MOTIONS

2017-02-28 45 1 2 House of Reps 0 0

Tuesday, 28 February 2017

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

MOTIONS 1693 MOTIONS Centrelink 1693 12:01 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes: (a) the Government has released highly confidential personal information of Centrelink customers to the media as part of a vindictive political campaign to punish some of Australia's most vulnerable people for speaking out against the Government's robo-debt mess; and (b) there are serious questions about the legality of the Government's actions and whether they constitute breaches of the Privacy Act; (2) calls on the Minister for Human Services to attend the House to provide a full account of the: (a) specific provision of the Privacy Act or any other legislation that the Government claims gives it the legal right to release this highly confidential personal information to the media; and (b) involvement of himself, his office, his Department and Centrelink in releasing this highly confidential personal information to the media; and (3) condemns the Minister for releasing the personal information of Australians for vindictive political purposes. Leave not granted. Ms BURNEY 8GH It is a scandal. I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Barton from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House: (1) notes: (a) the Government has released highly confidential personal information of Centrelink customers to the media as part of a vindictive political campaign to punish some of Australia's most vulnerable people for speaking out against the Government's robo-debt mess; and (b) there are serious questions about the legality of the Government's actions and whether they constitute breaches of the Privacy Act; (2) calls on the Minister for Human Services to attend the House to provide a full account of the: (a) specific provision of the Privacy Act or any other legislation that the Government claims gives it the legal right to release this highly confidential personal information to the media; and (b) involvement of himself, his office, his Department and Centrelink in releasing this highly confidential personal information to the media; and (3) condemns the Minister for releasing the personal information of Australians for vindictive political purposes. This motion must be debated today. The robo-debt debacle and the deeply flawed Centrelink debt recovery scheme have gone on for so long with no real answers from the government. This is emblematic of how heartless, vindictive and totally out of touch the government is with the Australian community. The government are not content just harassing age pensioners, those receiving the DSP or others who are receiving a Centrelink payment; they have made it clear that, if you speak out, they will target you. If you disagree with the government publicly, they will leak your private details to the media in an effort to discredit and smear you. That private information might include your relationship status and the number of times Centrelink has tried to contact you—and they will not mention that they are using an old contact number. In fact, that information could contain any number of private issues. The first you will know about these breaches is a phone call or an email from a journalist. The minister will not even give you a call to let you know that they have shared your information. This is not right. Whether legally permissible or not, these are deeply unethical actions by the minister and the department. Leaking private information is not something a government should do lightly. I accept that there may be a need to correct the record at times and in some cases in the public interest, but it has to be done with the appropriate checks and balances. Stunningly, the department has revealed to the media this morning that at no point did the secretary formally authorise the release of this confidential information. I will repeat that: stunningly, the department has revealed to the media this morning that at no point did the secretary formally authorise the release of this confidential information. There appears to have been no formal process in place for this drastic action. They just did it because they were angry and because they wanted revenge on those who have spoken publicly about their failing administration of Centrelink. Minister, today I call on you to stop focusing on vendettas and seeking revenge and to get on with fixing this broken system. I also call on the minister to table the legal advice he has had which gives him permission to smear people seeking answers or his advice from the secretary of the department that authorises these releases. If he cannot do that then the least he can do is explain to the House his actions. Since late last year Centrelink has been sending out 20,000 letters a week—one in five to people who owe no debt at all. If you get a letter and Centrelink decides you do owe a debt which you dispute, you face hours on the phone and sorting through payslips and tax returns trying to prove your innocence. The minister needs to explain to this parliament and to the Australian people how this information about individuals ended up with media outlets in Australia. Is it any surprise that people are so angry that they want to tell their stories publicly? 1.7 million people will receive this letter over the next three years, sending them the message: if you do not owe the debt we have raised against you, suffer in silence or we will attack you. He can see the problems he will face if he does not fix this system soon and he is desperate to keep quiet. Turning the political machinery of the department and the minister's office against a private citizens is a grave act and one which no-one in this place should undertake lightly. The robo-debt has been an outrage not just for individual members of the public but for many organisations, including ACOSS, the Welfare Rights Network, disabled peak organisations and the welfare rights alliance. Should they be fearful that any government funding they receive will be cut? Is that the kind of government we have on the other side? What about the Liberals who have spoken out about this system? Will the Minister for Human Services be leaking private information about Senator Abetz in the other place, who said that Centrelink has failed the Australian people? Will the Liberal Premier of Tasmania be focused on? I was a minister for several years in the New South Wales parliament and I would have thought very carefully about whether it was acceptable to release confidential information to the media. We in this place serve the people and it is not for us to target them through the media. If the minister is unhappy about people raising concerns about this poor administration of Centrelink, he can attack the opposition, he can attack me, but not private individuals outside this place. This is a dangerous path, and I call on those opposite to call their colleagues into line. Good governments do not seek to silence criticism with threats and intimidation. They try to avoid it through good governance—none of which we have seen in this Centrelink debacle. I read the minister's comments in The Daily Telegraph this morning about disunity on the other side. He said, 'Get on with the job of governing.' I say this to the minister: perhaps you should apply that sentiment to Centrelink and fix your mess instead of attacking the most vulnerable. There is a very clear narrative developing around this government. They are still obsessed with Joe Hockey's 'lifters' and 'leaners'. Look at the record. Look at their record on holding poor and vulnerable people hostage about the NDIS. Look at their actions yesterday about penalty rates, attacking young people, attacking women and attacking the rights of workers in this country. Look at what they have done in Centrelink. The public says it is not fair game for these political attacks. I am pleased to see that the minister has made some changes, but the changes have not gone far enough. This system is broken. The very fact that the government think they can roll out the same system to elderly people, people on the age pension and people on DSP is just an outrage. I want an apology and so do other people in the Labor Party to those the minister has targeted, to those he has smeared and to people who have spoken out, exercising their rights. They have been attacked for it. I want an apology for Anne Foley, an age pensioner who had her pension cut when a false debt was raised. I want an apology for Michael Griffin, who was issued a $3,000 debt which was taken down to just $50. The minister and this government should apologise to the people who woke up to find their private information in the papers without their permission. The minister should also apologise to his colleagues. He has made them look bad. All of those opposite should hang their heads in shame. They can look down at their iPads and phones and look like they are not interested, but they have had the same letters to their offices as we have. The minister does not understand that the real reason individuals are in the media talking about the government's woeful record on Centrelink management is that they are being treated badly. This is not a big song and dance about how quickly these debt hotlines can be answered. It is not about that. People are waiting hours on hold. People know what the service is like at Centrelink. Centrelink staff are distressed because they have received a circular telling them, 'Even if you see a mistake, just pretend you didn't.' That is effectively what has happened. People are angry. The best way the minister can get them to stop talking to the media is to do his job. This minister and this government should step up to the box and explain to this House what is going on to fix the broken Centrelink system and how the private information of individuals has ended up in media outlets in this country. If the minister and the senior minister will not do that then maybe the Prime Minister should step in and take control of this and do something decent for the Australian people. The SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? Ms Macklin PG6 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:12 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I am happy to speak on this motion largely to correct the record and also to explain how the system works, where it was derived from and exactly what the law says in relation to the release of information to correct the public record. I will start with the main point of the member for Barton where she says she is asking for an apology. I would like to remind the member for Barton and other members opposite exactly where this system started. This system started, as they would know, in 1990. It started in an act which Graham Richardson introduced under the Hawke government. That was the first time that we had this system of checking the veracity of Centrelink information with Australian Taxation Office information. The Labor Party then introduced in 2011 a system of automation. As the member for Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition know, they were in fact the two presiding ministers at the time who introduced a system of automation. We have done more compliance work as we have gone on. When we came to government we expanded the amount of compliance work government was doing. It is important for the member for Barton to know that historical context in relation to how this system works. I point out to the member for Barton that the methodology which we use is the same methodology that the Labor Party introduced in 1990—that is, it looks at what the individual has self reported to Centrelink and it compares that with what the Australian Taxation Office has in relation to the income on their files. Dr Aly interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Cowan! Mr TUDGE M2Y When there is a discrepancy, the person gets an opportunity to explain why there is a discrepancy. The Labor Party introduced that. We use the same methodology today but we use slightly more automation in order to do it. I would like to specifically address the issue of the release of Andie Fox's information, which is the subject of the particular motion, along with the many other allegations that have been made. As the member would know, the personal information about welfare recipients may be used by the Department for social security law or family assistance law purposes in order to correct the record. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 162 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 allow the department to correct the record in cases where a person makes a public statement or complaint about the department's handling of their welfare payments that does not accord with the records which we have, including via the media. As such, disclosure made for the purpose of social security law or the family assistance law does not need to be formally authorised by the secretary. Although, I will just point out— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The minister will resume his seat for a second now that he has finished reading that section. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 That is exactly the point that I was going to make. The level of interjections is ridiculously high. It reflects very poorly on those members. There were no interjections through the speech by the member for Barton. There were none. I think you ought to be able to conduct this debate without a wall of interjections. The members for Lindsay and Cowan, and certainly the member for Lyons, and a number of others, are just interjecting uncontrollably. I will take action—the member for Wakefield, as well. I am going to let the minister now have the call. I will take action, and it will not always be 94(a). Don't think you will be out for an hour and back in time for question time. The minister has the call. Mr TUDGE M2Y Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could, again, summarise what I was saying in relation to the social security law: in cases where people have gone to the media with statements that are incorrect or misleading, which are printed or broadcast, we are able, under the Social Services Act, to release information about the person for the purpose of, as I quote, correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, or a misleading statement in relation to a welfare recipient. That is what the law allows. It allows the correction of— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the chamber. Mr TUDGE M2Y false information which has been placed into the media. In relation to Andie Fox, there was false information placed in the media in a column which she herself penned. So information was provided to correct the record in relation to those allegations. We also know that because the member for Barton has admitted herself that, in all of the cases which the Labor Party has put up to the media, many of them actually have no idea about the veracity of the claims which they are putting up. In fact, the member for Barton herself said to The Australian, 'We can't guarantee that in every case they are innocent.' And, yet, they are placed up to the media as if the system is wrong and that those individuals do not owe debt when we know from the analysis done by my department that in at least a third of the time they had nothing to do with the online compliance system and, in the majority of times, the people actually do owe debt to the taxpayer. It is allowed under social security law for the government to be able to correct the record for when individual case studies are put up alleging that there has been a breach of the system or an incorrect allegation has been made in the system. That is exactly what we have done in relation to the Andie Fox example—to correct the record. And that is the main allegation. I will point out, by the way, Mr Speaker, that the Labor Party has put up and encouraged well over 50 people to come forward and put their public details into the public domain. The member for Jagajaga, an experienced member, would know what the social security law is in relation to being able to correct the record. But they have encouraged these people to go into the media and have their details put up. I know that the member for Bendigo is very quiet there. The member for Bendigo gave details directly to her local media outlets without at any stage approaching myself or my office to try to get what she believed was an issue that needed to be fixed. In fact, we are still waiting for the member for Bendigo to receive that information. Nevertheless, she emailed details directly to WIN News TV in Bendigo. She provided them with the address, the name, the mobile phone number. I have it here in an email because the email was subsequently forwarded to us. So the member for Bendigo has provided all that information about these individuals through to WIN TV. As I said, I am still waiting for that information to come to me to be able to investigate if there is, in fact, something that needs to be corrected. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Bendigo! Mr TUDGE M2Y I have made this point before in relation to cases which the Labor Party has been placing either into the media or in this parliament: if they are actually serious about trying to fix any problem which they foresee—and, admittedly, problems occur in any large system; we have had one which was identified and discussed in this parliament—can I ask them to actually approach me or my office if they are genuinely concerned about some of these recipients so that we can actually address them. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Isaacs! Mr TUDGE M2Y In many cases, they have put them up to the media and they have raised them in the parliament and, yet, we still have not had them approach us. We will continue with our compliance system because it is important to protect taxpayers' money. They want to be assured that the people who are in receipt of welfare payments get the right payments, and no more and no less. Unfortunately, over the years, including in the Labor years, there were a great many cases which the Labor Party just overlooked which we are subsequently uncovering. I have spoken in this parliament about the case where a person reported $5,000 that he earned in a particular financial year while on Centrelink payments, but the Australian Taxation Office said that he earned more than $100,000. That was one case that the Labor Party overlooked when the member for Sydney was in charge, but we have not overlooked that. That is exactly why we have this system in place—to do a proper audit, to identify discrepancies like that and to ask the person to explain that discrepancy, and if they cannot they will be asked to pay back a debt. Of course they have review mechanisms. Of course they can get through to the 1800 number, which has a waiting time—this was the member for Sydney's point—of less than five seconds. (Time expired) 12:22 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga What an extraordinary effort from the minister here today. He has completely ignored the motion that that the member for Barton moved. He has totally ignored the fundamental issue that is before the House today: why has he released confidential information about social security recipients to the media? Why has he done that? That is what this whole motion is about. This is a very, very serious matter. Some of the most vulnerable people in Australia are receiving social security payments. In fact, we saw on the front page of the newspaper one of the saddest stories of a young man who took his own life. In part his family blame his suicide on the way in which he has been treated as part of this Centrelink robo-debt mess. To have this minister come into this chamber today and completely ignore—now we have the senior minister and the junior minister having a bit of a laugh over there about the mess that they have created. This minister needs to explain exactly what has gone on here. Who has authorised the release of confidential information? Did the secretary release the information using his or her legal powers? I said 'his or her' legal powers though I know it is her. Did the secretary do that under the act in the way that is possible, or not? This minister needs to come to the table and explain exactly what has gone on. That is what the millions of social security recipients want to know. The minister said in his contribution right now that we should approach him and tell him what the issues are. Why would anybody—us or our constituents—trust him or the senior minister with information about any of our constituents who are having problems with this robo-debt mess? None of us could possibly trust any of these ministers with this confidential information. The other extraordinary revelation by the minister in his contribution right now was when he said that they have 'slightly' increased automation. Slightly increased it! There is 'slightly' more automation, which of course is what is leading to this robo-debt mess. 20,000 letters a week—that is how many letters are going out. On the government's own estimation, 4,000 of them are wrong—not because of any human error, but the cause of 'slightly' more automation. We know where the human error is. The human error in this government starts right at the very top. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Human Services all think that this is going swimmingly well. They think that this should keep going, no matter how many examples we bring forward and, as my colleagues have indicated, people themselves bring forward. There are people coming forward themselves saying, 'I have just been told by Centrelink or by a debt collector that I owed thousands of dollars.' When they bring their information forward, on so many occasions we find that in fact they owe nothing—absolutely nothing. Pensioners are being frightened out of their wits by this government with this system of automation which is sending 20,000 letters a week frightening people. People think that they owe these enormous debts, when in fact they owe nothing. The heart of this motion today is who has authorised the release of this confidential information. This minister should come clean and tell the House what he has done. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 10000 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 1699 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1699 Membership 1699 12:28 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Mr Falinski to be a member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training in place of Mr Leeser. 12:28 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler by leave—I move: That Mr Leeser be discharged from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and that, in his place, Mr Falinski be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 1700 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 1700

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1700 12:29 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Last night I started speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, and I drew the observation that this piece of legislation from the government highlights the love-hate relationship that it has with the Australian people. When it sat down and said, 'We're going to try and improve child care', not only did it get that fundamentally wrong in certain respects but it also got it wrong in the way it decided that it would pay for those so-called improvements to child care. When it went through the budget—when it went through the finances of the Commonwealth and thought, 'Where can we make the savings to pay for this initiative?'—instead of targeting any other area, it targeted the Australians who can least afford to have their payments and benefits cut. It targeted those on welfare payments. It did not target the $50 billion tax cut that this government wants to give to Australian business. The point I was about to go on to make at that point last night was this: our economy is in transition. We need to see growth in the economy. The Reserve Bank Governor has said that he and the Reserve Bank are concerned that we do not have enough consumption happening in the economy. We need to see that grow. We do not want to see, for example, savings increase. And yet this government wants to cut the available money for people to spend, the people who have the least to spend already, in the economy. That is going to make our economy worse. This is all at a time when the government is out supporting a cut to penalty rates on a Sunday, making the situation even worse. So we have a situation where for years now this government has failed to deliver on childcare relief because it insists on linking the changes to cuts to the family budget. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and this is an absolutely atrocious way to go about delivering on government policy. With the introduction of this bill, the government is not just holding families to ransom to pay for child care but also it is holding pensioners to ransom, it is holding people who are looking for work to ransom, it is holding new mothers to ransom. This is a travesty of a piece of legislation because this bill introduces $2.7 billion worth of cuts to family payments alone to pay $1.6 billion for a childcare package. In total, this piece of legislation is going to be ripping $5.6 billion from the household budgets of the lowest paid Australians, the people who most need our support. The bill would take more than $3.30 a week off pensioners, families, new mums, young Australians for every $1 that is proposed to be spent on childcare assistance. This is a rip-off and a fraud of legislation, and that is why Labor will not support this bill. Let us look at the childcare aspect. We do, of course, support child care—and I say this, from a personal point of view, as a brand-new father—and we support additional investment in child care. But we do not support others being held to ransom to pay for it, especially those who are least able to afford it in our community. This government is more committed to the cuts that will hurt pensioners, families, new mums, young Australians than it is to delivering on its promise of increased childcare assistance. Wouldn't it be better if we had a government that thought the lifelong benefits of early education were more important than cuts to pensioners to rob Peter to pay Paul? Despite being warned about these serious flaws in its childcare changes for years—we have been talking about these problems for years—they have done nothing to fix them. The bill before the House will cut access to early education in half for many vulnerable and disadvantaged children, effectively cutting access for families earning under $65,000 a year from two days a week to one. Labor is very worried about the impact that the government's changes will have on Indigenous children in particular, who in every state and territory already have lower early childhood enrolment rates than the average. These are the people who need our help the most. What sort of government is this? Seriously, what sort of government do the members opposite want to be known as? This is the lowest of the low approach. I move on, because not only do we have these problems with the childcare changes but we also have problems with the way they are going to 'pay for this', which is by changes to the family tax benefit. Labor, as it always has, will stand for low- to middle-income earners in this country. That is what we have been having to do against this government since its disastrous 2014 budget, and yet year after year it throws up at these crazy zombie measures that it is claiming as savings when it is trying to attack ordinary and low-paid Australians. The government admit finally—it took a while to get it out of them—that their family payment cuts will leave 1.5 million Australians worse off at a time when our economy is already faltering. Families will be losing FTB A supplements of $200 per child and they will also be losing FTB B supplements of $350 a year. To put that into perspective for the people of Burt: there are currently 12,775 recipients of family tax benefit A in my electorate and 12,946 recipients of family tax benefit B. This is not small fry stuff in an area that is already suffering huge unemployment levels and having to deal with the decline in the mining construction boom, having to deal with a state government that has caused debt and deficit beyond belief, and having to deal with a state economy that is in recession. But it is not only this, it is not only these changes. This government has really gone the whole hog when it comes to making life worse for those who rely on welfare payments in this country. At the moment we have a situation where welfare payments are indexed against CPI. I would point out Labor did a lot of work with a number of welfare benefits to make sure they were linked to the higher of CPI or average male weekly earnings, but CPI it is. What the government are going to do now is freeze a component of those payments for three years. They are going to freeze a component of those payments for three years instead of having them indexed against CPI. At a time when we have a problem with wage growth not increasing—in Western Australia we have a problem where not only do we not have wages increasing, we have wages not increasing in real terms either. Wages were increasing at a level lower than CPI; now they are going backwards. Now they are going to do the same thing to people who are on welfare benefits. This is actually going to have some very deleterious effects on the economy at large, let alone on the individuals who are having their payments cut. We also have—and this is one of my favourites, especially on the back of the debate we just had—the automation of income stream review processes, neatly contained in schedule 11 of the legislation. Always get concerned when there are more than 10 schedules in a piece of legislation. These measures will automate the process by which the Department of Human Services collects income stream information that it then uses for data matching. The government has been at lengths to point out that it was a Labor government that introduced the data-matching processes when it came to welfare payments. What the government neatly forgets is that we had a human review process in there to make sure that we did not cut payments from people when they did not deserve to have them cut—that was neatly obliterated from the history of time, apparently, by the minister. So what it is going to do now is create more automation in the process before it has even got the current system working. This is a disaster just in itself, just in one little schedule, and it really highlights how this government has a love-hate relationship with Australia. It loves business. It is happy to give a $50 billion tax cut to business but it hates ordinary and low-paid Australians. It is making cuts to payments, it is making cuts to pensioners and it is making cuts to young people while it is giving big tax cuts to big business. It is a shame. (Time expired) 12:38 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair If you want to know what is wrong with this government, look at this particular piece of legislation. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 sums up just how arrogant and out of touch they are with the Australian people and sums up their management of the Australian economy. This bill contains many of what has been described in the national media and on both sides of the chamber as zombie cuts. Do you remember the comments made by the then opposition leader, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, right before the election? He stood up there in an interview in Penrith just before the election and said that there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions. He went on and on. He then proceeded to come into this place and, on the first budget, broke promise after promise. The government did not take the people into their confidence and made change after change to pensions. Look at this. This legislation is about taking money away from pensioners. Just look at what the government did in the 2014 budget. They tried not only to slug pensioners and other people with increases to GP payments but made pharmaceuticals much harder to buy. In addition to that, they tried to change the indexation for the calculation of the pension, which comes in twice a year. So instead of 27.7 per cent of male total average weekly earnings or CPI, whichever is the highest, they decided to use the CPI, which meant that pensioners would be worse off by about $80 a week within 10 years. We are talking about $23 billion being ripped out of pensioners' pockets by the then Abbott government in 2014. We on this side opposed so many of the things that government tried to do and we were very successful in doing that, just as we are opposing this particular legislation before the chamber. What they tried to do was slug pensioners. We heard the debate before around the member for Barton's motion. We have a situation where constituent after constituent is coming into our offices after getting wrong letters from Centrelink. There are about 20,000 a week. The government is admitting about 4,000 are wrong, and pensioners are worried. They are worried because of that, and because of the changes to superannuation the government made as well, which were different from what they went to the election with. From 1 January this year, after the change to the asset test for the calculation of pensions and the change to the taper rate, we saw hundreds of thousands of pensioners worse off as a result. Guess what? We have got a situation here where pensioners will be much worse off by losing energy supplements and the like. This government has got it wrong. Historically it is the case that more senior Australians tend to vote conservative than they vote progressive. It is a fact of electoral history. But this government seems intent on attacking the very people it will ask their votes for at the next election. It is simply extraordinary. On top of this we see cuts in this legislation to family tax benefits, the supplements which people rely on in my electorate to meet the sports costs for their kids, the computer costs for their kids, uniform costs and the like. Many people in my electorate will lose family tax benefits. About 14,997 families in the electorate of Blair, based on Ipswich and the Somerset, receive FTB part A, many of whom will be $200 per child worse off. About 12,358 Blair families will lose $354 as a result of the abolition of family tax benefit part B end-of-year supplements. We have a situation where 1.5 million families will be worse off. It takes a very inept government to spend $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money and still make one in three families who are using child care worse off. How can you do that? How can you spend $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money and get it so wrong? There will be 230,000 Australian families worse off according to the ANU analysis. How can you do that? And why should you hold pensioners, families and young people to ransom to get this legislation through? The government have been talking about childcare reform for a very long time but they could not even get that right. Do you remember the last election? I remember debating people who were running against me and the government were talking about spending $3 billion on child care. Now it is reduced to $1.6 billion. They are ripping away $2.7 billion away from families, pensioners and young people and only putting back $1.6 billion. It is a sleight of hand. See how few speakers have spoken on this particular legislation for the government? They know this is political poison just as they know their position with respect to penalty rates is political poison. In my electorate, 9,403 people—one in seven workers in Blair—who work in retail, food and accommodation industries will potentially be affected by the Fair Work decision the other day. These workers stand to lose up to $77 per week. What are the government doing? They talk about process all the time and attack us. We had 60 members of the government talk in favour of cuts to penalty rates for people in retail, hospitality and other areas. This is the thin end of the wedge. Last Saturday, I was doing my usual mobile office—I have done 57 of them since the last election. I do them all the time. It is a great way to keep in touch with people. I was on my way to West Ipswich, to Casual Coffee, where I set up my mobile office. As I was packing up my car with the signs and putting in the materials, a woman came up to me and talked to me. She was a nurse, and she said, 'We're next. We're next on penalty rates.' If this government has its way with this legislation, she will be much worse off again. It is not just her but young people as well, because this government is trying to take people off Newstart and put them onto youth allowance. They will be up to $48 a week worse off. This government says it stands up for small business and it wants to make sure there are a profitable small businesses in communities, in the regions and in the cities because that is the way people can improve their wages and conditions et cetera. If you rip money away from people, they will spend less. You send the economy into a nosedive. We already know that wages growth is 1.9 per cent. It is the lowest it has been in decades. Inequality in this country is at a 75-year high. Yet this government thinks, 'We'll rip money out of the economy, rip it away from families and from pensioners as well, and that will be good for the economy.' That is not good for the economy. It is not good for business confidence either. This government has its priorities wrong. They promised when in opposition that they would deliver a surplus in their first year of government and every year thereafter. They gave up government revenue sources in terms of the carbon price and so many other areas. They are giving up the capacity for revenue sources that would meet the kinds of payments that could be covered by this legislation by not doing reforms of capital gains tax and negative gearing. If they want money, they could do that. That is also a potential boost to the real estate industry and the construction industry; we know that from the independent modelling. But they will not do that either. So they give up revenue sources and then think it is okay to attack the most vulnerable people in the economy. The big thing that shows that this government has its priorities all wrong, why people will not listen to this government, is its $50 billion in tax cuts to big business, $7.4 billion of which will go to the big banks. That goes to show that they are prepared to give tax cuts to the wealthy, to the most profitable businesses in the economy. They are prepared to give that away in terms of revenue. Yet they feel that they need to cut funding for the most vulnerable people in the economy—cuts to support for young people, forcing young jobseekers to wait five weeks for Newstart; cuts to family tax benefits; cuts to migrant pensioners; scrapping the pension education supplement and the education entry payment. They continue to do this. But in opposition they always talked about the debt and deficit emergency. The talked about it all the time. In fact, they talked about it for a year or so after they got into office. They never talked about it again, because the deficit is eight times bigger than they projected—the actual deficit is three times larger—and debt has gone up about $200 billion. That is because they have their priorities wrong. They have given up revenue sources and not looked at appropriate revenue sources to get rid of the excesses and the rorts in terms of capital gains tax and negative gearing, which they previously talked about in the past. So they have their priorities out of whack. The government are not standing up for families. We hear about hardworking Australian families in question time all the time, but they are not actually doing that which is necessary to help hardworking families. They could support our private members' bill to help hardworking families with respect to the Fair Work Commission decision the other day. They could be doing that, but they are not. They could withdraw this legislation and think about other changes. Talking about hardworking families, child care is at the heart of this particular legislation. The ANU has found that 71,000 families with an income below $65,000 will be worse off. There are about 300 budget-based funded Indigenous and mobile childcare programs, including in my electorate of Blair, in Ipswich. Many of the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander services are well represented by their peak body, SNAICC. I have a lot of time for SNAICC. They are great organisation. They represent their members well. They have advocated hard on this issue. Many of these services are in regional and rural areas. Where are the Nationals on this, by the way? They are completely missing, as usual. Deloitte Access Economics has found that changes to these budget-based funded programs will disadvantage Indigenous kids. Fifty-four per cent of families will face an average fee increase of $4.40 an hour. Forty per cent of families will have their access to early childhood education reduced. Over two-thirds of Indigenous early childhood education services will have their funding cut. In my community, we have Amaroo and Kambu childcare services, and Indigenous child care run though the children and family centre in Ipswich. But these organisations are at risk of cuts. If the government wants to spend $1.6 billion in child care, how about looking after the most vulnerable families in Indigenous communities, in working-class and low-socioeconomic communities in my electorate—or in the member for Lingiari's, up in the Northern Territory? How about thinking about that? Even with their childcare package, the government have got it out of whack. They have not even got that straight. This is a government that really is without proper priorities and values with respect to decisions. Remember that 'rolled gold' Paid Parental Leave scheme from the former Leader of the Opposition and then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, years ago? Now the government talks about fraudsters, and women double dipping as if they do it deliberately. It is disgraceful the way this government has carried on. What it is going to do here is take away hard-won conditions that women in the workplace have negotiated themselves, or that their respective representative bodies, their unions, have negotiated in EBAs. This bill will rip away the capacity of women to support their families financially. The measure removes the mandatory employer paymaster role—that is, employers administering the payment rather than Centrelink—and so it removes the contact women have at the coalface with their employer. We will see cuts to paid parental leave to remove what this mob opposite call 'double-dipping' and sometimes 'fraudulent activity' by placing a cap on the total number of weeks and a new mother can claim on the employer-funded leave. They expect us to pat them on the back because the leave is going up from 18 weeks to 20 weeks, but in fact, if you negotiated through your EBA with your employer a much better deal, you lose. What they are doing is anti-mothers, anti-age pensioners, anti-young people and it is anti-business because they will sap confidence in the economy. This is certainly not childcare reform; we want genuine childcare reform in this country, and it is about time they delivered it. They have failed in this area and they should withdraw this legislation, which should not be supported. 