, in the US and across the western world. This is a great example of why: an example not only of government failing the Australian public on a practical matter of concern to their daily lives but of a government demonstrating by their actions and sending a message to the Australian public that they do not care, that they are not listening and that they refuse to act in response to these practical impacts on people's lives. In contrast, the Labor Party is listening, and we are ready and willing to fight these dodgy debt letters. I say to any members of my constituency: 'If you receive one of these letters and you think you've been dudded, I will fight for you. I will take your cause up with the government. I will make sure you're not unfairly done by.' Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 91 16:59 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher This week the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse began its final public hearings into the Catholic Church. It should be remembered that the royal commission is examining the conduct not only of those in the Catholic Church but of those in all institutions in Australia. On 6 February, just yesterday, counsel assisting the royal commission, Gail Furness SC, tendered a report to the commission. The report results from research conducted by the royal commission, supported by the Catholic Church's body for coordinating their response to the royal commission—the Truth, Justice and Healing Council—and from Catholic Church authorities. It sought to estimate the numbers and proportions of priests and non-ordained religious members of the Catholic Church who were alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse in at least one claim. As a committed Catholic I found those figures deeply disturbing, although it is important to point out that the figures relate to allegations of misconduct rather than to actual findings of guilt. The data relates to incidents that are alleged to have taken place during the period of 1950 to 2010, though it only includes claims reported since 1980. It includes priests, brothers, sisters, lay employees and volunteers. There were 1,880 alleged perpetrators who were identified in claims of child sexual abuse, and 4,444 alleged child sexual abuse incidents were reported—572 of the incidents were by priests, 693 by non-ordained religious members and 543 by lay people. Seven per cent of all priests overall are estimated to have been identified in at least one claim. This figure is higher than the US equivalent of 5.6 per cent. The average age of male victims was 11½ years old, and for female victims it was 10½ years old. The Truth, Justice and Healing Council said: They are tragic and they are indefensible. Each entry in this data, for the most part, represents a child who suffered at the hands of someone who should have cared for and protected them, and let us not forget the ripples of the abuse also felt by their family, friends and carers. Perhaps the most disconcerting evidence that has been heard by the commission, if that is at all possible, is the leadership of the church and its systemic failure to protect those most vulnerable who were entrusted to it. Church leadership has a great deal to answer for for its willingness to sweep things under the carpet and, in fact, to hide these atrocities from parishes to where religious members and priests were sent, where their people's history was unbeknown. Many children have suffered and continue as adults to suffer from their experience in Catholic institutions, and we as a government have taken steps to introduce a Commonwealth redress scheme. (Time expired) Abortion 92 17:03 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I rise to warn against Australia following the path Donald Trump has taken on foreign health aid. This is an issue that matters to a lot of people in my electorate, and has been raised with me. The US President has reinstated a Reagan-era policy that prohibits the granting of American foreign aid to health providers who discuss abortion as a family planning option. Let us be clear: we are not talking about organisations that provide abortion services—there is already a ban on that. This freezes funding to non-government organisations in poor countries if they offer termination counselling, and applies even if the organisations use other sources of funding to undertake this counselling. We probably all saw the photo of 10 men and a lone woman as the President signed the decree. The irony that this is a decision by men on what rights a woman has is striking. The consequences of this legislation every time a Republican President reinstates it, as George W Bush did, is that women's health clinics close, contraceptive suppliers wither and abortion rates skyrocket. In other words, women and their families suffer. Is that really what these men want? I hope not. Australian organisations have a strong record of lifting the standards of women's reproductive health across developing countries. My own experience of family-planning foreign aid comes through years I spent as a director of the non-profit Family Planning NSW. The Pacific, where most of Family Planning NSW's foreign aid is directed, has some of the worst reproductive and sexual health statistics globally. There are high rates of maternal and infant mortality, high levels of unintended and teenage pregnancies and unacceptably high levels of cervical cancer. We are talking about work close to home in countries like PNG and Timor-Leste and across islands like Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. In Australia, we have strong guidelines established in 2009 around our foreign aid health funding. They reflect the International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action, adopted by 179 governments in 1994, which supports a comprehensive approach to family planning and reproductive health activities. Our funding is based on the idea that women and men should freely decide the number, spacing and timing of their children and have access to the information and means to exercise this choice. Australia's approach ensures we actively work to improve the quality of care in family planning and reproductive health, making the prevention of unwanted pregnancies the highest priority, with every attempt being made to minimise the need for abortion. Victoria: Crime 92 17:06 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Deputy Speaker Hastie, I know you are one of those people who are particularly concerned about making sure that we have a safe and secure and crime-free society. That is why I want to take the opportunity to raise particularly the issues around crime and the problems of crime in the great state of Victoria. After we witnessed yet another terrible tragedy in the Melbourne CBD last month, it is time to take Victoria's crime problem seriously. Australians should be able to feel pride that each day they live in a successful and harmonious country, but our justice system must uphold this and ensure our freedoms are not assaulted by those with the deliberate intention to do harm. We are appalled at the tears of pain and fear that have swept across our great state. I have to say that, sadly, far too much of that pain has fallen on the Goldstein community, which has suffered from a bounty of criminal activity in recent months. In January, for instance, a group of teenagers were held at gunpoint during a gang robbery in Ormond. One of the victims is now undergoing surgery after he was slashed with a knife. We also witnessed a horrifying carjacking in Brighton, where a woman was robbed and assaulted before her car was stolen, only to be involved in a car crash in Elwood moments later. There have been similar issues of carjackings in the near vicinity of the Goldstein electorate, though just outside it. The County Court heard in November last year that a 19-year-old male took part in a home invasion in Brighton East while on bail for a number of crimes, including aggravated burglary. We are all sick of it. Victorians have had enough. At the federal level we have ensured, as a government, that our security agencies are appropriately resourced and given the powers necessary to keep us safe. People may have seen recently efforts by the federal government to deport noncitizens who have been involved in criminal activity. It is now up to the Andrews government in Victoria to do the same. It is clear that the bail system is broken and in desperate need of legal and cultural change, and, finally, Daniel Andrews seems to get that message after so much crime. The presumption of remand for those charged with violent offences should be front and centre of reform, and violent offenders should not be given the opportunity to commit horrific crimes by being granted the ability to roam our streets, because the streets of Goldstein must be safe. Rather than allowing the list of burglaries and assaults to continue to rise, decisive action is needed, and it is needed now. Whitlam Electorate: Australia Day Awards, Yeo, Mr Philip, OAM 93 17:09 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam We have built a prosperous and successful multicultural nation in Australia, one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world, and on Australia Day we recognise how the wonderful people in our community have helped to define who we are as Australians. I was very pleased that, on Australia Day this year, I was able to attend ceremonies and functions in Shellharbour, in Wollongong and in the Wingecarribee shire, in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales. On this first day of parliament, I want our national parliament to recognise the people from my region who received honours in the Australia Day honours list. We are recognising people who have contributed from my region to science and technology, the arts, community services, sports, medicine and advocacy for the First Australians, people like Gordon Wallace, Bill Lovegrove, Dr Ann Ellacott, Patrick Roberts, Ron Dryburgh, Raymond Vincent, Noel Cornish, Robyn te Velde, Judith O'Brien, Phil Yeo, Noeline Munro, Peter Nickl, John Flynn, Richard Biele, John Williams and Brian Castles-Onion and including one rocker well known to all of us here, one James—better known as Jimmy—Barnes. All of the awards are well deserved, but the person I would like to talk a bit about is my friend Phil Yeo. I can wholeheartedly say that he well and truly deserved this recognition. Phil's service to local government and the community of Wingecarribee and his dedication to education have made him an invaluable member of our region. He was elected five times to the Wingecarribee Shire Council, serving for 24 years—a sentence indeed! He had the great honour of serving as a mayor and a deputy mayor over those many years. His service was defined by integrity, innovation and leadership. At a time when councils were focusing on rates, rubbish and kerbs, Phil's innovations brought to the council contributions to providing community services and ensuring the council took a role in environmental stewardship, something that all of us in public office should aspire to and uphold. Phil also dedicated himself over many, many years to shaping the minds of the next generations of Australia through public education. He worked as a teacher, a high school principal, a chief education officer and finally as the director of schools for the Bowral region. Phil is a reminder of what we love about our community. I am very proud to call him my friend, but he is also a person who continues to give and to motivate us in all the things that we aspire to in this place. I ask that the parliament recognise his many years of service to our community. Organ and Tissue Donation 93 17:12 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My constituency statement has to do with Zaidee's Rainbow Foundation, which is a foundation that was formed after the death of Zaidee Turner, a seven-year-old girl from Shepparton who died in 2004. She died from a burst blood vessel in the brain, and Zaidee's parents, Kim and Allan, created a foundation called Zaidee's Rainbow Foundation. Zaidee and her family were all registered organ donors, and as a result Zaidee's organs and tissues were donated to the Royal Children's Hospital, where she helped to save or improve the lives of seven other people. It is an amazing story which encourages us all to think about organ donation. Last year in Australia, we had 160,000 people die. We had just over 500 people actually donate their organs for the betterment of other people, many of them desperately in need. While these 500 people in Australia, in all of the nation, are a 16 per cent increase on the previous year, it certainly highlights the fact—a fact that many people are not aware of—that in order to donate your organs and your tissues, even if you are 100 per cent supportive of that happening, you have to die in very extreme circumstances. Actually, you have to be on the table, on life support, and your family has to more or less give the okay. It is only a very small percentage of people, a fraction of the percentage of the people who register and have the wish that their organs or tissues be donated, who donate. For all of those people who happen to die outside of that environment, the oxygen depletion of the organs effectively means that those organs are no longer able to be used in operations. Therefore, in conjunction with meeting Allan over the last few weeks and months, I am pushing my voice towards an opt-out system. At the moment we currently have an opt-in system. All of Australia is out unless you register, and then upon your death your family is happy for your tissues and organs to be donated. There are countries such as France, Wales and Spain that have the opt-out system. Everybody is effectively in and only those people who specifically have an issue about this have the opportunity to opt out. We are currently a First World country, but in the numbers in relation to organ donation we are ranked somewhere in the 20s. I am sure we all have friends, relatives and neighbours who are in desperate need of organs so that they can continue to live a healthy life, and I am really going to start pushing for an opt-out system in Australia. 17:15 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. BUSINESS 94 BUSINESS Rearrangement 94 17:16 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray by leave—I move: That orders of the day Nos 1 to 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 94 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Workplace Relations 94 17:16 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise today to alert the House and raise a grievance in relation to a growing trend in Australia where employers are applying to the Fair Work Commission to terminate enterprise agreements. They are doing this to reduce wages and conditions for hundreds of workers across Australia. This is a growing trend, an alarming trend, and flies in the face of the government's rhetoric that they support and want to see high wages and wages growth. The peak union body, the ACTU, is calling on the government to act. Communities are calling on the government to act, as they see workers—particularly in a lot of our regional areas—suffer from cruel cuts made by companies. These companies are avoiding their obligation and manipulating and using loopholes within the Fair Work Act to cut the wages and conditions of hundreds of employees. In some cases the wage cuts that they are trying to implement are 65 per cent of the original pay the workers were receiving with their collective agreement. We are seeing these companies apply to terminate agreements and force workers on these agreements back to the award, thus cutting wages and pushing them closer to the safety net. This undermines collective enterprise bargaining results which workers and employers have negotiated successfully for the past 20 years. It is something that is happening at the moment. Whilst it is not new, there has been a spike in companies seeking to terminate agreements under the Fair Work Act. In July the Fair Work Commission full bench upheld a termination of the Griffin Coal maintenance agreement and rejected the appeal from the workers which claimed that they faced a 43 per cent pay cut—a 43 per cent pay cut to workers in the small regional town of Collie. A Senate inquiry held in the town just a few weeks ago spoke to community members—people involved in the football club, the netball club and organisations—that said that these pay cuts have had an effect on their community. The termination of this agreement, like so many is a tactic that is being used by employers to undermine and cut the wages and conditions of workers, which has the knock-on effect of lowering regional living standards. This case, which happened last year, is not an isolated incident. There is also the case which has happened up in Queensland with Rail where, again, the company applied to Fair Work to have a series of agreements terminated with the RTBU, forcing those workers to negotiate a much lower rate of pay or be forced back to the award. It is a tactic because the company basically says to the employees in bargaining: 'Agree to our cuts or we are going to force you back to the award.' This whole entire tactic and process is undermining collective bargaining, which is a fundamental pillar of our Fair Work system. The town of Collie is not alone. We also have had workers that have been affected in Central Queensland, in the small mining town of Middlemount, where their employer, Anglo American—whilst it has not registered to terminate the agreement—replaced a group of local workers with labour hire. Thus, when redundancies came round, it did not make the labour hire workers redundant; it made its own workforce redundant, effectively holding these workers to ransom by saying, 'Unless you agree to our pay cuts, unless you agree to our new agreement, we will replace you with labour hire workers.' These are two clear and obvious underminings of the Fair Work Act, the principles of the Fair Work Act and the principles of collective bargaining that the government would address if it was serious about addressing the rapid collapse in wages and wage growth. I mentioned a freight operator. Eight hundred jobs were culled over three years, delivering up to $3 million in benefits back to the company—$300 million of wages and conditions were cut from workers' pay packets and from their entitlements. There has also been action by AGL who sought to increase pressure on workers over their stalled bargaining in Victoria's Loy Yang power station and coal mine by applying to terminate the existing agreement. They are doing this under section 225 of the Fair Work Act, which permits the making of applications to terminate an agreement after its nominal expiry date. Perhaps most grievous is something that has happened just recently just north of my electorate, in the electorate of the member for Murray, at the Parmalat facility where, just five weeks after the agreement had expired, the company filed with Fair Work an application to terminate the agreement of 60 workers who work at the facility, many of them have worked there for decades. The company filed to terminate the agreement and force these workers back to the award. This application will be heard later this month, and what the company has been proposing in bargaining—at the moment, it has locked the workers out. It says it is going to close the facility on a permanent and ongoing basis, yet is still engaging in discussions. This is a heavy handed tactic by the company to bully the workers into copping pay cuts. The dispute there is also about labour hire. Labour hire is a growing problem in Australian workplaces. Too many companies are starting to use labour hire firms to undercut collective agreement rates and directly-employed-agreement rates of pay. I have stood in this place a number of times and raised examples in my electorate of how big companies like Don KR have used overseas backpackers, paying them the award to undercut their directly employed local EBA workers. The one I have not mentioned which relates to Parmalat is what happened at the Parmalat facility in Bendigo. We do not have within that collective agreement a clause for restricting labour hire. What happened there last year is that a number of labour hire local workers working for Manpower replaced by workers working for Programmed Skilled. But when they all went to apply for jobs with Programmed Skilled—these are the local workers—they were not given any hours. Instead, Programmed Skilled had hired Irish backpackers to do the work that these previous labour hire workers had done. That is 16 locals from Bendigo who lost work and were replaced with Irish backpackers. Only after a few months was it discovered that the foreign workers were paid $10 less per hour than their Aussie colleagues. Two months after, there was a major payroll dispute. Many, including those who had worked there for many years, were either underpaid or paid late. Penalty rates and overtime did not apply. It is an ongoing dispute at the site, and