12:53 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate because it is a debate that we should not be having. We should not be passing this legislation; we should be supporting the amendment which has been moved by the shadow spokesperson Ms Macklin. The amendment she has moved summarises very aptly—to anyone who may be listening—why we should not support this bill. We should not give this bill a second reading because, as has been said by successive speakers, it will hurt pensioners, families, new mums, young Australians, while holding childcare assistance and the national disability insurance scheme to ransom. How could they do that? How could they possibly do that while at the same time they are contemplating passing legislation to give $50 billion worth of tax cuts to big business? Of that, $7.4 billion is to go to big banks. How could they do that? We are calling on the government to drop their unfair cuts to pensioners, families, new mums and young Australians and fix their childcare changes so that vulnerable and disadvantaged children are not worse off and so that Indigenous and country services do not face closure. On that point, I note the member for Blair's contribution; he points out the impact of those changes on Indigenous childcare services around the country, two-thirds of which will suffer cuts. When I observe debates in this place and when I watch ministers speak, I expect that they will speak on behalf of the nation and try to do things which are good. This is not good. I expected the Prime Minister, when he was elected Prime Minister by his party, to make a difference in this place, but he has not. What this legislation does is prove yet again how out of touch he is. He is arrogant, out of touch; he has no understanding of the differentials that exist across this great society of ours or of the suffering experienced by people who are disadvantaged or lonely or with an illness or people who live in remote communities and the costs they have to confront just to put bread on the table. The Prime Minister has no idea of this, no idea at all. He has no empathy, no understanding; he is simply out of touch. He is so out of touch that his party can contemplate putting these proposals before us. That is remind ourselves just briefly what some of these proposals are. There are cuts to family tax benefits. My electorate of Lingiari, for those who are listening, covers all of the Northern Territory except Darwin and a large slice of Palmerston. It is 1.34 million square kilometres, and 42 per cent of my electors are Aboriginal people, most of whom live in remote communities, are impoverished and live in conditions worse than any other electorate almost in this country—apart perhaps from some remote electorates which share some of the common characteristics of people living in remote communities who are poor and unhealthy. They deserve a break, but with this legislation, yet again, the government is giving them a kick in the guts. We are expected to stand up here and say, 'Well, that's terrific, Prime Minister. You know what you're doing. This piece of legislation, which will cut family benefits to 11,257 families and up to $200 per child, is a good thing. We should cop that, while you sit in your place of residence surveying the coast and no doubt the harbour and think about giving tax cuts to big business. How could you be so out of touch?' Around 9606 families in my electorate will lose $354 as a result of the abolition of the Family Tax Benefit Part B end-of-year supplement. A single parent with an income of $60,000 and a 17-year-old high school student will be over $3300 a year worse off. The government is going to cut the energy supplement, which will cut $14.10 a fortnight or $365 a year out of a single pension. Pensioner couples will be $21.20 a fortnight worse off or around $550 worse off a year. How can you do this? On what basis are you doing this? Is it because you have a problem with your budget, which is all of your own making? You now want to attack the poorest and most vulnerable in the community. Mr Wallace interjecting— Mr SNOWDON IJ4 It is of your own making—just check the debt levels, comrade! What were they when you came to office? What are they now? Debt and deficit—all of your own making. You have been in government for almost four years now and what do we get? 'It's their fault. It is not our fault.' I am not arguing against savings; what I am arguing against is a $50 billion tax cut for big business. Leave the money for the poor people, the most vulnerable in the country. You have no idea. Let me just give you an illustration of what poor people are. Let me give you an illustration of people who will be affected by this. Every year in June, the Northern Territory Department of Health, to its credit, publishes the Market Basket Survey of the cost basic food items in remote stores in the Northern Territory. Those of you over there with tin ears, just listen for a moment. These are remote stores in the Northern Territory. This is the 42 per cent of my electorate who are Aboriginal people and live in remote communities—a large proportion of them—where jobs are difficult and they rely on income support of the type we are talking about here today. The Market Basket Survey includes a food basket that consists of food that meets the energy and recommended nutrient needs of a family of six for a fortnight. The basket looks at bread, fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy. The latest survey, which is now nine months old, found that the cost of a sample basket of goods in a Darwin supermarket was $580. The survey found that the same basket of goods averaged across 81 remote communities cost $817. The further you travel from Darwin, to the remoter parts of the Territory, you pay more. The communities in the Central Australian region are paying $844—a massive $264 difference. They pay 46 per cent more for exactly the same basket of goods that you could buy in a supermarket in Darwin. These people will be directly impacted by these cuts and we have the government talking about wanting to close the gap. They come in here and parade around saying, 'Close the gap.' They tell us how they are bound and striving to make sure that we change life expectancy data for Aboriginal infants and adults and that they will fix the health issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. You will not do if they cannot afford to buy food, yet the direct impact of these cuts will challenge the capacity of Aboriginal families who live in remote communities in the Northern Territory to do exactly that. We hear government members saying, 'This is all about savings, Warren.' The burden of those savings should not rest on the poorest, defenceless and most vulnerable people in the community. That is clear. The government say that, somehow or another, this is fair and reasonable. When you expose yourself to the facts, it is demonstrably untrue. So I say to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—we do not see a lot of him these days; I wonder why—just how out of touch do you want to be? How arrogant you are. Put yourself in the shoes of the people I have just been talking about and think about how you would manage life. Just to remind ourselves, a family in this context was seen as a grandmother aged 60 years, a man aged 35 years, a woman aged 33 years, a male aged 14 years, a girl aged eight years and boy aged four years—a family of six, which is considered large in some communities, but not in the remote parts of the Northern Territory, I can tell you, where extended families living together is the norm. These vulnerable people will be impacted by these changes. You cannot tell me that, somehow or another, what you are trying to do is fair or in any way reasonable. The thing that really gets to my gut is the proposal to cut support for young people aged between 22 and 24 who will be pushed from Newstart onto Youth Allowance, losing around $48 a week, or almost $2,500 a year. How do you, in all conscience, do this? How do you do this? Do you think they all have rich mums and dads? As an infamous person on the other side once said, 'Get yourself rich parents.' Mr Gosling 245392 Out of touch! Mr SNOWDON IJ4 How out of touch are you? You come in here and you try to convince us that we should vote for this piece of stupid legislation. Of course, this is compounded by the current malaise in the government and their failure to understand the impact of the proposals on penalty rates. I often wonder, as I see the Prime Minister shuffling up to the dispatch box, poking out his chest, pointing across the dispatch box, pointing across to this side of the House and disparaging the Leader of the Opposition, how he sleeps at night. He is now proposing to support a proposition from the commission that will see up to 700,000 Australians $77 a week worse off. How does he sleep at night? If you look at the broad canvas we have here you could say, 'On one side of the canvas we have these cuts to benefits and we have a proposal to give the big end of town a tax cut and, most deplorably, the banks—why we do not have a royal commission is beyond me, but we should have one—and on the other side of the canvas we have 70,000 people having their incomes cut.' Call me naive if you like, but I cannot see too many of those people standing around and applauding the government's decision. Remember, these are young people who might have moved from Alice Springs, where I live, to go to Sydney or Melbourne to go to university and rely on a part-time weekend job for their income to be able to live reasonably in a major metropolitan centre, and this is true for kids in the bush right around Australia. And now they have got to deal with the fact that, instead of working eight hours, they might have to work 10 to get the same income. And they are supposed to say, 'Well, that's terrific. We're happy to do that, Mr Prime Minister, because that's a saving we're going to give you—a saving you can use to help pay the banks'! Again, just how out of touch are you? Don't you understand the impact of this unequal treatment of Australians? Don't you understand that those you are targeting are the most vulnerable—the weakest, in many senses; the sickest, in a lot of cases; the most exposed to the vicissitudes of the economy changing at any point in time? In addition, now you are supporting a proposition that they should have their incomes cut. Well, Prime Minister, you are on the wrong horse; you are on entirely the wrong horse. And the people of Australia will call you to account. I know that the people I represent in this place think you are horrible—horrible for what you are doing to this country, horrible for the divisive nature of the debates which you are prosecuting in this place, and horrible because of your failure to understand the nature of the plight of Australians who are the weakest and most vulnerable in this community and the way you are attacking their way of life. 13:08 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I wish to make it absolutely crystal clear up-front that I do support reform of early childhood education and I do support reforms that would genuinely make it more accessible and make the payment arrangements more streamlined. I also want to make it abundantly clear that you will not find a stronger advocate for and supporter of the National Disability Insurance Scheme than me in this place. It is absolutely vital that the scheme remains true to its original intention of being a demand-driven program where anyone who genuinely needs support can go to the NDIS and get that support and that it not be capped by a budget or a shortage of money. So what I am about to say in the next little while should in no way be taken as any absence of or lesser support for early childhood education—and indeed early childhood educators, who do a wonderful job—and the NDIS. But the bill before the House at the moment, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, frankly, is a shocker—an absolute shocker—and I will not support it and I do not know how anyone in this place could bring themselves to support it. I am sorry; I must have said this a hundred times in this place, but it seems I have got to say it again: we are one of the luckiest, wealthiest, most fortunate countries in the world; a country with an annual federal budget of—it varies from year to year but it is in the order of—$400,000 million. Surely we are rich enough and lucky enough to look after, properly, the people who need to be looked after. Surely we are rich enough and lucky enough to be able to afford to support the most disadvantaged members of the community. Yet here we are—and I associate myself with the comments we just heard: we should not be here debating this; we should not have to come in here to debate whether or not to reduce the social security payment budget by $7,000 million a year. We can afford to pay that money. We can afford to not make these cutbacks to some of the most disadvantaged people in the country. These are harsh cuts. These are very harsh cuts. And they are very harsh cuts directed squarely at the most disadvantaged members of our community. I regret to remind members in this House that Australia's poverty rate, to this day, remains above the OECD average. I will say that again: Australia's poverty rate remains above the OECD average, despite us being one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world and despite us having a federal budget in the order of $400,000 million a year. In population terms, there are almost three million people living below the poverty line, after taking account of housing costs, in recent figures. The poverty rate for children in this country is in the order of 17.4 per cent, or about three-quarters of a million children—three-quarters of a million children living below the poverty line in one of the richest countries in the world. That is a scandal! And it is a black mark on this place and what is has failed to achieve in recent years. By family type, lone parents experience the highest poverty rates, at 33.2 per cent. I will say that again—it seems to be necessary to say these figures again: something like a third of single parents are below the poverty line, in one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world. But we are in this place today talking about whether or not we should cut another $7,000 million from the welfare budget! I cannot believe we are having this conversation. And it is not like we spend an outrageous amount of money and that we need to pare it back, because when I look at some very helpful figures provided by ACOSS—and I will read them in so that I get the figures just right—I see that they say: Expenditures on social security payments are lower than comparable countries … In fact, using recent figures, we spend about 8.6 per cent of GDP on social security payments, compared with an OECD average of 12.4 per cent. In other words, we are only spending about two-thirds of the OECD average on social security, but yet we are in here talking about cutting another $7,000 million from welfare payments. This is not defendable, and this bill is not supportable. It is not good enough for the government to come in here and say, 'Well, it's swings and roundabouts, so people ultimately will be better off.' Again I will quote from ACOSS; they have been very helpful here. They give an example: the increase to the family tax benefit part A for families with children will increase by $10 a week, but it does not make up for the cuts to the supplements. A sole parent with two children aged 13 and 15 will still lose between $14 and $20 per week, or around $1,000 a year. So it is not the case that these people will ultimately somehow be better off. In this example of the sole parent with two young children, they are going to be $1,000 a year worse off. These are not people on obscene incomes like we enjoy in this place; these are people who have no money left over already. Where will they get that $1,000? What will they cut back? What will they go without? I have met people in my community who already, in the middle of winter in Hobart, are not turning the heating on, because they cannot afford the electricity. I have already met people in my electorate, in Hobart—in a capital city in one of the richest countries in the world—who go without meals to pay for their medicines. I have met older Australians on the age pension who will even eat dog food—in a capital city in one of the richest countries in the world, with an annual federal budget of close to $400 billion a year. Yet we come in here and we are talking about cutting another $7,000 million from the welfare budget. I am the first to agree with the government that we need to reengineer the budget. We do need to find savings. We do need to find other sources of revenue. We do need to get the budget back into balance over the economic cycle. On the government's own figures, by fiscal 2018-19, our total federal government debt will be in the order of $356 billion—a quarter of a trillion dollars. We do have to fix that. But why on earth are we going after some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the country? Is it because they are not the people putting big donations into the political parties—the people who are currying favour? Why don't we come in here and collegiately talk about big reform? I can tell you that we will not repair the budget even if we go ahead with measures like those contained in this omnibus bill. Seven billion dollars is an enormous amount of money to take away from disadvantaged people, but it is a drop in the ocean when it comes to repairing the budget. The budget needs deep structural reform. The country needs big, inspiring political leaders telling us what needs to be done and guiding us through it. In my experience, the Australian community will support big bold governments when the need for reform is explained to them and the package reforms is sold effectively. But we are not seeing that at the moment. In fact, in this country we have such a shortage of big, inspiring leaders—people you would follow to war. As I look around this place, I can tell you that there are precious few people I would follow to war. I see a generation of professional politicians who are tinkering around the edges and thinking that the solution is taking $7 billion from Australia's most disadvantaged and vulnerable people. I will tell you about the sorts of things we should be talking about. What about a genuine clampdown on multinational tax avoidance? That would be a strong start. I do note that in recent times the government has taken some small steps, which, if they are successful— Mr Christensen interjecting— Mr WILKIE C2T Member for Dawson, I have said good on the government for taking some steps. However, by your own figures, those steps might only bring in about a billion a year. That still leaves, by some estimates, $4 billion to $5 billion of tax avoidance going on, even after those measures are implemented and if they are implemented effectively. So there is $4 billion to $5 billion to be had out there from multinationals who, through all sorts of devious means, are avoiding their reasonable tax obligations. We are talking about $4 billion or $5 billion. That is $16 billion to $20 billion over the budget and forward estimates—three times the amount of money that is going to be saved by this bill—just by making the big, rich multinationals pay their fair share. What about domestic firms? I have been unable to come up with an exact figure—and I do not think anyone knows—or even a rough figure of the scope of tax avoidance by domestic companies. But I did find this figure showing the difference between what corporations pay in tax in Australia currently—what they actually pay—and what would be paid if they all paid their 30 per cent. That shortfall is $8 billion a year. Of course we cannot hope to recoup all of that, because businesses have all sorts of reasonable deductions, but we could recoup some of that. Let's say we recouped a quarter of that—$2 billion a year; $8 billion over the budget and forward estimates. That would more than pay for this ruthless cut to welfare for some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the country. What about a proper super-profits tax? Last year, the banks made $30,000 million—and not just in gross terms but also a significant profit as measured as a return on their investment. How about the banks, with $30,000 million, pay a bit more tax? And how about any company in this country that gets a super return on their investment, no matter how big or small, pay a bit more tax? They could afford to pay a bit more tax. They could afford to pay a bit more tax a darn side easier than the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in this country could. A single mum with two young kids will have to afford to go without $1,000 and will go without meals, will go without medicines and will go without electricity, while the banks get off scot-free. In the last six months, BHP made $8,000 million profit. Well, good on them, but it would be better if they paid a bit more tax and helped out the community that has supported them over many, many years. What about capital gains discounts? We talk a lot about negative gearing—and that is fine—but let's talk about capital gains discounts, which most experts would agree are skewing the housing market. Let's get rid of those discounts. That will save us a billion dollars a year, $4 billion over the budget and forward and estimates and more than half the amount of money that we are trying to save today. Why don't we get rid of the $50 billion in tax cuts for big business? These are the sorts of measures we need, but they will only happen when we have politicians who are visionary and strong and prepared to make the big decisions. I tell you what: the public will accept big, bold decisions when they are necessary, when they are explained and when they are sold by inspiring leaders. To help sell them, why don't we all take a 25 per cent pay cut? That would make some of the tough decisions in the broader community more palatable. I look around and everyone is staring at me—I will not say as though I have grown two heads. Honourable members interjecting— Mr WILKIE C2T Seriously—please, colleagues and Mr Deputy Speaker—the community will accept big, bold reform when it comes from big, bold, inspiring leaders, when it is sold well and when everybody, including us, shares in the cutbacks. But at the moment we have a government trying to take $7,000 million from the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the community, while at the same time wanting to give a big tax cut to big business and taking no action against the banks while they pull in $30,000 million profit and no action against companies like BHP that make $8,000 million profit in six months. This is a shocker of a bill. I will not support it, I am pleased that the opposition will not support it and I hope my crossbench colleagues will not support it—and I tell you what: if some of the members of the government had any guts, they would cross the floor and not support it. 13:23 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017—there are so many words in the name of this bill that do not make sense to anybody in the public and there is a reason for that. The reason is the government are hiding behind this longwinded bill. They are hiding behind the fact that they are not listening, that they have not heard and that they are deaf to what Australians consider to be the most important thing in this country, and that is fairness. When Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, took over as Prime Minister, he paid lip service to the notion of fairness. In fact, I think he suggested he would look at everything through a fairness lens. Fantasy horror is a really popular genre at the moment on our television screens, in novels and in short stories. It is happening today in the people's house—this is fantasy horror. The zombie cuts are back. They are the walking dead. I am not sure whether the bill should be called the walking dead bill or whether those opposite altogether should be named the walking dead. It is an outrage that this government brings into this chamber a bill that purports to be about early child care and education but is in fact about cuts to services and cuts to the most vulnerable in our community. These notions have been rejected. The government have tried before to distinguish between the leaners and the lifters, between the haves and the have-nots and between tax-paying and non-tax-paying Australians. They are back again today pitching parent against parent. They are pitching parents who receive family tax benefit against those parents who might be able to get a little more out of this package for early childhood care and education. But you note that the bill's title refers to childcare reform. I am going to say it again—and I will say it every time I get to my feet on this: what has happened to the notion of education in this package? What has happened to the notion of the investment in the early years of our young people to ensure our economic future? It has gone drastically missing. So they have dug up the zombies and they have buried the education parts of this piece of legislation. This bill is a disgrace. It demonstrates that this government is not listening. It is divided in itself, deaf to the public; it is dysfunctional and it is divisive—it is the four d's. This is a government that cannot listen and cannot learn. No matter how hard the Australian public yell, they refuse to hear, they refuse to heed and they refuse to learn the lessons. Let us go through the zombie cuts that they are bringing back—the zombie cuts that are walking around this chamber today. You may not be able to see these cuts, but, if they tap you on the shoulder, you will feel them. They are cuts to family tax benefits that will leave a typical family on $60,000 a year around $750 worse off. They are cuts to paid parental leave that will leave 70,000 new mums worse off. The bill scraps the energy supplement, which means a $1 billion cut to pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients. It gets worse. The government want to introduce a five-week wait for Newstart. It is just a five-week wait, they say. Say that to a young person who has just lost their job and has to pay the rent next week. Do they think that young person can get their bond back, rush home, live with the folks for five weeks and wait, and then go through the whole process and gain their independence again? They live on a planet that has nothing to do with the people in my electorate, what they need or the way that they live. The bill goes further. It introduces cuts to young people between the ages of 22 and 24 by pushing them onto the lower youth allowance. This is a cut of around $48 a week, or $2½ thousand a year. It is an outrage. This bill needs to be seen in the context of layer upon layer of everything else this government is doing or refusing to do. To that $48-a-week cut to the benefits of our young people who are unemployed, add the penalty rate cuts that they are going to suffer, which might mean $74 a week if they are working on Sundays—and where are the incentives for young people to find work? The government have completely and utterly lost their way. They need to find their ear. Somebody give them a conch shell so they can hear the Australian public and what they have been screaming since the 2014 budget. The government need to take some listening lessons. They really need to go back to their electorates, have some conversations and find out what people really care about. Then they need to examine their consciences and examine the direction in which they would like to take this country. At the moment, we have wage growth at a record low—lower than it has ever been since we started measuring it—and we have company profits relatively historically high. The government, rather than working within that framework, are intent on driving home these zombie measures. It is a disgrace. They should really start to think about who they are representing and about how they would like to take this country forward, because at the moment they are absolutely lost. They want to talk about child care and education, but they cannot do it without holding the rest of the country to ransom. They are doing it again. They are dividing the country, parent against parent this time. We have seen that before with their gold-plated PPL, which they pulled. Now they are back and they are going to cut the PPL and hurt families and hurt the connection between mothers and their children—and they dare to call this childcare reform. It is a joke. The government need to start to listen and listen carefully to the people who are speaking to them in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Lalor will be given an opportunity to complete her contribution at that time. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 1713 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Racial Discrimination Act 1975 1713 13:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Later today a parliamentary committee will release a report into the future of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and we will wait for the government to respond. There should be no doubt that any changes to the Racial Discrimination Act which give permission for more racial hate speech are a bad outcome for Australia and should be resisted. I, like most members of this House, will go my whole life without being a target of racial hate speech, but I cannot say the same for my friends and my neighbours. Most of us only see examples of racial hatred that happen in the public sphere when videos are released. When people see them they are repulsed by the level of hatred that some people experience on an everyday basis when simply commuting. What sort of an out-of-touch, born-to-rule, indulgent sense of entitlement leads someone to look at those videos of racial abuse and see the abusers as the victims because they should somehow have been allowed to hurl even more insults than they did? The hatred that shocks most Australians is seen as simply not enough by some in this chamber—by an elite, arrogant few. The voices of those who are the target of hate speech are not loud enough and are not heard. I urge all members to join with me for the Walk for Respect on 31 March to stand up for a multicultural Australia. Domestic and Family Violence 1714 13:31 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax We who are elected to this place, our national parliament, spend an inordinate amount of time thinking, debating and legislating important matters of state, as we should. However, let us not forget that we are also here to provide national leadership on the protection and promotion of Australia's way of life and the values that bind us as a nation. It is in this context that I rise today to reject the public comments made last week by Mr Keysar Trad that suggested violence against women in the home is acceptable, albeit as a last resort. Mr Trad's deplorable imagery of some medieval checklist as a pathway en route to domestic abuse should never be tolerated, but rather called out for what such a tool would be—an accessory to a crime. Violence in the home—no matter who the perpetrator is or who the victim is—is never acceptable. Domestic violence is against our values as a people and our honour as a nation and it flies in the face of our way of life. International Women's Day 1714 13:33 Mr FEENEY I0O Batman This year it was my honour to host an International Women's Day event in partnership with the Melbourne Period Project building on the International Women's Day theme: 'Be bold for change'. At this event in my electorate we were fortunate to hear from three incredible women: Labor's Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek, social justice activist and columnist Van Badham and the CEO of Women's Health in the North, Helen Riseborough. We heard about the challenges that Australia still confronts in achieving gender equality in politics, society and health: there is a 20 per cent gender pay gap, one in three women are victims of family violence and 40 per cent of all retired single women live below the poverty line. There is much more work to be done and the key message I heard on Friday night was one of action—get involved, join a local community group, join a union and get organised. I also want to mention and acknowledge the backlash, abuse and dismissal women still face when they speak out publicly, whether that is to express a political opinion or to simply campaign against social injustice. It is a shameful thing. It occurs all the time in social media. It is one of our responsibilities to call it out when we see it occur. Finally, I express my thanks to Tallboy & Moose, the venue which donated their space, and all the people who donated to the Melbourne Period Project on the night. Together we raised over $1,200 for support and hygiene products for homeless women. Aged Care 1715 13:34 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I rise to support the coalition government's Increasing Choice in Home Care initiative, which gives elderly people the freedom to choose their home care provider. Many people as they age choose to remain in the comfort, security and familiar surroundings of their home for as long as possible. My electorate has an ageing demographic, more so than most other electorates, so the coalition's move to ensure aged-care services are tailored to help people stay in their homes for longer is very welcome. Now, for the first time, older Australians will be able to select the service provider of their choice, as the funding for aged-care packages will be attached to the consumer instead of the provider. A clear benefit of the coalition's reform is portability, enabling people to switch between providers if their needs are not being met, and if they move to a different locality, they can select a new home care provider. More than 100,000 older Australians are expected to be assisted by the new approach. Our older Australians built this nation. They defended our country. They taught us, nursed us and cared for us, so it is right that the coalition government delivers the funding and policy framework to ensure their needs are met. Western Australia: Infrastructure 1715 13:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt For a government polling as poorly as the Turnbull Liberal government to try to hold Western Australia's infrastructure funding to ransom is a bold move, to say the least. If members in this place have not noticed, Western Australians are more than a little angry that Colin Barnett and the Prime Minister have let our share of the GST plummet to less than 30c in the dollar. The only major funding we have been promised for infrastructure since the Liberal government came in is for what will be WA's only toll road: the highly flawed Perth Freight Link, a road to a port that does not even make it to the port it is meant to be servicing. WA Labor has committed to redirecting this funding to the job-creating, congestion-busting projects WA actually needs: bringing forward the widening of Armadale Road, constructing a new bridge on Armadale Road and building METRONET, which in my electorate means bringing trains to Canning Vale. And what was this Liberal Prime Minister's response? He threatened to withhold the funding. Without those funds, WA's share of the federal infrastructure budget will drop down to just seven per cent. Meanwhile, WA has 11 per cent of the population and takes up a third of the nation. Prime Minister, your threats are a disgrace. The Barnett and Turnbull Liberals have been ripping WA off for years and I can promise you that you will reap the rewards at the ballot box. La Trobe Electorate: Berwick and District Show 1715 13:37 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe On the weekend the Berwick and District Agricultural and Horticultural Society hosted the Berwick show. I would like to thank the members of the society. They have a very strong tradition and association going back 160 years of putting on this amazing event. I would like to thank all those who got involved, including those who brought along their horses, sheep, alpacas, goats and poultry exhibits. Our Saturday night carnival continues to be a highly successful and popular component of our show. One thing that remains constant is the contribution made by the volunteers who make up the show society. I thank them, especially: Jack and Burt Rae, honorary life members; and the executive committee of Willem Boon, who is the president, Andrew Fife, the immediate past president, Melissa Hogg-Marshall, the vice president, and Amanda Mason, the junior-vice president. They have been doing an amazing job with the show. I also make a plea. I urge anyone out there who wants to get involved in ensuring the long-term future of the show for another 160 years to contact the society and offer their assistance. Western Australia: Infrastructure 1716 13:39 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Since the turn of the year, Western Australia has taken the mantle of bearing the highest unemployment in the country. The Barnett government can now add that milestone to its other achievements, including the highest per capita state debt and the highest inequality in the nation. In my electorate and in Western Australia more broadly we are desperate to see some investment in productive infrastructure. We are desperate for some investment, any investment, in public transport, rail freight, renewable energy industry and Australian shipbuilding. But we have seen three-fifths of nothing. I have called on numerous occasions for the government to invest in the second stage of the floating dock at the Australian Marine Complex. It is a threshold investment if WA is to get a fair share of defence shipbuilding. Yet when the Prime Minister made what is now becoming his biannual visit to Western Australia last week we got a reheated announcement with no details and no commitment to specific shipbuilding infrastructure. In fact, the only thing it achieved was to cloud the integrity of the current OPV tender process. For the sake of jobs, for the sake of freight reliability and for the sake of regional security and our humanitarian disaster response capacity, we must act to strengthen and protect Australian shipping, Australian shipbuilding and the jobs and livelihoods of Australian seafarers. We must keep Fremantle port in public ownership. We must overcome the madness of the Perth Freight Link. Only Labor has those policies. Only Labor makes that commitment. Crime 1716 13:40 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to speak today about what I am doing to address crime and antisocial behaviour in the Pilbara. Last week I hosted a crime forum in Port Hedland, along with my colleagues the Liberal candidate for the Pilbara, Mark Alchin, and the state agriculture minister, Mark Lewis. Drug and alcohol fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour has spiked in the town over the past couple of years and, regrettably, offenders are getting younger and younger and incidents are becoming more frequent. Two-Mile camp is a blight on Hedland, and several private residences are now drug havens. Attendees at the forum provided a sound cross section of the community, with members outlining the depth of the town's crime problems. We cannot simply police our way out of this situation. The justice system has a role to play, as does as the liquor industry. In addition, I am pushing for all welfare recipients in the Pilbara region to be on the cashless welfare card which is making a positive impact on the communities in the East Kimberley and Ceduna. I have discussed my concerns with the Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, and I am planning a trip to the Pilbara with the minister so that he can witness firsthand the issues that the community is facing. With no changes, nothing changes. We must do something now. Perth Freight Link 1717 13:41 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I rise to condemn the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in relation to a matter affecting all Western Australians, one that can only be characterised as conduct of extraordinary delay and even more extraordinary expense to the Western Australian and Australian taxpayer. The matter at issue is a humble FOI application lodged by the enigmatic, dogmatic, tenacious and most formidable Alannah MacTiernan, my predecessor as the federal member for Perth. This was a simple FOI application that hopefully would reveal the missing link to the Perth Freight Link. 'Was it a simple application?' I hear you ask. No. it was anything but. It was lodged on 24 July 2014 and fought every step of the way by highly paid lawyers, instructed by the minister for infrastructure. It resulted in one, two, three—but, wait; there's more!—four contested applications in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at costs that must range between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Australian taxpayer. What has that revealed? The minister and the department folded there tent at the final moment in relation to the FOI documents which were hoped to contain a smoking gun as to why this plan was there in the first place. Here are the documents. I tell you what: there is no smoking gun in there. They simply show obfuscation, delay and cost. This is a federal government with no idea and a state Liberal government with even less. (Time expired) Flinders, Mr Matthew 1717 13:43 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey A new statue of Matthew Flinders has been unveiled in Port Lincoln. Flinders took three journeys to the Southern Ocean between 1791 and 1810 from his native England. He was only 28 when he completed the circumnavigation of Australia and was the first to have used the word 'Australia' to refer to the continent on which we now live. It was in February 1802 that he sailed into the natural harbour now known as Port Lincoln, which he named in honour of his home province of Lincolnshire. He was very impressed with its harbour and climate. Flinders' maps of our coastline and our borders are remarkable for their accuracy. Even today some are still used. He was just 28 when he completed the circumnavigation of the continent—a remarkable feat in itself. At the time, Britain was at war with France. As a reward for his great effort here, he was actually detained by the French government for six years on his attempted return to England! The statue has Flinders kneeling and using his compass, and he is accompanied by his cat, Trim. It was by British artist Mark Richards. It is one of just three of this design. It was funded by South Australian businessman Roger Lang. It is two metres high. It is a spectacular addition to Tasman Terrace, which is already home to the spectacular statue of Makybe Diva. Western Australia: Roads 1717 13:45 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I rise today to express my continual disappointment by the failure of the Western Australian state and the federal coalition governments to secure funding for much-needed improvements to Wanneroo Road in my electorate of Cowan. For too long, this vital arterial road has been sidelined and ignored while these coalition governments have put public money toward projects that can only be described as headline-grabbing wastes of time. Perth's roads are in real crisis. By 2031, we are predicted to have seven of the top 10 most congested roads in the country, including four worst of all. Clearly, smart, targeted investment in our major roads is what we need in Western Australia. The coalition governments at the state and federal levels have needed to be prodded and poked to commit to many important transport and infrastructure projects in Western Australia. And then they have failed to make good on their promises. By contrast, Labor has recognised for a long time that we need to improve roads like Wanneroo Road. WA Labor believes that money from the unwanted and unneeded Roe 8 project should be diverted to places where it really matters to Western Australians—places like Wanneroo Road. Rather than investing in the divisive and pointless Roe 8, it would have made far more sense for the Liberal state government to fulfil its promises to the voters of Wanneroo. The WA state government has proven itself to be totally clueless about what Western Australians really need and want. Lockyer Valley Citizens of the Year 1718 13:46 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It is not every day that you get to see the sort of teamwork that we have seen from a very special couple from the Lockyer Valley. I speak of no other than Marjory and Lawrie Johansen. Marjory and Lawrie are our 2017 Lockyer Valley Citizens of the Year. The Johansens are so effective as a couple that the Lockyer Valley Regional Council could not possibly separate them in the final. So, as a result, they were given a draw. What an amazing thing for a husband-and-wife duo to tie for such a prestigious award. They are truly the embodiment of great teamwork. Lawrie and Marjory moved to Gatton in 1996, and they have contributed considerably to the Lockyer Valley for over 20 years. They are both now roughly around 68 years of age. They are just as involved in the community today as they were 20 years ago. Marjory is currently the Gatton Lions president and she has been a volunteer at the St Alban's Anglican Parish Church at Gatton. Lawrie previously served as a Lions president, as well, and has been a devoted Lion for no less than 37 years. Lawrie is also an active member of the St Alban's church, where he serves as a liturgical assistance and as a priest's warden. And I will suggest that he will probably give me confession one day! We are so lucky to have Lawrie and Marjory in the Lockyer Valley. I am so proud to be their local federal member. I also want to acknowledge Tanya Milligan, the local mayor, who presides over the prestigious awards and continues on her good way. Perth Freight Link 1718 13:48 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Yesterday, in Senate estimates we had the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development confirm something that we have long suspected in relation to the federally funded Perth Freight Link—the Taj Mahal of the Barnett, Turnbull and Abbott Liberal governments. No planning or proposals have been put forward in relation to exactly how traffic and freight will actually make it to the port of Fremantle. The Perth Freight Link is a fraud. There is no link for the freight from around Perth to get to the Fremantle Port. Despite its billion-dollar price tag on this road to nowhere, there is a great big three-kilometre missing link between the end of the destructive Roe 8 project and the port itself. This cobbled together deal between former Prime Minister Abbott and the Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett, carried on by Prime Minister Turnbull and Senator Cormann, is a ridiculous, wasteful and stupid use of taxpayers' money. The Perth Freight Link just gets dumb and dumber. This government should give up while it is well behind and seek to invest in a game-changing, nation-building project that has been in the planning of WA's economic development since the 1960s—that is, the Kwinana outer harbour. A new commercial hub will bring multi-generational benefits not only to the communities of Rockingham and Kwinana which I represent but to all of Western Australia. It would create an estimated 25,000 direct news jobs and support the WA economy long into the future. This is quite a contrast from the estimated 500 jobs expected from the construction of the Perth Freight Link. My home state of WA needs properly planned infrastructure, and I call on the government to try and do just that. (Time expired) Redman, Ms Heather 1719 13:49 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Loganlea Community Association's outgoing centre coordinator Heather Redman for her hard work, dedication and passion to the Loganlea community. Heather has been the driving force behind the centre's successful Christmas hamper program, offering food and festive treats to people in our local community who are finding things difficult. Every year she inspires community organisations, businesses and individuals to donate items to the less fortunate through the Christmas appeal. Her dedication and compassion will be sorely missed at the centre. I know Heather is looking forward to a change of career and I wish her the best of luck as she takes on new passions. She will be sorely missed by everyone associated with the centre and people like me who have had the pleasure of knowing and working with her over many years. Good luck and goodbye, Heather. I wish you all the best for your future. Thank you for your service to the community in Loganlea. Also, prior to that, thank you for your service to the community in Beenleigh as head of the Beenleigh Community Centre. Perth Freight Link 1719 13:51 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler When the current government announced the Perth Freight Link project in their 2014 budget, I was quite surprised. It was a project that no-one had ever heard of and for which there had been no submissions whatsoever. What we found out, though, was that it was essentially the Roe 8—a project that had been rejected—with an extension on the end. It was one, though, that did not actually go to the port. A freight link project that does not carry the freight to the port! Yesterday, it was asked in Senate estimates, and the department said: 'Just to clarify, Senator, I assume you mean by stage 3 an upgrade between the end of current project and into Fremantle Port.' 'Yes, where the freight is going.' This is what Roland Pittar from the department said: 'We have not seen a draft project proposal report for that.' Here we have, up until the 11 March election when there will be the chance to make a decision on it, a project that does not go to the port, that will not achieve any outcomes, and where this government is saying $1.2 billion of funding will be withheld from WA—funding that should be used for the Outer Harbour, for METRONET, for the North Lake Bridge, for the Wanneroo Road upgrade, for Scarborough Beach Road and for the Denny Avenue grade separation project. (Time expired) Bonner Electorate: Bonner Bright Stars Award 1720 13:52 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I rise in the House today to discuss the importance of encouraging the young people of today. There are so many great young people doing incredible things in the electorate of Bonner, so this year I have decided to create an award to celebrate their wonderful achievements. Starting in March, the Bonner Bright Stars award will be open to all children of school age in my electorate who have achieved something great this month. Whether it is excellence in sport, academic, environmental, volunteering or even just helping out in the community, I want to hear what our young people are doing. Each month the panel of three local people will select a winner, who will then be awarded the Bright Star of that month and receive a gift voucher to help them continue their good work. Nominations for the month of March are now open and will close on 13 March. It is easy to submit a nomination. All you need to do is go to my website, www.rossvasta.com.au, and tell us in 100 words or less why the person you are nominating is deserving of the Bonner Bright Star award. I cannot wait to see the nominations that come through. It is so inspiring to be able to see what the youngest generations of our region are doing and to encourage them to keep trying their hardest to pursue their dreams, whatever they may be. Dobell Electorate: Tacoma Public School 1720 13:54 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Great things are happening in the gardens of Tacoma Public School. Three days a week at lunchtime students can be found digging, planting, weeding, feeding, watering and harvesting a variety of fruit and vegetables, which are used to make delicious food for the school canteen. Students can also be found feeding and tending to the worm farm. The school is currently fundraising for a mobile kitchen, which will let students harvest and cook healthy meals together, straight from school garden. What a great way to learn about sustainability and respect for our environment. Giving students the opportunity to grow their own fruit and veggies encourages healthy eating and can have a huge impact on their future wellbeing. Participation in the green teams is recognised with the Leafy Leader Awards. Students were given the chance to name these awards, and every year a competition is held to choose a winning design from each class. Congratulations to Sarah for naming the award and to this year's talented artists: Maria Susana, Madison, Savanna, Ava, Alannah, Natureh, Simran and Darcy. Congratulations to principal Jeanette Dillon and year 1/2 teacher Donna Andrews, who was a year ahead of me in primary school, for your outstanding work with this program. Thank you also to school captains Amy and June posting me at your assembly last week. I look forward to sharing a home-grown and cooked meal with you soon. Bennelong Electorate: Bennelong Innovation Fair 1721 13:55 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong You will have received an invitation yesterday for the Bennelong Innovation Fair, which I am hosting in the Great Hall on 27 March. This may be the first time you have heard of it, but it will not be the last. Bennelong is Australia's innovation capital. From wi-fi to Granny Smith apples, innovations from our corner of Sydney have changed the world. This still holds true today. Bennelong is home to some of the most innovative companies and organisations in the country. We are home to the cancer-curing Gamma Knife, Australia's only hydrogen fuelling pump, and the labs where every single cochlear implant is made. And of course we have Macquarie University, a world leader in many fields. To celebrate this I am putting together the Bennelong Innovation Fair in Canberra next month to show off all the cutting edge discoveries that are coming out of Bennelong. All our big companies will be there. Critically, we will also be seeing what is happening at the grassroots level across our community. The winners from the schools competition will be there, as will be representatives from local start-ups and small businesses. This is the future of our region, and we must do all we can to foster and support our up-and-coming scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs. The cure for cancer, the trip to the stars—the next big thing could come out of our suburbs if we nurture our young minds. I look forward to seeing you there on 27 March in the Great Hall. Be there or be square! McMahon Electorate: Eastern Creek Incinerator 1721 13:56 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The New South Wales Liberal government is currently considering a proposal for a massive incinerator at Eastern Creek in my electorate. This proposal must be rejected. This will affect the people of St Clair, Erskine Park and Minchinbury, and not in a good way. The people of St Clair and Erskine Park have already been dealing with the massive issue of odours and smells in our community. It has been an ongoing issue. If you think that the incinerator is an answer to a pollution problem you are asking the wrong question. This will also have an impact on the people of Minchinbury, who live just one kilometre from this proposed incinerator. This incinerator will create 45,000 tonnes per annum of so-called air pollution residues. An air pollution residue is ash. That is 45,000 tonnes per annum of ash, because it will process 1.35 million tonnes of waste per year. Some people think this is a good idea for our community. This is not even good for jobs. This proposal will create six jobs per hectare, as opposed to the recommended and desired rate of 21 jobs per hectare under the broader Western Sydney Employment Area Draft Structure Plan. This is a thoroughly bad idea, which must be opposed. It is being opposed by myself, the member for Lindsay and the member for Chifley in a submission to the New South Wales government. It is being opposed by the member for Mt Druitt, Edmond Atalla. We will continue to work with our community to stop this bad plan. Western Sydney and Minchinbury are not a dumping ground for Sydney's problems. Robertson Electorate: Coastal Cruisers 1721 13:58 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to bring to the attention of the House some inspirational members of our community on the Central Coast who are cycling for a great cause, the Tour de Rocks charity cycle. It is a gruelling 220 kilometre ride from Armidale to South West Rocks, from 20 to 22 April. It aims to raise funds for cancer research, cancer services and Camp Quality. Since 2010, the tour has raised over $1 million. This year 18 riders, calling themselves the Coastal Cruisers, will pedal in support of the charity cycle. This great local team was formed after five of the riders rode in last year's event. After having the time of their lives raising money for such an important cause word soon spread and it was quickly recognised that there was a need for a Central Coast team to don the lycra this year. So now 18 riders, 25 sponsors and five support crew later, they are all geared up for the big event in April. Among them will be Craig and Trent Smith, who lost their dad, Reg, to cancer suddenly two years ago. I know that Craig and Trent are an inspiration to many in our local community. Support member Darren Cook is an integral member of the team, while Central Coast resident and country music legend Adam Harvey donated a guitar signed by the likes of Beccy Cole, Kasey Chambers—another great Central Coast legend—and Bernard Fanning. They have also had some great support from our local community, including at a super family fun night at Club Umina, with around 180 people supporting them. I would love to encourage our whole Central Coast community to get right behind the Coastal Cruisers as they pedal for a worthy event. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1722 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 1722 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm his colleague the Liberal member for Gilmore was describing government policy when she said, 'It's a gift for our young people that their penalty rates have been cut'? Mrs Sudmalis 241586 That's not true! The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Gilmore. Mrs Sudmalis interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting! 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The member for Gilmore is a hard-working federal member who represents an electorate that includes many areas of high unemployment and many areas where there is youth unemployment. What she knows is that the decision of the Fair Work Commission will enable more small businesses to open on weekends, which will provide more job opportunities for young people. None of us are going to take the Leader of the Opposition's version of what the honourable member has said as gospel. The honourable member, before she became a member of this House, was a schoolteacher for years. She knows—we have all been with her in her electorate—the situation of young people in the electorate of Gilmore very well, and it is very heartfelt. But the reality is that the basis of the Fair Work Commission's decision, a decision that was taken following a reference from the Leader of the Opposition, was that the reduction in penalty rates would create more opportunities for employment. That was Iain Ross's rationale for the decision. Of course the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in suggesting that penalty rates can never be varied flies in the face of one enterprise agreement after another, including many signed by the Leader of the Opposition. I have the Cleanevent agreement. That one says, 'This agreement is intended to be comprehensive and it excludes any protected conditions in an award, including penalty rates.' There you go; that is just one. There is a long list of them. Dozens and dozens of them. Let me look at the comparison between big business and small business. This is a very important issue. We stand for small business; Labor invariably lines up with big business. How is it that a small takeaway business pays $29.16 on a Sunday for an employee under the award, whereas McDonald's down the street can pay $21.08 for the same worker doing the same work? Why? Because they have done a deal with the union. And what about— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat for a second. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— Ms Husar interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton is warned, as is the member for Lindsay. I refer members to my remarks at the opening of parliament today. I refer them to my— Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Lindsay, that is your last interjection. I refer members to my remarks earlier today and my remarks yesterday. I will take action very swiftly. Ms Burney interjecting— Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Whitlam and the member for Barton can just work out when they want me to give the Leader of the Opposition the call. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Shorten 00ATG Yes, on relevance, Mr Speaker. This pay cut is not a gift, it is an insult to 700,000 working Australians! The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. And on that note I should also point out, having anticipated this, points of order are becoming statements. There is leniency given to the leader and the Prime Minister, and the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House. I am not going to allow points of order to be taken frivolously. The Prime Minister is completely in order and on the topic of the question. Points of order are not to be used for an additional statement to be added to a question. Mr TURNBULL 885 Thank you, Mr Speaker. What about the insult signed here by 'Bill Shorten, National Secretary, Australian Workers' Union'— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned! Ms Chesters interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 to an EBA that provides 'no additional penalty rates shall be applicable'. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for the Bendigo will leave under 94(a). The member for Bendigo then left the chamber . Mr TURNBULL 885 Cirque du Soleil; traded away. One of many where Labor leaders, labour union organisers, have traded away penalty rates for the workers they seek to represent. (Time expired) Energy 1724 14:06 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on how the government is backing Australian households and businesses like Embrace Life, a small business employing 13 people in North Lakes, along with other local businesses by putting downward pressure on electricity prices in my electorate of Petrie? 14:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows very well, as a former small businessman in his electorate, in his community, how tough competition is. He knows how businesses have to ensure that they can keep all of their costs under control and how essential energy is to every business. And if energy prices keep rising, as they have done, that puts pressure on the business and invariably jobs will go. We heard that yesterday in Hume—not far from here—too, where business after business talked about the pressure they are facing from rising energy costs. The effect is direct and it is on competitiveness and it is on employment. Employers, as a consequence, start laying workers off. We know that Australian businesses, just like Australian families, need affordable and reliable electricity. What we have seen from the Labor Party is an addiction to ideology which has sent them to set targets, a 50 per cent renewable target, which they have no idea of how to implement. All we know is that in South Australia, where you have had 40 per cent renewables and a target to go to 50, you have the most expensive and the least reliable electricity in Australia, and this is a state where they are seeking more investment, more employment. And the Labor government there, in an absolute demonstration of what Labor would do nationally, have created the worst possible climate for business, the most expensive and the least reliable electricity in Australia. No wonder the head of the chamber of commerce in South Australia said South Australia is the canary in the coalmine; it demonstrates what is coming up next if the Labor Party is going to be allowed to continue. What we have seen now is the way you have got the CFMEU, who you would think would be supporting a rational approach to energy given so many of their workers work in mining, nonetheless lining up with the Labor Party to attack the government, claiming that we are responsible for a decision by the independent umpire. Why? Just like they got the Leader of the Opposition to switch on the Fair Work Commission, just like they got him to switch on penalty rates, now they want to back him in to abolish the Building and Construction Commission so that yet again the CFMEU, the owners of the Leader of the Opposition, can dominate and oppress small businesses across Australia. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 1725 14:09 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce My question is to the Prime Minister. Does government policy agree with the member for Chisholm, who told Kristina Keneally on Sky today that she would be telling her electorate the decision to cut penalty rates for 700,000 Australians is a good thing? 14:10 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Again, we will not take members opposite as reliable stenographers for the statements from the government members. But the reality is that the honourable member opposite would well know that those five Labor appointees on the Fair Work Commission, every single one, were appointed by a Labor government—four by his leader, the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition. They were all appointed by the Labor Party, and the president, Mr Ross, spent his life working for the ACTU. The reference was delivered to them by the Labor Party. He heard thousands of pages of evidence, hundreds of witnesses and came to the conclusion that a reduction in Sunday penalty rates of the levels proposed would increase employment. That was the considered decision of the Fair Work Commission, and we accept that decision. We support the decision of the independent umpire because it is their decision. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mr TURNBULL 885 You either support the independent umpire or you do not. We support the independent umpire and we support the independent umpire whether it is the courts or whether it is the Fair Work Commission. What the Labor Party is doing is endeavouring to walk away from a commitment over many years, many decades to supporting the independent umpire's decision. That decision is one that was carefully considered. And honourable members opposite need to look at what they have done in practice in EBA after EBA around the nation. In fact, I understand from Mr Strong, the chief executive of COSBOA, that 80 per cent of retail workers in Australia on shop distributive and allied trades awards are working on Sundays at penalty rates lower than those set by the Fair Work Commission. That is the fact. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right. Mr TURNBULL 885 So if it is good enough for the shop distributive and allied trades union, if it is good enough for the shoppies, if it is good enough for the AWU, if it is good enough for them, why are those opposite condemning the decision of the independent umpire, the members of which they appointed, the decisions of which they said they would support? They appointed it, they established it, they claim they support independent umpires in industrial matters and now they are walking away from it, undermining, as Jennie George said, a fundamental element in the industrial relations system. Ms Henderson interjecting— Ms Ryan interjecting— Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting as will the member for Lalor, and the member for Adelaide is warned. Economy 1726 14:13 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the budget is supporting hardworking Australian families while bringing the budget back to balance. How does a strong budget boost confidence and stability in the national economy? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. Like me, he will be pleased to know that, for the last 41 weeks, consumer confidence has been above the long-run average now—41 weeks. That is one of the longest runs we have seen since 2011, and it is important that we continue to provide that confidence in the economy, and key to that is returning the budget to balance. A strong budget ensures that a government can guarantee the support for services that hardworking Australians and their families rely on, whether it is Medicare, whether it is hospitals, whether it is schools, whether it is the PBS or any of these measures. You need a strong budget supported by a strong economy to guarantee that those services that we enjoy today will be there in the future and will be there for future generations. Without a strong budget, that is not something that can be guaranteed. Secondly, a strong budget ensures that we can protect against the economic shocks that are present in a volatile global economy. We know the value of the strength of a budget from when the previous, Howard-Costello government ensured a strong budget which put Australia in a strong place to withstand the global economic shocks of the late 2000s. The government is working to return the budget to balance by getting expenditure under control. When we came to government in 2013, this was our priority: getting expenditure under control. Expenditure was growing under Labor at a rate, according to PEFO, of 3½ per cent a year; and debt was growing at a rate of 34 per cent—34 per cent. Since that time, we have been able to reduce the growth in debt by two-thirds and we have been able to ensure that expenditure is growing now at less than two per cent. So we are getting expenditure under control and we are getting the growth in debt under control. That has been not only well received by the ratings agencies—all three of them—that confirmed Australia's AAA credit rating in December, at the time of the midyear statement, but also reinforced by global debt markets, who understand that the strong financial management by this side of the House is worth investing in. We had three exceptional bond issuances over the last few months: in October of last year, $7.6 billion on the first 30-year bond, at a yield of 3.27 per cent; a second bond issuance in January of this year of $9.3 billion, with a subscription of over $15 billion; and, third, the most successful syndicated bond issuance by an Australian government just recently, on 23 February, for some $11 billion, with bids at over $20 billion. This is a government whose strong financial management is being rewarded by the vote of confidence not only from Australian consumers— (Time expired) Workplace Relations 1726 14:17 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland My question is to the Prime Minister. The trade minister said today, about people impacted by the cuts to penalty rates, 'It's only those on the margins.' Why does this government think that a wage cut of up to $77 a week for nearly 700,000 low-paid Australian workers is just a marginal issue? 14:17 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The fact remains that the honourable members opposite have walked away from a commitment to the independent umpire in the industrial relations system. Let me quote this passage from Bill Shorten, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in 2012, for the honourable member's benefit—from the Adelaide Advertiser, no less: Under the fair go workplace system Labor put in place, penalty rates in modern awards are set by the independent umpire, Fair Work Australia, after extensive consultations with employer representatives and unions. The tribunal is currently holding a major check-up of the operation of penalty rates and public holidays in modern award rates. He knew all about that because he had given them the brief to do it. He goes on to say: Employers, employees and their representatives are able to appear before the independent umpire and put their views forward. That's a fair system, one that balances the rights of employers to make a profit with the rights of employees to fair treatment. So spoke Bill Shorten, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the author of this Fair Work Commission decision. No individual in this parliament had more to do with setting up that review of modern award and penalty rates than the Leader of the Opposition. He owns it. It is his process. Is he seriously suggesting that it never occurred to him that any of these penalty rates would be reduced? Does he seriously expect us to believe that the Fair Work Commission was going to increase them, when, in agreement after agreement, he reduced them? He was a master, an absolute Olympic champion, in reducing penalty rates as part of enterprise bargaining agreements. He knew exactly what the debate was. He knew exactly what the contention was. He set the review up. He stood by the independent umpire. In fact, he was standing by the independent umpire until January this year, when, according to the member for McMahon, he had 'consultations' and changed his mind. What he had was a direction from his proprietors, the CFMEU and the other heavies in the trade union movement. They pulled him back, and he is doing as he is told. He has betrayed a lifetime of commitment to the independent umpire. Jennie George held him to account, and she was right to do so. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 1727 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:20 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Norway, led by Ms Tone Skogen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you and to the delegation. We also have present in the gallery this afternoon Grant Tambling, a former senator and a former member of this House. It is good to see you back, and welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1727 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pensions and Benefits 1727 14:21 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I met recently with Darrel Gangell, who has now lost his part-pension and must live on just $26,000 a year from his superannuation. This is barely above the poverty line. I have also met with defined benefit superannuants who have also had their pensions slashed and are also struggling. Prime Minister, the government is doing no better with aged care, despite my repeated representations, and in particular it has gutted funding for residential care to the tune of $1.2 billion. Prime Minister, what will you do to end this ruthless campaign against older Australians? 14:21 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the member for his question. Every government has a solemn duty to care for our elderly; it is a duty or responsibility that we take very seriously and always have done. We are spending $45 billion this financial year supporting age pensioners, as we should. In 2015 the government made difficult decisions in regards to the age pension. As you know, they were legislated in June 2015. They were decisions made in the national interest to protect both current and future generations of Australians and to ensure that the pension is both available and sustainable. In 2007 when the government was banking surpluses and had billions of dollars in the bank, the asset test was made more generous but that decision was changed, as I said, around 18 months ago in the middle of 2015. Times had changed and we had to live within our means. That was the tough decision that was taken by the coalition government; it was supported by the Labor Party and it passed through the parliament. In the 2016 election there was support from the government, from Labor and the Greens for this change. Despite the Labor Party now complaining about the measure, they have no plans to do anything about it. I am not aware of Mr Gangell's full circumstances but, if the honourable member wishes to raise them with me or with the minister, we can certainly look into them. The changes only affect individuals with significant levels of assets other than the family home. I am sure the honourable member is aware of that. With an ageing population and significant and growing pressure on the budget, the expectation is that people will draw down on their assets to support themselves in retirement where they can. So pensioners would have to draw down a maximum of about 1.8 per cent of their assets to make up for the loss of their part pension. We are working hard to give Australians greater choice in aged care with funding growing each and every year. The minister announced a very significant reform this week of Increasing Choice in Home Care, which puts funding in the hands of consumers for the first time. It gives more people more control over the delivery of their home-care services, allowing them to choose the best service provider for their needs. So we are grateful for the contribution of their Australians have made to our country throughout their lives and we will always work, and always have worked, to ensure older Australians are treated with dignity and with respect. Cattle Industry 1728 14:24 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government is ensuring the continued growth in Australia's cattle industry? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats in this industry and the thousands of hardworking Australians it employs, including cold storage operators in Queensland? 14:25 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question. She would know more than most about the cattle industry. The cattle industry employs up to 8,000 people in her area. In Rockhampton and the Fitzroy region there are about 2.4 million cattle, and beef cattle accounts for about 75 per cent of all farms. We see that beef cattle is forecast to top $12.5 billion out of our record $60 billion worth of agricultural production this year. We will see that $8.3 billion worth of that production go overseas; that is almost double what it was under the Labor Party, who were absolutely hopeless as far as the cattle industry was concerned. We are supporting not only the cattle industry but the Beef Expo in Rockhampton— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield. Mr JOYCE E5D which is the beef capital of Queensland and we could argue about whether it is the beef capital of Australia. What is important is that this week, the member for Capricornia will be pleased to know, in negotiations with the Indonesians we have managed to increase cattle in the live-cattle trade from 350 kilograms to 450 kilograms. This means an extra hundred kilograms and, at around $3-plus a kilogram, it means for each beast the farmer will be getting an extra $300 or $320 a head. That is a great outcome. We have also increased the age limit so that they go from 30 months up to 48 months—so up to four years. This is another good outcome because it gives a wider range of cattle that is available for live-export trade. This is in addition to what we are doing with the permit system—taking it from four months to 12 months. This is all part of the negotiations done by the coalition. In the same breath we have negotiated reductions in the sugar tariff—I know the member for Dawson is very interested in that—from eight per cent down to five per cent. You do these things because you are in government but there are definitely some threats. Probably one of the biggest problems in running an abattoir is labour and electricity costs. On electricity costs the Australian Labor Party is trying to mimic what is happening in South Australia for the whole nation. This is disastrous. The member for Capricornia would know that with international organisations such as JBS Swift and Cargills, when they go to expand production, they look at the costs of imports such as electricity. It is amazing that the Labor Party does not seem to stand up for labourers any more. They do not have any labourers. I do not believe, member for Capricornia, that one meatworker resides on the Labor Party benches. They just do not exist. They are university students or they are union officials but they are not actually workers. They have never actually done a day's work—not a day's work. They have been clerks or union officials. He is one and he has never done a day's work. Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Wakefield is not hearing me warn him, yet again. The member for Eden-Monaro will cease interjecting. The member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a). I can only say it so often. The member for Lindsay then left the chamber. Workplace Relations 1729 14:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is under standing order 99. My question is to the member for Bowman as chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. I refer to the committee's current inquiry into the future labour force. As part of this inquiry and noting paragraph (6) of the inquiry's terms of reference allowing it to examine other related matters, will the committee hold public hearings into the impact of the decision to cut penalty rates on the future labour force? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the precedents with respect to these matters are very clear. Questions to backbenchers as chairmen of committees are very narrow and very strict and have almost always been ruled out by the Speaker. I would ask you to rule out this question on this occasion. The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has forgotten a question that his side asked the member for Holt in a previous parliament. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned! Members on both sides are expecting me to listen to both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House. It is not an everyday question. I would like to listen to them both, if that is okay. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the question refers specifically and only to the work of the committee and a current inquiry, referring specifically to the terms of reference of that inquiry. Every requirement under standing order 99 has been kept to. I deliberately have not gone to his Sky News interview today. It would have been a better question, but it would not have been in order. The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear from the Leader of the House again. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, questions to anyone in this House, and obviously to ministers, usually need to be within their powers, and the member for Bowman cannot answer a question about whether the committee will hold public hearings into the penalty rates decision because that is a decision for the committee, not for the chairman. The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear again from the Manager of Opposition Business. I am listening. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, standing order 99 specifically says you can ask a question to a member who is not a minister— Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health and Minister for Sport is warned. Mr Burke DYW but it 'must relate to a bill, motion, or other business of the House or of a committee, for which the Member asked is responsible'. If the chair of a committee is not responsible for the committee, it is a really strange committee. The SPEAKER 00APG I am ready to rule on the matter. I have obviously surveyed this ground before, although not in question time. Certainly, chairs of committee can be asked questions strictly about the process of their committee. The Leader of the House raises the point in the question from the Manager of Opposition Business about whether the committee will hold hearings or not. I think that does go to the process of the committee. What the decision-making for that is is a matter, frankly, for the member answering. I am going to allow the question. The member for Bowman, and he needs to confine himself just to the process as chair of the committee. 14:32 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Speaker, I shall follow your recommendation. To the opposition member, thank you for the question. This is not a matter that has been brought yet to the committee and rightly should be a decision for the committee to consider at the next time that they are meeting, which I understand is in the next sitting week. We have already arranged for public hearings around the country. Written submissions have closed, but, as I have said, this is firmly a matter for our committee to consider. Energy 1731 14:32 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House why the unreliable and expensive electricity is a threat to the success of the defence industry as well as other industries in South Australia, like Spring Gully Foods? 14:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Grey for his question. I know that he, like me and all South Australians, is deeply concerned about the effect of Labor's obsession with renewable energy at the expense of all other kinds of power—the effect of that on the economy in South Australia and the very real risk that that obsession has for the rest of the nation should the state based renewable energy targets spread their tentacles across Australia in the way that they have in South Australia. It is so damaging to the jobs, the investment and the economy of a state that needs everything going for it and not hurdles put in its path. We have seen the impact already of Labor's obsession with renewable energy rather than an all-of-the-above approach to power generation in the Defence portfolio, because the Defence department will need to spend $20 million building a diesel power generation capacity at Osborne to do the naval shipbuilding plan that we have put in place: nine future frigates, 12 offshore patrol vessels, 12 submarines. This is an economy-changing, generational-changing commitment to the South Australian economy that the South Australian Labor Party have put at risk because of their approach to energy pricing, causing the prices in South Australia to be the highest in the country and the reliability to be the worst in the country. So we are putting $20 million of taxpayers' money into helping to fix that problem. But it is not just defence industry that is suffering in South Australia because of Labor and their policies towards energy. There are businesses like Spring Gully, which would be very well known to the South Australians in this House. Four years ago, Spring Gully, which makes foods, jams and preservatives, and bottles other people's as well, went into voluntary administration because they were going out of business. The South Australian community got behind Spring Gully because it is a family owned business—I think it is in its fourth generation in terms of a family owned business—and saved that business for the future, and yet Spring Gully is facing bleak times again because of the energy prices and the unreliability in the South Australian economy of power. Kevin Webb, who is well known to many people, says in The Australian today that the prices in the last 12 months have gone from $85,000 to $150,000 a year for power generation for Spring Gully Foods. He says there was little margin for wearing higher power costs and 'it’s not going to get any better'. He said: With Port Augusta closing down last year, the reliability is just not there and with renewables the model isn’t working. So it is time for the Labor Party to take their blinkers off and support the common sense, all-of-the-above approach of the Turnbull government. Workplace Relations 1732 14:36 Mr BURKE DYW Watson In question time a few moments ago, the Prime Minister said that he supported the penalty rates decision. He also said, 'We support the independent umpire whether it is the courts or— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat for a second. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. As I have said many times, they expect me to hear the question. If they want me to rule on it— Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter! Perhaps he is sitting close to the door for a reason. I want to hear the Manager of Opposition Business in silence. The Manager of Opposition Business will begin his question again. Mr BURKE DYW My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time a few moments ago, the Prime Minister said that he supported the penalty rates decision, and he also said: 'We support the independent umpire, whether it is the courts or whether it is the Fair Work Commission.' Given that this parliament regularly changes the law following decisions of the courts or tribunals when they were not what the government wanted, including when the government abolished the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, and noting that legislation doing exactly that on native title is before the Senate now, is the reason the Prime Minister refuses to act in this instance simply because he supports the pay cut? Mr Fletcher interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will cease interjecting. 14:37 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. If I may answer it with a quotation from his leader, on 16 May 2016—and there is some very fine video of this, I understand. It was in a doorstop in Geelong, and he was lecturing the Greens—the member for Melbourne will note this. At this stage the Greens were proposing some legislation, a private member's bill, which would prevent any change to penalty rates by the Fair Work Commission. So this is what the Leader of the Opposition said, not so long ago, in May 2016: I do also just caution the Greens, from their sideshow position— He has clearly joined the sideshow himself now! … from their sideshow position that they need to be careful of what they're playing with fire by proposing that a government should be able to legislate on specific penalty rate outcomes, they are loading the gun for a future conservative government to pull the trigger, because what the government has the power to put in, a future government has the power to dismantle. The independent umpire, the system of conciliation and arbitration, has served this nation well for 120 years. Bill Shorten, doorstop interview, Geelong, 16 May 2016. What a change! We support the independent umpire. We accept their decisions. As to the question of the precise merits of each decision, let me answer this question in a very practical way that the honourable member, as a former organiser for the shoppies union, would understand very well. He knows very well the enormous advantage that the SDA has been able to achieve for large businesses. Here is a real fact to bear in mind: a person working in a dress shop—a clothing shop—is entitled to be paid $38.88 an hour on a Sunday as a shop assistant. If they are working for Target, just down the road, they can be paid $31.02 an hour. Why? Because there has been a deal done with the union. The union, of which the member for Watson was an organiser, has traded away their penalty rates, and in a manner that disadvantages small business. This was a complex decision—a very complex decision: thousands of pages. It was properly dealt with by the independent umpire, and we support the independent umpire. So did the Leader of the Opposition—until he was given his orders by the union bosses. (Time expired) Mrs Prentice interjecting— Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ryan and the member for Hume will not interject. Crime 1733 14:40 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the action the government is taking to protect Brisbane families—and, indeed, all Australian families—from dangerous noncitizens, including criminal gang members? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:41 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Can I say thank you very much to the member for Brisbane, and, like all members on this side of the House, he can be assured that, through the actions of this government, we are making communities across the country safer. We went to the last election saying that we would secure our borders, because if you cannot secure your borders you cannot provide security and safety to Australian families. This government stopped boats. We stopped drownings at sea. We stopped people going into detention, including children. There were 17 detention centres that we closed. And we cleaned up Labor's mess. Labor is still divided and dysfunctional when it comes to border protection policy—and, indeed, when it comes to immigration policy. They presided over a failed program. We have restored integrity to that program, and this government will continue to make the tough decisions that are in the best interests of our country. We will make decisions that will make Australians safer. For example, I have cancelled the visas of over 2,000 noncitizens, which, over the course of the last two years, is up by 1,200 per cent in the case of visa cancellations and 425 per cent in relation to refusal on character grounds for those visas to be issued. As to the Labor Party, when it was in government, there are members on this front bench of the Shorten opposition that were issuing visas to outlaw motorcycle gang members when they were ministers for immigration in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years—the 'glory years', as the Labor Party refers to them; the glory years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd period! We have cancelled the visas of 138 noncitizens who have been involved in outlaw motorcycle gangs. Why have we taken that stance but the Labor Party did not? We know that the CFMEU and other unions use the bikies, to this very day, as muscle on building sites, to bash carpenters and to bash tilers, because that is the way the CFMEU do their work, and the CFMEU donates millions and millions of dollars to this Leader of the Opposition and this Labor Party. And the fact is that the CFMEU owns and operates, to this very day, the Australian Labor Party. The Australian public will not forget this at the next election. But we have picked out those bikies because we are not interested in seeing them employed in illegitimate industries— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will resume his seat. The member for Moreton on a point of order? Mr Perrett HVP Thank you, Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 90, 'Reflections on members', and I would suggest that the minister is going very, very close in terms of suggesting an improper motive— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Morton will resume his seat. Mr Robert interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fadden will leave under 94(a). The member for Fadden then left the chamber. Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills can join him in a second. Just before I call the minister, I agree with the member for Moreton: he is going close, but he is in order. Mr DUTTON 00AKI That was the idea, Mr Speaker—thank you very much. The point here is that the outlaw motorcycle gangs in this country are the biggest distributors of ice and amphetamines. They are involved in extortion and they are involved in criminal activity, which includes criminal activity on building sites. The Australian Labor Party has nothing at all to say about that, and it is a complete and utter disgrace. This government is not going to be deterred on our mission. We are going to continue to cancel those visas, and I would welcome the Leader of the Opposition's— (Time expired) Taxation 1734 14:45 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why, when company profits have increased by almost $26 billion to record levels, he wants to cut company tax and, when there is record low wages growth, he does nothing to stop wage cuts of up to $77 a week for Australians? Prime Minister, why is it that, when profits are surging, companies get more and, when wages are flat, workers get even less under your government? 14:46 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth There was a time when the honourable member was a persuasive—indeed, passionate—advocate for reducing business taxes. He stood here and he said that, if you reduce company tax, you increase investment, you increase productivity and you increase employment and, if you do that, of course, businesses will grow, they will be more profitable and you will see an increase in company tax receipts. And, indeed, that has been the experience in Australia. As we have seen reductions in company tax, we have seen growth in investment, more profitability, more employment and more receipts. That was well understood by the Labor Party when they recognised that there was a connection between investment and employment. But economics has been thrown out the window. We are now in a parallel populist universe of the Leader of the Opposition, where apparently there is no connection between the rate of tax companies pay and what they invest—that is la la land. Another part of la la land says that you can stop trading with other countries and you can be a protectionist. What we are doing on our side of the House is working hard every day to open up more export opportunities for Australian businesses. Only on the weekend, we secured more access to Indonesia, our closest neighbour, an enormous economy which is growing at a rapid rate. It is going to be one of the biggest economies in the world before very long. We have secured more access for sugar and more access for live cattle, and we are working towards and have a commitment to concluding a free trade agreement by the end of the year. But all we get from the opposition are rants about protectionism. That is what they want. They want to throw up the barriers and put Australians out of work. The fact of the matter is that the wages share of income continues to improve in Australia. We know that the biggest beneficiaries from reducing business taxes are workers, are wages. The rationale for that was set out in a Labor Party budget in 2010 and Treasury analysis. That analysis is still right: if you reduce company tax, you get more investment and, when you get more investment, you get more jobs. There was a time when the Labor Party cared about jobs—but not any longer. There was a time when they cared about hardworking Australian families and wanted to help them get ahead—but no longer. Well, we do. We are committed to growth and we are committed to backing those Australians to succeed and realise their dreams. (Time expired) Tourism 1735 14:49 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how growth in the tourism industry is supporting jobs for hardworking Australians? How would alternative approaches jeopardise the jobs of hardworking Australians? 14:49 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Boothby for the question. Certainly, when it comes to tourism, I know she is very committed, as indeed are many on this side of the House, to growing Australia's tourism industry, because we see it as a super growth sector for this country. Indeed, international visitors going into South Australia have grown by some 18 per cent in the past three years. But not only are more tourists visiting South Australia; they are also spending more, with spending by international tourists up some 41 per cent since 2013, to now reach some $970 million. The fact is that this side of the House is putting record funding into Tourism Australia. This side of the House has been responsible for a tourism boom into this country. That is an important point of contrast with the Australian Labor Party, who, of course, did achieve a record for tourism, and that was record tourism taxes. The fact is that, under the coalition, we have seen a growth in numbers, we have seen a growth in length of stay and we have seen a growth in the average spend. But I hear the member for Boothby asks: are there any threats to the jobs that are being created in the tourism sector? And I am afraid to say that there are threats to those jobs in Australia's tourism sector—and you cannot go past the electricity policies of the Australian Labor Party. In a recent news.com.au article, Jane Govey, of the Bridge Hotel at Langhorne Creek, said that she had to turn away paying customers. That is what the Labor Party delivered—a situation where businesses had to turn away paying customers. She said: We had 20 in for dinner and probably turned another 15, or 20 away. If this had been the only power outage I’d probably not be quite so upset but this is the fourth one in three months that we’ve had. The simple fact is that, without electricity, hotels and restaurants miss out on paying customers and that means fewer jobs. But I am pleased that there was actually power on in South Australia yesterday, because it meant that they could broadcast the Oscars. I have to say that there were a few envelope stuff-ups yesterday. Let me just give a quick recap. There is no doubt that the Oscar for Best Special Effects should have gone to the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, for the way he made his surplus just disappear. We could also say that the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor should have gone to the member for Grayndler for his role in 'Get Shorten'—sorry, I mean Get Shorty. Mr Burke DYW I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, on direct relevance. I think someone gave him the wrong envelope. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister has the call. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 I will conclude on this. Coming out of his most recent role as the man with two faces, the Leader of the Opposition should have received the Oscar because, in his renewable energy La La Land, everyone will be living by Moonlight. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Chifley want to give the member for Gorton a go? Workplace Relations 1736 14:53 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Prime Minister. Last financial year, Harvey Norman increased its profit by 30 per cent to over $348 million. If the Prime Minister gets his way, it will also receive a generous tax cut. At the same time, the decision to cut penalty rates will mean thousands of Harvey Norman workers will have their pay cut. Is this the Prime Minister's Australia—taxpayer funded handouts to big business but pay cuts for hardworking Australians? Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite is warned. 14:54 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and I assume he has carefully checked that and is satisfied that Harvey Norman workers are all covered by a modern award and there is not an enterprise agreement for Harvey Norman. I am sure he has carefully checked that. Obviously, he is a former union official, but no doubt we will establish that. The consideration of the Fair Work Commission was a long and elaborate one, and a very complex one. They considered, for example, whether the public holiday rate in the retail industry— Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills can leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Wills then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 should be 250 per cent for all employees. They considered that carefully and they came to the conclusion that it should be 225 per cent for full-time employees but should remain at 250 per cent for casuals. And so it goes on through a whole series of modern awards—a very complex task, with thousands of pages of evidence and hundreds of witnesses. That is why we support the independent umpire doing this work. The Labor Party in the past, and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, has done the same, because he recognised then that it is a careful piece of work to do and, obviously, views will differ as to whether, for example, the rate for casuals in the pharmacy industry should be 275 per cent, as it has been, or 250 per cent, as set in the decision by the Fair Work Commission. There may have been parties before the commission that argued it should be 225 per cent; I do not know whether anyone argued it should be 300 per cent—but, whatever the process of debate may have been, a careful consideration was undertaken, a very detailed analysis. That has been the way in which these matters have been dealt with for many, many years. The Leader of the Opposition has been, again and again, a supporter of that. He said, for example, in 2015: … if there's going to be any debate about penalty rates it should be done through the independent umpire and through negotiation. Well, we support the independent umpire—there: it has been done—and so should he. As far as negotiation is concerned, we see it again and again. If you are an AWU member for the Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust, you can see that the penalty rates were traded away there—'Bill Shorten, State Secretary, Australian Workers Union'. Once again, a deal was done to vary the penalty rates as part of an industrial agreement. So there are two ways to deal with penalty rates, says the Leader of the Opposition—one by negotiation, one by the independent umpire—and he should back them. (Time expired) Energy 1737 14:57 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to ensure that hardworking Australian families have an affordable and reliable energy supply? How does this compare with alternative approaches that would hurt families and small businesses in my electorate? 14:58 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Fisher for his question and acknowledge his deep concern for the fruit growers and the nut growers in his electorate, who are paying higher prices for their electricity—whether it is strawberries, pineapples or macadamia nuts in the Glasshouse Mountains or in Beerwah. Recently, I met with the Irrigators' Council, who talked about the higher electricity prices impacting on their business, including the fact that one irrigation pump station has seen its electricity prices go from $880,000 a year in 2010 to $1.8 million a year this year, more than a doubling of the price. That is why we are investing record amounts in storage technology—and the Prime Minister has talked about pumped hydro. That is why we are trying to keep sufficient baseload power in the system and that is why we are railing against the 50 per cent renewable energy targets proposed by those opposite. Just yesterday, we saw how confused the Labor Party was about whether or not it would legislate its 50 per cent renewable energy target. Its policy document that it took to the Australian people less than 12 months ago said it would legislate, and then the Leader of the Opposition said last week that it would not. If that was their only point of confusion, it would stop there, but it is not, because now they are also confused about exactly what is their 50 per cent renewable energy target. The member for Sydney was asked by Tony Jones on Q&A last Monday: … your 50% renewable target, is that a guaranteed target or has it now turned into an aspiration based on wishful thinking? The member for Sydney replied: … it's not about wishful thinking. This is about putting a price on carbon … Then the Leader of the Opposition backed her up. He told Emma Alberici: … we should use market forces to set a price … I thought to myself: 'Is that Labor's policy? What would the hapless member for Port Adelaide, their official spokesman on energy and climate change, say on this issue?' I discovered this gem of an interview that he did with Neil Mitchell. The member for Port Adelaide, their official spokesperson, told Neil Mitchell: I've described very clearly what our policy is, an ETS without a carbon price. … … … You have got a very definitive answer from me, Neil. You know that. … … … There is no price on carbon. … … … That’s about as definitive as anyone could be. The Labor Party are totally confused. They are not sure if their policy is an ambition, an aspiration, a goal, a target or an objective. They are not sure whether they are going to legislate it or not. Now they do not even know whether it is a carbon price or no carbon price at all. Unfortunately, the Australian people, households and businesses, are going to pay the price of their terrible energy policy. Workplace Relations 1738 15:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to my question yesterday. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that 77 per cent of pharmacy workers are women? Did the Prime Minister avoid mentioning these workers yesterday because he knows that cutting wages in female dominated industries will increase the gender pay gap? 15:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. As I observed yesterday relying on the material set out in the Fair Work Commission's report, while there appears to be a majority of female workers in both retail and hospitality, according to the Fair Work Commission, there are somewhat more male workers working on Sundays in both sectors. As to the question about the number on the pharmacy award, that is something we can take on notice. The honourable member should give the Fair Work Commission due credit. All of their members were appointed by the Labor Party. The president comes from a lifetime's experience in the Australian Council of Trade Unions, so there is no question about their background and their experience. They considered very carefully the modern award's objective of maintaining equal rates of pay between men and women for comparable work. That is one of the objectives of modern awards. They considered that and concluded that the award changes they agreed on were appropriate. We support the independent umpire doing that detailed work. People are entitled to have a view about whether a penalty rate or a Sunday loading should have gone from 275 per cent to 250 per cent, or from 225 per cent to 200 per cent or 175 per cent. Views will differ about that—there is no doubt about that—but, from our point of view, here between the government and the opposition until very recently there was a very clear unity ticket, a very clear agreed position, that we would support the decision of the independent umpire, which has the expertise and the evidence to examine those matters. They have come to their decision. It was a reference that was delivered to them. They were requested to undertake that by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister. He backed in the independent umpire again and again and again. Simply because he now chooses for political reasons to dissociate himself from that decision he now wants to attack the very independent umpire which his previous Labor government created, which he made the reference to and whose members he supported. No wonder people find the Leader of the Opposition so lacking in consistency, integrity and any principles that the Labor Party has stood for for so many years. (Time expired) Centrelink 1739 15:04 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of compliance measures to ensure the integrity of the welfare system? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that undermine the integrity of the system? 15:05 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Banks for his question. Welfare compliance measures are critical to ensure that people get the right payments—no more and no less. We do this by crosschecking the income information that a person self-reports to Centrelink with the income information that the Australian Taxation Office has on file. When there is a discrepancy we ask the person to explain it. This work is so important because the unfortunate reality is that some people deliberately defraud the system while many others inadvertently fail to properly update their income information. When that occurs people are getting more than they are entitled to. Our system identifies such people and seeks to recover that money for the benefit of the taxpayer. I would like to give the parliament some examples of such cases. A South Australian man was on benefits for all of the financial year 2011-12 to 2012-13. He reported $7,000 to Centrelink but the tax office showed that he actually earnt $65,000. I have another example. A Victorian woman, who was on payments from 2010 to 2013, reported $23,000 to Centrelink and the tax office said she earnt $69,000. The final example I will provide is the best one. A Queensland gentleman was on payments from 2011-12 to 2012-13. He said he earnt $5,000 during that period of time but he actually earnt over $100,000. I do not know if you have picked up the years in which these cases occurred, but they all happened during the Labor years when the member for Sydney was the human services minister, when the member for McMahon was the human services minister and when the member for Gorton was the human services minister. None of those ministers picked up those cases, but we are doing the hard work of picking up those cases. I am asked about alternative approaches. The Labor Party have been very clear about what they would do if they were back in government. The member for Barton, the shadow minister, has said very clearly: 'Here is what we would do. Labor would do exactly what they did in the past.' That is what she said. Well, in the past they ignored all of those cases, and now they are promising to do exactly the same again on egregious cases which they did not pick up. The Labor Party are effectively saying: 'Don't worry; it's someone else's money. Come in and help yourself. We won't do the checks.' That is what they did in the past and that is what they would do in the future if they were back in government. The member for McMahon wants to be the Treasurer in the future. He disregarded these egregious cases. Should he be Treasurer, he will do exactly the same thing again and disregard taxpayers' money. (Time expired) Taxation 1740 15:08 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth My question is to the Prime Minister. It is reported today that company profits have increased by record amounts. If the Prime Minister gets his way, these same companies will receive a generous tax cut. At the same time, the decision to cut penalty rates will mean workers at the Morley Galleria shopping centre in my electorate will have their pay cut. Is this the Prime Minister's future for my state of Western Australia—taxpayer funded handouts to big businesses but pay cuts for low-paid workers because he supports the decision to cut penalty rates? 15:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth That was a very revealing question. The honourable member described a proposed cut in company tax as a taxpayer funded handout for business. That is the view of the Labor Party. They believe that the profits of every business in Australia basically belong to the government and that anything that is left after tax is a handout from the government. I can tell you that we do not take that view. We take the view that the profits of Australian businesses, whether they are small businesses, mum and dad businesses or big companies, have been earned by the investments and the hard work of the team behind them. When we tax them, we tax them and should tax them no more than we need to do to meet the requirements of government—and that is consistent with delivering the growth and employment that we need. Dr Leigh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fenner is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 That used to be the view propounded by the Labor Party. It used to be the Leader of the Opposition's view. It certainly was—unless he has had his book brought back and pulped—the member for McMahon's view in his book. The fact of the matter is that they know and we know that if you have more investment you will get more employment. If you have more employment, there will be greater opportunities for Australians. Everything we are doing is designed to improve the prospects for employment for Australians, including reforms on exports, investment and business tax cuts and ensuring we have affordable and reliable energy. Every element of our economic plan and everything we are doing is designed to ensure Australians have a better prospect to get ahead. On the other hand, every element of Labor's plan is designed to discourage investment and employment—higher taxes, higher debt and more expensive energy. The member referred to the penalty rates decision. As I said, this is a complex decision covering a number of awards. There were thousands of pages of evidence given from hundreds of witnesses. The inquiry went on for a very long time. It was started when the Labor Party was in government. It was a very complex inquiry. What we have seen is a decision which seeks to balance penalty rates with the desire to increase employment and create more job opportunities. That is the decision that the former ACTU official Ian Ross and the panel entirely appointed by the Labor Party have come to. We respect and support the independent umpire. The Labor Party did. The Labor Party should again because it is a fundamental foundation of the industrial relations system in Australia. (Time expired) Infrastructure 1741 15:12 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on the rollout of the government's $50 billion infrastructure investment plan? How is this record investment delivering jobs for hardworking Australians and improving productivity across the country, especially in my home state of Western Australia? 