still to this day a lot of local workers have not been reinstated or received work. This is one of the reasons why the workers at Parmalat and Echuca have the right to be outraged. Just an hour down the road, where there is another Parmalat facility, we have seen local workers replaced with exploited overseas backpackers here in this country being ripped off by their labour hire company. The government needs to act and take seriously a lot of the corporate avoidance that is going on in relation to the Fair Work Act. There are just too many agreements that are being terminated by Fair Work where workers are being bullied into copping pay cuts and a reduction in conditions. In fact, the Fair Work Commission terminated 416 agreements in the first three quarters of 2016. This is up from 275 in 2015 and 156 in 2014. Most of these agreements are in the construction and manufacturing sector, and 87 per cent of them cover fewer than 100 employees. As I have stated, in many of these agreements the wages and the jobs that they secure are for workers in regional areas. This is money that has not just been taken out of the pockets of these workers but has been taken out of the local economy. It is similar to how, if you cut penalty rates, you cut money that is in the local economy. We need a government that takes these issues seriously, that works to close the loopholes that have been exposed in the Fair Work Act. If we truly want to have high wage growth in our society then the government must act and close these loopholes. Hazelwood Power Station 95 17:26 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan Deputy Speaker Hastie, this is the grievance debate, where members get the opportunity to bring issues of importance to the nation, to their state or to their constituency, and I put to you today that electricity prices are going to be one of the most important issues over the next 10 years. This affects my constituency directly because of the closure of the Hazelwood Power Station, which supplies 25 per cent of the power for Victoria and between five and eight per cent of the power for the nation. It has been and could remain a very important facility because, Deputy Speaker, like you as a Western Australian, who has great riches and wealth there in Western Australia, we also have great riches and wealth in that brown coal out of the Latrobe Valley has driven the thousands of jobs and opportunities for cheap electricity that changed the structure of the nation under the tutelage of John Monash, a great forward thinker. But remember Hazelwood Power Station and the way it is built. It is probably 1930s innovation and design. There is an opportunity, if we are to be brave, to look at how we might use that amazing resource for the production of electricity. I mentioned some forward thinkers in a speech in another place. The former Minister for Energy Resources in Victoria, the Hon. Theo Theophanous, said one of Victorian Labor's preselection policies was to shut one-quarter of the Hazelwood power plant—not the plant, one-quarter—at a potential cost to consumers and taxpayers of $2 billion. He saw that as an attempt to garner green votes. Labor's adoption of the policy was seen as success for the Greens and increased anxiety amongst Labor's traditional voters about impending electricity price rises—his words, not mine. It contributed to Labor's electoral losses at that time. This is going back a bit. Previously, the Labor government under John Brumby had pursued other ways of reducing Hazelwood's emissions. It is well known that some years ago the Victorian government entered into an agreement with Hazelwood that included conditions for new technology to cut emissions by 35 million tonnes in exchange for extending the plant's life. What is not commonly known is that about four years ago the government almost clinched a three-way deal with the aluminium producer Alcoa; International Power, the owner of Hazelwood; and the state. This would have seen the state's annual commitment to subsidise power to Alcoa until 2016 paid as a lump sum. In exchange, Alcoa, which uses a huge amount of power, would have helped pay to refurbish Hazelwood. This would have given Alcoa more than 20 years of power supply. As part of the deal, Hazelwood was to refurbish or rebuild up to six of its eight units to include state-of-the-art supercritical burners and coal-drying technology. This could have potentially cut emissions from 1.6 tonnes per megawatt hour to 900 kilograms per tonne per megawatt hour. The estimated cost of converting each unit at the time was $200 million to $300 million, which would have been partly absorbed by International Power and partly by Alcoa. Both would have gained from a long-term contract and a greener image. Alcoa flagged that it might increase its workforce and production, but the government thought the deal's political risks were too high. What was the political risk? The only political risk was that their green vote in the city would be diminished. And they were relying on the greens in the city for their vote. But what about the workers at Hazelwood? What about the people of Moe, Morwell and the surrounds? What about the 26 per cent of people that currently work at Hazelwood today that live outside of the city of Latrobe? What about them? The politics said: 'We can't do this. It's a great idea and it really helps Alcoa and it really helps the workers and International Power. And it really helps the government and it is cost free to the government and we could have an ongoing power station that delivers 25 per cent of our power and 10 per cent of Australia's power and therefore reduces the threat to our national grid.' A person came to me in my office—I will not name him, because he works for one of these companies and has built powerlines—and he said to me, 'It's not just South Australia that is under threat.' He actually said to me, 'Here is your grid,' and pulled out a plan of the whole grid of the eastern seaboard. Then he said, 'On your worst day—and I know you do not have this problem in Western Australia—you could be relying on one cable coming out of Queensland for the whole of the eastern seaboard.' This nation, in my opinion, never acts until it is a necessity. Do we have to go through a total power meltdown on one of our hottest days for the residents of Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney to recognise that we have a problem and that we cannot just close down these power stations and expect renewable energy to take over? Nobody is a greater supporter of renewable energy than I am. If we can shift to that and have some storage and some opportunities, I am going to back it all the way. I have other uses for our brown coal down there, especially for urea plants and for future hydrogen plants with Kawasaki. There are a lot of opportunities in brown coal. What I am putting to you is this: good thinkers who had the national interest and the state interest and the interest of the blue-collar workers in Latrobe Valley at heart would have investigated thoroughly and made public what that Labor government's intention was at the time. There is nothing wrong with that proposition. My only shame, I suppose, is that this is the first time I have read it. It is the first time I have seen. It was published on 4 July 2011, and the former minister exposed that there was a proposition for Hazelwood to carry it into the future. Am I going to be part of a government or sitting in opposition when the Labor government of the time, after a crisis, turns around and says: 'We're going straight back to Hazelwood and, at enormous cost, we're going to rebuild it; we're going to spend millions of dollars tearing this place down and then reconstituting the mine—millions'? Should we be protecting our own community, our own people, our own workers, our own opportunities, our own safety and our own guarantee of energy and looking again at Hazelwood? I know private enterprise is not going to do it because what the community, through the Greens, have said to free enterprise is this: 'You don't touch coal, because it's bad. Bad coal, bad coal—or, even worse, brown coal.' That is what they are saying. So business will not touch it. It is the parliamentarians in this place who are going to look at our energy needs into the future, who are going to have to come to grips with what they have to do, or it is going to be the state government and the federal government in conjunction looking at how we can best protect ourselves and guarantee power supplies. I want to finish with this: those of us in the community who are wealthy will always survive somehow but, if you are a pensioner or if you live in a regional area or if you are from a lower socioeconomic area, you will carry the burden of these high electricity prices that come out of the closure of Hazelwood. I have been a pain in the neck on behalf of people from lower socioeconomic communities because I represent a region and I represent lower socioeconomic communities as part of my responsibility. It is my responsibility. They are my responsibility. Those pensioners are my responsibility. The buck stops here with me and, if I cannot defend them and speak for them and if I cannot speak for those workers, who can I speak for? I speak for them. We have forgotten them. Our relationship is broken, and it may be up to the next generation to fix it. Northern Territory Football League 97 17:37 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Over the last week and a half I attended a number of events to do with the football teams in the Northern Territory that have reached their centenary. These football clubs are a massive part of the fabric of Northern Territory society, and this is a significant milestone for AFL in the Northern Territory. The three foundation clubs—the Waratahs, the Wanderers and the Darwin Buffaloes, the double blues—started in 1917. As part of the centenary celebrations there was a centennial match between two of those foundation clubs—the Waratahs and the Wanderers; each of those foundation clubs held centenary dinners; and each of those clubs has gone through the very tough task of selecting their team of the century. Can you imagine how difficult that has been? There were so many outstanding players who not only had successful club careers but played representative football in the Northern Territory and went on to play down in the south or in the west and who also, obviously, played at the highest levels in the AFL. I am talking about the Riolis, the Cubillos, the Motlops, the McLeods, the Kantillas and the Reubens—the Coopers. These are the names of the families that also built the Top End—Athanasiou, Lew Fatt and McAdam. They show our rich multiracial and Indigenous roots, a mix that has not always brought harmony over the years. There were turbulent times in the early days when the game was played on an oval across from the Darwin Hotel, where today we gather to honour battles of another kind. That oval is now our Cenotaph in Darwin, where next week we will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. These three foundation clubs made football what it is today in the Northern Territory. It is a massive organisation that reaches into every corner of the Territory and inspires the talents and genuine love for being a team and for being together. On Australia Day I attended a centennial football match between the Waratahs and Wanderers football clubs, both foundation teams. The Waratahs are based at the beautiful Gardens Oval. They are the only foundation team to play every year in the competition, and they have had thousands of Australians play with them over the years. That is despite the often transitory nature of their club. On 27 January the Waratahs Centenary Dinner was held and their Team of the Century was announced. The Waratahs Team of the Century are: Hank McPhee, Tom Sandery, Percy Scorer, Keith Nickels, Frank Matthews, Lincoln Withers, Anthony Hoban—good on ya, Herbie—Maurice Rioli, Gilbert McAdam, Charles McKee, Arch Wilkey, Bill Eacott, Braun Bush, Gary Argus, Mike Poulter, Bob McKenzie, Chris Williams, 'Snowy' Klose, Matthew Wakelin, Denis Ganley, Peter Ivanoff and Willy Rioli. The coach is Bill Martin and the assistant coach is Pat Skelley. It was very difficult to choose that team. There were originally 120 and it was cut down to 40, and they had to choose a team of 22. I also want to acknowledge Aunty Kathy Nickels, Ali Johnston—rest in peace, and Ronny Baker. I thank all the living legends and all the volunteers. I thank Brian Price and his wife, Janicean, as well as Bob Jenner, Gary Smart, Stephanie Junger and Sherryn Killmeister. This is to mention but a few who put the activities together. Well done, Tahs! Another foundation club is the Wanderers football club. This is another foundation club that celebrated its foundation club status, their centenary, by winning the centennial football game on Australia Day. Then, on 28 January, they held their centenary dinner. It was a great night—with Essendon legend Kevin Sheedy in good form—as they announced their Team of the Century. The Eagles have had a broad reach over the years and have established strong links with Katherine and the Arnhem Land regions. The Wanderers Team of the Century was selected from the following squad: Don McMillan, Billy Ellis, Edward 'Ted' Cooper, Shannon Motlop, Gilbert Clarke, Michael Millar, Paul Nikoletis, Kevin Wanganeen, Roy Graetz, Russell Jeffrey—champion, Cyril 'Gus' Wanganeen, Peter Filler, Doug Kelly, Poncie Cubillo, Brad Mawson, Maurie Ryan, Bruce Potts, Aaron Motlop, Troy Angel, Darryl Taylor, Rusty Moreen, Jack White, Tommy Burrunjuk, Eddie Cubillo, Peter Marrego, Steve 'Bully' Abala and Paul Motlop. I want to acknowledge all the players and club members over the years, their centenary committee and the selectors. I also want to acknowledge the special relationship that the Wanderers have had with the Bagot community and the Belyuen community over the years. Last weekend I attended celebrations for the Darwin Buffalos Centenary. First known as the Warriors and then Vestey's in the early days the team was primarily formed by workers from the meatworks owned by Lord Vesty. From its earliest days the Darwin Buffaloes were made up of many nationalities. There has been a documentary made about the team and the role it played in the social make-up of Darwin in the last century. The Buffs event was a real family affair and there are too many to acknowledge individually. Again, very difficult choices had to be made about the selection of their team of the century. The team is: Aldo Rossetto, Ali Muir, Andrew McLeod, Basil Damaso, Bill Dempsey, Bill McLean, Robert 'Bob' Garner, Cory Ah Chee, Darryl White, David Atkinson, David Ross Jnr, Don Bonson Snr, Don Stokes, George Liveris, Gerry Kenny, Greg Bruce, Jason Jones, Jimmy Anderson, Jock McLeod, Joe McGuiness, Joe Sarib, John Clarke, John Paterson, Leo Pon/Castillon, Lionel Butler, Mark West, Matthew Whelan, Norm Hagan, Reuben Cooper Snr, Robbie Ahmat, Ron Chin, Ronnie Cooper Jnr, Ron 'Barney' Quall, Steve Abala Snr, Steven Hayes, Steven Stokes, Walter Lew Fatt, William Ahmat, William 'Put' Ahmat and William 'Ninny' Briston. Well done, Buffaloes! Shuffle up. Old Buffaloes never die. The history of these three teams—the Waratahs, the Wanderers and the Buffaloes—is the history of Darwin, Palmerston, the Top End and Australia. They tell of good and hard times, times of war, natural disasters, the White Australia policy, the Stolen Generation and of reconciliation. Those clubs were the foundation clubs in 1917. The survival of these three foundation clubs for a century playing Aussie Rules in the Northern Territory is quite extraordinary. It is, in itself, a tale of survival. But you just cannot thank the volunteers enough. You cannot thank all of those people, that rich cultural tapestry of Darwin, as they went through wars, cyclones, natural disasters and the bombing of Darwin. All those families—Aboriginal families, families from Asian countries, and also teams like the Waratahs that had people coming in to work in town—joined up with the Waratahs and just had this incredible cultural experience. As I said, with those teams of the century, what the clubs really wanted all of their membership to know is that they could not have done it without the volunteers and the love and the support of their families. Imagine all those oranges that got cut up. Imagine a century of dirty footy jumpers and socks and drinks to be prepared for the team. The good times. Those foundation clubs of the Northern Territory Football League are such an amazing part of our Australian history and not just the Territory's. Well done to them. Energy Affordability 98 17:47 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I would like to use this opportunity to talk about gas and electricity pricing and availability within my electorate and, in fact, the majority of Victoria. As we have seen, there has been an incredible increase in the price of gas. In many of the industries that are in my region—the electorate of Murray within the Goulburn Valley—our main employers could loosely be described as the food processors of the region. Whether that is Kagome, with its tinned and processed tomatoes, or the various dairy processors of Parmalat, or Bega, or Murray Goulburn, Fonterra, Tatura Milk, these are serious and substantial employers in the Goulburn Valley. Yet all of them are under extreme pressure with the spiralling gas prices and soon-to-be spiralling electricity prices that are going to hit them. Also Unilever, out of Tatura, is another company that is already under pressure and will be even more so once the electricity price increases flow through as well. The Prime Minister, in his address to the Press Club in Canberra last week, absolutely nailed this issue, with his ability to quite clearly put the policies of state governments at the forefront of the situation we now find ourselves in. Previously we were simply talking along ideological lines. Sure, we would all love to have a greater spread of renewables. Certainly, we would—until something goes wrong, until we have an outage, and all of a sudden we realise that this unhealthy reliance that we have on a connector out of Victoria simply cannot supply the energy that a whole state, in this case South Australia, might need. Also, with the state Labor government in Victoria facilitating the closure of Hazelwood and also effectively putting the use-by date on Loy Yang, we are, all of a sudden, moving towards an unviable percentage of renewables, which, because of the increases in prices, will simply not allow the industries, companies and businesses within Victoria to maintain their commercial edge. The Prime Minister got it right when he said that what we need to be doing is looking for a reliable source of energy. We need to be looking for an affordable supply of energy. We also then need to make sure that we cut emissions so that we stay within the commitments we made under the Paris agreement. In the process of doing these three things we also need to look after jobs, because what we now have is a very stark relationship between the Labor Party—and certainly state Labor governments—and their policies in relation to energy, whether that be electricity or gas, and the real threats to the jobs of the Goulburn Valley. I just laid out six or seven or eight major employers that are all going to be under extreme pressure to remain viable under these policies, which are leading to these extreme price rises. As we know, over the past few years there has been—and, in legislation being debated in the Victorian parliament today, they are going to be continuing—a full moratorium on conventional gas drilling. This has nothing to do with fracking, but you can bet your bottom dollar that those who are opposed to natural gas will try to cloud the issue as best they possibly can and will say that we want to start pumping dangerous chemicals down into our aquifers and putting our aquifers and our groundwater at risk. No, we do not. We most certainly do not. We are happy to keep a long-term ban on fracking until the scientists can prove that no damage will be done. If they cannot prove that then we leave the ban on fracking. However, this country has to move towards conventional drilling for conventional gas. Over the last few years the Southern Queensland gas fields have been connected via a 420 kilometre pipeline—three separate companies, three separate pipelines—all the way from the Bowen Basin to Gladstone. What this has done is link all the gas supplies of the eastern states and the eastern part of Australia to Asia. The demand over there is insatiable. Now, when it comes to our own domestic needs, we are finding that gas prices for mums and dads to heat the home, to do the cooking and to just live their normal lives are going through the roof and making it very difficult for those that Mr Broadbent spoke about—those in the lower socioeconomic areas, which mainly the National Party represents. Not only are mums and dads going to do it hard, but, when they go to work, their businesses, which have employed them in many instances for 15 and 20 years, are going to come under extreme pressure because they will simply be unable to accept the extra million dollars that is going to be added on to the cost of the inputs for these various food processors. I am happy to say that in the next 2½ weeks the Minister for Resources, Matt Canavan, is going to be coming to the Goulburn Valley to meet with many of these food processors. This opportunity to meet Minister Canavan will be open to other industries that are also heavy users of gas, because we simply need to make sure that, if we are going to change these policies, we need to get our policy settings right. We need to make sure that the farmers still have the right of veto, so if a farmer does not want to have gas wells on his farm then he should be able to have the right of veto. We have to push hard to make sure that is the case. We have got to make sure that when we are talking to people, we do not let the argument run off to the side by what former Queensland Premier Anna Bligh called 'the worst debate' she has 'ever been a part of', because the Lock the Gate Alliance took that debate and absolutely made it impossible for her to run a proper process in bringing gas to northern Victoria. I also believe that it is a very, very poor debate once those in the community who are very much against gas cloud the debate. We know now that many of the larger companies, with previous contracts that might have been signed two or three years ago, that use a lot of gas had an opportunity to choose between four providers for their gas supplies into their businesses. Now they are given one provider that has a take-it-or-leave-it type of approach to them with gas prices doubling over two to three years. Whether it be the closure of Hazelwood and the potential closure of Loy Yang, the unholy push to ensure that coal is spoken about in the most horrendous tones with no thought to the supercritical ability of lower emissions coal or the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third in relation to some new processing plants, I think these are the types of debates this country needs to have. We have built our industries on cheap energy inputs and we have forged many iconic industries—certainly in the Goulburn Valley we have iconic industries that have been there for many, many years and for many generations. For generations they have run those businesses and they are very much a part of our community and we need to give them every chance to make sure that our children and grandchildren will also have those businesses in their community. Right at the moment, the real threat is coming from energy costs. We need to go back and have a calm debate and a calm conversation about what we are doing with our electricity prices and policies and with our gas prices and policies. Australian Defence Force 99 17:57 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Tonight, I rise to speak about some of the issues that have been raised with me by our serving men and women but also about some of the issues raised by their families. Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, you would know more than most that serving in the Australia Defence Force is not a nine-to-five job. It is not a job you can leave behind, and it is certainly a job that not only affects the service man or woman's life but also affect their family. It is important to recognise that when Defence people are being deployed to different bases around the country, and there are new opportunities for the careers of those Defence men and women, it is also a big upheaval in the lives of their families. I must acknowledge that for many of our service men and women they do put their duty above other considerations and therefore it is our duty as a parliament and the duty of the government of the day to look after these men and women. This means looking after their families as well. I strongly believe that it is our duty to them to demonstrate how valued their service is by ensuring that not only they are looked after but also their families are supported and given what they need. The beginning of this year marks the movement of many ADF members, moving their lives and their families across Australia. I have spent the last six months speaking to these families about what it means for them and what they would like to see in terms of support. Family members face having to pack up and move. They leave behind friends and support networks and their normal routine. Even some of the simple things that we take for granted, for example, finding a new doctor or finding a new school for one's children, can be incredibly intense processes and ones that need some support. For an ADF member with a family, this can be even more difficult. While moving oneself is an inevitability, often, for members of the ADF, this does not necessarily make it easier for their families. For spouses establishing new friends and support networks, finding new employment, starting a new school and other practical considerations such as changing vehicle registration, changing routines, changing doctors, accessing specialists and joining new waiting lists for those specialists are things that have been raised with me as real and live concerns. It is important that services are available, and I do recognise the support the Defence Community Organisation does give. In particular, I want to recognise the importance of the family liaison officer within this organisation. These positions are very important roles, and they are roles that really need to be filled by people with extensive knowledge of the local communities, who are able to provide individuals and their families who are new to the community with advice and information to link them with the resources and services they need and also with other families to help reduce the feeling of isolation. With this in mind, I was very concerned to hear that the position of the family liaison officer was vacant for a period of eight months in Darwin recently. With no-one in this role it is difficult for families who need that support. So today I put on record that I believe these positions are incredibly vital. They are needed by families within Defence, and I would urge, as much as practical, for these positions to be filled as a matter of urgency. In addition to the emotional and practical support Defence Force members and their families need when they are moving, there are other considerations such as housing. Defence Housing Australia is an organisation that provides housing to our Defence Force members. The feedback I have been getting is that, while there can be improvements—there are many families that would like to see defence housing closer to the base and to their workplace—the overall standard is quite good. Of course, that is why many people I have spoken to, whether they be Defence Force members or their families, were very concerned about the Commission of Audit's proposal to privatise Defence Housing Australia. While I have not spoken to everyone in the Defence Force and their families, everyone I have spoken to has had universal opposition to this proposal, because this is more than just a commercial operation. Defence Housing Australia is essential to ensuring that wherever our defence members and their families move to they can get accommodation that is safe and especially accommodation where they know they can ring up the landlord and get some attention and action. Certainly, when speaking to some Defence Force members they indicated that, while they go away on long postings overseas, there is some comfort in knowing their families are safe in Defence Force housing and can get the support they need to do repairs, to get more security et cetera. So I think it is incumbent on this government to reaffirm its commitment not to privatise Defence Housing Australia and, of course, to recognise that important asset. The government have said they have no intention to privatise DHA at this time, but that does not give me the reassurance that it is off the table, so I would like to hear those words from the government. Another issue that is causing huge concern within the defence community, in particular for women members of the Defence Force, is the impact of the proposed cuts to paid parental leave. Many Defence Force members are what Joe Hockey would consider to be 'double dippers'. They receive a paid for parental leave as part of their employment and are then able to access the government scheme as well. There has been some compelling testimony in the Senate estimates about what that means for Defence women in particular—the importance that having access to those two pieces of leave has had for them. There has been evidence to suggest that women members of the Defence Force would have reconsidered having a child if that leave had not been not there. I think it is incumbent upon this parliament not to just talk about Defence Force members with words but to back that up with action. If that is the case, the government will abandon its planned changes to paid parental leave. It will stop demonising women around this country, those that work in Defence and other places, by calling them double-dippers or people who are somehow cheating the system. We expect so much of our Defence men and women. The least we can do is properly support them to have time with their families. Of course, we know we want to make the ADF more attractive to women. At the moment, we know that it is not fifty-fifty in terms of women serving in the Defence Force. It therefore seems odd to me that, while once again the government have said words about encouraging women and attracting women to our Defence Force, their policies and their actions do not back this up. I would urge the government seriously to think and reconsider this ill-thought-out policy, not just for women in Defence but for women right around this country and men as well so that they can access and spend time with their families. Of course, at the heart of our Defence Force capability is the physical sciences and engineering workforce. This workforce is made up of a number of roles including in avionics, biochemistry, engineering, fuel science, geoscience, logistics and naval architecture, amongst many others. It is incumbent on this government to actually have a serious look. Instead, what have we seen? We have seen freezes on our Public Service. That has led to a decline in our capabilities. There has been a Senate report which the government took a very long time to respond to and, now that it has responded—it said it will commit to a census—I would urge the government to do that as quickly as possible because, if we do not have our personnel capability, all the technology in the world will not be able to be executed without that physical science and engineering understanding. These are a number of issues that have been brought up with me. I would urge the government to take them seriously and actually back their words up with actions when it comes to our ADF and Defence personnel. (Time expired) Queensland: Sugar Industry 101 18:07 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It has been two months since we were last in this place. Two months ago, I spoke about the ongoing dispute between cane growers and the miller Wilmar. It was a matter of great urgency then, and it is of even greater urgency now. Today the economic future of an entire region hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. The sugarcane harvest starts in June, just four months away. But whether or not that harvest starts in the Burdekin or in Proserpine, Sarina or many other sugarcane districts will depend on the resolution of a dispute between growers and the Singaporean-owned Wilmar. Wilmar owns all the sugar mills in the Burdekin as well as the only mill in Proserpine and in Sarina. It has a monopoly in other districts as well. It is illegal for a grower to send cane to a mill without a supply agreement being in place. It is illegal for a miller to accept cane from a farmer without a supply agreement being in place. No agreement being in place means farmers cannot forward price their crop. No forward pricing means growers cannot take advantage of the current record-high world sugar prices. No agreement also means no harvest. No harvest means an entire regional economy disintegrates. It also means farming families are pushed to the brink financially and mentally. If the sugar cane is not harvested, it is left to stand in the field, and the quality of that cane continues to deteriorate until the next crush. It can be harvested a year later, but the return is so low that it does not even cover the costs incurred in one year and nowhere near the costs of two years, so no agreement being in place effectively means a farming family will have no income for two years straight. Even a delayed agreement beyond the end of this month could mean growers miss out on the record world-high sugar prices. Wilmar knows this, and Wilmar is banking on farming families acting out of desperation and caving in by signing the unfair contract that it has put out for them to sign. Wilmar are the world's biggest sugar company, and they can easily ride the bump of having no income from one region or one country for a year. Farmers actually do not have that luxury. Wilmar can ride the bump because they want to create a situation where they completely control the entire industry. We just have to look at the contracts that they have sent to the farmers to know that to be a fact. If the farmers go broke, that simply presents an opportunity for Wilmar to buy up cheap farms and vertically integrate. The end result would be great for a foreign-owned miller. The end result for the farmer, however, would see farmers renting, working the same land they once owned for whatever pittance the foreign company is willing to throw them. Our farmers would become the local serfs controlled by a foreign power. What stands in its way is Queensland law designed to protect farming interests, but Wilmar has managed to sidestep that legislation. Wilmar is deliberately dragging out negotiations with QSL, Queensland Sugar Ltd, and farmers because it is trying to circumvent the Queensland legislation that gives farmers choice in how their sugar is marketed. The legislation does not give them a choice in the miller. Growers have to use the miller to crush their cane because the miller has a monopoly, but the farmers can use a separate company to market their sugar, as they have been doing for many, many years. It is the marketing role performed by QSL, Queensland Sugar Ltd, that Wilmar is trying to take over by force. Wilmar dragged out the supply agreement process, refusing to offer 2017 agreements until after the 2016 election because, I suspect, it hoped that Labor would win the federal election and do something about federal intervention in the state laws. It should be noted that it was not the Labor government in Queensland that passed the law to give farmers choice in marketing. It was Liberal National Party in opposition that helped pass a Katter's Australian Party bill. When federal Labor failed to win the election, Wilmar could not do anything about it then. We did not have any action down here from the Labor Party in keeping the miller's newfound marketing monopoly. Wilmar then took a very, very different approach. They employed delaying tactics, hoping growers, faced with the best prices that they have seen in years, would sign anything to lock those prices in. But, when the farmers were finally offered their agreements, they did not sign, because they believed the agreements were unfair. Wilmar know that the longer they drag out the stalemate, the more pressure there will be on farmers to sign—pressure from family, pressure from banks and pressure just because they feel that they are going to lose those record-high world prices. Wilmar are dragging out negotiations with Queensland Sugar Ltd because, without an on-supply agreement in place between QSL and Wilmar, farmers cannot use QSL for marketing purposes. If growers fold because that option is not available and they sign up to Wilmar's cane supply agreement now, the only available choice for them for marketing is Wilmar if they want a forward price. So right now it is basically Wilmar's way or the highway, and the end of the highway is coming up in less than four months. In fact, for forward pricing it could be coming up in less than three weeks. Wilmar claim to be negotiating in good faith, but the facts say otherwise. Wilmar made details of their offer to QSL confidential, stopping QSL from publicly pointing out the unfair nature of the contract, but then Wilmar cherry picked parts of the confidential proposal and emailed it out to growers to create the impression that the impasse was the fault of QSL. In November, Wilmar sent an email out to growers displaying this newfound commitment to transparency. The email from Wilmar's Executive General Manager North Queensland, John Pratt, said: To clear up another myth that Wilmar is hiding something, I am making available to you today the up to date GEISSA term sheet that we have produced in the course of the negotiations as well as the associated Co-mingling Agreement. It went on to say: The only thing preventing QSL from being offered to you as a GEI marketer is QSL not yet accepting reasonable terms for the purchase of sugar from Wilmar. The only thing preventing most grower collectives proceeding to conclusion of cane supply agreements is QSL not accepting reasonable terms for the purchase of sugar from Wilmar. The only thing preventing growers capitalising on current strong prices is QSL not … accepting reasonable terms for the purchase of sugar from Wilmar. We invite QSL to tell us—and you—what is holding us all back from getting on with it. Wilmar might have a little bit more credibility if they had not got the timing of the communications so horribly wrong. The terms that QSL was apparently not accepting were sent to QSL half an hour after the email was sent out to farmers. QSL did respond by telling growers exactly where the sticking points were, including potential for lower quality sugar to be provided on behalf of growers, bringing lower premiums to growers; exposing growers to potential tax risk; slowing down disclosure of grower nominations, which will hinder immediate pricing; providing no recourse to seek compensation for Wilmar mills' failures; and unreasonable constraints on QSL storage arrangements. To avoid issues arising from lack of transparency in the negotiations, farmers asked for a seat at the negotiation table. QSL agreed, but Wilmar refused. The ACCC agreed with the farmers, saying that it would be advantageous for them to have a seat at the table. I have to say they still hold out. A tripartite approach, including grower reps, led to successful negotiations between QSL and Maryborough sugar. In fact, we have seen successful negotiations with all the other mills covered by the choice in marketing legislation. Some of the other millers did not like the legislation, but they sat down and got on with it. They worked within the law and negotiated a good outcome, proving that the law is workable if the miller wants to work with it. Wilmar remains the only miller using their monopoly power to bully farmers. There has been some movement in negotiations, but there is no significant movement on key issues. After making assurances in the first week of December that this issue would be resolved in two weeks—they did that in front of me and a representative of the Deputy Prime Minister—I have to say we are nine weeks later with no resolution. It must be a rolling two weeks, because 12 days ago Wilmar told Senator Pauline Hanson that the issue would be resolved in—you guessed it—two weeks. The time has passed for Wilmar to willingly come to the table and do the right thing. It is now time for the government—the federal government—to enact the code of conduct for the sugar industry that has already been drafted. The code needs to be legislated and enforced to ensure a foreign corporation can never ride roughshod over canegrowers again. This matter will be resolved one way or another. One way is for Wilmar to do the right thing; another way is for the government to force Wilmar to do the right thing. If neither of these paths is taken, the destination will be the complete destruction of the sugar industry in the Burdekin. Do not take my word for it; take canegrower Joe Linton's word. He was quoted in the Townsville Bulletin just recently saying: If it continues on like this, there's a great potential the town… of the Burdekin— … will collapse if they don't sort the marketing situation with QSL. I urge Wilmar to get on with it. 18:17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:18   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 104 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Ballina Koala Plan (Question No. 22) 104 22 Mr Albanese R36 asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 14 September 2016: (1) On what date (a) did he approve the Ballina Koala Plan, and (b) was he sworn in as the Minister for Environment and Energy.