15:12 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for Forrest for this question. She is a very strong advocate for improving infrastructure to deliver economic benefits and employment. She is a strong supporter of projects such as: the Swan Valley bypass of $648 million of Commonwealth government money; the Tonkin grade separation, two parts of the NorthLink project, of $185 million of Commonwealth government money; and the projects that were announced in the 2016 campaign, including the Ocean Reef Road overpass of $20 million, the Manning Road on-ramp of $20 million and the national element of the Outback Way of $100 million. She is also a strong supporter of the Perth Freight Link of $1.186 billion of Commonwealth money—a project for a dedicated and efficient link to the Fremantle port. It will take heavy traffic off suburban streets in southwestern Perth. It will improve safety. It will be a fast, efficient and reliable connection for freight traffic and car traffic. This project will deliver 2,400 jobs and thousands of indirect jobs. What is the Labor Party— Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to be relevant, he has to say how the freight will get the three kilometres between where the road stops and the port. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER L6B What is Labor's plan for the Perth Freight Link? Their plan is to cancel it. Their plan is to turn their backs on 2,400 jobs. And why is that? They are more interested in getting the approval of the latte sippers in Carlton, Fitzroy, Marrickville and Fremantle than they are concerned about 2,400 jobs for Australians. They have some vapourware proposal to replace it which has not even yet been approved by Infrastructure Australia. We have a plan for Western Australia and we have a plan for the nation, with infrastructure all around the country—a $50 billion infrastructure program which is being rolled out steadily. There is the Northern Connector in Adelaide, the Darlington project in Adelaide, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan—a new M12 to connect from the new Western Sydney Airport, opening in 2026, to the M7 and to the Sydney Motorway network. The Turnbull government is getting on with delivering infrastructure all around the country because it delivers economic benefit and jobs. We took the decision to proceed with Western Sydney Airport. We are proceeding with the approvals on that. We have construction already underway on major road projects to connect to that, like the Northern Road. We are getting on with a $50 billion infrastructure program to deliver jobs and to deliver economic growth. (Time expired) Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 1742 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:16 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Gilmore claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Yes, I have; most grievously. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gilmore may proceed. Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Mr Speaker, during question time today the Labor Party sought to misinterpret my words of support for workers and small business in my electorate. I will not be intimidated. I will always stand up for people, workers and small businesses in Gilmore, especially when there is a youth unemployment rate of nearly 20 per cent. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs has already been warned. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs has already been warned. I do not care if he is exasperated or if he did not hear. Everyone hears him—very clearly. Mr Burke DYW I may well have a similar point of order in a moment. I do not know if you want me to wait until after the member for Chisholm. Under standing order 68, in making a personal explanation a member must explain how they have been misrepresented, not simply say they did not like what was said. Mrs Sudmalis 241586 Read it all! Read it all! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gilmore! Mr Burke DYW The comments that were made in question time were directly from an Illawarra Mercury report, and the personal explanations are for, at page 497— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat, and everyone can cease interjecting for a second. I am going to hear from the member for Chisholm in a second. I am going to make a very obvious point to the Manager of Opposition Business. Members have the opportunity. They need to go to where they were misrepresented—that is true—and their remarks need to be concise. There has always been a degree of leniency in there. If he wants that to disappear, it will disappear from today. I think he knows what he was talking about with past instances from that side of the House. I am just making a very practical point. The nature of question time is, where a 30-second question is asked and then there is a three-minute response, it is just a statistical fact that most of these will come from the opposition side. I have always been lenient because I want to let people have a say. If you want that to disappear, it can disappear from today. 15:19 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Chisholm claim to have been misrepresented? Ms BANKS 18661 Most grievously, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Chisholm can proceed. Ms BANKS 18661 The premise of the question of the member for Bruce— Mr Conroy 249127 The premise? The vibe! Ms BANKS 18661 misrepresented the context of my interview on Sky today. I answered a question which I believed asked if I would be disappointed if the government overturned the decision— Mr Conroy 249127 What was the vibe of the question? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Chisholm can just resume her seat for a second. The member for Shortland can leave under 94(a). The member for Chisholm can start again. The member for Shortland then left the chamber. Ms BANKS 18661 The premise of the question of the member for Bruce misrepresented the context of my interview on Sky today. I answered a question which I believed asked me if I would be disappointed with the government if we overturned the Fair Work Commission decision. I said I would be disappointed as that would not happen; we are a consistent government and we do what we say. I then gave the example of the CFA and how, when this government did intervene with the Fair Work Commission, we delivered on what we said we would do—save 60,000 volunteers. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Chisholm has gone to where she was misrepresented. Mr Dreyfus interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG I say to the member for Isaacs, I just do not know how often I can warn him. I really do not. Mr Dreyfus HWG It is an abuse of the forms of the— The SPEAKER 00APG Well, you can leave under 94(a). That is an abuse of the forms of the House. I have warned you already. I warned you earlier today. I warned you at about five past 12. I certainly asked you to stop interjecting. The member for Isaacs then left the chamber. 15:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I seek leave to table a transcript of today's Sky News interview where the member for Chisholm answers the question, 'Will you be explaining to your electorate that these cuts to penalty rates are a good thing?' Leave not granted. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 1744 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 15:21 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2016-2017 entitled Audit report No. 40, 2015-16 Major Projects report: Department of Defence, and Audit report No. 41, Performance audit—Management of selected fraud prevention and compliance Budget measures: Department of Human Services; Department of Social Services. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1744 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Child Care 1744 15:21 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failures of the Government's child care package. 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— 15:22 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide Is absolutely a matter of public importance that this parliament pauses to discuss the failures in the government's child care reforms. These child care reforms are currently before the parliament. The Prime Minister has called them 'the most significant reform to the early education and care system in 40 years'. The minister responsible has also said, 'These are the most comprehensive set of reforms to child care in a generation.' So it is a pretty strange thing that when you look at the speakers list as to who is lining up to talk about these reforms, there is not a single member of the backbench opposite who will put their name down to talk to these reforms. Yet everybody opposite is lining up to talk about the critically important flaws that there are in these reforms. If these really were the best child care reforms this parliament had ever seen, of course government backbenchers would be lining up to be associated with them. But they have gone running the other way. There are some very good reasons for that. There is a very good political reason. We have all seen, in some of the trickiest, most disgusting politics to come before this parliament, that this government has linked these child care reforms. They are holding Australian families to ransom, saying, 'The only way that you get any additional assistance with child care is if this parliament signs up to make young unemployed Australians, new mothers and low-income Australian families pay the price for these reforms.' That a disgusting linkage, which, as we know because Senator Sinodinos has told us, the government has only done for their pure political purposes. For this speech I would like to put the politics aside. Let's not talk about politics; let's talk about the policy flaws which there are in this package. When we just look at the child care reforms, we can see, as we have seen every single time these reforms have been put forward, as we have seen in every single Senate inquiry, that there are serious issues with this policy that this parliament needs to address. It takes a certain sort of skill to spend hundreds of millions of additional dollars to make some of the most vulnerable Australians worse off. But that is exactly what these child care reforms would do. We know that as a result these reforms some of the most low-income, disadvantage, vulnerable Australians—children—would have their hours of early childhood education cut back. We also know that, just a couple of weeks after this parliament came together to talk about the importance of closing the gap, there are very real threats in these reforms to some of the Indigenous services which service the most vulnerable children in this nation in remote Australia. We know that there are very real threats in these proposals to the mobile services which offer the only access to early childhood education that many children in regional Australia have. It is not just Labor that is putting forward these complaints about the bill; it is, in fact, every single major early childhood stakeholder in this country. It is every single one of the providers that have put forward submissions on this bill. It is every single one of the not-for-profit Australian charities who stand up for vulnerable Australians. It is every single representative of regional children, of Indigenous children, who have pointed out these flaws. But this government, either through laziness or pure incompetence, has once again introduced these reforms to the parliament without fixing it up. Labor stands here today saying that we want to see our child care system improved. We want to see additional assistance put into the Australian child care system. In fact we want to work with the government to better streamline the system to better deliver relief to Australian families. But we will not do it at the expense of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged or regional children in this nation. We simply will not. Today I want this parliament not to take my word for the concerns about these child care proposals, but to listen to some of the experts. I would like to quote first of all, when it comes to the threat that these proposals put forward to Indigenous children, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, who have stated: It is like putting a square peg in a round hole, trying to jam it in and make sure it fits. We know that it is not going to because we are going to have splinters everywhere. What is going to happen to our services? In 2018 they will have to close their doors. Shame! How dare this government step forward and say that Indigenous children, who have the most to gain from access to early childhood education, should pay the price of these child care reforms. In fact, the government's own review of these budget based funded services found in their own report that only a small number of BBF services are likely to be able to transition. Former Australian of the year, Fiona Stanley, has stated: It will fail. Every service that I can actually think of in the children's area that is mainstreamed after Aboriginal control fails, and it fails because the services that these Aboriginal-controlled people are providing provide a whole range of other things that are very protective and culturally important for Aboriginal children and their families. The Deloitte review of Indigenous services found that as a result of the government's reforms 54 per cent of families will face an average fee increase of $4.40 per hour. Forty per cent of families will have their access to early education reduced, but, most importantly, and what this parliament really needs to stop and take note of, is the finding that over two thirds of these Indigenous services will have their funding cut. This is a government talking about spending over $1 billion of additional taxpayers' money on early childhood education and care services and sending Indigenous, vulnerable, disadvantaged and regional children's access backwards. We know the mobile services that many regional communities in Australia rely on will be hit hard. In fact, the chair of the National Association of Mobile Services, Anne Bowler, has said: The funding reform proposal will no doubt ensure the closure of up to 90 per cent of the current BBF mobile children's services across rural and remote communities in Australia. So it is not just the Indigenous services. It is not just regional services which will close if the government gets its way. The government is also attacking access to early childhood education of many, many vulnerable and disadvantaged children through the cuts to the activity test which it is introducing. This new, complicated activity test, as it stands in the legislation which is before the parliament, will see about 150,000 families worse off. Let us all be very clear. The research is overwhelming. We know that the most vulnerable Australian children are the very children who have the most to gain from early childhood education. It is unthinkable that this parliament would knowingly halve the access to these vital services that these children have. But that is exactly what they are proposing to do. Every one of the major stakeholders has raised serious concerns about this. The Community Child Care Co-op in New South Wales says: 'The childcare safety net actually cuts the level of support already in place. Children, especially those from low-income families, will bear the brunt of this policy change.' The Australian Childcare Alliance, the biggest representative of private childcare providers across Australia, states: Families in the lowest income bracket, earning less than $65,710 gross per annum will have their base hours of subsidised access cut from 24 hours per week to just 12 hours. This reduction will have unintended negative consequences for the quality early learning outcomes for some of Australia’s most disadvantaged children. And of course we also note Mission Australia has said: Children from disadvantaged families need to have access to two days per week of affordable quality early childhood education and care as a minimum. The 12 hours per week proposed is insufficient. There are serious flaws in this government bill, and we are standing here today to urge the government to address these flaws. The first thing they need to do is drop the cruel and unfair cuts that are included in the omnibus bill. The second thing they need to do is really prioritise. Australian mums and dads, and Australian children, are calling on this parliament to finally act when it comes to fixing our childcare system. We have seen an entire term of parliament come and go without the government doing a single thing to improve the Australian childcare system. All they managed to do in the entire last term of parliament was introduce their dud nanny pilot scheme and then, of course, cut it because they saw that it just did not work. Now is the time that the parliament can come together and make real reforms. Labor will back the government's childcare proposals, but they need to fix these serious flaws. They need to protect Indigenous Australian children, they need to protect our regional services and they cannot cut the access of the most vulnerable Australian children. I have a challenge for those opposite today who are going to contribute to this debate: how about, rather than standing up and running your key lines and your political attacks, trying to defend what it is you are doing to Indigenous, regional and low-income Australian children? I bet you that you cannot do it. If one of you can stand for 10 minutes and talk about why these children should pay the price, we would be very interested in hearing it. But Labor will continue to stand up and fight for those who need it the most. 15:32 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I am delighted to be the adult in the room while we talk about childcare reforms. I know that I will shortly be joined by my colleagues here, as we talk about the reforms that the Turnbull government is making to child care—the most comprehensive reforms to child care. I will just start by giving a very brief summary of some of these reforms, and then I want to put these reforms into some context. Firstly, our reforms will benefit around one million families. So one million families will receive a benefit from the reforms that are being introduced by the Turnbull government. The lowest income Australian families will see their subsidy rate increase from 76 per cent to 85 per cent. For those families with an income of $185,710 or less, the rebate cap of $7½ thousand will be abolished. This means that those families will not face the financial cliff that generally occurs around March or April of each year when that rebate cuts out and they are forced to fund the deficit themselves. That is a benefit to those families. We want to support women. We want to support families as they balance their family needs. We all understand on this side of the House that child care is a very important issue. We want to debate it in a sensible and a rational manner, and that is what we are going to proceed to do today. Let us start by putting some context around this entire debate. Central to the debate is workforce participation, and particularly female workforce participation. I have some stats that I am keen to put on the record because they are actually critical to the debate that we are having today. The debate centres around workforce participation, because that is one of the primary reasons we need to look at providing support for child care. I have in front of me some ABS statistics for January 2017. Let me start with that figure. Female workforce participation sits nationally at 58.5 per cent, which is somewhat less than the male participation rate. When you start to look at the series average, which is over a period of 220 months, female workforce participation averages to a lower rate of 57.3 per cent. In the late 1970s female workforce participation was sitting at around 43 per cent. In 2017, some 40 years later, the January 2017 figure of around 58 per cent is only 15 per cent higher than the late 1970s result. So over a 40-year period there has only been around a 15 per cent increase in female workforce participation. Interestingly, there are some signs that there has been an increase in female participation for those aged 45 years and older. This is an interesting fact in itself, which, if I have time, I will come back and talk to. The important thing for us to recognise in this debate is that one of the fundamental things that we have to do is increase female workforce participation. The questions we need to ask really go to why do we have an issue with female participation? Why don't more women take part in the workforce? Why are there not more women out there looking for work? Child care is clearly a part of that issue, and there are two parts to that: there is the quality of the child care that is available and there is the cost. The coalition government is dealing with both of those issues, and has done so in many ways since its election to government in 2013, and subsequent to that. We are addressing both of those, but the announcement a little while ago by the minister for education, Senator Birmingham, specifically deals with the cost issue, which is one of the focus points for today's debate. So we are targeting the areas that are most important to women with child care—the quality and the cost of child care. We do that because we know that more women want to rejoin the workforce and they want to do that for a number of reasons. One is that they want to support the family budget so what they can earn will contribute, will ensure that they are able to provide properly for their family. They also want to utilise the skills they have achieved, what they have gained prior to beginning their families. They are just two very pressing reasons that women want to rejoin the workforce. You have then got the balance to that, which is: why does business need more women in the workforce? Interestingly, particularly in my former role as the Assistant Minister for Science, I spoke to many companies who were very keen to increase female participation in the traditional male dominated fields, those who had a STEM background. I did put to them: why do you want to increase the number of women that you have, for example, in engineering jobs and the other male dominated fields as well? Their answer was actually quite simple. It was because if they were to harness the skills that were available potentially in the market, they could not exclude 50 per cent of that market so they had to increase their female participation in the workforce to make sure that they were able to attract and retain the key skills that they needed into the future. So we know that business has a need to attract more women. I go back to saying: what are the issues that stop women from entering the workforce or re-entering the workforce or increasing their working hours? Child care is clearly a part of it. I have dealt with the cost issue. I would like to touch on some of the quality issues. The women that I speak to, the women who are accessing child care now or who wish to access child care because it is currently unaffordable for them now, say to me that they do not just want a babysitting service. They do not just want some where to pop their children in to be looked after while they go to work. They actually want to take their children to a centre that provides an early learning opportunity for their children. We recognise on this side of the House that 80 per cent of a child's development takes place in their first three years of life so we are very conscious of making sure that the childcare services that we are supporting, that we know that the women in the families of Australia actually need, are more aligned to early learning rather than simply babysitting services. We also know that child care, early learning is part of lifelong learning and we have again put our money where our mouth is on this particular issue. We have put money into early learning programs such as the Let's Count program, such as the Little Scientists program. We are targeting the kindergarten years to make sure that our young kids, our future generations, the ones that are going to be out there earning money, supporting themselves, supporting their families into their old age are part of the education highway. That starts in the early childhood years and continues through schools and, in my area, goes through vocational education and potentially onto higher education. It is so important that it we provide our young people with the skills that they need, and let's start at the early learning centres. That is an excellent entry point. I have indicated to you very clearly today the work that the Turnbull coalition government has been doing in the area of child care. Whilst we have been working, I would say that those opposite, at best, have been thinking about what they need to do. But it is a little bit hard to follow what their plan is. I do have a couple of quotes. I noticed that the member for Adelaide had a couple of quotes so I might just quote back some of the things that she may well be aware of. Back in June of last year, Labor's election policy said: If elected, a Shorten Labor Government will provide a boost in assistance to families from 1 January 2017 – increasing the Child Care Benefit by 15 per cent and lifting the Child Care Rebate cap from $7,500 to $10,000 per child per year. They said that even though in 2008 the Productivity Commission said 'following Labor's increase in the rate of the child care rebate in July 2008 from 30 to 50 per cent of a family's out-of-pocket expenses, the average annual increase in long day care fees accelerated,' so Labor has clearly been out there increasing costs. On this side of the House, does our package support families? Yes, it does. Does it support women? Yes, it does. Does it increase female workforce participation? Yes, it does. Is it fair? Yes. And what is standing in the way? It would be Labor. 15:42 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I am very pleased to stand here in support of this matter of great public importance. I would like to value-add to the comments of the member for Adelaide. I am not going to go over some of the things she talked about. But in bringing my comments to the House, I want to be a little bit more philosophical. If I could begin by addressing the comments of the member for McPherson to say, Assistant Minister, I so agree with you about how important it is to have access to child care if you are going to get access to work. You were right; cost is a matter, quality is a matter but most importantly availability matters. If you do not have available child care, no amount of cost or quality is going to make it work. Today I would like to address my comments to the process of public policy. As I said, I do not want to go over what the member for Adelaide has said because I think that stands. But for me, process of good policy involves three levels. We have got have really good process at the beginning, at the up-front in the design and how it works. We have got have really good implementation processes and we have got to have really effective processes to show us that our outcomes are being reached, that the policy is actually doing what you want it to do. In that design process, it is really important to have good engagement and consultation. In the delivery mechanism, it is really important that you have good consultation and engagement. In the review and in checking out how it is going against your outcomes, you have got have good engagement and consultation. I have a special interest in this particular topic because, for a number of years, I was national president and I am now a lifetime member of Australian Women in Agriculture. While child care is not necessarily a women's issue, I have to say that, in rural and regional Australia, we pick up most of the work. So for a number of years before I was in this wonderful place, I took that role of lobbying, particularly for child care, very seriously. And as part of the Australian Women in Agriculture, through the organisation NAMS and through SNAICC I have been part of working with government on a whole lot of issues to make sure that consultation and engagement around policy worked. In this particular instance, really, the government is letting us all down. But some of those consultation mechanisms that we had, such as the national Regional Women's Advisory Council and the regional women's access council, have all been done away with. So the government does not even have access now to the wisdom of us rural women. Consequently, we get the problem that has been outlined by the member for Adelaide. We have a service delivery model that is not going to engage with rural and regional Australia—and, as the member for Adelaide pointed out, particularly for Aboriginal women, but it is for all of us rural and regional women. The sad thing is, exactly as the member for McPherson said, that child care is a basic fundamental of productivity gains, and in agriculture we estimate that in excess of $14 billion is contributed by women to agriculture. Ensuring access to quality child care could be the one single thing we do that would increase productivity in Australia, almost beyond any other measure. I say to members of the government: with access to quality child care we could increase productivity, just as the member for McPherson said, by enabling women to really reach their potential in the agricultural businesses. But it is not going to happen. Why? It is because, exactly as the member for Adelaide said, the changes to the model are going to say that rural and regional Australia needs to transition. Now, transition is fine, but in my communities, the smaller ones, there is nothing to transition to. There is no service. So a basic philosophical problem with the design of this program is that, if you do not have a service, if you do not have access, there is nothing to transition to. No amount of subsidy is going to make a difference if you do not have a service. I know that there were problems with the BBF Program, and they needed to be resolved, but they did not need to be done away with. In closing, I would really like to say that I appreciate the work of the government and the minister in particular, offering some of his Public Service staff to come to Indi and commit to doing the work, post the legislation going through, that will enable us to have a long-term, sustainable, equitable childcare service for rural and regional Australia. I will hold him to that promise. 15:47 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It is great to rise and talk on this MPI today. I have never seen as many paternalists in the one place as I see on the other side of this chamber today in the Labor Party. I am trying hard to understand how they justify the merits of taking such an overtly oppressive position on reform which supports choice and a better life for families. This 'hold'em back, keep'em down' approach that they cling to is concerning, to say the very least. We heard from the member for Adelaide, the shadow minister for early childhood education and development, who was the minister in this space for many years under the previous government. Well, you had your turn, and you failed. You failed. Under your term, childcare costs went through the roof. Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 If she wants to bring her quotes in here, then the shadow minister opposite should quote mothers in my electorate who go to work, earn $60,000 a year and pay $15,000 a year in childcare costs—$300 a week for one child. Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 You have no idea, and under your term as minister you failed. You failed big time. So, if you want to quote someone, quote them. On hours cut back for some children—well, that is true. There may be some mothers who do not work full-time in the workforce. Obviously, they are parents and they work. Some of their children's hours of child care might be reduced, and I will come back to that in a moment. I would also say to the member for McPherson that she is absolutely right when she says the coalition's childcare reform package supports families. Yes, it does. It supports women. Yes, it does. It increases female workforce participation. Yes, it does. It was good to hear from the member for Indi, opposite, who spoke about regional families and women. I know that she cares very much about her community and obviously wants to get the minister out there to address some issues. I have enormous respect for families who consciously choose for one parent to stay at home and care for their children. I also support parents who both need to go to work. I understand the frustrations of parents who put in a full day's work and knock off, pay cheque in hand, and pass that cheque to the childcare centre in return for their child. We want families to choose their child care around their work, rather than limit their work hours to suit their child care. We must take every opportunity to incentivise people who want to work. Our demographics are such that maximum workforce participation is paramount. At the moment, we have four or five people of working age for every person over 65. In the not-too-distant future, that ratio will halve to two or three people of working age for every Australian aged 65 or over. Our demographics present significant known challenges for our nation. The time to act is now, Member for Adelaide, and it is a battle that we need to fight on all fronts—from tax cuts for business to stimulate growth, investment, and employment opportunities, and a health system that is not only effective but also sustainable, to utilities that are not only reliable but that Australians can afford. Those opposite have no idea when it comes to business and how we pay for all these reforms that we make. It is estimated that these reforms will encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their involvement in paid employment. Can I just read that again for those opposite: it is estimated that these reforms will encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their involvement in paid employment. As we all know, the larger the workforce, the more capacity we as a nation have to invest in those things that make Australia great—our healthcare, our public schooling, our age based pension, our strong Defence Force, our Australian Federal Police. All of these things, we can do. In terms of sustainable solutions, these childcare reforms are an absolute no-brainer. The package will deliver the highest rate of subsidy to those who most need it and benefit almost one million families—another point the member for Adelaide forgot to mention. The reforms offer support to families who most depend upon child care in order to work, or to work more. When access to child care is so expensive that it is beyond the reach of working parents, when it is cheaper to stay home and take a welfare cheque than it is to go to work, then it is time for reform. What we need is a system that supports choice. As a parliament we have an opportunity to support working families— (Time expired) 15:52 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Child care is an important service in our society. While traditionally viewed as a mechanism to help parents re-enter the workforce, it has evolved to meet the early education needs of children. We know that those early years are crucial in a child's educational development and, by extension, crucial to Australia's future. This is why reform of the sector is so critical. While I and my NXT colleagues have spoken about the importance of these reforms and the benefits they will bring to thousands of Australian families, I think it is clear that there are still commonsense changes that need to be made to ensure that all families are supported. So, like the shadow minister the member for Adelaide, I have concerns about where the budget-based funded childcare services will fit under the new package. These include Indigenous services and remote services, which differ in practice from traditional childcare models, as well as mobile childcare services, which the member for Indi mentioned. They are particularly valuable in regional areas. For many remote Indigenous communities, budget-based childcare services operate in a different manner to other childcare services due to the fact that they cater directly to the community's needs. Many of these centres run youth programs for children, and, while they do not fit perfectly into the childcare funding model, the positive impact on their community is significant. As the member for lndi mentioned, there is also concern about mobile childcare services to ensure that children and families in disadvantaged regional communities have access to high-quality children's services. These services are invaluable for those living outside of the cities for whom the closest permanent childcare centre may be hours away. I will be seeking assurances from the government that these services will continue to be funded under any new scheme. I will not allow regional Australia to once again be ignored when it comes to making policy decisions. I want to briefly talk about in-home care and the fact that it appears to have been ignored in this new package. In-home care services support a very small part of our population; they are targeted towards rural areas where no other service is available and to families with children or parents who suffer from disabilities and/or terminal illnesses. The services can also assist shift workers whose hours preclude them from using regular childcare services. For all the good these reforms will do, we cannot allow for some of our in-need families to be ignored and miss out. I call upon the government to address this issue as a matter of priority. But perhaps the biggest issue for reform is the government's handling of them. It is unfortunate, and in fact it is quite devastating, that we are still talking about the government's childcare bill, almost three years after the reforms were announced. Trying to ram through the reforms as part of the omnibus savings legislation is simply poor policy and it is bullying policy—let's be honest about it. I believe that every bill should be negotiated on its merits. Once again I encourage the government to show some leadership and allow this bill to be debated on its own and promptly. These measures were introduced in 2014 and three years later we still have no reform. The children who were crawling babies on budget night in 2014 are unlikely to ever see the benefits of this long-promised package. They are likely to be in primary school by the time it is enacted. Their families have waited in vain for four long years. Its implementation has now been pushed back to July 2018. Tying child care to family tax payments is a furphy. Let's be clear, the savings for this have already been identified within the childcare-spending envelope. The government already has secured $950 million in savings from its reforms to crack down on child swapping—and good for them for sorting out the rorting. This week it has announced a further $250 million in savings by cleaning up family day-care rorting. These two measures alone account for almost all of the required spend on this new reform package. So why do we need to continue to attack the family budget and pit family against family for something that has already been paid for? Let's be honest: if the government is interested in prioritising and increasing workforce participation for parents, these reforms would have been presented to the parliament in 2014 and 2015 and they would have been brought on for debate and passed in 2016. Implementation would not have been pushed back a further year. And so once again I urge the government to work with the parliament to secure these reforms that are so vitally needed across Australia. 15:57 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I have to say that I was almost emotionally touched by the way the member for Adelaide started her address today in this MPI in stating how much she wants to put politics aside and work together with the government. Then, of course, she proceeds by tearing into a negative script against the government. She no doubt is following her fearless leader who seems to do the same—says one thing and delivers another. It is not unlike her performance as minister in this area, where she failed to perform particularly in areas of compliance and fairness and now, of course, claims the opposite. I am delighted to talk on this topic today because there are three big winners with the coalition's childcare package—families, women and children. As one of my colleagues mentioned, this would impact on almost one million families across the country in allowing them to better balance their responsibilities that come with parenthood and work. When it comes to women in particular, we need to increase the participation rate for women in this country. This package will see 230,000 families in a position to get back into the workforce or to do more work or to increase their level of engagement with the workforce. Those people in those families will be predominantly women. Children are the third demographic. Here we have a situation where the coalition is already cleaning up this space by getting rid of the shonky providers and the dodgy childcare service providers. I am a dad and, if a child of mine were needing child care, I would prefer them not to be in dodgy care. This package therefore is good for families and is therefore good for women and is therefore good for children. Three big winners! In particular, the member for Adelaide mentioned the importance of the people who are most vulnerable, and, indeed, this is key. It is why you see cleverly formulated in this package care for the most vulnerable families. It is why you see families who have an income of $65,000 or less a year actually seeing an increase in their subsidy rate, from 73 per cent to 85 per cent. For the members opposite, 85 per cent is actually higher than 73 per cent, which means that, for every dollar a low-income family pays into child care, they get more subsidy back. What that means in the real world is: that is actually good and, therefore, it is best for the families who are most vulnerable. Let me move on to finish my address here today with an explanation of why it is also just good governance. It is good governance on a few counts. Firstly, it is good governance in the area of the activity test—another area of criticism from the member for Adelaide. What we have in this package is an opportunity for increased hours of care for the families who are ready to use their own hours to engage in more work, training, study or volunteering. Here we have an opportunity again to get people re-engaged with the real economy. Secondly, we have compliance. Over the last year of the Labor government, do you know how many compliance tests they did? They did about 500. In the last financial year of the coalition, do you know how many were done? Over 3,000. With better compliance and new IT systems coming through, you have less cost to the taxpayer, which means, in summary, that this is good. This is good for families, this is good for women, this is good for children. It is better governance, better compliance and, ultimately, better for the Australian taxpayer. 16:02 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The social services legislation, the omnibus package of savings and childcare reform that we are debating, really exemplifies just how nasty this government is. Mr Fletcher L6B You hate the idea of savings, don't you? Mr KEOGH 249147 You know what? I will take the interjection. It is not that I hate the idea of savings, but let's just look at where those savings are coming from. The government said, 'What we're going to do is pay for a new childcare package and we're going to— Mr Fletcher interjecting— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The minister at the table will remain silent. The member for Burt has the call. Mr KEOGH 249147 I thank the minister for allowing me to make my point with even more force. The problem with this package is that, in order to pay for it—in fact, to more than pay for it—they are making cuts to the people who can least afford it in our society. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 That's not true. Mr KEOGH 249147 This is absolutely true and it is very, very mean. It is unfair. It is just plain nasty. Of all the areas in the budget you could have picked on to get the money to pay for this reform. I will admit, there are parts of this reform that are quite positive, but there are a lot of bits that are very negative. To the positive parts, if you were going to find parts of the budget to pay for this, maybe picking on the people who can least afford it—picking on pensioners, people who are trying to find work, single parents, those who are the recipients of family tax benefit—is definitely not the best way to go about it. It is just plain nasty and it demonstrates how out of touch the government are. These childcare changes are going to end up leaving one in three children worse off. This is the same flawed package that the government have tried to introduce three times. They just will not learn. In addition to that, the activity test will see 150,000 families left worse off. This slashes the subsidies for about half of the families. In addition, if a child's parent works casually or part-time, the likelihood of being able to access stable, subsidised early education is completely compromised, which defeats the whole purpose of trying to improve the childcare rebate and subsidy system. At its core, why we fundamentally think it is a good idea to improve childcare rebates and accessibility to child care, is that this is about equality. It is not just about making sure that our kids get the best start in life, which is absolutely fundamental; it is also about making sure that those in our society who have the predominant responsibility for looking after our children—which, let's be frank about it, is mothers; there are definitely dads out there who do this, but it is predominantly mothers—are not left disadvantaged by not being able to return to the workforce to pursue their careers, and we are able to make sure that we narrow the gender pay gap. The legislation that the government is proposing is not going to end up fixing that. In fact, it may end up making it worse because of the other cuts that it will apply through the welfare system. That is the travesty of this legislation, but it actually gets worse. When we look at how this legislation affects those who are the most disadvantaged in our society, we have a situation where the government are scrapping the budget base funding for Indigenous early education providers and mobile services in the regions and remote Australia. Early education to around 20,000 children will be put at risk. The government has not been able to guarantee these services. So, for the children who live in some of the most impoverished situations in Australia, those who need the most assistance, the government is going to actively make their situation worse. Again, that demonstrates how nasty this legislation is. This comes on top of the government's decision to cut 38 Indigenous child and family centres. Of course, these unfair measures are on top of the cuts to family tax benefit, cuts to paid parental leave, cuts to the energy supplement for pensioners and cuts to young people and to jobseekers. It is basically indiscriminate cutting across the board to everyone who receives some sort of benefit in this country because they have found themselves unemployed or under-remunerated and need to be assisted. Those are the people that the government has decided to pick on. I said before that this is a nasty government and this legislation demonstrates it. It is also a love-hate government. This legislation was brought forward on, of all days, Valentine's Day, but all it served to show was that the government hates Australians who find themselves in a situation of needing our help the most. All it shows is that they love big business— (Time expired) 16:07 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore This is a pretty passionate issue for many of us, especially mums and dads who are looking for child care. But I often wonder how we look at balancing everything, whether it be policy direction or how to fund certain programs. On the one hand, we have a policy to make sure that every child in Australia gets 15 hours per week of early childhood education. It has been something that I have been barracking for for four years— Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 No, it actually was introduced by Julia Gillard, and we are trying to continue it—to go on. Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Okay—preschool education; I stand corrected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The shadow minister has had her turn. Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 This was an expenditure that is absolutely seen as an investment that each of us in this House, no matter the descriptor, believe is a good thing. It has to be affordable. It has to be effective. And the childcare changes that we are bringing into place actually allow it to happen. I have spoken to many parents and, especially, kindergarten teachers about the absolute need for this activity—for introducing young children to formal education. This is the place where they learn to hold a pencil properly, to sit quietly, to take instructions, to work in small groups and to play productively. For some of the children in my region of Gilmore, this is their very first chance to be part of such an activity. I have been a champion of this aspect of the package for more than three years. This investment comes with a pretty high price tag. The government's childcare package strikes the right balance. There is targeted childcare support for hardworking families who depend on it, a generous safety net to protect those most vulnerable in our community and ongoing support for high-quality early learning. And that is boosted through $840 million a year of federal support. Where does that money come from? On this side of the House, we know that money does not grow on trees—even if we are standing in the fairy garden at the local preschool. It seems to me that families with an annual income greater than $185,000 per year will be able to work with the new $10,000-a-year cap for their child care. It also seems to me that most families in Gilmore earn nowhere near that amount. So an 85 per cent subsidy for child care which is uncapped is a huge improvement for them. We have coupled this with a benchmark set for each hour of childcare fees so that unscrupulous centres do not just say, 'Well, the government's going to subsidise it, so I might as well jack the price up a bit,' which, in reality, means that Mr and Mrs Taxpayer are picking up the tab. In most people's view, this is not fair—it is not fair at all. There are many in my community who grew up with no child care for their children: nothing for them— Ms Husar interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Lindsay will stop the sound effects. Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 and nothing for their kids, and they did it while having a whole extra load of work. We will be asking that the childcare subsidy is only paid if the parent is working, training, studying or volunteering. Our families are desperate for good-quality, affordable child care and for hours that suit. I would like to visit the problem as stated earlier regarding our Indigenous child care. Some of our centres have been charging a full day for a child who is only in attendance for four hours, then coming to me and saying it is not enough. Well, I agree; spread those hours over the week. Then they say that they do not meet the requirement. But they are teaching those young Indigenous mums parenting skills and literacy; they are making sure the cultural heritage goes through with their children. Not once have they realised that that is training—that that enables those young mums to still get that childcare payment. The operating business model needs to be looked at. They need to make sure they understand exactly what they are doing, talk to the TAFE and get a registered training organisation in association with them, so that these beautiful Indigenous mums will qualify for the full subsidy and keep the facilities open. This government is truly dedicated to promoting early education, helping with Indigenous childcare centres, helping our single mums get back to work and helping our families who really have not a scrap's worth of education and are trying to better themselves. We are determined that there are opportunities to make a difference in our communities, and this is the way to do it: have well-capped childcare fees; set a benchmark so that the childcare facilities do not keep raising the fees; encourage our Indigenous facilities to say, 'You know what? We're doing a great job. We're training these mums. We've got parenting skills. We've got mums-and-bubs skills. We are looking at cultural diversity.' We can do this. But we need to work together. Both sides of this House need to realise that money does not grow on the fairy tree. We have to balance this out and be reasonable. 16:12 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I do welcome the opportunity to provide the member for Gilmore with some clarification around the 15-hour access-to-preschool program that she got quite confused, which is not part of this bill but which she just gave us a lovely five-minute diatribe on. Those 15 hours that she was talking about, the government has not actually even recommitted to, and it expires at the end of this year. So anyway, that is a great opportunity for me to take. And it is also great to follow the member for Fairfax, who proved yesterday that he was out of touch and today again has backed that up. Being in government is about making choices. You get to choose to support people, you get to choose to be responsible and you get to choose that everybody gets a fair go. There could be no more stark difference between Labor and Liberal than our approach to child care. To the Liberals, child care is an expendable extra and a place where this cruel, out-of-touch government can cut money and slash services to support their $50 billion gift to big business. We are living at a time when educational attainment rates are placing us at the back of the pack, where education rankings are declining, and where educational shifts for the jobs of the future are occurring. We are also living at a time when outcomes for Indigenous children, unacceptably, do not meet the high standards we set for ourselves, as outlined in the Closing the Gap report handed down in this place just a few weeks ago. And the member for Fairfax totally missed that point in his five-minute diatribe. So why, then, with all of that evidence and fact based information, would this government choose—they made a choice—to strip away access to child care from the children who will benefit most from access to early learning? Let us see child care for what it is. It is early education. It is an opportunity for young children to engage in learning in their formative years, to be surrounded by age-matched peers learning important social skills, stimulated by trained and skilled professional educators, and nurtured, in the absence of their parents, by those same educators, whose job extends far wider than wiping a snotty nose and simply keeping a child alive—which, I might add, is an indirect quote from someone without a clue on the value of early education: the relic that is Senator Leyonhjelm. I personally can speak extensively as a single mother on the benefits of early education—and I hear someone slagging off over on the other side. One of my children has special needs. The time my children spent in child care was of profound benefit to them in their early years. I will take the case of my son. He was diagnosed with a raft of issues at 18 months of age. In his case, the early childhood setting provided an additional support teacher for him. He learnt so very much through the love and the support of all of his teachers, who imparted patience and their wisdom to him. I was not working at the time. I had my hands full, so those two days he spent in child care provided an opportunity for me—as a carer and his Mama—to have much-needed respite, attend to the things that his disability prevented me from doing and have a break from the constant therapies that I provided to support him. It also provided me with some time with my other two children that was not dominated solely by his needs. I might also say that his childcare workers in those early years formed such a great bond with our family and still remain in contact with us. They follow his progress, celebrate the mighty highs and support me through some of those hard lows. This is not an isolated story or case. I invite all of those opposite to visit a local childcare centre. In fact, there are plenty of stories out there where early education provided through child care is supporting great outcomes for many, many children. Now, given that this government has failed to introduce a single childcare policy in more than three years—with the exception of that disaster of a Nanny Pilot Program—some might suggest that it would want to get this one right. But, instead, the policy it has introduced will see one in three children worse off—and I did not hear the member for Fairfax mention that once. More than 20 stakeholder groups who are experts in the industry and not politicians have called on this incompetent Prime Minister to make better choices and fix the flaws in this package. Of particular concern is the cut that this government seeks to pass on to our Indigenous childcare services, which will see 20,000 Indigenous children in early education affected by this cruel and blatantly stupid policy. SNAICC has said: These changes will diminish our kids' potential to make a smooth transition to school, compounding the likelihood of intergenerational disempowerment and unemployment. Children will fall behind before they have even started school and suffer greater risks of removal into out-of-home care. And the member for Fairfax can wipe the smile off his ugly face, because that is just totally inappropriate! The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Ms HUSAR 263328 What is it that this Prime Minister just does not get? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The member for Lindsay will withdraw! Ms HUSAR 263328 I withdraw. And, on the government's ridiculous activity test, the Social Policy Research Centre, at the University of New South Wales, has said that this 'bill introduces provisions that will increase the complexity and reduce accessibility and affordability for some of the more vulnerable children and families'. Can the Prime Minister just explain why he has so much trouble understanding the experts in this field who are forewarning him that he is harming children through this policy? (Time expired) 16:17 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I think the member for Fairfax looks pretty good sitting here next to me. Once again I am left to talk after the member for Lindsay and improve the tone of this place, and it is absolutely my pleasure to do so. Another day, another issue from Labor, as we have heard in the last half an hour or so, but we know that, when they were in charge of child care, they made a real meal of it. Before I talk about the improvements to child care, I thought we would just take a little tiny walk down memory lane with those opposite to all those long, dark years until some three years ago. The Productivity Commission—an independent body, as you know, Deputy Speaker—found that Labor's irresponsible increase in the rate of childcare rebate in July 2008 led to an accelerated increase in the average annual long-day-care fees. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind here: the Australian Labor Party have no credibility on childcare reform, absolutely none. This government's childcare package, as we know, was announced in the 2015 budget. Under the federal government's package, members on this side of the chamber will make the single largest investment in early learning and child care that this country has ever seen. It is great news for parents, education and child care in my electorate of Durack. Just so those opposite can comprehend—and I am pleased to see that there are still a few left in the chamber—not only are the federal government ending Labor's waste; we are making a record and unprecedented investment in education at the early age and also supporting the most vulnerable Australians to enable them to get ahead. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, the federal government understands that the cost of living has risen significantly in recent years. With our childcare package, we want to help people who are trying to help themselves. It is as simple as that. There are new job opportunities being created every day in my electorate of Durack, from the Kimberley in the north to the wheatbelt in the south of my electorate, and this package will assist those parents in picking up a couple of extra hours on a day or a couple of extra shifts a week or perhaps in working outside the usual nine to five. Unlike the Labor Party, our package will not just provide parents with a break. I accept that there are some people, as the member for Lindsay described, who have families with special needs. This does provide a break, and I accept that, but I can tell you that there would be many people in this place who know that parents, especially mothers—and I know many of them; many of them are my friends—take advantage of child care in order to give themselves a break. They go to the gym. They get their nails done. I think I am entitled to say this because I have seen it firsthand when my friends are using child care and my child is not able to go to that place, because it is full. That is not what we are about in this place here. We need to back parents who want to get ahead, accepting that there are some people—as I accept the member for Lindsay did—who have a special need. But, as my colleagues said earlier, this government's package will provide genuine reform for a simpler, more affordable, accessible and flexible childcare system. As someone who has used child care, as I have just said, I know that this is a complicated system that we currently have, and we must make it simpler. It is as simple as that. With our reforms, those earning the least will be able to enjoy the biggest rebate, up to 85 per cent. And that is the way it ought to be. The most vulnerable should get a helping hand. There is no denying that. As you earn more, of course, the rebate reduces, which is absolutely the way it ought to be. Remember, we are spending taxpayers' dollars here. We need to be careful. We are the government. We must be careful. We must be responsible. Previously, there was little point in earning extra, as the cost of child care would significantly eat into any extra earnings that parents would make. So we are saying now: we are going to back you. You want to work that extra shift? Previously there would have been no point because it would have been eaten up with childcare costs. That exercise would have been futile; now, they will be able to do it. I just want to make a point. We heard the member for Adelaide and also the member for Lindsay talking about the Indigenous organisations and how they are going to be worse off. I am the member for Durack and a member of this federal government. We will ensure that services supporting our most disadvantaged families—and I have hundreds of them in my electorate, let me tell you—will continue to have access to the same opportunities for additional funding available to other childcare services. So what those opposite have said is not true; it is just the usual rubbish that comes over the boundary. I am stunned that the Labor Party, who claim to represent the working class—which I have said before in this chamber is simply not true—are once again trying to make child care more expensive and less fair. We on this side of the chamber are backing hardworking Australians, those who want to provide for their family and to get ahead. That is what I stand for. I am not sure what those on the opposite side stand for. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time for the debate has concluded. MOTIONS 1760 MOTIONS Centrelink 1760 16:22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Barton to suspend standing orders, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for Barton to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

69 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA 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 McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 72 NOES Abbott, AJ Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR (teller) Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 1762 COMMITTEES Human Rights Committee 1762 Report 1762 16:33 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Freedom of speech in Australia: inquiry into the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and related procedures under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—On 8 November 2016, pursuant to section 7C of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the Attorney-General referred to the committee the following matters for inquiry: firstly, whether the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, including sections 18C and 18D, impose unreasonable restriction on freedoms of speech; and, secondly, whether the complaints-handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission should be reformed. As part of the inquiry, the committee received written submissions and held nine public hearings between 12 December 2016 and 20 February 2017—two in Canberra and one in every other state and territory capital city—to ensure that members of the public across the nation had fair opportunity to have input. In addition, where it was not possible for witnesses to appear at hearings in person, teleconferencing was used to facilitate participation. The committee's report contains five chapters, the four substantive chapters of which address the four terms of reference for the inquiry. The report makes 22 recommendations aimed at improving the legislation and complaints-handling process. I am pleased to say that there has been a high level of bipartisanship between government and opposition members of the committee in arriving at recommendations in the report which present a range of pragmatic options to the government for consideration. These recommendations are designed to ensure that future complaints received have a reasonable prospect of success and are dealt with in a timely and cost-effective manner. As a committee, we have received extensive and substantial evidence from submitters which demonstrates that the balance between protection from racial discrimination and freedom of expression is an issue about which many Australians have a keen interest. The issue of free speech as it relates to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has attracted significant public interest in recent years following a number of high-profile cases in which the mainstream public have become concerned that justice did not appear to have been done and that ordinary Australians were being penalised by law and the system which inflicted substantial costs and inordinate time delays on respondents to complaints concerning matters that did not appear to offend mainstream community standards. As I said in my first speech in this House, on 9 December 2013: … as a nation we must address the issues of multiculturalism and reconciliation, whilst preserving the fundamental character and values of Australian identity. These complex social processes are by necessity two-way streets. There has to be a degree of give and take to promote a balanced approach to the competing goals of diversity, assimilation and integration in our emerging national identity. From my own experience I can attest to the value of— free speech in— interacting with people of different cultures and fully participating in my local community. Much has changed in Australian society since section 18C was introduced to the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995, during the Keating government, hence the need to revisit what words actually mean in contemporary society. In the current era of political correctness the threshold of what 'offends' has shifted dramatically. It has been reported in the press that there have been instances where celebrating Christmas by singing Christmas carols in public places has been deemed as being offensive to minorities. Our objective is to practically simplify the law so that, where there is a dispute over cultural sensitivities in the workplace, in public, or in a social setting, ordinary Australians in the suburbs and towns will be able to resolve their differences with minimal input from the referee or umpire in a way that is affordable and timely. We are not talking about sheep stations; we are dealing with offences at the lower end of the spectrum of 'insult' and 'offend', which do happen, occasionally, in the course of everyday social interactions. From a common-sense perspective, what we are trying to achieve is the protection of ethnic and racial groups from harm and detriment, but it is not the role of the government to police petty social misdemeanours. Witnesses at the hearings gave comprehensive evidence concerning their experiences of racial discrimination in Australia, including a range of anecdotal evidence. Aspects of the evidence were compelling and distressing, including accounts of racial discrimination in terms of employment, access to accommodation, verbal abuse, objects being posted in the mail, physical altercations and inappropriate material. These acts should be universally condemned, as there is no place in Australian society for this racist behaviour. In fact there exists, a raft of legislation at a state and federal level which make these acts illegal. For the purposes of the inquiry, however, many of these matters fall outside the terms of reference and scope. The inquiry viewed freedom of speech as it relates to constructive criticism and open debate in the context of a workplace, social or public setting where it ought to be permissible to discuss culturally sensitive matters in the normal course of business. Our duty is to govern for all Australians, and that includes mainstream Australians who feel that their right to free speech is being infringed by political correctness and the overzealous application of laws such as section 18C. Mainstream Australians deserve the same rights as racial and ethnic minorities. It is important that the law does not promote reverse discrimination. As a migrant of Eurasian heritage, I see the need to protect ethnic and racial minorities on one hand but also the duty to protect mainstream Australians from situations of reverse discrimination. As I said in my maiden speech, multiculturalism and reconciliation are two-way streets, of give and take, with neither group taking advantage of or having a lend of the other. The sentiment in the proverbial pub often is resentment that sometimes ethnic minorities use the provisions of the law to take things too far. Our challenge is to make the law fair to all. From observation, those involved in the human rights industry are generally extremely well educated, academic and intellectual. It is fine to have complex legal concepts and precedents, but there is a disconnect in understanding with the proverbial person in the pub or suburbs. The operation of the Racial Discrimination Act needs to take into account the context of the ordinary person in a typical setting. In giving evidence, Australian Human Rights Commission President, Gillian Triggs, used the example of 'the typical person on the Manly ferry'. However, unfortunately, that person is not commonly found in the rest of Australia. How will a regular mainstream person of average education in a suburban setting understand or interpret the law? The government needs to ensure that resources are being directed at preventing material racial discrimination and serious conduct resulting in harm, violence or incitement to violent acts, not cartoons and trivial matters. Many members of the public mistakenly believe that if section 18C is amended it will permit abusive and vilifying behaviour based on race, not taking into account that there are already other legal protections in force against incitement to violence, harassment or intimidation. I would like to thank deputy chair, the member for Moreton, and members of the committee: the members for Berowra, Brand, McMillan; and Senators Paterson, Reynolds, Moore, Brown and McKim, for the collegiate way they have worked together during the inquiry, and for their specialist technical skills. I also thank our committee Secretary, Toni Dawes, and the team of secretariat staff who went above and beyond the call of duty, working long hours to meet the reporting deadline. I encourage my fellow members, the government and others to examine the committee's report. With these comments, I commend the committee's report into freedom of speech in Australia to the House. 16:44 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—As deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have been chastened and humbled to hear the disturbing evidence presented to this human rights inquiry. It is particularly important that I note up-front that the committee is recommending no change to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Australia is a successful multicultural nation, but that does not mean we can be complacent about protecting our minority communities from racist abuse. The inquiry has heard evidence from people right across Australia who have been subjected to racist behaviour, sometimes almost every day. We heard evidence of the harm that racism causes to individuals and their communities. It is detrimental to their health, detrimental to their employment prospects and detrimental to their educational advancement, and it results in exclusion and marginalisation. No government law will ever prevent all racism, but laws set the standard of acceptable community behaviour. We only need to look through history to see examples of behaviour at times when racism has been accepted, such as during the civil rights movement in the United States of America and even in Germany in the 1930s when racism was the law. Sadly, even in our own backyard here in Australia we have not been immune to racist ideology creeping into law and policymaking. In fact, the very first piece of legislation passed by the Commonwealth parliament was the White Australia policy, a unity ticket for all members of parliament. But things have moved on. In fact, the Australian Constitution, our nation's birth certificate, still discriminates against Indigenous Australians. Hopefully, that will change. Laws help set the standard of acceptable community behaviour. Once our Constitution was amended in 1967, once the White Australia policy was dismantled, Australians, mostly, respected that Indigenous Australians should be treated equally and that immigrants should be welcome and accepted. This powerful message has helped to make us the most successful multicultural nation in the world. For more than 20 years, part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act has been helping to prevent racial hatred. Part IIA of the RDA is well established and well supported. It strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial abuse and should be retained and strongly supported by all Australians. I thank the committee members, including the member for Brand, for being involved in a report that recommends that status quo. The four Labor members of the committee believe that no case has been made to amend part IIA in any way, and I am thankful that the report put forward by the member for Moore, the chair of the committee, reflects that. Parliamentary committee process is important. The majority committee report from this inquiry notes that many members of the committee did have differing views about how to balance the competing rights and freedoms that were the subject of this inquiry. That is how committees work. It is only when there is overwhelming support for a particular course of action that a recommendation for change will result. In this case, there was not overwhelming support for any change to part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act and therefore no recommendation to amend part IIA has flowed from this Turnbull government initiated inquiry. The committee has not recommended any amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act. I stress that. The majority report of the committee and the recommendations for legislative and policy change that are contained within it reflect some of the community concerns heard by the committee. The committee has made 19 recommendations around the procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Labor members of the committee are supportive of improving procedures at the AHRC. In fact, the Australian Human Rights Commission itself recommended some amendment to its own procedure. While I support the premise of these procedural amendments, it comes with the caveat that any implementation of these amendments must be cognisant of these three factors: any amendment must be constitutional, and the inquiry heard evidence from constitutional experts around some of these recommendations, and it is trite to say that these are very complicated issues which will need to be thoroughly explored to ensure that any implementation does not fall foul of my constitutional concerns; access to justice must continue to be a paramount principle when implementing any change to the complaints procedure of the AHRC; and any implementation of a recommendation that will result in increasing the workload of the Australian Human Rights Commission should be coupled with the appropriate increased resources for the AHRC to function efficiently. It has only been 112 days since the date of the referral of this inquiry, and 62 of those days were in December and January, a time when, traditionally, Australians and community groups have some time off and come together with their families. But during this ridiculously short time frame the committee has heard evidence in every capital city. If you look at the faces of the secretariat up there in the gallery, you will see that it shows. We have received 11,460 items, including 418 submissions. It is a credit to the secretariat that they were able to deal with all of these. It is a remarkable achievement that, despite the strict time frame arbitrarily dictated by the government, we have tabled this report, and some credit does go to the work of the member for Moore for his chairing of the committee. I thank all of my fellow committee members from all sides of this chamber, including those located opposite. I cannot quite make out their faces, but they seem familiar, those gentlemen up the back there! I thank all my fellow committee members for recognising the harm that racism causes in the community and for constructively working through the issues raised. The recommendations that are included in the majority committee report are all intended to increase the ability of the AHRC to process complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act, increasing access to justice for complainants and respondents. Much of the media attention that has surrounded this inquiry has centred around two cases: the QUT case and the Bill Leak case. There have been many criticisms of these cases, even though the QUT case was actually dismissed in court and the Bill Leak case was withdrawn. Some criticisms of the procedural handling of these two cases have been addressed in the recommendations, but neither of these cases provided a substantive case for changing the Racial Discrimination Act. As the committee was told by several witnesses, hard cases make bad law. Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act is a piece of legislation that most of us will, hopefully, never have to encounter. Most of us, especially Anglo-Saxon males in positions of power, will not need to make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission under section 18C. Most of us will not be respondents to a complaint either. But to minority groups in Australia part IIA is very important, and watering it down in any way would cause much harm to them. At the extreme end of racial abuse, white supremacists do not care what harm is visited on those they wickedly try to victimise with their vile hate speech. However, there is a special place in hell reserved for those apologists for white supremacists and those who enable their vile work. All sensible members of a tolerant society must remain vigilant and ensure that any rise in racism is combated and controlled. Many witnesses to the inquiry spoke of their concern that any change to part IIA of the RDA would send a dangerous message to the community about acceptable standards of behaviour. That message would be a signal not only to white supremacists and the like but to others in the community, especially those keyboard warriors who gutlessly and carelessly hurl around their vile abuse. Social media has become the modern school ground for racial bullies. Sadly, we drag the playground into our lounge rooms and our bedrooms. These bullies can bravely throw their racist abuse from the safety and, usually, anonymity of their homes, while the victims remain vulnerable everywhere, with nowhere to hide. The committee heard evidence from experts in cyber racism that removing or watering down regulations protecting from racist abuse would open up opportunities for people to 'push it further'. From all of the evidence presented to the human rights committee, what has been brought home loud and clear is that protections against racism are important. They are important to those facing racism every day, they are important to our communities as a benchmark for behaviour and they are important to our Australian businesses that are more productive when their workers are not concerned about being racially abused. Now is not the time to water down laws that protect our vulnerable minorities from this type of abuse. That is not the Australia that I love—not on my watch. 16:53 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore 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 1767 16:53 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 1767 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 1767