(2) Which documents, by (a) name, and (b) date, were part of the package provided to him as part of the approval package for the plan.(3) What alternatives were made available to him in approving the plan.(4) Has he been made aware of the concerns of the Ballina Shire Council on the impact of some aspects of this section on koalas and some residents in section 10 of the Pacific Highway Ballina to Woolgoolga upgrade.(5) What other controlled actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 did he or his delegates approve between 19 July and 13 September 2016, when were they approved, and by whom. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Ballina Koala Plan was approved by my delegate on 19 July 2016, and (b) I was sworn in as the Minister for the Environment and Energy on 19 July 2016. (2) The approval package provided to my delegate included the standard approval brief and approval letter to NSW Roads and Maritime Services. It also included the following attachments: Department Advice – Ballina Koala Plan, July 2016 Ballina Koala Plan Departmental Review comments RMS Response to Department's Preliminary Comments (includes comments to Dr Phillips) Letter from EDO and Dr Stephen Phillips Dissenting Report Department's Issues Register Letter from Department to RMS requesting Additional Information Additional Information from RMS (including Addendum to the Ballina Koala plan) Koala Management Plan Summary of Management Measures in Koala Management Plan Letter from Expert Phil Miller and Response from RMS EPBC 2012/6394 Approval Conditions Letter advising RMS that you approve the Ballina Koala Plan (3) No alternatives were proposed with the recommendation to the Minister's delegate to approve the Ballina Koala Plan. However, alternative options were considered through the Department's review of the plan, which included a consultation phase, before the final decision was made by the delegate. As part of the decision making process, the delegate requested additional information, including further sensitivity analysis of the potential impacts before approving the plan. (4) My delegate was made aware of the concerns raised by Ballina Shire Council and other interest groups. These concerns were taken into consideration by my delegate in approving the Ballina Koala Plan. (5) The following controlled actions were approved by me or my delegate between 19 July and 13 September 2016 Coal Mining and Export (Question No. 24) 105 24 Mr Bandt M3C asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 10 October 2016: In respect of the link between atmospheric pollution, climate change and coral reef degradation, (a) what response has the Government made to the International Society for Reef Studies' letter (dated 25 June 2016) urging it to cease endorsing the export of coal and to stop or revoke approving new coal mines, and (b) what impact will the burning of coal at the Carmichael mine have on the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Government has not made any response to the International Society for Reef Studies' letter dated 25 June 2016, due to the letter in question never being received by the Government. (b) The Carmichael Coal Mine is located in outback Queensland, approximately 300 kilometres west of the Great Barrier Reef. A comprehensive environmental assessment concluded that the mine will not have any direct impacts on the reef. The burning of coal at the Carmichael mine has not been proposed. As this matter is currently before the Federal Court, no further comment can be made. Budget Based Funding Services (Question No. 25) 105 25 Ms McGowan 123674 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 11 October 2016: (1) How will the subsidy package for Budget Based Funding Services (BBFS) under the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016, (a) cater to the sparseness of population and unpredictability of utilisation of mobile children's services in rural and regional Australia, and (b) cover the cost of operational delivery of mobile children's services in rural and regional Australia.(2) How many families are estimated to be affected by the transition to the subsidy package for BBFS.(3) What cost savings are estimated to be achieved from the transition to the subsidy package for BBFS. (4) What are the findings of any modelling that has been undertaken on the impact of the transition to the subsidy package for BBFS on mobile children's services in rural and regional areas.(5) Was a regional Australia impact statement completed for this legislation; if so, what were the findings.(6) How will families in the electoral division of Indi who are utilising the four mobile children's services in Victoria benefit from the transition to the subsidy package for BBFS. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that BBF services (including mobiles) are well supported in their transition to the new child care system. For the first time, many BBF services will access child based fee subsidy assistance through the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) and some will also access the Additional Child Care Subsidy. For the BBF services that need it, there will also be an opportunity to access additional support through the Community Child Care Fund (CCCF). The CCCF, part of the Child Care Safety Net, will provide grants to child care services to reduce barriers to accessing child care, provide sustainability support for child care services experiencing viability issues (impacted by such factors as sparseness of population, fluctuating utilisation and the high costs associated with delivering a mobile service) and provide capital support to increase the supply of child care places in areas of high unmet demand, particularly in disadvantaged, regional or remote communities. 2. Approximately 23,000 children attended BBF services Australia wide during the four week reporting period in 2015–16. The BBF program reporting does not collect information on number of families. 3. There has been a provision made in the Budget for BBFs to receive the Child Care Subsidy and the Community Child Care Fund. This provision exceeds the anticipated expenditure for BBFs under the current system. This is not a savings exercise. 4. The Government has commissioned consultants to provide analysis on the ability of individual BBF services (including BBF mobile services) to transition to the new child care system through tailored transition reports for services. These reports will provide detailed service-specific modelling on the impact of the Child Care Subsidy (CCS), as well as elements of the Child Care Safety Net, including the CCCF. 5. A Regional Australia Impact Statement was not required, as discussed with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, because the circumstances of all families, including families in regional and remote areas, were taken into account in developing the Package upon which the legislation is based. The increased flexibility for services in relation to operating requirements is expected to be particularly useful for regional and remote services where the existing requirement of a five day per week, eight hour per day service will no longer be required. It is also anticipated that the Child Care Safety Net will have a positive impact on families accessing child care across regional and remote communities as these communities are particularly targeted for assistance under the CCCF as outlined in the response to question one. 6. The current BBF program is capped and closed to new providers. It does not have capacity to respond to changes in demand. The total funding appropriated for BBF services has remained stagnant in real terms, while funding for mainstream child care has increased steadily for many years. The funding level provided to services is based on historic precedent, without regard to changes in the number of children being assisted. Similar services, in similar circumstances, with similar numbers of children do not receive similar levels of funding. Over time, funding has become disconnected from delivery. Some services receive tens of thousands of dollars per child per year while others have to manage on less than $100 per child per year. The Package to be introduced in July 2018 has been designed to support a diverse range of services so that they have the flexibility to adapt to the needs of local families. As part of these reforms, families and BBF services will be able to access funding streams they have not been able to access previously. For the first time, families using these mobile services will be eligible to claim the same assistance as families using other types of child care, as BBF mobile children's services will be eligible to administer the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) on behalf of families if they deliver child care. BBF services will be working closely with their communities to ensure that families understand the opportunities available through accessing the fee subsidy, including the impact on the out of pocket expenses for families. Additionally, the Package will support the delivery of services in areas of unmet demand, increasing opportunities for families to access child care services. The individually tailored transition reports that are being provided as part of the consultant support to BBF services, including mobiles, will identify opportunities to tailor service delivery to meet demand, for example offering more days to local families. Sutherland Park Hockey Club (Question No. 26) 106 26 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 11 October 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate $1,300,000 to the City of Gosnells for the Sutherland Park Hockey Club, (a) from which budgetary allocation will this funding be taken, (b) what information was provided to the Government by (i) the Sutherland Park Hockey Club, (ii) the City of Gosnells, or (ii) Hockey Western Australia, prior to this commitment being announced, and (c) what due diligence was undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the proposal for the Sutherland Park Hockey Club prior to the funding announcement. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government's election commitment to the Gosnells City Council will be delivered through the Community Development Grants (CDG) programme. Projects under CDG undergo a value for money assessment before a deed of agreement between the Government and the proponent is signed. (b) and (c) The election commitment was announced by Senator Linda Reynolds CSC and Mr Matt O'Sullivan, the then candidate for Burt, on 21 June 2016. Sutherland Park Hockey Club (Question No. 27) 106 27 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 11 October 2016: In respect of the Minister's letter to the City of Gosnells confirming the $1,300,000 funding commitment for the Sutherland Park Hockey Club, where it was recommended that any financial commitments should not be entered into until a Deed of Agreement had been signed, and that final due diligence may still be undertaken, (a) under what circumstances would this funding commitment be retracted, and (b) when does the Minister expect (i) a Deed of Agreement to be signed for this project, (ii) the payment for this project to be made, and (iii) this project to be completed. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Under limited circumstances, where the project does not demonstrate value for money under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. (b) This project is being progressed directly with the proponent. The project details are yet to be finalised. Armadale Aquatic Centre (Question No. 28) 106 28 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 11 October 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate $10,000,000 to the City of Armadale for the Armadale Aquatic Centre, (a) from which budgetary allocation will this funding be taken, (b) what information was provided to the Government by the Armadale Aquatic Centre prior to this commitment being announced, and (c) what due diligence was undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the proposal for the Armadale Aquatic Centre prior to the funding announcement. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government's election commitment to the City of Armadale will be delivered through the Community Development Grants (CDG) Programme. Projects under CDG undergo a value for money assessment before a deed of agreement between the Government and the proponent is signed. (b) and (c) The election commitment was announced by Senator Linda Reynolds CSC and Mr Matt O'Sullivan, the then candidate for Burt, on 21 June 2016. Armadale Aquatic Centre (Question No. 29) 107 29 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 11 October 2016: In respect of the Minister's letter to the City of Armadale confirming the $10,000,000 funding commitment for the Armadale Aquatic Centre, where it was recommended that any financial commitments should not be entered into until a Deed of Agreement had been signed, and that final due diligence may still be undertaken, (a) under what circumstances would this funding commitment be retracted, and (b) when does the Minister expect (i) a Deed of Agreement to be signed for this project, (ii) the payment for this project to be made, and (iii) this project to be completed. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Under limited circumstances, where the project does not demonstrate value for money under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. (b) This project is being progressed directly with the proponent. The project details are yet to be finalised. Thornlie Bowling Club (Question No. 30) 107 30 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 11 October 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate $2,400,000 for the Thornlie Bowling Club, (a) from which budgetary allocation will this funding be taken, (b) what information was provided to the Government by the Thornlie Bowling Club prior to this commitment being announced, (c) what due diligence was undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the proposal for the Thornlie Bowling Club prior to the funding announcement, (d) under what circumstances would this funding not be forthcoming, and (e) when does the Minister expect (i) a Deed of Agreement to be signed for this project, (ii) the payment for this project to be made, and (iii) this project to be completed. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government's election commitment to the Thornlie Bowling Club will be delivered through the Community Development Grants Programme. (b) and (c) The election commitment was announced by the Hon Christian Porter MP, Minister for Social Services, on 18 June 2016. (d) Under limited circumstances, where the project does not demonstrate value for money under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. (e) This project is being progressed directly with the proponent. The project details are yet to be finalised. Barbagallo Ballpark (Question No. 31) 107 31 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 11 October 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate $6,000,000 for the Barbagallo Ballpark, (a) is the Government committed to this funding, (b) from which budgetary allocation will this funding be taken, (c) what information was provided to the Government by (i) Baseball Western Australia, and (ii) the City of Gosnells, prior to this commitment being announced, (d) what due diligence was undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the proposal for the Thornlie Bowling Club prior to the funding announcement, (e) under what circumstances would this funding not be forthcoming, and (f) when does the Minister expect (i) a Deed of Agreement to be signed for this project, (ii) the payment for this project to be made, and (iii) this project to be completed. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Yes. (b) The Government's election commitment to Baseball WA will be delivered through the Community Development Grants programme. (c) and (d) The election commitment was announced by the Hon Ken Wyatt MP, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, on 14 June 2016. (e) Under limited circumstances, where the project does not demonstrate value for money under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. (f) This project is being progressed directly with the proponent. The project details are yet to be finalised. The Treasury: Secretary's overseas travel (Question No. 36) 108 36 Dr Leigh BU8 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 October 2016 (1) What is the total cost of the Secretary to the Treasury's official overseas travel since he was appointed on 15 January 2015.(2) What is the breakdown of this total cost in terms of (a) flights (b) accommodation (c) hospitality (d) transport, and (e) any per diem allowances.(3) What was the official purpose of each overseas trip.(4) What total number of days has the Secretary of the Treasury spent overseas since his appointment. ANSWER 1. $124,036 2. According to Treasury records as at 5 December 2016, the breakdown of the total cost is as follows: Flights: $97,500 Accommodation: $18,424 Hospitality: $535 Transport: $3,333 Per diem allowances: $4,245 3. Official Purpose: 4.The Secretary has spent 51 working days overseas since his appointment. Australian Submarine Corporation (Question No. 39) 109 39 Mr Champion HW9 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 17 October 2016: To ask the Ministers listed below (question Nos. *38 to *39) – *38 MR CHAMPION: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. *39 MR CHAMPION: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. At any stage since September 2013 has the Minister's department (a) investigated any options to privatise the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC); if so, what was the outcome, (b) provided advice to the Government regarding the possible privatisation of the ASC, and (c) considered the impact of a possible privatisation of the ASC on its employees. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: As provided in the response to Question Number 41, the Department of Finance (Finance) conducted a strategic review of ASC Pty Ltd (ASC) to consider future options for ASC to best meet the Government's shipbuilding requirements. The strategic review was conducted as part of the normal course of the Minister's shareholder oversight role to ensure that the assets Finance manages on behalf of all Australians continues to support broader Government policy objectives. This is consistent with the Commonwealth Government Business Enterprise Governance and Oversight Guidelines. The impact of a restructure of ASC on its employees was considered as part of the strategic review. Employees' terms and conditions will not be directly affected by the structural changes to ASC. Australian Submarine Corporation (Question No. 41) 109 41 Mr Champion HW9 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 17 October 2016: To ask the Ministers listed below (question Nos. *40 to *41) To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. At any stage since September 2013 has the Minister's department (a) investigated a possible restructure of the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC); if so, what was the outcome, (b) provided advice to the Government on a possible restructure of the ASC, and (c) considered the impact of a possible restructure of the ASC on its employees. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government commissioned a strategic review of ASC Pty Ltd (ASC) in mid‑2015. The strategic review considered future options for ASC, its mandate, corporate and capital structures as well as its governance arrangements. The strategic review was conducted by the Department of Finance and its external business, accounting and legal advisers, in consultation with the Department of Defence. ASC also provided assistance and valuable input into the strategic review. On 11 October 2016, informed by the recommendations of the strategic review, the Government announced that it will structurally separate ASC into three individual Government-owned companies to deliver a more flexible approach to managing the investment required in shipbuilding infrastructure. The impact of a restructure of ASC on its employees was considered as part of the strategic review. Employees' terms and conditions will not be directly affected by the structural changes to ASC. Bulla Tennis Court (Question No. 42) 110 42 Mr Rob Mitchell M3E asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 18 October 2016: In respect of the Minister recently confirming that the Government will honour an election commitment of $120,000 to fund the Bulla Tennis Court upgrade, (a) on what date was this election commitment made, and by whom, and (b) what process did the Minister use to validate that this commitment was made during the election campaign. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government's election commitment was announced by Mr Chris Jerrym, the then candidate for McEwan, on 30 June 2016. (b) The commitment was confirmed by the Prime Minister, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP. Tweed Hospital (Question No. 44) 110 44 Mrs Elliot DZW asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 20 October 2016: In respect of a media report 'Where's your pledge?' by Alina Rylko (Tweed Daily News , 27 June 2016) that after the Minister for Regional Development's visit to the Tweed Hospital during the election campaign, the Minister was uncertain as to what sum of funding was required for the hospital, but expected a figure to be finalised in the coming months: has a funding amount yet been determined; if so, (a) what sum, (b) from which program will it come, and (c) when will it be allocated; if not, when will the funding amount be determined Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question: (a) (b) (c) The article to which the honourable Member refers quotes the Nationals candidate for Richmond, Matthew Fraser, rather than the Minister for Regional Development. Issues relating to hospital infrastructure funding fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Health, as well as state and territory governments. Bovine Johne's Disease (Question No. 46) 110 46 Ms McGowan 123674 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing: (1) What factors were considered in the recent decision to deregulate the management of Bovine Johne's Disease (BJD) and abandon quarantining. (2) What are the differences between (a) the deregulated scoring system used under the new BJD Framework, and (b) zoning used under the previous Market Assurance Program (MAP). (3) On what grounds can he rationalise the outcomes of the BJD Framework given the Australian Chief Veterinarian Officer's acknowledgement that no national surveys have been carried out on the national herd in respect of (a) prevalence, (b) epidemiology, (c) productivity losses, and (d) cost-benefit analyses associated with BJD. (4) Will the Government consider compensating cattle breeders who have been financially and socially impacted by trade restrictions resulting from the previous MAP. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. In 2015, Meat and Livestock Australia surveyed endemic livestock diseases of cattle in Australia and found BJD to be the least important disease economically of the 17 diseases considered. Australia's regulatory approach of quarantining affected properties was causing difficulties for many cattle producers, especially those in the north who had no outlets available to them once placed in quarantine. In many cases quarantine was imposed for a number of years on each property. The National BJD Strategic Plan Review conducted by Animal Health Australia identified support for BJD to be dealt with differently from the way in which it had been dealt with over the previous 12 years. The review provided multiple opportunities for input into how the Australian cattle industry (beef, dairy and feedlot) and governments would work with BJD into the future. The review panel included representatives of Cattle Council of Australia, Australian Dairy Farmers, Meat and Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia, Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association, Australian Lot Feeders Association, Chief Veterinary Officers and the Australian Cattle Veterinarians Association. There was general support for BJD to be addressed under a common biosecurity approach for endemic diseases, with less emphasis placed on an individual disease. Accordingly, it was not appropriate for the existing strategic plan to continue in its current state. 2. Zoning did not exist under CattleMAP. However, zoning was part of the previous national management plan, with restrictions specified for trading livestock between areas with different risk profiles. The review of the national management of Johne's disease resulted in the removal of quarantine measures and zoning, as well as the replacement of CattleMAP with a system known as J-BAS (Johne's-Beef Assurance Score). J-BAS is a voluntary risk assessment system used to provide an assessment of the risk of cattle carrying Johne's disease. It is used by the producer to assess the risk of whether cattle they are buying or moving to their property have Johne's disease, and recognises that on-farm biosecurity is the producer's responsibility. 3. The BJD Framework was developed using available evidence in consultation and with support from industry, producers and the Australian and state and territory Chief Veterinary Officers. The review panel included representatives of Cattle Council of Australia, Australian Dairy Farmers, Meat and Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia, Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association, Australian Lot Feeders Association, Chief Veterinary Officers and the Australian Cattle Veterinarians Association. 4. No. The Market Assurance Program was a voluntary program for producers to identify and promote their Johne's disease status to clients. Tasmania: Regional Jobs and Investment Package (Question No. 47) 111 47 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to provide a $25 million jobs package to diversify regional Tasmania's economy and create local jobs, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) what will be the process for a Tasmanian business to receive funding under this program, (b) when will funding applications open, and (c) will it be a competitive process. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government will honour its election commitment to deliver a Regional Jobs and Investment Package to help regions in Australia diversify their economies, stimulate their long-term economic growth and deliver sustainable employment, including in Tasmania which will receive a $25 million package. (a) (b) (c) The Government is currently developing the guidelines. Applications for funding will open after the guidelines have been issued and a local investment plan has been prepared by the local planning committee. Regional Jobs and Investment Package (Question No.49) 111 Question No.49 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to provide $40,000 for the creation of a West/North-West Coast Winter Events program in Tasmania, (a) will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) what progress has been made, (b) what are the name(s) of any organisation(s) with which the Government has had discussions, with a view to delivering the program, and (c) when will this program commence. Mr Fletcher L6B The Minister representing the Minister for the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question: Yes, we will honour this election commitment and are undertaking a process that aligns with the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines in order to deliver the commitment. NBN in Tasmania (Question No. 52) 111 52 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of the Australian Government's election commitment to put $18.5 million towards the construction of fibre-to-the-node NBNTM technology in the towns of (a) Queenstown, (b) Rosebery, and (c) Zeehan, in Tasmania (with an additional $4.5 million of assistance from the Tasmanian Government), will the Australian Government's commitment be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (i) when it be delivered, (ii) can the Minister provide details of discussions between NBNTM and the Tasmanian Government on the delivery of this project, (iii) does the Tasmanian Government remain committed, and (iv) what action will NBNTM take if the existing copper network that will carry the NBNTM to homes and businesses in these towns is in such a state of disrepair that would prevent the delivery of fibre-to-the-node. Mr Fletcher L6B The Minister for Regional Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question: (a, b, c) In addition to Queenstown, Rosebery and Zeehan, the Coalition's election commitment also includes the rollout of fixed wireless to the town of Strahan. The in-kind support from the Tasmanian Government is included as part of the Government's $18.5 million election commitment. (i) There has been no change to the Government's commitment to rollout fixed line to the towns of Queenstown, Rosebery and Zeehan and fixed wireless broadband to Strahan. Construction resources are expected to move to the area around mid-2017. (ii) NBN Co Ltd (the company) and the Tasmanian Government are making the necessary arrangements to ensure that services are provided as soon as practicable. (iii) The Tasmanian Government has committed $4.5 million of in-kind support to the project. (iv) As at 1 December, 1.358 million households across Australia could connect to high speed broadband over the company's fixed line network. As with existing premises connected to fixed line, the company will progressively take ownership of the copper network and undertake any remediation if necessary. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources (Question No. 53) 112 53 Devonport Golf Club (Question No. 55) 112 55 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to provide $3.5 million towards the construction of the Devonport Golf Club in Tasmania, which will also become home to the Devonport and Spreyton bowls clubs, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) from which funding program will these funds come, (b) when will the funding be delivered, (c) what process will an organisation undertake to secure the funding, and (d) can the Minister name the organisation that will receive this funding. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government's election commitment to the proponent will be delivered through the Community Development Grants programme. (b) This project is being progressed directly with the proponent. The project details are yet to be finalised. (c) The proponent will need to provide information to allow the Department to undertake a value with relevant money assessment. (d) Devonport Golf Club. Australian Border Force podcast (Question No. 57) 112 57 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 07 November 2016: (1) What is the per-episode cost of the Australian Border Force (ABF) podcast. (2) What sum has the ABF budgeted for the production of its podcast in 2016–17. (3) What is the purpose of the ABF's podcast. Mr Dutton 00AKI Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The podcast is produced by the Department's Communication and Engagement Branch from within existing resources. The ABF podcast is a departmental initiative identified to broaden the reach of our existing communication channels. The purpose of the podcast is to provide the opportunity for the Australian public and related government agencies to learn more about the ABF and promote the ABF's role in supporting Australia's economy, safety and security of our border in an open and transparent way. Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Rydges Hotels (Question No. 59) 113 59 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 07 November 2016: In respect of the $68,050 contract to Rydges Hotels (CN3372457) for venue hire and conference facilities, (a) for what purpose was the venue hired, (b) how many staff members attended the function for which the venue was hired, (c) what was the Australian Public Service classification level of each staff member in attendance, (d) what was the period of use of the venue, and (e) what is the itemised breakdown of costs associated with the contract. Mr Dutton 00AKI Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Executive Level Leadership Conference. (b) 195. (c) EL1 and EL2 Officers attended the Leadership Conference. (d) 10/11/2016 to 11/11/2016. (e) The table below provides the itemised breakdown of costs; Content Group Pty Ltd: Contract (Question No. 61) 113 61 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Justice, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of the $96,000.02 contract to the Content Group Pty Ltd (CN3382544) for public relation services: (a) what specific services were provided, (b) what is the itemised breakdown of the services provided, (c) what was the period of the contract, and (d) what policy area did this relate to? Answer Mr Keenan E0J The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: a) Content Group were engaged to provide services in support of the 2016 national Stay Smart Online awareness week, a Government initiative to help educate Australians about the ways they can protect themselves online. Specific services included: o Developing a resource kit for use by program partners and members of parliament to promote online safety to the community. o Providing support for major events including the launch of the week by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security, Dan Tehan. o Managing media and publicity engagement throughout the week, raising awareness of free online safety and security resources available to the public. o Creating content such as video messages and case studies, informational graphics, and articles. o Managing Facebook community engagement in the lead up, during and after the week including coordinating an editorial calendar with the Department. o Providing coordination and communication support for stakeholder engagement in the lead up, during and after the week. o Measuring and evaluating awareness activities associated with national Stay Smart Online awareness week 2016. b) The itemised breakdown of services (including costs) for CN3382544 is as follows: c) The contract ran from 21 September 2016 to 30 November 2016. d) The contract related to the delivery of the 2016 Stay Smart Online awareness week, a key component of the larger Stay Smart Online initiative which transferred into the Attorney-General's Department in August 2016. Advice on the proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite (Question No. 65) 114 65 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 November 2016: Did the Attorney-General seek advice from Mr David Bennett QC on the proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite; if so, (a) when was the advice sought, (b) what fee was paid for the advice, and (c) what costs were associated with the seeking of this advice, including but not limited to (i) travel expenditure, and (ii) accommodation. Mr Keenan E0J The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: It is the established practice of Australian governments, of both political persuasions, not to comment on legal advice or the subject matter of legal advice. Parenting benefits (Question No. 66) 114 66 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of Government data on parenting benefits reported in the media article by Sarah Martin 'Parental welfare pays more than work' (The Australian, 28 October 2016), was this data produced internally by his department? If so, how many staff hours were spent compiling this data? If not:a) who was engaged to prepare the data?b) what was the cost to his department of preparing the data?c) was he or his department advised that the data excluded family tax benefits payable to the employed parent example? Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following parenting benefits data quoted in the media article by Sarah Martin, 'Parental welfare pays more than work' (The Australian 28 October 2016) were produced internally by my Department: data of the top 10 per cent of those on parenting benefits, about 43,200 people, received at least $45,032 in 2014-15; and data relating to a hypothetical single parent with four children who receives more than $50,000 p.a. The first data took one officer approximately two hours to complete. The second data took five officers a total of two hours effort. My Department also provided advice that in both instances the data included any Family Tax Benefit, Child Care Benefit and any other payments these families may be eligible for. I understand that the data in the article concerning median full-time wages was sourced from the Australian National University. My Department was not consulted about these data. Defence Industry portfolio (Question No. 67) 114 67 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of the changes to the Minister's department to create the Defence Industry portfolio, can the Minister provide an itemised account of all costs associated, including (a) stationery, including business cards and letterhead, (b) signage, (c) web design and information technology services, and (d) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets and audio-visual materials. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Minister representing the Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The department has spent $3,093.30 on stationery to establish the Defence Industry portfolio. (b) Nil. (c) The department has spent nil on web design to establish the Defence Industry portfolio. The items purchased and costs associated with information technology are listed below: (d) Nil. Department: Departmental media events and photo opportunities (Question No.107) 115 Question No.107 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of costs for departmental media events and photo opportunities in 2015-16, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for. Mr Keenan E0J The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: To attempt to provide the level of detail requested would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as this information is not centrally recorded. Department: Advertising and associated services (Question No.161) 115 Question No.161 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 November 2016: What sum was spent by the department(s) and agencies within the Minister's portfolio on advertising and associated services in 2015-16, and what policy areas did this relate to. Mr Keenan E0J The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Department: Promotional material and merchandise (Question No.179) 116 Question No.179 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 November 2016: What sum was spent on promotional material and merchandise for the departments and agencies within the Minister's portfolio in 2015-16, and, of this, (a) what types of promotional material and merchandise were produced, and (b) what policy areas did this relate to. Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Department: Market research and associated services (Question No.251) 118 Question No.251 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 November 2016: What sum was spent by the department(s) and agencies within the Minister's portfolio on market research on market research and associated services in 2015-16, and what policy areas did this inform. Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Department: Ministerial media events and photo opportunities (Question No.371) 119 Question No.371 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2015-16, (a) on what date was each event held, (b) at what location was each event held at, (c) what sum was spent on each event, (d) what announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for. Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: To attempt to provide the level of detail requested would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as this information is not centrally recorded. Department: Ministerial media events and photo opportunities (Question No.372) (Question No.534) 119 Question No.534 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Justice, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2015-16, (a) on what date was each event held, (b) at what location was each event held at, (c) what sum was spent on each event, (d) what announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for. Mr Keenan E0J - To attempt to provide the level of detail requested would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as this information is not centrally recorded. Mr Josh Wilson 265970 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 7 November 2016 (1) Is the sale of Fremantle Port a condition of the Perth Freight Link (PFL) funding from the Commonwealth. (2) Has the Australian Government sought or obtained any commitment from the Western Australian Government in respect of the future sale of Fremantle Port. (3) What was the basis for the calculation of the component of the PFL funding that is provided under the Australian Government's Asset Recycling initiative. (4) Has a bonus payment been negotiated, that would be provided by the Australian Government to the Western Australian Government upon the sale of Fremantle Port, similar to the payment that is currently a matter of dispute between the Australian Government and the Victorian Government in respect of the sale of the Port of Melbourne. (5) Is the private toll charge aspect of the PFL a condition of Commonwealth funding. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) & (2) No. The sale of the Fremantle Port is a matter for the Western Australian Government. (3) There are no funds provided for the Perth Freight Link under the Australian Government's Asset Recycling Initiative. (4) No. (5) A distance based heavy vehicle charge forms an integral part of the funding arrangement for the Perth Freight Link project. This arrangement is contained in the business case and executive summary for the project. Perth Freight Link (Question No. 535) 120 535 Mr Josh Wilson 265970 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 7 November 2016: (1) What sum has the Australian Government spent on legal fees in order to prevent the public from having access to Freedom of Information documents (sought by the former Member for Perth) which form the background to the Perth Freight Link, including the conditions set by the Australian Government in return for Commonwealth funding.(2) Was this matter discussed with the former Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Hon. Mr Jamie Briggs) at any time; if so, can he outline the discussions.(3) Was any advice given by the former Assistant Minister as to the way the case was to be conducted; if so, can he outline the advice. Mr Chester IPZ The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) This is an ongoing matter and the Australian Government will not comment on the cost of defending its decision to not release documents. (2) No. (3) No. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (Question No. 537) 120 537 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources : In respect of the impending relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to Armidale in the electoral division of New England, (a) how many staff members has the APVMA lost since October 2014 when he first announced it would be relocated, (b) how did he calculate the cost of $24.1 million for the relocation, (c) has he revised this cost; if so, what is the revised sum, and (d) will he commit to releasing the cost-benefit analysis of the relocation, once Cabinet has completed its deliberations. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) From 1 October 2014 to 30 November 2016, 68 ongoing employees and 31 non-ongoing employees have ceased employment with the APVMA. (b) The cost was calculated using the standard costing process for budget decisions. The cost comprises staff costs, relocation costs, property costs and other incidental expenses. (c) The revised cost is $25.6 million. (d) The cost benefit and risk analysis was released on 25 November 2016. Smart Cities and Suburbs Program (Question No. 538) 120 538 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 9 November 2016: In respect of the Australian Government's Smart Cities and Suburbs Program, can the Government advise when local government authorities will be able to submit a short pitch for their project ideas in accordance with the program timeline as set out on the Smart Cities website. Mr Turnbull 885 The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: A national consultation process to inform the development of Guidelines for the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program was undertaken in September and October 2016. Draft Guidelines will be released for further public comment in December 2016. It is anticipated that the Guidelines will be finalised, with applicants invited to submit proposals, in early 2017. Centres of Excellence in Agriculture (Question No.539) 121 Question No.539 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 : Asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing: - In respect of the Government's policy on creating centres of excellence in agriculture, (a) have formal consultations commenced with Government agencies to examine relocation options to regional towns and cities, (b) which (i) Government agencies, and (ii) regional towns and cities, have been approached, and on what dates, (c) has the Government approached any regional universities or research organisations; if so, (i) which ones, and (ii) on what dates, (d) has funding been allocated over the forward estimates to the cost of establishing these centres; if not, why not, and (e) how will the Government measure the outcomes of this policy. Mr Joyce E5D – The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Yes. (b) (i) Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC).    (ii) These agencies have considered a number of possibilities as part of determining relocation options since 2014. (c) On 12 May 2015 I wrote to the University of New England, the University of Queensland and the University of Southern Queensland about the potential relocation of the APVMA. Other agencies have approached regional universities directly, for example: RIRDC met with senior representatives from Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga on 12 August 2015 GRDC has held discussions with Charles Sturt University and the University of Adelaide, Roseworthy. (d) Establishing Centres of Excellence in Agriculture will help to build partnerships between government agencies, regional universities and industry research organisations. The government has allocated $25.6 million to relocate the APVMA to Armidale to create a Centre of Excellence in Agriculture with the University of New England. The FRDC, GRDC and RIRDC are drawing on their funding to develop partnerships with research institutions as part of normal business and their relocation plans. (e) The government is monitoring the implementation of its policy. For example: GRDC has received overwhelmingly positive feedback about the agency's new regional offices from growers across the grain growing regions of Australia. FRDC has indicated that establishing a new headquarters in Adelaide is helping the agency realise its long-term goal of getting better connectivity between regions to improve research outcomes and make savings. RIRDC has indicated it is very positive about its move to Wagga Wagga, the new opportunities for collaboration with Charles Sturt University that arise and the operating cost savings which will allow more funds to be invested directly in research and development. Farm Household Allowance (Question No. 540) 121 540 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing: In respect of the media article by Natalie Kotsios 'Farm aid: Barnaby Joyce to rethink Farm Household Allowance scheme' (Weekly Times, 4 November 2016) which reported that he would examine the Farm Household Allowance (FHA) scheme if necessary, (a) when will he examine the FHA scheme, (b) what actions has he undertaken to ensure that he is satisfied that the FHA scheme is working effectively, (c) has he sought information as to why more than half of the FHA applications have been rejected in the past six months, (d) is it a fact that he said 'Just because we apply for it, doesn't mean you're entitled to it'; if so, who is he referring to in 'we' and 'you're', (e) will he provide clarification for Victorian irrigators on whether their water entitlements are counted towards the non-farm asset limit of $157,500, and (f) will he provide a breakdown, by state and territory, on the number of farmers receiving the FHA, to date. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Coalition is proud to have introduced FHA after Labor abolished the Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment and cut the Department of Agriculture budget in half. As of 16 December 2016 more than 6,860 farmers have benefited from the FHA. This assistance was not available under Labor. I regularly examine the FHA for its effectiveness. As with any government programme, it is prudent to keep policy settings and delivery arrangements under review to ensure they are delivered efficiently and effectively. I have sought advice from my department on steps that can be taken to streamline delivery and enhance the up-front customer experience for farmers. Senator Bridget McKenzie recently led a series of roundtable meetings on my behalf in regional Victoria, to receive feedback from dairy farmers regarding the implementation of the FHA and the Coalition Government's $579 million Dairy Support Package. (b) I receiveregular updates on FHA uptake, geographic distribution and the status of claims. (c) Yes. Over the life of the Farm Household Allowance until 16 December 2016 there have been 6 861 claims granted and 2 017 claims rejected. (d) Farmers and their partners who believe they may benefit from the FHA are encouraged to apply and not self-assess. However, just because an individual applies for the FHA does not mean they will necessarily meet the eligibility criteria and be granted FHA payments. (e) Under the Farm Household Support (Non-farm Assets) Amendment Rule 2016 I have exempted up to $1.1 million in net water assets from the FHA non-farm assets test. This provides clarity for all potential FHA applicants on how their water entitlements will be treated. (f) The following table provides a breakdown by state/territory of the number of FHA recipients as at 16 December 2016. Source: Department of Human Services † Where there are fewer than 20 claims in any one state/territory, this figure has been masked so as to avoid privacy issues. Evaluation of establishing specialised domestic violence units (Question No.542) 122 Question No.542 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 November 2016: Of the $15 million for establishing specialised domestic violence units to provide access to coordinated legal, social work and cultural liaison services for women in a single location, and allow legal service to work with local hospitals, including for women from culturally and linguistically diverse communities and women living in regional/remote areas, what evaluation has been undertaken to ascertain whether the establishment of those chosen units has improved access to justice, and support, for domestic violence victims? Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Attorney-General's Department will evaluate the pilot services to inform future Government decisions and sector best practice. As the specialist domestic violence units commenced operations in the first half of 2016, the department intends to conduct the evaluation in 2018, allowing at least one full year of operation before the pilots are evaluated. Third Action Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children (Question No.543) 122 Question No.543 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 November 2016: In respect of the Government's announcement on 28 October that it would commit $18.5 million, for the period of the Third Action Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, for integrated duty lawyer and social support services in family courts, (a) will each registry serving the Family Court and/or Federal Circuit Court be provided with such services, (b) who will (i) employ, and (ii) provide administrative support, the people providing such services, (c) how will the Government be assured of the quality of such services, and (d) what qualifications and experience will be required of the persons providing social support services. Mr Keenan E0J – The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government is currently negotiating arrangements for these services with the states and territories, including service locations. (b) The services will be managed by the legal aid commission in each jurisdiction. (c) Appropriate accountability and reporting measures will be built into the funding arrangement negotiated with states and territories. The Attorney-General's Department will also evaluate the services. (d) Legal aid commissions will be requested and encouraged to partner with existing family violence support services to deliver the integrated, court-based services. The qualifications and experience of staff will be a matter for legal aid commissions to consider in managing the new services. Third Action Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (Question No.544) 123 Question No.544 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 November 2016: In respect of the Government's announcement on 28 October that it would commit $5 million, for one year, to extend the 'pilots' announced under the Women's Safety Package, why have these pilots not been extended for the full period of the Third Action Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children? Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The legal assistance pilots are funded under the Women's Safety Package until 30 June 2018. The additional year of funding announced on 28 October 2016 will extend the pilots until 30 June 2019, to align with the full period of the Third Action Plan 2016-19 of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022. Family Court of Australia (Question No.545) 123 Question No.545 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 November 2016: In respect of the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia's claim that family violence is a feature in 41 per cent of family law matters, and the situation where people accused of violence can personally cross-examine the (often unrepresented) victim, risking re-traumatisation, will the Government consider providing legislative support and legal aid funding to allow the court to require a litigant to be represented in order to cross examine another party. Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government acknowledges that direct cross-examination of a victim by their alleged perpetrator can be a traumatic experience. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) includes protections to support vulnerable people involved in family law proceedings. For instance: the court is required, in child-related proceedings, to conduct proceedings in a manner that safeguards the parties against family violence (subsection 69ZN(5)), and under section 69ZX, the court can impose measures to protect vulnerable witnesses in the proceedings. The courts can limit or prohibit cross-examination of a particular witness; enable vulnerable persons to give testimony via video or in closed court; and forbid the asking of, or excuse a witness from answering, offensive, scandalous, insulting, abusive or humiliating questions. Over three years from 2016-19, the Government will provide $18.5 million for legal aid commissions to establish integrated duty lawyer and family violence support services in family law court registries. These services will support victims to access alternative ways to give evidence and ensure their risk is assessed and managed throughout the court proceedings, including by referring people for legal aid and other legal assistance. The Government has commissioned a National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book. The Bench Book is a comprehensive online resource for judicial officers in all Australian jurisdictions, to promote best practice and consistency in judicial decision making in cases involving family violence. Part 1, released in August 2016, includes guidelines for court room management to minimise secondary abuse through court processes of those who have experienced family violence. The final part is expected to be released by June 2017, and will cover a range of family law and criminal law issues. Complementing the Bench Book, the Government is funding national training for judicial officers about the dynamics of family violence. The Government continuously monitors the family law system, and has committed to undertaking a review of Part VII of the Family Law Act, together with broader issues about the operation of the family law system as a whole. Productivity Commission Report in Access to Justice Arrangements (Question No.546) 123 Question No.546 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 November 2016: In respect of its response (29 April 2016) to the Productivity Commission Report in Access to Justice Arrangements (3 December 2014), where the Government stated that the Attorney-General's Department had, in March 2016, convened a roundtable discussion with key stakeholders on the topic of cross-examination of victims of family violence in family law courts by the alleged perpetrator of the violence, and that Government was considering the outcome of that discussion, (a) which (i) individuals, and (ii) organisations, were invited to the roundtable, (b) what were the outcomes of that discussion; and (c) what progress has the Government made since March 2016 in considering the outcomes of the discussion. Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) On 10 March 2016, the Attorney-General's Department hosted a roundtable with a diverse range of key stakeholders in the family law system, to discuss solutions to address issues concerning the direct cross-examination of victims of family violence be their alleged perpetrator in family law proceedings. Roundtable attendees included judicial officers, lawyers, and advocacy and support groups. The following organisations were represented: Attorney-General's Department Family Court of Australia Federal Circuit Court Family Law Council Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section Magistrates Court – Domestic Violence Lists Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria Women's Legal Services Australia National Legal Aid National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (NATSILS) Australian Cross Disability Alliance (ACDA) Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA) The Women's Services Network Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) No To Violence Department of Social Services, and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Representatives from the following organisations were invited but were unable to attend: Family Court of Australia Family Court of Western Australia National Family Violence Prevention Legal Service (FVPLS) Forum, and National Association of Community Legal Centres (NACLC) (b) Roundtable participants contributed to the achievement of the following three outcomes:    (i) development of a shared understanding of the issues arising from the direct cross‑examination of alleged victims of family violence by the alleged perpetrator,    (ii) identification of the existing protections in Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation for vulnerable witnesses, and    (iii) identification of possible solutions for short, medium or long-term implementation. There was agreement amongst participants that a range of solutions should be considered. Potential solutions identified during the roundtable were not limited to legislative change. Some solutions proposed by participants directly address the issues relating to cross-examination of victims of family violence in the family law courts and some aim to more broadly address issues arising when family violence is alleged in family law proceedings. (c) Over three years from 2016-19, the Government will provide $18.5 million for Legal Aid Commissions to integrate duty lawyer and domestic violence support services in the family law courts. These services will support victims to access alternative ways to give evidence and ensure their risk is assessed and managed initially and throughout the court proceedings, including by referring people for legal aid and other legal assistance. The Government is also funding a National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, providing guidance for judicial officers dealing with domestic and family violence. Part 1, released on 18 August 2016, includes guidelines for court room management to minimise secondary abuse through court processes of those who have experienced family violence. Complementing the Bench Book, the Government is funding national training for judicial officers about the dynamics of family violence. On 24 November 2016, the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court announced updates to the Courts' Family Violence Best Practice Principles to highlight that the victims of family violence are often traumatised and are vulnerable witnesses, and to explain the various means of protection available to judges who are hearing those cases. These principles help protect litigants and children by providing guiding principles for the case management of cases involving allegations of family violence and abuse. The Family Court and Federal Circuit Courts have also jointly published the Family Violence Plan 2014–16, which is a commitment by the courts to the early identification and management of matters where violence, or the risk of violence, is alleged. In line with the Plan, the Courts will be implementing new screening processes to better identify issues of family violence in matters before the courts. The Government has committed to undertaking a review of Part VII the Family Law Act. Any review should consider the structure and other key provisions of the Family Law Act, in addition to Part VII, to ensure the Act provides a framework capable of supporting families into the future. 1800RESPECT (Questions No. 551 and 589) 125 Questions No. 551 and 589 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: 1) What proportion of the $5 million of funding for 1800RESPECT in the Women's Safety Package of September 2015 has gone to the private, for-profit firm, Medibank Health Solutions Telehealth Pty Ltd, the principal contract for 1800RESPECT.2) What proportion of the $15 million for frontline services announced on 21 June 2016 has gone to that same firm.3) Has any of this funding found its way to the counselling provider, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, to engage more counsellors. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Of the $5 million of funding over three years for 1800RESPECT in the Women's Safety Package, $4.915 million has been provided to Medibank Health Solutions (MHS), which has been contracted to manage 1800RESPECT since 2010. This funding has been and will continue to be used to implement and operate the first responder triage model which commenced on 16 August 2016. The new model has significantly improved the responsiveness of the service. For example, during 2015-16, the average call abandonment rate was 44%, while under the new model it is 5.5%. The average call wait time has also been reduced from 10.3 minutes to 35.11 seconds under the new model. The remaining $0.085 million funding was provided to KPMG to undertake a review into how 1800RESPECT could enhance their operating model. (2) Of the $15 million for frontline services announced on 21 June 2016, $5.8 million has been allocated to 1800RESPECT through the Third Action Plan over three years for the first response triage model for online and telephone counselling, and for an investigation into the viability of online video counselling. An additional $2.058 million over two years has been allocated to undertake work to improve 1800RESPECT's service responses and referral pathways for women with disability experiencing, or at risk of, sexual assault, domestic and family violence, in response to consultation with the disability sector. The implementation of the first response triage model has been successful. The percentage of abandoned calls has reduced from 44 per cent in 2015-16 to an average of 5.5 per cent since implementation. The 1800RESPECT service is also answering at least 80 per cent of calls within 20 seconds. This means women contacting the service are now having their calls answered and receiving the support they need, when they need it. (3) MHS is contracted to manage the 1800RESPECT service and it subcontracts the trauma specialist counselling service to Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia (R&DVSA). The contractual arrangements determine the amount of funding provided to R&DVSA and are based on the services provided by R&DVSA during each period. 1800RESPECT (Questions No. 552 and 590) 125 Questions No. 552 and 590 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: 1) Has the new 'first responder' model for 1800RESPECT taken effect.2) Of the answered calls, what proportion of callers are being put through to a counsellor engagement by the counselling provider, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The first responder triage model for 1800RESPECT has taken effect. It was implemented on 16 August 2016. (2) All calls are responded to by qualified, professional counsellors with tertiary qualifications and a minimum of two years full time counselling experience. A referral assessment process is used to determine when a call requires trauma specialist counselling. These calls are then referred to Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia (R&DVSA) through a three way transfer between the first responder counsellor, the R&DVSA counsellor and the caller. The referral assessment process was jointly developed between Medibank Health Solutions, contracted providers of 1800RESPECT, and R&DVSA. To date, an average of 25 per cent of calls are being transferred to R&DVSA because they require trauma specialist counselling. The implementation of the first response triage model has been successful. The percentage of abandoned calls has reduced from 44 per cent in 2015-16 to an average of 5.5 per cent since implementation. The 1800RESPECT service is also answering at least 80 per cent of calls within 20 seconds. This means women contacting the service are now having their calls answered and receiving the support they need, when they need it. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia (Questions No. 553 and 591) 126 Questions No. 553 and 591 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: In respect of the 'first responder' model being based on people with lesser skills than those of the counsellors who are engaged by Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, including that they are not necessarily skilled in trauma counselling, how is the Government ensuring that notwithstanding these lesser qualifications, women are receiving the counselling they need. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: A careful system of assessment and referral has been developed to support the first responder model. The safety and wellbeing of callers has been the highest priority in the development of the model. The new model was developed in close consultation with sector representatives including Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia (R&DVSA). Under the first responder triage model, all calls are answered by qualified counsellors, with a three year tertiary degree in a relevant field that includes Social Services, Social Work, Welfare Studies, Psychology and Counselling. All counsellors have a minimum of two years full time counselling experience and are trained in trauma-informed counselling. These counsellors provide initial counselling and support, information and referrals to appropriate support services. Callers who require or request trauma specialist counselling are warm referred through a three way transfer between the first responder counsellor, the R&DVSA counsellor and the caller. The implementation of the first response triage model has been successful. The percentage of abandoned calls has reduced from 44 per cent in 2015-16 to an average of 5.5 per cent since implementation. The 1800RESPECT service is also answering at least 80 per cent of calls within 20 seconds. This means women contacting the service are now having their calls answered and receiving the support they need, when they need it. 1800RESPECT (Questions No. 554 and 592) 126 Questions No. 554 and 592 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: 1) Can he guarantee that all of the contacts made via the telephones and web chat line for the 'first responder' model being implemented in relation to 1800RESPECT, will be answered by women.2) Can he advise if the Government required Medibank Health Solutions to ensure that all of the 'first responders' in relation to contacts coming in via 1800RESPECT, are women. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) All contacts made to 1800RESPECT via the telephone line and web chat for the first response triage model are answered by women. (2) The Government requires Medibank Health Solutions (MHS) to ensure that all counsellors have a minimum three year tertiary degree in a relevant field and minimum two years full time counselling experience. 1800RESPECT is also required to provide best practice counselling, the same requirement that has been imposed on 1800RESPECT since 2010. There is no mandated contractual requirement for either MHS or their subcontractor, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, to use only female counsellors, however this approach has been adopted by both organisations to ensure the service meets the needs of callers. The implementation of the first response triage model has been successful. The percentage of abandoned calls has reduced from 44 per cent in 2015-16 to an average of 5.5 per cent since implementation. The 1800RESPECT service is also answering at least 80 per cent of calls within 20 seconds. This means women contacting the service are now having their calls answered and receiving the support they need, when they need it.   1800RESPECT (Questions No. 555 and 593) 126 Questions No. 555 and 593 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: 1) Can he confirm that the private, for-profit firm Medibank Health Solutions will charge in the vicinity of $3.2 million per year for the 'first responder' arrangement that has been created for 1800RESPECT.2) Can he explain why the 'first responder' model (that diverts women away from counselling) was chosen rather than hiring additional counsellors. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Over the next three years, from 2016-17 to 2018-19, Medibank Health Services (MHS) has been allocated $40.886 million to continue to deliver 1800RESPECT. This funding includes allocations for the first response triage model for both online and telephone counselling, trauma specialist counselling, the development of a national referral database, resources, the 1800RESPECT website and Daisy App, the frontline worker toolkit, promotional events and stakeholder engagement. An additional $2.058 million over two years has been allocated to undertake work to improve 1800RESPECT's service responses and referral pathways for women with disability experiencing, or at risk of, sexual assault, domestic and family violence, in response to consultation with the disability sector. The specific amount of funding allocated to the first response triage model is commercial-in-confidence information. (2) The first response triage model does not divert callers from counselling. It provides all callers with access to qualified, professional counsellors while ensuring that all calls are answered and all callers are helped as quickly and effectively as possible. In 2015-16, under the previous model, the average call abandonment rate was 44 per cent and the average call wait time was 10.3 minutes. The Government was very concerned about these abandonment rates and wait times so in May 2015 it provided $4 million in additional funding for more counsellors. However, these additional counsellors were unable to reduce call abandonment rates and wait times to an acceptable and sustainable level. It was clear that a thorough examination of the operating model was required. KPMG was commissioned to review the operational model for 1800RESPECT and provide advice about the best method to ensure a responsive, high quality service. The first responder triage model was found to be the most effective and value for money approach. The new model was developed in close consultation with sector representatives including Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia. The new model ensures callers receive a responsive and client centred service. The implementation of the first response triage model has been successful. The percentage of abandoned calls has reduced from 44 per cent in 2015-16 to an average of 5.5 per cent since implementation. The 1800RESPECT service is also answering at least 80 per cent of calls within 20 seconds. This means women contacting the service are now having their calls answered and receiving the support they need, when they need it. 1800RESPECT (Questions No. 556 and 594) 127 Questions No. 556 and 594 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: Can the Government provide assurances that the privacy of 1800RESPECT callers will be protected when Medibank Health Solutions, which is conducting the recruitment process for the 'first responder' service, has had a past privacy breach concerning eye test records and contact details of hundreds of military personnel, and that new staff can work from home. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The privacy of callers will be protected. Medibank Health Solutions' (MHS) privacy policy for the release of client information and the protection of privacy is governed by current Commonwealth legislation (the Privacy Act 1988) and the Australian Privacy Principles, which are contained in the Privacy Act. Additionally, MHS complies with both state and Australian legislation on child protection, sexual assault and domestic and family violence with respect to the release of information about a client. While MHS staff are able to work from home, there are strict policies in place to ensure the privacy of all calls and data. The implementation of the first response triage model has been successful. The percentage of abandoned calls has reduced from 44 per cent in 2015-16 to an average of 5.5 per cent since implementation. The 1800RESPECT service is also answering at least 80 per cent of calls within 20 seconds. This means women contacting the service are now having their calls answered and receiving the support they need, when they need it.   Women's Safety Package (Questions No. 560 and 598) 127 Questions No. 560 and 598 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: Of the $14 million announced in the Women's Safety Package in September 2015 to expand the DV-alert training program to police, social workers, emergency department staff and community workers to better support women, and work with the College of General Practitioners to develop and deliver specialised training to general practitioners across the country:a) what sum has been spent b) how many police have received the DV-alert training since the announcementc) how many (i) social workers (ii) emergency department staff have received DV-alert training in that periodd) how many general practitioners have received the specialised training in the intervening period. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) $13.499 million has been committed to Lifeline Australia to expand DV-alert over three years through a funding agreement. To date, $4.379 million has been spent. $0.500 has been provided to the Department of Health for training for general practitioners. (b) Between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016, 49 participants who attended DV-alert training identified as working with the police. (c) Between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016, approximately 685 participants who identified as support/social workers participated in DV-alert training, either through a face-to-face or e-Learning course. Between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016, six participants self-identified as working in an emergency department. During the reporting period, DV-alert has delivered training to other health staff including paramedics, drug and alcohol counsellors, Indigenous health workers and nurses. (d) The Department of Health is providing funding for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM) to develop and deliver specialised training to help general practitioners better recognise, respond and refer victims of violence to appropriate specialist services. The RACGP and ACRRM are currently developing the materials, and will commence delivery of training in 2017. National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children (Questions No. 568 and 576) 128 Questions No. 568 and 576 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: To ask the Minister for Social Services—In respect of the Government's announcement on 28 October that it would commit $15 million, for the period of the Third Action Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children, towards improving and expanding national domestic and family violence services, and specifically, that an unidentified proportion of that money would go towards 'funding the 1800RESPECT helpline to implement the new first responder model, to assist with the increase in demand', what proportion of the $15 million will go towards this measure. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Of the $15 million for frontline services announced on 21 June 2016, $5.8 million has been allocated to 1800RESPECT through the Third Action Plan over three years for the first response triage model for online and telephone counselling, and for an investigation into the viability of online video counselling. An additional $2.058 million over two years has been allocated to undertake work to improve 1800RESPECT's service responses and referral pathways for women with disability experiencing, or at risk of, sexual assault, domestic and family violence, in response to consultation with the disability sector. The implementation of the first response triage model has been successful. The percentage of abandoned calls has reduced from 44 per cent in 2015-16 to an average of 5.5 per cent since implementation. The 1800RESPECT service is also answering at least 80 per cent of calls within 20 seconds. This means women contacting the service are now having their calls answered and receiving the support they need, when they need it. National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (Questions No. 569 and 577) 128 Questions No. 569 and 577 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 9 November 2016 and 10 November 2016: Given the Government's $15 million funding commitment for the period of the Third Action Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, a proportion of which will go towards a Housing Innovation Fund to identify alternative accommodation options for women and children affected by violence, will the Government now commit to reinstating the capital expenditure component of the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness funding. Mr Porter 208884 The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: On 9 December 2016 the Commonwealth Government announced $117.2 million for a Transitional 12 month National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, commencing 1 July 2017. This funding will provide certainty for frontline services, while the Commonwealth, state and territory governments work together on longer-term homelessness reforms, including a funding framework. This builds on the $230 million commitment made in 2015 to restore funding to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness after the previous Labor Government left no money in the forward estimates. The NPAH gives priority to frontlines services focussing on women and children experiencing domestic and family violence, and homeless youth. In addition, the Commonwealth provides states and territories with funding of approximately $1.3 billion per annum through the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA), which includes around $275 million for homelessness services. States and territories may use these funds for capital projects. In establishing the NAHA, the Commonwealth rolled in the funding previously provided to states through the Commonwealth's Crisis Accommodation Program to facilitate the construction and acquisition of dwellings to provide crisis accommodation. Decisions on funding allocations under the NPAH and the NAHA, including contracting, the locations, and the services provided, are the responsibility of state and territory governments, which determine the priorities and type of services funded. Domestic and Family Violence (Question No. 580) 129 580 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 10 November 2016: In respect of the Government's announcement on 28 October 2016 that it would commit $10 million of funding for one year to respond to 'revenge porn' and online abuse, (a) why is the first measure focused on developing educational resources to shift attitudes and behaviours about pornography, and (b) what measures will be taken to educate offenders on the seriousness of their conduct, rather than focusing unduly on the actions of the victim (i.e., categorising their conduct as pornography and encouraging victim blaming). Mr Porter 208884 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) One in five Australian women has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15, and women aged 18-24 are more likely than other women to have experienced sexual violence. There is growing evidence to suggest that exposure to violent pornography can lead to violence supportive attitudes and that girls often report feeling pressured into unwanted sexual activities. In addition, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that child-on-child sexual violence has also been increasing and that some children are copying behaviour to which they have been exposed. In response to this growing concern, the Government has committed $3 million to develop information and educational resources to counter the impact of pornography on young people. It is envisaged that this material will teach young people about healthy and respectful relationships. Funding includes developmental research and consultation, which will inform the approach. (b) The $10 million announced on 28 October 2016 is for three years (2016-17 – 2018-19) and supports a number of measures including: 1. countering the impact of pornography with targeted information and educational resources to shift attitudes and behaviours in young people; 2. establishing a national online complaints mechanism to empower victims to report the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and access immediate and tangible support; and 3. identifying gaps in, and impediments to, information sharing about victims and perpetrators of domestic, sexual and family violence between jurisdictions. The national online complaints mechanism will provide assistance to victims to have intimate images removed by working with internet and social media providers. As announced on 23 November 2016, the Department of Communications and the Arts will undertake a public consultation process on a proposed civil penalties regime targeted at both perpetrators and at sites that host intimate images and videos shared without consent. In parallel, the Commonwealth Government is initiating work with the states and territories through COAG to develop principles for nationally consistent state-based criminal offences relating to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (Question No. 605) 129 605 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 10 November 2016: What are the expected consequences of the budgeted $152 million cut from the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, and specifically, how is this cut expected to affect participation and enrolment in higher education by (a) people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, (b) Indigenous people, (c) people from regional areas, and (d) people from remote areas. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: $553.2 million dollars remains under the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) over the next four years to assist universities to provide pathways and support for students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds to participate and succeed in higher education. The Australian Government has redirected $152 million over four years from the HEPPP: $40 million over four years will go to the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) —this investment will safeguard the world's most extensive and well-contextualised collection of material related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and cultures $12 million over four years will support the implementation of Australia's first National Strategy for International Education 2025 $100 million over four years will help repair the budget deficit. Universities use their HEPPP allocations for a range of initiatives that support the aspiration, participation, retention and success of low SES students. The success of the HEPPP on (a) people from low SES backgrounds, (b) Indigenous people, (c) people from regional areas, and (d) people from remote areas depends on how each university chooses to use its HEPPP allocation. The Government is currently evaluating the HEPPP to identify: the outcomes achieved by the program who has benefited from HEPPP activities (including people from regional and remote Australia) whether the program provides good value for money what changes may be required to increase higher education participation and success by people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government will consider the findings of the evaluation in the context of the higher education reforms. Discussion paper: Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education (Question No. 606) 130 606 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 10 November 2016: Will the submissions that the Government has received for the Government's higher education discussion paper 'Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education' be made public; if so, when. Mr Hunt 00AMV the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: On 24 November 2016 the Department of Education and Training published the submissions in response to the higher education policy options paper. The submissions may be downloaded at https://www.education.gov.au/node/12551 A number of confidential submissions have not been released at the request of the respondent. Discussion paper: Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education (Question No. 607) 130 607 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 10 November 2016: What, if any, are the terms of reference, parameters, criteria, or other guiding principles for the expert panel, in considering the submissions that he has received in respect of the Government's higher education discussion paper 'Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education'. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The terms of reference for the expert panel appointed to assist higher education reforms can be found at Attachment A. Attachment A Terms of Reference – Expert Panel Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education Background The Australian Government is determined that Australia will be a nation that is agile, innovative and creative. A strong education and training system is key to achieving this. It is through access to excellent early childhood, primary, secondary and tertiary education that Australians are able to achieve their potential – in the labour market, in the social and cultural life of the nation, and as engaged global citizens. The Government is committed to a higher education system that provides genuine choice and appropriate support for students, removes barriers for under-represented groups, underpins economic growth and allows institutions to excel and innovate to deliver world-class education. At the same time, it recognises that this system must be affordable and provide a return on investment for both students and the nation. Scope As part of the 2016–17 Budget, the Government released a policy options paper that sets out options for reform that support the Government's vision. The reforms are intended to: provide increased opportunity and choice for students that enhances their employment opportunities ensure fairness and equity in access to and participation in higher education provide institutions with the flexibility to provide education in an innovative manner that provides excellence and quality across teaching, learning and research ensure the affordability and sustainability of higher education provision, including the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP). The panel will provide advice on the issues that have been identified for reform in the Government's policy options paper, including: how the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding clusters should be designed what share of the cost of higher education funding should be borne by students how HELP can be made more sustainable how to give universities the flexibility to be innovative in their course design and delivery, and the concept of flagship courses what types of higher education courses should be funded on a demand driven basis how Commonwealth supported postgraduate places should be funded and allocated how best to support students from regional or disadvantaged backgrounds. The panel will have access to a data collection and analysis process initiated by the Department of Education and Training on the relative and reasonable cost of delivery of higher education. Conduct The panel will engage with stakeholders and take into account stakeholder submissions from the consultation process completed in August 2016 as part of the provision of advice to the Department of Education and Training and the Minister for Education and Training. Timing The panel will work with the Department of Education and Training and the Minister for Education and Training up until December 2016. Constitution The expert panel will comprise four panel members. Higher education reforms (Question No. 612) 131 612 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 November 2016 In respect of the 2016-17 budget papers estimate that the Government's stated position of not proceeding with full fee deregulation will give rise to savings of $2 billion, given there are no specific expenses associated with fee deregulation in the 2014-15 budget, on what basis has the $2 billion in savings been calculated. Mr Morrison E3L The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: As part of the 2016-17 Budget, the Higher Education Reform – further consultation measure is the cost of delaying the higher education reforms announced in the 2014-15 Budget and the 2014-15 MYEFO by a year to allow for further consultation to occur. The entire Higher Education Reform – further consultation measure is estimated to achieve savings of $2 billion over five years from 2015-16 in fiscal balance terms, but cost $596.7 million over five years from 2015-16 in underlying cash balance terms. The $2b billion savings in fiscal balance terms includes the decision to not proceed with the deregulation of university fees announced in the 2014-15 Budget measure titled Expanding Opportunity – expansion of the demand driven system, and sharing the cost fairly. Transgender teenagers (Question No.617) 131 Question No.617 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 November 2016: Will the Government consider ensuring that transgender teenagers are not obliged to obtain an order from the Family Court before they can gain access to puberty blockers? Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government is sensitive to the concerns of young people and their families that the need to apply to the Family Court for orders relating to stage two treatment can be expensive and stressful, and can delay a young person's access to the treatment. The Government is actively considering options for reform in this area. Intersex children (Question No.618) 131 Question No.618 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 November 2016: Is the Government aware of any reviews underway to consider the human rights implications of surgical interventions for intersex children. Mr Keenan E0J - The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Australian Government is not currently conducting any reviews on the medical treatment of intersex people. In June 2015, the Australian Government tabled its response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on 'Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people in Australia'. In its response, the Australian Government encouraged all state and territory governments to review the Victorian Decision-Making Principles for the Care of Infants, Children and Adolescents with Intersex Conditions, and consider adopting or developing specific principles for their jurisdiction in consultation with intersex support groups and medical experts as appropriate. Australian greyhounds (Question No. 621) 132 621 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing: (1) How many Australian greyhounds have been exported in the last 12 months. (2) What countries are Australian greyhounds being exported to, and how many Australian greyhounds have been sent to each of these countries in the last 12 months. (3) Is he aware that Greyhounds Australasia has introduced a mandatory Greyhound Passport scheme to prevent Australian greyhounds from being exported to countries that do not meet with Australian animal welfare standards. (4) Does the Government have any knowledge of Australian greyhounds being exported across Asia that are facing cruel treatment and being raced to injury or death. (5) What is the Government doing to ensure the welfare of greyhounds from Australia in importing countries. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources publishes statistics about greyhound exports on its website: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/live-animal-export-statistics/non-livestock-exports. (2) See the answer to Question (1) (3) Yes. (4) The government is aware of concerns about the welfare of exported Australian racing greyhounds. (5) The state and territory ministers agreed at the Agriculture Ministers' Forum (AGMIN) in May 2016 that the Animal Welfare Task Group (AWTG), chaired by the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Jaala Pulford MLC, would provide AGMIN and the Agriculture Senior Officials' Committee with an out-of-session paper on greyhound export considerations and suggested actions. The government will await the delivery of this paper by the AWTG to help inform any future action on this issue. Bulimba Barracks (Question No. 622) 132 622 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Defence Personnel, in writing, on 21 November 2016: (1) Will prospective purchasers of the Bulimba Barracks be made aware of the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan (administered by the Brisbane City Council); if so, how. (2) What assurances, if any, can he give constituents in the electoral division of Griffith that the purchaser will abide by the letter and spirit of the Master Plan. Mr Tehan 210911 The Minister for Defence Personnel has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Defence will work with the Brisbane City Council to make purchasers aware of Council Planning requirements at the time of sale. The Bulimba Barracks Master Plan is reflected in Temporary Local Planning Instrument 03/16Redevelopment of the Bulimba Barracks effective 10 June 2016. Defence will advise prospective purchasers to appraise themselves of local and state planning requirements for the site. Details of the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan are readily available on the Brisbane City Council website: www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-guidelines-tools/neighbourhood-planning/neighbourhood-plans-other-local-planning-projects/bulimba-barracks-master-plan. (2) Any purchaser of the site would be required to comply with Brisbane City Council and Queensland Government planning requirements. Bass Highway (Question No. 624) 132 624 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 22 November 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to provide $500,000 to fund a comprehensive study on the Bass Highway between Cooee and Wynyard, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) what will be the process for the (i) Waratah Wynyard, (ii) Burnie City Council, or (iii) Tasmanian Government, to receive this funding, and (b) when will the funding be delivered. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government has confirmed its commitment of $500,000 toward a comprehensive road safety and traffic flow study on the Bass Highway between Cooee and Wynyard. Funding will be paid to the local government through the Tasmanian Government on the basis of project need. Bass Highway (Question No. 625) 133 625 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 22 November 2016: In respect of the Government's election commitment to provide $2.13 million to fund intersection upgrades on the Bass Highway at Wynyard, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) what will be the process for the (i) Waratah Wynyard Council, or (ii) Tasmanian Government, to receive this funding, and (b) when will the funding be delivered. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government has confirmed its commitment of $2,130,000 to upgrade intersections on the Bass Highway beyond Wynyard. Funding will be paid to the Tasmanian Government on the basis of project need. WestConnex (Question No. 626) 133 626 Mr Albanese R36 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 23 November 2016: In respect of his answer to question in writing No. 23 (Hansard , 21 November 2016, page 186), can he confirm that the New South Wales Government has not requested any additional funding for the WestConnex project. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji (Question No. 627) 133 627 Ms Rowland 159771 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 23 November 2016: a) How many times has the Prime Minister of the Republic of Fiji, Rear Admiral (retd.) Hon. Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama, visited Australia since being elected in 2014. b) Which Ministers have met with Mr Bainimarama on these visits, and (a) when, and (b) where, did these meetings take place. c) Has the Australian Government hosted Mr Bainimarama at any official events on his visits to Australia. Ms Julie Bishop 83P The answer to the member's questions are as follows: a) Prime Minister Bainimarama has visited Australia on numerous occasions since Fiji's election in September 2014. Under the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988, the Government cannot provide information on travel to and from Australia by individuals without their consent. However, it is a matter of public record that Prime Minister Bainimarama has visited Australia in an official capacity and transited Australia on his way to third countries. b) During a visit to Sydney on 15-19 October 2015 for the Australia-Fiji Business Council Joint Forum and Fiji National Day celebrations, Prime Minister Bainimarama met the Hon Steven Ciobo MP, in his former capacity as Minister for International Development and the Pacific. During a visit to Sydney on 12-19 October 2016 for a Fiji Trade and Investment Symposium and Fiji National Day celebrations, Prime Minister Bainimarama met Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. c) The Australian Government has not hosted Prime Minister Bainimarama at any official events during his visits to Australia. WestConnex (Question No. 628) 133 628 Mr Albanese R36 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 23 November 2016: Does any of the Government's $1.5 billion contribution to the entire WestConnex project remain outstanding; if so (a) what sum, and (b) by when is it payable. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. Non-English Speaking Backgrounds registered with Centrelink (Question No. 630) 134 630 Ms Templeman 181810 asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 24 November 2016: How many people from non-English speaking backgrounds are registered with Centrelink in (a) the electoral division of Macquarie, and (b) New South Wales. Mr Tudge M2Y The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Customers from a non-English speaking background(1)in receipt of a main income support payment(2): (1) Non-English speaking background describes persons born outside of Australia, in countries where English is not the main language spoken. This indicator should be used with caution as it is based on Country of Birth. (2) Main Income Support Payments were utilised as a customer base to minimise the risk of potential over counting of customers. (3) Numbers have been rounded. Non-English Speaking Backgrounds registered with Centrelink (Question No. 631) 134 631 Ms Templeman 181810 asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 24 November 2016: In (a) the electoral division of Macquarie, (b) New South Wales, and (c) Australia, how many people (i) from non-English speaking backgrounds, and (ii) who are 55 years of age and over and eligible to do so, have established myGov accounts to access Centrelink and Medicare. Mr Tudge M2Y The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought is not available. Information about whether a person is from a non‑English speaking background is not collected within myGov. Bulimba Barracks (Question No. 637) 134 637 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Defence Personnel, in writing, on 30 November 2016: What measures does the Government have in place to ensure that local amenity and the impact on local residents are foremost considerations in the sale of the Bulimba Barracks. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Defence will work with the Brisbane City Council to make purchasers aware of Council Planning requirements at the time of sale. The Bulimba Barracks Master Plan is reflected in Council's Temporary Local Planning Instrument 03/16 Redevelopment of the Bulimba Barracks, effective 10 June 2016. A purchaser of the site would be required to comply with Council and Queensland Government planning requirements.   Bulimba Barracks (Question No. 638) 134 638 Ms Butler 248006 To ask the Minister for Defence Personnel: Will the Commonwealth commit a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the Bulimba Barracks site to the local community as a contribution to the additional infrastructure that will be needed if, as is expected, the site is developed for residential purposes. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Defence is not permitted to direct proceeds from the sale of Commonwealth property to the local community. Bulimba Barracks (Question No. 639) 134 639 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Defence Personnel, in writing, on 30 November 2016: Can he advise when the Bulimba Barracks site will be on the market, and (a) how, (b) when, and (c) where, it will be advertised. Mr Tehan 210911 The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: Defence anticipates commencing an open market sale process for Bulimba Barracks in 2017. At that time Defence will engage a marketing agent to sell the property. Defence will consult with the marketing agent in determining a preferred sales and marketing strategy. Bulimba Barracks (Question No. 640) 135 640 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Defence Personnel, in writing, on 30 November 2016: In respect of the Bulimba Barracks Environmental Investigation Report (21 July 2015) relating to contamination at the Bulimba Barracks site, (a) what is the progress of the remediation work, and (b) will all remediation work be completed before the open market sale. Mr Tehan 210911 The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: Defence has undertaken some remediation work at the site following the preparation of an environmental report in July 2015. The contaminants that have been identified on the site are not unusual for any typical metropolitan redevelopment site. Defence will ensure that a prospective purchaser is aware of the environmental report and the extent of work that has been undertaken.