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1767 16:54 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Before I embark on a discussion on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, I want to thank, congratulate and commend the member for Moreton on an incredibly powerful speech on the Parliamentary Joint Committee Report on Human Rights report on free speech. As always, he has given a very eloquent speech, a very moving speech. I worked on the 18C legislation when I first started my career in the Public Service, so it is something very near and dear to me. It was there at the beginning of my career. Mr Perrett HVP I hear that from many sources. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 He knows all about that because the views that my husband has and that I have are quite different. It has been an abiding part of our relationship since 1992. That was when the public consultation was conducted on the 18C legislation, and we have always had disagreements on it. We have been together for a very, very long time, and 18C has been part of that relationship from way back. As people say, 'Only in Canberra'—but so true. Congratulations, member for Moreton, on that speech. It was very powerful. Thank you so much for the work that you did, with the member for Brand. Who else was on the committee? It was wonderful having the member for Cowan in here, as well as the member for Lingiari and the member for Isaacs, to hear that speech. As I said, I have a very close and abiding connection with 18C. I was there in 1992, when I was working in the Attorney-General's Department and I was engaged in the public consultation that took place right throughout Australia, like the committee has done this time, on the 18C legislation. I was there in Alice Springs, hearing from Indigenous communities about the trauma and the heartache that they experienced as a result of racial discrimination and vilification. I was there in Darwin, hearing from migrant communities who experienced the same slights, abuse and about harm that it causes. I was there in Perth, talking to Indigenous communities, Italian communities and Greek communities about what that experience was like for them. I was there in Townsville, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney, talking to Jewish communities. We also went down to Hobart. But the one that really sticks in my mind in terms of public consultation was the Adelaide event. I am a huge fan of Adelaide, and so this is certainly not a slight on that great city or on South Australians. What really struck me—and I am hoping it did not happen this time—was that we experienced white supremacists at the public consultation that evening. Neo-Nazis, skin heads, turned up—and we are talking 1992—and they were just filled with hate, and they had huge vicious dogs with them. We had to get the police to come in and basically break up the consultation, which was a real tragedy, because it was one of the best crowds that we had had. But there was the presence of the white supremacists there, and they were filled with so much hate. They were solely intent on shutting down that consultation, solely intent on shutting down that conversation, about people who do experience racial vilification, who do experience racial discrimination, who do experience hate speech and who do experience slights and nasty innuendos. We are talking here of a time before social media—this is years before the internet; 1992—but racial discrimination was alive and well then. The member for Moore said that a lot has changed—yes, a lot has changed since 1992—but, with all due respect, a lot has not changed. In fact, there are more opportunities now for people to engage in anonymous hate speech, anonymous ghastly trolling and anonymous vilification and discrimination towards people based on their race and ethnicity. So I say to the member for Moore: yes, things have changed, but a lot has not changed. I think it is interesting that the recommendations in this review were basically focused on procedural issues, process issues and access issues. They do not change the substance of the 18C legislation, because it is not broken. Yes, there have been issues of process, there have been issues of access and there have been issues of procedure, and those have been addressed in this report. But the legislation and its original intent—I was there in the consultation, I was there when it went through the chambers and I was there in the Attorney-General's Department—is still workable. There is no need for substantial change; this review found that. So it is most telling and most interesting that the recommendations were only done on the procedural, access and process front. So it was an honour to have been here, having had that very longstanding connection with 18C, going right back to the early days of my career, 1992, and the early days of my relationship with my now husband. As I said, it has been part of our relationship for all that time, and it was a real honour to be here for the report on this review as well as to hear the very powerful, moving and eloquent speech of my colleague, the member for Moreton. I will now go to this omnibus bill. I have been in the chamber for a large part of the debate on this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings & Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, and it has been just extraordinary to hear the stories of the impacts that the proposals in this bill will have on communities. The really strong message that I have got from the speeches that my colleagues have made is that this government has no qualms in pitting the most vulnerable people in the community against families. They are essentially saying that young unemployed, pensioners and others need to pay for these significant changes to child care—according to the Prime Minister, the most significant reform of child care. This is just outrageous. It is just pitting those who are vulnerable against families, those young unemployed people against families. It is quite extraordinary. I thought 2014 was bad, with the outrageous budget that the then Abbott government introduced that ensured that young unemployed were potentially cast on the street because they could not access Newstart. I remember doing a doorknock around the streets of Canberra just after that budget was introduced. My community were in shock. They could not believe that a government could be so brutal to so many people in one fell swoop. They could not believe that a government could introduce these cuts that it said during the election that it would not introduce—cuts to the ABC, cuts to SBS, cuts to health and cuts to education. The government made a commitment when it was in opposition and just prior to the election that it would not make cuts to those areas. Yet we saw in the 2014 budget cuts to health, cuts to education, cuts to the ABC and cuts to SBS—it was endless. Not one sector of society was immune from those cuts. As I said, I was out doorknocking in the community, and my community was in shock. Canberrans were in shock that this government could implement such a brutal budget. I remember speaking to single mothers who were in tears and absolutely petrified about how they were going to be able to educate their kids and put their children through university, given the fact that the government was looking at these $100,000 degrees. I spoke to young people who were fearful that they would become unemployed and worried about how they were going to survive. I spoke to parents whose children were working or at high school or at university. They were not unemployed but, there but for the grace of God, their child could be unemployed and they were worried about what the Newstart changes that the government proposed would mean. So I thought that things were pretty bad in 2014—not just because of what the government did on health, education, SBS and the ABC but also in terms of what the government did to my community. Coalition governments have form when it comes to Canberra. In 1996, under the Howard government, we lost 15,000 Public Service jobs here in Canberra and 30,000 nationally. Then, under the Abbott government, we lost around another 10,000—I have heard larger figures. Again, we were subject to attack, as always, because coalition governments have complete and utter contempt for the nation's capital. The nation's capital was built up by Sir Robert Menzies. He had a vision for this town as the nation's capital. He brought to Canberra government agencies that were scattered right through out Australia—mainly in Melbourne, though—because he wanted to create a great national capital. He invested money and effort in his vision to make this a great national capital. But, whenever we have coalition governments, all they do is basically bring the capital down. They cut the Public Service and they cut the national institutions—to the point where, with the national institutions, we are not cutting into fat or bone; we are now cutting into vital organs. Like the 2014 budget, these cuts are cuts to our basic social framework, cuts to Australia's DNA. That is what this bill does. It is so reminiscent of 2014. There can only be one winner here, and the losers from this will be the most vulnerable people in our community—low-income earners, the young unemployed and pensioners. There can only be one winner, because this government is completely incapable of prioritising and getting an approach that ensures equity in this nation, that ensures that there is fairness in the way we go about our social and public policy and that ensures that there is equality. With this government, the losers are always low- and middle-income earners and those who are doing it tough already, like young unemployed people and pensioners. They are always attacked. We saw the derision this government has displayed towards those people on Centrelink benefits. We on this side of House believe that we need to ensure that those who are getting benefits that are funded by the Australian taxpayer get the right benefit. We are not in any way advocating that those who do not deserve a particular benefit should get it. What we want is fairness. There have been 20,000 letters sent out each week and, of these, 4,000 have been found to be incorrect. So 4,000 people have been incorrectly targeted, with the suggestion that they are fraudsters. One can only imagine the stress they feel when they get this letter from Centrelink, from a government agency, suggesting that they have ripped off the Australian taxpayer, that they have ripped off the government, when they have done nothing of the sort. Great trauma has been caused by these letters, and for some reason the government will not accept any responsibility for it, which is just breathtaking. Particularly after the changes that you introduced to the way that these benefits are processed, the fact that you will not actually accept any responsibility is just outrageous. I am nearly out of time, but, as I said, this bill pits families against the most vulnerable in our community. It is another showcase of this government's complete contempt for low- and middle-income earners, for those who are doing it tough and for the most vulnerable in our community. This bill robs Peter to pay Paul—that is the underlying philosophy of this. The fact that you could not be more creative about ways of saving money and you had to have one person or the other benefiting in our community is just outrageous and underscores the government's complete contempt for those who are doing it tough and those who are unemployed. The government is just interested in the big end of town. We have seen that with the outrageous $50 billion tax cut to some organisations, such as the Commonwealth Bank, which made a $5 billion profit in the last six months. These are the sorts of organisations that Australian taxpayers will be underwriting, or funding, in many ways. I ask all Australians how they feel about giving big business and banks $50 billion worth of tax cuts. 17:09 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam It is a pleasure to be here but a very sad subject matter. I oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. This bill contains the same measures and the same provisions that were contained in the 2014 budget, which led to Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, losing his prime ministership and brought the government to the very brink of losing the election in 2016. I oppose the bill. It is unfair. It must be defeated and the message that we have got from many members in the other place is that that is exactly what is going to happen. We can only wonder why it has been brought into this House, this week, in this form. Perhaps it is because the government do not have anything else for us to debate. Whilst they are off somewhere else debating their own internal troubles, they have put this in here for us to fill in time. It is an unfair bill which introduces a range of cuts which have already been rejected by members in this place and in the other place. It contains cuts to family payments, to pensions, to families, to new mothers and to young people. I will go through a whole range of the measures and how they impact on some of the areas throughout regional Australia—because I think this point needs to be brought home. Perhaps throughout the course of this debate, I will be able to change the opinions and perhaps the votes of some of those coalition members who represent regional electorates, because they really do need to be considering their position and how this bill is going to impact their electorates. I have talked about the impacts on family payments. A whole heap of these measures are going to have a devastating effect on families and pensioners. There are some measures, if they were separated, that we could support. We are not bloody-minded. There is a provision in here, for example, which deals with automating the income stream review process. On its face, that is something that makes good sense. We have some reservations. You, I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, like every member in this House, have had your electorate office absolutely inundated with complaints from Centrelink clients saying that they have been sent a letter or had a contact from a debt collection agency for a debt that they do not owe, because the Minister for Human Services has absolutely mishandled the existing debt and data-matching services that are in place for Centrelink. So you can understand in these circumstances why we are very nervous about the competence of this minister and this government and about extending these provisions to other clients of Centrelink. We will look at that in the Senate and allow a Senate committee to examine it in some detail. I want to go through some of the provisions and point out why any member in a regional electorate should not be supporting these measures. Let's look at the impact of the family tax benefit changes, which are going to leave people currently receiving family tax benefit A $200 a year, on average, worse off per child if they are affected by these changes. The member for Dawson has threatened all sorts of things over the last couple of weeks. He threatens almost on a daily basis to either resign his position, resign from the party or cross the floor. This is a bill and these are measures which he should be crossing the floor on. If he was thinking about the 9,653 people within his electorate who are currently in receipt of family tax benefit part A, he would be concerned about the impact of this bill on his constituents. If he is not moved by that, he might be moved by the impact of this bill on young jobseekers. If ever there was a measure that was going to create rigidity within the labour force and that has not been thought through when it comes to how it is going to impact on regional Australia, it is this provision. This provision is going to force young jobseekers who are under 25 to wait five weeks before claiming benefit. I am not sure what they are supposed to live on for five weeks. Presumably, everyone assumes that they have wealthy parents and are living at home, but I can tell you that is not the case. This is going to impact on a lot of people indeed. I said it is going to build rigidity into the labour market, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, a few months ago, we were gripped in debate over something called the backpacker tax. We were looking at ways that we could put in place taxation arrangements to encourage more overseas workers to come into the country to assist our farmers and horticulturists during picking season because they could not find the domestic labour force. In electorates and areas where there is very high unemployment, including youth unemployment, this measure is going to make that worse. I have singled out the member for Dawson. In his electorate there is 8.6 per cent youth unemployment. That is not going to get any better because of these provisions. These provisions are going to make it harder for people trying to take on short-term work as a pathway to full-time work, particularly in the agricultural sector. Why would somebody pick up two weeks work picking fruit or working in agricultural industries only to lose an additional five weeks of benefit? Each and every time they have to reapply they are going to have their benefits cut for an additional five weeks. The member for Gilmore has had a bit to say. She has not exactly covered herself in glory in this House in the last 24 hours. There is 20 per cent youth unemployment in her area. This measure, as well as the proposition to force young jobseekers aged between 22 and 24 onto the lesser youth allowance and off Newstart allowance, will impact on those people. It will cost those people $48 a week. As I said, there is 20 per cent youth unemployment in the electorate of Gilmore. The electorate of Gilmore has some of the highest numbers of pensioners and people approaching retirement age in this country. The energy supplement in this bill will be removed for people who apply for a pension. That is to say that it is grandfathered but anybody applying for the pension after the implementation of this legislation will not get the energy supplement. It is about $14 a fortnight for single pensioners and about $21 a fortnight for a couple of pensioners. You would think that, if you represented an electorate where over the next few years there will be over 22,000 people approaching retirement age—you heard that right; over 22,000 people—you would think twice before you came in here and voted for this bill. There are over 22,000 people between the ages of 55 and 64 in the electorate of Gilmore who will lose access to this provision if the member for Gilmore comes into this House and votes for this bill. She is not alone; the member for Leichardt has over 20,000 people in his electorate who will also be impacted. I was in Western Australia last week. I had the great pleasure of being in Kalgoorlie, amongst other places. I met with Labor's candidate for the seat of Kalgoorlie. He is going to give the conservatives a run for their money in that seat. The member for O'Connor will not be doing his party any favours in either the Western Australian election or the federal election if he votes for this bill. Over 10,000 people currently in receipt of family tax benefit part A are going to be impacted if he votes for this bill. There are over 8,000 people on family tax benefit part B. These are the people who are going to be affected by the abolition of the FTB part B end-of-year supplement. It is $354 per year. It might not be much to many people in this place but for the families who are relying on it—and there are over 8,000 of them in the electorate of O'Connor—it matters a lot. If a member of this place were interested in representing the interests of their electorate, they would be very concerned about the changes to the jobseeker provisions, particularly for young people. I have in mind the electorate of Page where there is very high unemployment in general and very high youth unemployment. We need to be doing things to encourage employers to find jobs for these people. We need to be doing things to make it easier for these people to get into training and get into the workforce. In the seat of Page there is very high youth unemployment. There is over 8.6 per cent youth unemployment in the town of Grafton alone. I expect the member for Page to come in here and oppose this bill because of the impact it will have on them. I see the member for Cowper is in the chamber at this time. There is over 8.6 per cent youth unemployment in the town of Coffs Harbour, which is in the member for Cowper's electorate. I expect him to stick up for these people. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Coffs Harbour's youth unemployment rate is less than the national average. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B He has got a bit to say at the moment. Let us see how he votes on it. Let us see if he votes in the interests— Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM What's your unemployment rate? Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B The member asks me what youth unemployment is in my electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very happy to take this as an intervention, as a question. It is atrocious. In some of the lakeside suburbs in my electorate, in Berkeley— Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM What are you doing about it? Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B He asks me what I am doing about it. I am ensuring that these people do not have their benefits cut. I am ensuring that we do everything within our power to ensure that they get a decent education and to ensure that you and your state colleagues do not gut the TAFE system, so that these guys get a decent chance in life. All you can do is cut their pensions and cut their benefits and make it harder and harder for them to get a decent go. I will not take a lecture from the member for Cowper, who will not stand up for the people in his electorate. At least there are some people on this side of the House who will stand up for people in their electorate who are struggling. He is worried. He makes a lot of noise. I know that he is worried. He can see other parties and Independents champing at the bit— Mr Hartsuyker interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Whitlam has the call. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B for the defeat of the people of the National Party who thought that they could take their electorates for granted. When political mortality flashes before their eyes, they jump up on all sorts of things. But they will not stand up for the people within their electorates who are struggling. They will not stand up for the people who are their heroes. There are absolute lions in their own electorates. I am sure the member for Cowper gives a fine speech on the stumps in Coffs Harbour about the importance of looking after people who are disadvantaged but, when he comes down here along with all of his other National Party colleagues, he falls in like a lamb behind Malcolm Turnbull and sticks up his hand for all of the cuts which are going to damage and hurt the interests of the lowest income people and the most disadvantaged people in his electorate. He came close at the last election. He had a bit of a scare himself at the last election, if I recall correctly. There is a reason for that. It is because he and every other one of the National Party MPs are taking their electorates for granted, and their electorates are starting to wake up to them. We will ensure that every day that this parliament sits and every day between now and the next election we will hold them accountable for the fact that they are voting against the very interests of the people they are sent here to represent. I oppose the bill and I support the second reading amendment. 17:24 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I am pleased to join my colleagues in opposing this bill and supporting the very sensible amendment that has been moved by the member for Jagajaga. Once again this bill represents this government's twisted priorities and out-of-touch approach when it comes to not only policy development but reining in the budget deficit and ensuring that our fiscal position is sustainable into the future. This bill personifies the attack by this government on the most vulnerable and weak in our community. We all know that we need to make savings in the budget. We also know that we need to increase revenue if we are going to continue to fund basic services such as Medicare, grow our education system, grow our healthcare system, invest in renewable energy and ensure that people have good vocational education and a pathway into a job. But it is about the way you do it. It is about the approach you take in doing that and the philosophy that you take to that approach. The philosophy of the Abbott and Turnbull governments has been to attack the weakest and most vulnerable in our community, the lowest income people and women and to ask them to make savings and to make changes to make their difficult lives even more difficult so that more money can come into the budget but, at the same time, give the wealthiest Australians tax cuts. I am of course speaking of the $50 billion corporate tax cut the Turnbull government is proposing, the changes that have been made to superannuation and ensuring that the deficit levy on the highest income level Australians is removed. Those measures represent the government's twisted priorities. The fact is that this bill attacks the most vulnerable and weak, but the big end of town, the big corporations with turnovers of up to $1 billion, gets a tax cut. That is not fair. It is also actually worse for our economy in the longer run because it is attacking the majority of the population. As the Reserve Bank governor pointed out before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics last week, the big problem for the Australian economy moving forward is the level of household debt and the fact that it is affecting consumption in Australia. People are saving to fund their mortgages and their household debt and they are not spending. If we are going to have a healthy economy in the longer run, we need to encourage people to spend. This bill does the complete opposite of that, because it attacks the majority of the population and takes money out of their pockets. So does the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission with respect to penalty rates on a cut to the take-home pay of some of the most vulnerable and weakest in our community. This bill, again, represents the Turnbull government's warped approach to supporting Australian families. In 2013 then Prime Minister Abbott played a very cruel prank on the Australian people when he declared that paid parental leave would be his signature policy. Mr Abbott promised that he would help families with the real costs of raising children. Then on Mother's Day, of all days, in 2015 the Abbott government announced that it wanted to cut paid parental leave to tens of thousands of new mums each year. Around the same time, Abbott government ministers labelled women who had received paid parental leave from their employers as 'rorters' and 'fraudsters' and employers who wanted to support their staff as 'scammers'—a real highlight of the government's mean-spirited campaign of cuts to Australian families. Of course, these reforms were taken on by Malcolm Turnbull when he became the Prime Minister. So this process of attacking working mothers has continued under the Turnbull prime ministership. In contrast to this government, Labor do not take that approach when it comes to working women. We do not ridicule them. We do not chastise them. We will stand up for working women who have bargained for paid parental leave, often sacrificing wage increases. We will stand up for their employers, who have supported them by providing them with paid parental leave. These are good Australian employers who have done the right thing by their staff in providing them with those paid parental leave schemes. Asking women to choose which scheme was better was a wicked approach by this government that has done nothing to ensure that mothers get the support that they need in the early years when they are rearing children and so that ultimately they can come back into the workforce and maintain working mother status. We will support and protect the scheme that we introduced and designed to allow mothers to combine government and employer schemes. It was designed to provide the World Health Organisation's recommended 26-weeks leave to as many mothers as possible. The time spent by new mothers with their babies in the early days and weeks of their lives is some of the most precious and valuable time imaginable. Labor will not apologise for doing whatever it takes to protect that from the government's attempt to reduce it to just 20 weeks. With the introduction of this omnibus bill, the government is continuing its twisted attempts to rob Peter to pay Paul. The bill introduces $2.7 billion worth of cuts to family payments alone to pay for a $1.6 billion childcare package. In total, it rips $5.6 billion from household budgets of low-income Australians. The bill will take more than $3.30 off pensioners, families, new mums and young Australians for every $1 in proposed childcare assistance. Labor will not support this approach. We will not support the government's attacks on pensioners through the energy supplement, their attacks on the unemployed through changes to Newstart and their attacks on families through reductions to family payments. The government even admits—they have admitted freely—that their cuts will affect 1.5 million Australian families and leave them worse off. Families losing their family tax benefit A supplements will be around $200 worse off per child and families receiving family tax benefit B will lose around about $350 each year. These cuts add up for families who are struggling to make ends meet. For example, a typical family with two children and a single income of $60,000 will lose around $750 a year. A couple with one child on $75,000 will lose over $1,000 per year. The worst hit will be single parents whose youngest child is 17 and over and has finished school. These families will lose over $3,000 a year in family tax benefits alone. Again, it represents this government's approach of attacking the most weak and vulnerable in our community. These are people who live from week to week, who struggle to make ends meet and for whom finding the money to afford one of their schoolkid's excursions is a challenge. They very rarely get opportunities to go out to the movies or to dinner, or stuff like that. Or, when the car breaks down, they struggle to find the money to have it repaired. They are, generally, renting and are struggling to make ends meet. But these are the people that this government is seeking to attack through this bill to pay for a reform that is going to end up leaving many more children and families worse off when it comes to the provision of child care. I said at the beginning that budget savings are all about priorities. This government has been shown to have the wrong priorities time and time again by attacking the most vulnerable over and over again. We have seen it with the Medicare co-payment, the freeze to the Medicare rebate and the $100,000 degrees. But, at the same time, they seek to let off the big end of town. They are not only letting them off but offering a $50 billion corporate tax cut over the next 10 years for corporations earning up to $1 billion in revenue. This massive tax cut, which includes Australia's hugely profitable big banks, comes whilst the government is pushing young job seekers to live on nothing for five weeks. That is why Labor is opposing this bill. We will stand up for pensioners where this government moves on the Pensioner Education Supplement and the Education Entry Payments—small payments that go some way to supporting people on income support who start studying. These changes will impact a large cross section of Australia, particularly those with not much to lose before they are pushed to the wall. These are the changes that are hurting regular Australians and are what the people in my community are interested in. These are things that people in the community that I come from are worried about. Yet, the government continues to focus on itself. We have seen that writ large over the course of this week. In these last few weeks we have seen the government and this Prime Minister talk about themselves. We have seen the member for Warringah talk about cutting immigration numbers and reducing the renewable energy target. We have seen the current Prime Minister desperately attack others to retain his tenuous hold on the top job. Meanwhile, they introduce bills that seek to take more and more from everyday Australians. It is simply not on, and Labor will not stand for it. We will oppose reforms such as this. Labor supports additional investment in child care, but this government's attempts to link that with cuts to pensions, families, new mums and young Australians are beyond the pale and cannot be supported. We are not alone, with groups such as the Australian Childcare Alliance, Early Childhood Australia, Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, Family Day Care Australia and the Early Learning Association of Australia all supporting our opposition to this move. Recent analysis by the ANU shows that these childcare changes will leave one in three families worse off; 330,000 families will be worse off and 126,000 will be no better off. That is almost half of all families. Under these reforms, 550,000 families will be worse off or no better off. The harsh activity test will leave children in 150,000 families worse off. Labor is particularly concerned for Indigenous children across the country who will feel the impact of cuts to 300 mostly Indigenous services that reach 20,000 children. Once again—and I said at the beginning—government is all about priorities. This bill tells you everything that you need to know about the Abbott-Turnbull government's priorities and their approach to budget repair. Again, they are attacking the most vulnerable and weak in our community. In particular, those affected by these changes are women. Women, in case members of the government have not noticed, do it tough enough in Australian society. We are not reducing the gender pay gap, we are not making it easier for women to break through the glass ceiling, we are not making it easier for women to have children, continue in their careers and remain productive members of society with reforms such as these. These reforms, and decisions like the Fair Work Commission decision last week on penalty rates, make it harder for women to participate in our community. That is why they must be condemned. These reforms make it tougher for pensioners. The member for Jagajaga and I met with a group of pensioners in our community last Thursday. Multicultural communities came together in our area to discuss these pension changes. They are horrified by the fact that they potentially will lose their education supplements, their energy supplements and their pension after a period of going overseas for six weeks. These reforms attack the unemployed, some when they are at their most vulnerable—people like those who are going to lose their jobs as a result of the car industry shutting down. If they do not have decent redundancy schemes and they do not have the ability to access Newstart for five weeks then it can leave people in a precarious financial situation if they have just lost their job at one of the most vulnerable periods in their life in terms of their mental health. At the same time they offer tax cuts to big business. They make it easier for the richest in our community. It represents this government's twisted priorities, and that is why I and my Labor colleagues oppose this bill. I urge all members of the House to support the sensible amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. 17:38 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. This government does not seem to have learnt that the Australian people do not want the axe taken to people who have just lost their job and are trying to get onto their feet, while at the same time the government says that it needs to give a tax cut to the big banks. This government has not learnt that it is not their front man that is the problem—it is the policies. It is what they stand for. It is the fact that in this bill we are seeing, resurrected, many of the zombie measures that the Senate and the public so resoundingly stood up against and defeated when former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, tried to introduce them. This is not only a version of the Abbott budget that was defeated; it actually contains many of exactly the same measures. If you want to get a sense of what this government thinks is a fair way to balance the books and raise revenue, you only have to look at what we in this parliament are being asked to debate this week. On the one hand, this bill says, 'We're going to cut support to families; we're going to cut welfare for young unemployed people; we're going to force people to wait longer before getting assistance when they're trying to find a job; and we're going to cut paid parental leave'. The government comes in here and tells us that it is an absolute priority that we cut spending on those who need it most because they are looking for a job or for parents who are wanting to spend time with their young children. Yet on the other hand the government says, 'There is another bill that we want you to debate this week—a bill to give some of the biggest companies in Australia a tax cut. There's a bill that is going to cost $50 billion to the public purse over the next decade so big companies can pay a bit less tax; so that the banks, who are making world-leading record profits, can have about $7 billion extra in their coffers.' The government comes in here says, 'On the one hand we want to take $4 billion away from families, in terms of family tax benefit, and away from supports for people who are seeking work; on the other hand we want to give $7 billion at least to the big four banks, who are making world-leading record profits.' That should tell you everything that you need to know about the priorities of this government. We in Australia are witnessing a growing gap between the very rich and everyone else. We are seeing unemployment, especially among young people, remain at persistent highs. What does the government do? Instead of saying, let's put in place the kind of nation-building programs that might allow young people to get a job; let's do something about the fact that in many country towns unemployment for young people is norther of 20 per cent; instead of saying let's create jobs the people, what do they do? They say, 'No—we are going to punish young people for not finding the jobs that are not there in the first place.' So this bill, for example, seeks to reintroduce a waiting period of several weeks before you are able to get unemployment assistance if you find yourself unemployed. The landlord does not care that the reason you have no money is that the government has taken it away. The landlord just wants you to pay the rent. The electricity company just wants you to pay the bill to keep the lights on. They do not care that you are trying to find another job, a job that may not be there because you are in an area of very high unemployment. That is why, in this country up till now, up till this government, up till this bill, we said, 'If you find yourself doing it tough in Australia we will look after you.' At the moment I can say—I do not think government members appreciate this—that living on unemployment benefits is no easy ride. It is so far below that poverty line that it is actually a barrier to people getting into work. The unemployment benefit at the moment is so low that you do not have that extra money to get a haircut to get ready for the job interview or to buy some nice clothes or to put yourself through a training course. That is why people have been screaming, right across the spectrum from the Greens and welfare organisations right across to business groups, saying that we have to lift the level of unemployment benefit because it is becoming a poverty trap that people might get stuck in and never be able to get out of and get a job because the helping hand is not there. What does the government do? The government says, let's take that hole in the safety net and rip it open even further by making people wait a month to get unemployment benefits in the first place. What are people meant to do during that time? Turn to crime? Do things that are unsavoury in order to pay the rent and pay those electricity bills? That is what this government is asking. Then it comes along and says, 'We want to add that. We want to take away a big chunk of family tax benefits that are paid to people. Even though it's going to hurt those on the lowest incomes the most, frankly we don't care because we've got to find a way to fund the tax cuts for the big banks. So we're going to do it by taking away money from single parents and other families.' You could not dream this stuff up! When the government did dream this stuff up in 2014, the Senate and the Australian people resoundingly said no. Many of us hoped when the government got rid of the former Prime Minister and put in a new one that they had heard what the Australian people were saying. But it seems this government has a completely tin ear. If this government thinks the problem is just the front man rather than the policies, then it should come as no surprise why every poll at the moment says this government is on a hiding to nothing. So a bit of free advice for the government: if you want to turn around your appalling standing amongst the Australian people, do not come to parliament and ask us to cut money that is going to families and do not come and ask us to cut money to people who are doing it tough as they try to find a new job so that you can fund a tax cut for the big banks. The Australian people have seen through you. It is why you lost your first Prime Minister. And if you think that repeating the same thing over and over again is going to get you a different result, that is pretty much the clinical definition of insanity. You need to go back to the drawing board, government, and come up with a fairer way, a way that involves saying to young families, 'You've just had a baby and we know that the best thing that can happen for families is to have as much time as possible at home with their new babies—ideally six months.' What you do not do is what this government has done. There is a small scheme that is in place at moment that allows you to take 18 weeks, and in some workplaces they have been able to negotiate something on top of that—because that scheme was always meant to be a floor not a ceiling—and the government has come along and said, 'If you're in one of those workplaces where you've negotiated the right to spend more than 18 weeks at home with your newborn child, we're going to take money off you'. This is the party that talks about family values. It has the temerity to come in here and attack members from across the political spectrum and say that the kind of progressive Australia that we are advocating for is somehow opposed to traditional values, and yet they say, 'In order to fund a tax cut for Gina Rinehart, would you please—new mum, new dad—pay for it yourself by having less time at home with your kids?' What an outrageous proposition! The Australian public is rejecting it in droves. The Greens are rejecting it as well, because we know that there are fairer ways to raise money than by taking the axe to the young and the old and the sick and the poor, as this government does day after day after day. And if money is tight in the budget, as the government says, well do not spend $50 billion on a tax cut for big business, do not hand out $7 billion to the banks. It is not going to result in any extra jobs being created; it is just going to result in money going straight into shareholders' pockets. Straight into the pockets of the one per cent. If we want to raise the money to pay for the services that Australians rightly expect, if we want to make sure in this country that there is child care available that is affordable for everyone who needs it when they need it, if we want to make sure that new parents can spend six months at home with their kids as is the case in many other countries—six months where you get a decent supplement to look after yourself while you are doing that—if we want to make sure there is enough money available so that everyone can go and see the doctor when they get sick without having to fork out a co-payment, or a co-payment by stealth that the government is proposing, out of their own pocket, then let us have a bit of guts and say that perhaps there is money at the moment going to those who quite frankly do not need it and who could look after themselves. Why, for example, does the taxpayer spend about $2 billion every year so that the likes of Gina Rinehart and her associates can get subsidised fuel to put into their trucks on mining sites? Everyone else pays above 38c a litre in tax when they go to the bowser to fill up, but when the likes of Gina Rinehart do it they pay the tax and then they get it back courtesy of the taxpayer. They get to have cheap diesel fuel. No-one else gets that kind of cheap subsidy, certainly not the general population in Australia. Farmers get it. They deserve it. Keep it for farmers. But the likes of Gina Rinehart clearly do not need it. Wind back on that tax break and there is a couple of billion dollars, which means you do not have to take the axe to people who have just had a baby and are wanting to spend time at home with their new baby. Why don't we ask why it is that the tax system in this country gives billions of dollars in handouts to people who already own their first house to then go and buy their second, third or fourth house? Why are we subsidising people who have already got a house to buy more than one house at the same time as young people are finding it impossible to break into the housing market? Let us get rid of negative gearing and the capital gains tax concessions that say: 'If you're wealthy enough to make you money through shares or property, we'll give you a 50 per cent discount. But if you're a poor sucker who makes their money through working and paying wages on a pay-as-you-go basis and paying your tax like that, you have to pay the full rate.' Let us get rid of that and we free up tens of billions of dollars that can go to education, that can go to paid parental leave, that can go to build renewable energy to make sure that power bills go down. The Australian Industry Group today has said bringing more renewable energy into the system is going to drive down power bills. Let us build some more renewable energy so that we drive down power bills. If we have the guts to stand up to the very powerful in this country we can find the money we need to pay for the services Australians expect without having to take the axe to the young, the old, the sick and the poor. But it takes guts to do that, while this government has shown nothing but cowardice. This government has shown nothing but a willingness to deliver for the big businesses that fund their campaigns and put them in parliament. Well, you know what? People in this country have had enough. They can see that this parliament is being run in the interests of a powerful few rather than being run for the good of the many and they have had enough. They have had an absolute gutful. It is astounding and outrageous but probably not surprising that the government still persists with these cuts. What makes it even more reprehensible is that they are trying to hold the parliament hostage by saying: if you do not pass these cuts then we might not put more money into child care and it might affect the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What an outrageous way to behave. This parliament is not to be held hostage by a government that is itself just doing the bidding of big business. This parliament is here to give voice to the will of the people. And we know that there is a better way of finding the money to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme or to fund increases to child care. The Greens refuse to be held hostage by this government and the Greens refuse to join in the attack on people who cannot afford to pay while so many people are getting by with so much money courtesy of the government. If the government wants to go away and rethink its approach to raising money for the services of Australians expect, I think it will get a pleasant surprise. I think it would do well in the polls. But, as long as it does not rethink its approach, the Greens will stand up and block these measures in full in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. This bill should be opposed. 17:54 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Governing is of course about choices, about the choices we make. This debate shows how profound the choices are that face Australia at the moment and how desperately out of touch this government is. On the Labor side of this House, we have made some clear choices. We stand with Australians. We stand with young Australians looking for work, with Australian families, with new mums and expectant mums, with everyone in receipt of family payments to make ends meet. We stand with the kids who will benefit from quality early years education and with their families, with the mums and dads looking to make sure they can fully participate in the workforce. We stand for the Australian compact that the Labor Party has carved out over so many years, but this government is turning its back on this. This government in this bill is standing for a much smaller Australia and a divided Australia at that. This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 is the government really writ small. It shows the poverty of the vision of this Prime Minister, a pale imitation of the vision of his predecessor, as we see with so much of this bill seeking to bring back to life elements of that 2014 budget and its contempt for so many Australians who are struggling to get by. So I am very pleased to join my Labor colleagues to rise in opposition the bill that is before the House and in support of the amendments moved by the shadow minister, the member for Jagger Jagger. This debate that we are having today does not take place in a vacuum. It takes place at a time when inequality in Australia is at a post Great Depression high and the trend is getting worse, sadly. This trend is of course being exacerbated by decisions this government is taking, including the measures that are proposed and contained in the legislation before us now. Again, it comes down to choices. We can choose to take strong action as Labor has done to reverse this trend to inequality or we can continue down this path to exacerbate the gap between the haves and the have-nots in Australian society, recognising, as we do on this side of the House, that this is not just a question of morality; it is also a question of efficiency, knowing as we know now that more unequal societies have much lesser prospects of sustaining economic growth, the sort of economic growth to sustain all of our living standards. Today, as we continue to debate in this parliament the wages of 700,000 of Australia's lowest paid workers, this side of the House is standing up for them. On the other side of the House, the Prime Minister talks about Labor instead of standing up for 700,000 Australians who are struggling to get by, who deserve a parliament on their side. We are seeing that in a wider context too. I read in TheSydney Morning Herald today an article by Eryk Bagshaw that points out company profits soar as wages fall. We are again seeing a big gap opening up between those Australians who are doing very well—corporate interests and individuals—and too many Australians who are being left behind, left behind in an economy that is not working for them, an economy that is not being managed effectively by this government in their interests or in all of our interests. We see, when we look at the vision of this government for many Australians—the millions of Australians who depend from time to time on payments—in the words of the minister in his second reading speech when he talks about his vision, weasel words. The Government wants a welfare system that supports the most vulnerable, encourages those capable of work or study to do so, reduces intergenerational welfare dependency, and is sustainable for the future. These aspirations are not in evidence in the bill before us or in the attitude of the government generally. I talked about choices at the outset and the choice Labor has made to stand up for Australia's social compact, to stand up for Australians in need at times of need. The government has chosen at this time of record inequality to cut, to rip away valued supports, to cut family tax benefits, to cut paid parental leave, to cruelly attack young people and to cruelly attack migrant pensioners—many of whom I am very proud to represent in this place—and, as the member for Jagajaga said, to take $2.7 billion out of the pockets of Australian families. But of course that is not all. There is more. We see the linking of the savage cuts to a promise, which is illusory at best, of so-called reform to what the government persists in calling child care. There are a few things which need to be said about this. The first is of course that early education is just that; it is not only child care. The government should recognise this, and that is important for a couple of reasons. As a matter of principle, we on this side of the House recognise that encouraging the employment participation of parents, of mothers and fathers, is a critical goal in the interests of their sense of choice and their fulfilment from participating in the formal workforce, and in the interests of the wider Australian economy. But there are also extraordinary benefits to be gained from quality early education, benefits that we on this side of the House recognise. Perhaps one of the cruellest aspects of this deeply cruel and divisive piece of legislation is the imposition of a very harsh so-called activity test which will remove the opportunity for quality early education from some of the very kids who would benefit from it the most. The government is again turning its back on evidence for its own ideological fixations—a government that is prepared to introduce, in effect, what would be a life sentence of reduced opportunities for young kids. There are also these questions of process that my colleagues have touched on in this debate so far. The manner in which the provisions in this bill have been put before the parliament is so much worse than just unsatisfactory. It is no way to make laws. It is no way to advance the serious public policy issues that go to debate around child care and early education, on the one hand, and supporting a sustainable but just and generous safety net of payments and programs, on the other. The attempt to effectively blackmail members of this place by linking these changes must be rejected, and it is clearly rejected by Labor members. It is extraordinary that any government would seek to link what they claim to be significant improvements—at the very least, ending uncertainty when it comes to child care and early education support—to cuts to the NDIS and cuts to family payments. So I call on members opposite to think about the legislation that is before us and to have regard to the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. I call on members opposite to end this support for cruel, unnecessary cuts that will deepen inequality in Australia, cuts that will hurt individuals and families, cuts that will damage our social fabric and, indeed, our economic prospects more generally. I also call on them to end this short-sighted view of child care and early learning—in particular, to enable Indigenous kids, such as those who attend Bubup Wilam, the Aboriginal children and family centre in my electorate of Scullin, and other vulnerable kids in regional Australia the opportunity to access the early learning that is so important as a foundation for their further education and their life prospects more generally. There is so much in this bill that needs to be talked about in this place and in the community. Time, unfortunately, does not allow me or any other member to go through the full litany of horrors it contains, but there are a few matters that I drew on earlier that need to be expanded on a little bit further. I would like to start with young people, because in this bill the government is saying that it expects young Australians who are looking for work to live on nothing for five weeks. The logic of the Commission of Audit lives on, even though its formal report has been dismissed. And it is a cruel logic, no matter how long the waiting period is, to expect people to live on fresh air. But the government's cruelty to young Australians does not end there. There will be a cut of $48 a week for 22- to 24-year-old jobseekers, who are being pulled off Newstart and onto youth allowance, a saving for its own sake that is heedless of the impact on these young people's lives. If we step back and look at the wider context, youth unemployment is at unacceptable levels, particularly in some regional communities and in areas of our major cities, including some suburbs in Melbourne's north, but this is a government that has no plan to invest in these young people's skills and no plan for jobs—no plan for jobs. Indeed, we have had much discussion about the government's casual and contemptuous attitude to the wage rates of many young people, in the retail sector in particular. I mentioned earlier that I am very proud to represent a culturally and linguistically diverse area, including many pensioners who were born overseas and who came to Australia, worked hard all their lives and have made an incredible contribution to Australian life and who are confused, bemused, hurt and horrified by the proposal that, after only six weeks away from Australia—they may be visiting friends or relatives, perhaps for the last time, to say goodbye—they will have their pension rate reduced. That is after only six weeks. These are people who are often quite old, travelling quite some distance. We on this side of the House say that these pensioners are not second-class citizens. We on the Labor side of this House will stand up for them, as we would for anyone else. We recognise their contribution and we will not stand for this form of cruel discrimination, particularly when it sits, again, in a wider context of further cuts to small but important payments to pensioners. There is also the cut to the energy supplement, a big issue for the pensioners I represent as well as for Newstart recipients. The previous speaker, the member for Melbourne, touched on paid parental leave. What a sad journey this government has had in its treatment of working families and, in particular, working mothers. The government, which called working mothers 'double dippers', amongst other unfair epithets, is continuing down its path of attacking rights at work and attacking the capacity of mums and dads to spend critical time with their children. In doing so, they are undermining the bargaining that many people have undertaken in good faith, in which they made trade-offs to prioritise time with young children. This proposition before us will put in place perverse incentives for employers as well. The family payment cuts in this bill deserve serious attention as well. But let me say this: we are talking about proposals that would affect 1½ million families—1½ million families would be worse off should the provisions in this bill be adopted. Perhaps the worst aspect of this rotten legislation goes to its treatment of early years. Linking these provisions to unfair and unrelated cuts is bad in both process and in substance. Let me be very clear about this: in the Labor Party we do not regard investment in child care and early learning as something which should be contingent on these sorts of savings. We reject the logic—if it can be called logic—that is advanced in support of this bill. It is a curious way, to put the matter most generously, to seek to exhume those zombie measures from the 2014 budget and to add some new nasties. It is so deeply cynical. What sort of government would link funds for child care and for early years with family payment cuts? What sort government would seek to impose such adverse consequences on vulnerable young people—Aboriginal children and other children who have not started life with the advantages that many others do? What sort of government would exclude those people who, the evidence tells us, will benefit most from quality early years from those opportunities? We have before us an audacious attempt to further damage Australia's social compact, to rip up the ties that seek to unite Australians—those ties which recognise our shared interest and our shared concerns in holding one another together. Labor will always stand against these cruel cuts and stand up for the Australians who depend on having a government on their side. 18:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to oppose the omnibus saving bill and to support the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. When the history of the Abbott and Turnbull governments is written, their record will be one of unceasing attacks on those Australians who have the lowest incomes. Whenever this government feels that it is losing control of the agenda, it makes a show of targeting people on welfare. It operates on the motto, 'When in trouble, attacked the poor'. Consider the Centrelink debacle, the refusal to stand up for penalty rates, the pension changes that took place in January and the mothership of cruelty under this government—the 2014 budget. The bill before us is the latest example. It is an attempt to sneak through many of the unfair changes from the 2014 budget, changes that were not only rejected by Australians overwhelmingly but changes that cost Tony Abbott the prime ministership. The impact of the cuts and punitive measures in this bill would be felt right across the country, including in my electorate of Grayndler. Young people, new parents, low- and middle-income families, pensioners and elderly migrants—these are the people who will pay the price for the government's economic policies. Those opposite know that there is a human cost to these cuts, but it is a cost they wilfully ignore. They would rather give big businesses a $50 billion tax cut than help single mothers keep food on the table. They would rather withhold financial support for unemployed young people than crack down on big corporate tax evaders. And if anyone has the courage to complain, as has happened to people in my electorate of Grayndler, then government vilifies them and attacks them. No wonder this government is in such trouble. No wonder the member for Warringah is stalking the Prime Minister. Labor will never turn our backs on vulnerable people. For us, it is a fundamental principle that it is the role of government to maintain a fair social safety net. You judge a society not by how it looks after its billionaires, but by how it looks after its battlers. We also believe as an article of faith that the government owes basic respect to all of our citizens, wherever they live, however they vote and whatever their bank balance. This bill targets families. It contains cuts to family tax benefits—cuts that will leave a typical family on $60,000 around $750 a year worse off. One and a half million families will be worse off through the loss off their end-of-year supplements. That is $726 a year per child each year for Family Tax Benefits Part A and $354 per family each for Family Tax Benefit Part B. On top of that, single-parent families will lose their Family Tax Benefit Part B entirely when their youngest child turns 16. A single-parent family on $60,000 with a 17-year-old child in high school will be around $3,300 a year worse off. Just think about that: a family on $60,000 a year being $3,300 worse off. Overall the cuts in this measure would affect at least 4000 families in my electorate of Grayndler. This bill targets parents. It has in it cuts to paid parental leave. Some 70,000 new mums with a median income of $62,000 would be $5,600 worse off on average. As an example, a retail worker who gets eight weeks' paid leave from her employer will only have access to 12 weeks from the government instead of 18 weeks. This new mother would have 20 weeks of paid leave at home instead of 26 weeks, a loss of some $4,030 in support. This bill targets pensioners, scrapping the energy supplement—a billion-dollar cut to pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients. Scrapping the energy supplement to new pensioners will be a cut of $14.10 per fortnight to single pensioners, or some $365 a year. Pensioner couples will be $21.20 a fortnight worse off, or around $550 a year worse off. This bill also targets young people, with a five-week wait for Newstart, forcing young people under 25 to live off absolutely nothing for five weeks before they can access income support. How are these people supposed to afford food? How are they supposed to afford shelter? How are they supposed to survive during that period? The government does not have an answer to that. These are draconian measures put up by a government that simply does not understand that not everyone has a rich mum and dad to look after them. A lot of people in those circumstances are out there surviving by themselves and to cut them off from all income is just extraordinary. There are cuts to young people between the ages of 22 and 24 by pushing them onto a lower youth allowance—a cut of around $48 a week, or almost 2½ thousand dollars a year. How are they supposed to travel to search for work or a job interview with no income? Those opposite have no answers. If the government were serious about the welfare of young unemployed people, it would invest in them—invest in their education and invest in their training to make them job-ready. It would embrace its responsibility to act in a positive manner to help people find their way into work so they can become productive members of the community. This would be good not just for the individuals but for the economy because the earlier you intervene to provide that support the sooner people will be earning income, contributing tax and boosting the national economy, but, instead, the government has a punitive approach, a narrow-minded approach, a short-sighted approach and an ineffective approach. Those opposite say that people can just survive by getting money off their parents. They just do not get it. This is the nation of the fair go and we must simply not allow the accidental circumstances of a young person's birth to prevent them from achieving their potential. The bill also targets migrant pensioners. It cuts the pensions of around 190,000 migrant pensioners by limiting the amount of time they can spend overseas and still get their full pension, from 26 weeks to six weeks. Across my electorate in places like Marrickville, where I live, there are a lot of Greeks who came here post the Second World War, have worked their whole life and go back to see relatives. In Leichhardt and Haberfield, you have the Italian community. In Petersham you have the Portuguese community. In Ashfield is the Chinese community. In all of those areas there are substantial numbers of pensioners from migrant backgrounds. They are proud Australian citizens, but they still honour the heritage of their birth. They help care for loved ones, visit relatives and maintain cultural ties. The government's lack of care for low-income earners is made worse by its disturbing response to criticism. Earlier this year, I did a press conference in my electorate. I stood up with two people who were impacted by the government's Centrelink debacle, where they sent out robo-letters to people threatening them with action unless they paid money back. In many cases it was just wrong. There were people like Tony Barbar in my electorate who was diagnosed with cancer in 2010. He went on sick leave from his employment while he was receiving chemotherapy. He survived, and in January 2011 he went back to work. He is an honest young man in his twenties who contracted cancer and dealt with it, and as soon as he could he went back to work because that is the ethic in his family. In the lead-up to Christmas he received a debt letter from Centrelink informing him that he owed over 4½ thousand dollars. After these issues were raised publicly, the truth is that the government reduced his debt to just $400 from the 4½ thousand dollars. Another constituent of mine is Curtis Dickson from Leichhardt. He received Austudy while he was at university from 2007 to 2012. In the lead-up to Christmas, Curtis received notice that Centrelink believed he had been incorrectly reporting his earnings during the period and he needed to repay $750. That is simply not true. Now his debt has been reduced to zero. He had no debt whatsoever, and yet the response of the government was for the staff of Minister Christian Porter to go up to the gallery here and brief out wrongly that Curtis had voluntarily contacted Centrelink and that he did not receive a debt letter or a notice. They just lied about it. They lied about his personal details. They broke common decency, if not the law—and perhaps the law—by releasing those details. They released a photo to The Australian newspaper, an old Facebook photo, of him next to a Labor candidate in a state election, thereby suggesting somehow that he was unworthy because, at one stage, he may have handed out material, apparently, for a Labor candidate in a state election. They attacked his character in the most vicious way. They bullied and victimised people because they had the courage to stand up over the injustice that this government was seeking to repair. The fact is that the opposition does believe there is a need for budget repair. Under this government the debt, in terms of the budget deficit, has tripled. Net debt has climbed substantially. That is why the opposition has put forward alternative savings measures: changes to the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, and a genuine crackdown on tax evasion. We are prepared to be constructive—we have shown that with previous legislation. What we are not prepared to do is to simply sit back and be silent while these changes that target vulnerable people go through. What we are not prepared to do is to walk away from the principle that a nation is only as good as the way in which it treats its most vulnerable citizens. We must do better. We can do better than this mean-spirited legislation which shows that they did not get the lessons of 2014. That is why they are being rejected by the Australian people. The penalty rates changes are only the latest in the attack on people that we see represented by this legislation. The bill is flawed and should be rejected. 18:24 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I have to say I get a sense of deja vu debating this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, because we have seen all of this before. In 2014, despite the then Abbott government going to the election and clearly saying: 'We're not going to do anything drastic; we're not going to hurt families; we're not going to attack vulnerable people,' we then got the 2014 budget. It was aimed squarely at hurting middle Australia, hurting families, hurting young workers—indeed, at trying to destroy our Medicare system. At that time, it took strong opposition from the Labor opposition to stop those cuts. We were successful in communicating to the Australian people and indeed to the parliament why these cuts were so unfair, why these cuts were ripping the fabric of our society apart and why these cuts would hurt ordinary Australians right around this country. We had a significant fight on our hands then, but we won that fight. Yet now, instead of the government accepting that these unpopular measures were not palatable and not fair and not right for this country, we are here again debating these unfair measures. And there are so many unfair measures. I am not sure if the government thought, 'If we package it all up in one bill it will not seem as bad,' but of course our job as the opposition will be to pick apart the many unfair measures in this bill and fight against them. I have to say: what did not happen in 2014 but is happening now is even more disgraceful, and that is that the government is saying: 'We're not going to do any childcare reform unless you vote for cuts to family payments. We're not going to assist families with the cost of child care unless you cut paid parental leave.' This is a ransom demand—there is no other way to describe it. But it gets worse. The government not only said, 'We won't assist families with child care unless this parliament votes for unfair reforms,' they then threatened the NDIS. I was flabbergasted when I saw the Minister for Social Services and the Treasurer get up and say: 'If the parliament will not vote for these changes, the NDIS will get necked.' That was outrageous. And it tore up the bipartisan agreement on the NDIS. I was here during the creation of the NDIS and I have to say that the LNP was not overly enthusiastic about it—there were often comments about why it would not work—but they were dragged to it, kicking and screaming, and they said it was bipartisan. Now the Treasurer has put fear into so many families with a disability—families that have been waiting patiently for the rollout of the NDIS to come to their communities—by saying: 'If the parliament does not pass these unfair measures then we can't guarantee the NDIS.' That was an outrageous, unfair and really, really disgraceful act by this Treasurer. It shows that perhaps he does not have the temperament to negotiate on and deliver good policy through on-the-ground consultation and by working with this parliament. But that is where we now find ourselves. And, as I said, some of the very unfair measures in this bill date back to 2014. We all remember, though, on Mother's Day in 2015, when the then Treasurer got up and said, 'By the way, those that are taking two lots of paid parental leave—the employer paid parental leave and also the workplace parental leave—are ripping off the system. They are double dippers.' That was the most insulting thing that Treasurer Hockey could have said to these mothers. I happened to be sitting with my mothers group three days after that outrageous statement was made, and those mothers were concerned and disappointed at—indeed, insulted by—that comment. Those mothers had been cobbling together their employer paid parental leave with the government's paid parental leave so that they could have some quality time with their young children. And this government said they were double dippers—that they were somehow gypping the system. Well, that was absolutely outrageous. The government paid parental leave was always designed either to be a safety net for those who did not receive paid parental leave or to complement the employer-paid parental leave, to extend that time a mother or a father could have with their child. In my role as shadow minister for defence personnel we now have this measure back in front of us. Of course, some of those so-called double-dippers that the coalition likes to label are those women and men serving in our Defence Force. Serving in the Defence Force is not an ordinary job. There are long periods away from home, and having time off to have a child is even more difficult. Only 15.4 per cent of our Defence Force is made up of women, and the government is now saying, 'Those paid parental leave conditions that you may set your heart on and worked around to ensure that there were fewer barriers for you to have a child have now been ripped away.' Our Defence Force women, our policewomen and women in non-traditional areas of work which have not necessarily been women's work will feel the brunt of this cut and it will make things more difficult for them. Those on the other side of the House should listen to the evidence that was presented during the Senate inquiries on this topic. The distress being caused to so many by having this paid parental leave ripped away from them, meaning that they will spent less time with their children, is an absolute disgrace. Under these changes, around 70,000 mums with a median income of $62,000 will be $5,600 worse off. But it is not that dollar figure; it is about the time spent with a newborn baby, that time to bond, that time to not have to worry about the bills or to worry about going back to work—the ability to actually spend that quality time. But this government has said, 'No; you are not going to have that.' It really is quite bizarre, considering that this policy that the government have decided to go with is in stark contrast to the policy they took to the 2013 election with. The policy they took to the 2013 election was, 'We'll give six months full pay,' and now they turn around and say, 'Actually, we're going to rip away what you already have.' This shows that this government are not serious about supporting new mums. But, of course, it is not just new mums that this government is not serious about supporting; it is families as well. As I said at the beginning, the government has said, 'We will not give you any relief with your childcare arrangements if you don't take a cut to family payments.' In this bill, we will see families losing their FTBA supplements. They will be $200 worse off per child. And families receiving FTBB will lose $350 a year. These are significant cuts. It may be difficult for the government to fathom that these family cuts make a difference. They add up for families that are struggling to make ends meet. A typical family with two children on a single income of $60,000 will lose about $750 a year. The cuts that this government has already made, including the schoolkids bonus, are hurting families, and these cuts will only make it worse. But, of course, it is not just families that are in the sights of this government; young people are also being affected. I would particularly like to draw people's attention to the government making young people live on nothing for five weeks. This is a very, very harsh measure for those jobseekers who will not get assistance and will be made to wait for five weeks. But what do we hear from those opposite? Often we hear that young people should just go and get a good job. That is also the government's solution to getting into the housing market. Mr Dick 53517 Get rich parents. Ms RISHWORTH HWA Yes, get some rich parents and go find a good job. Of course, it is not that easy for many young people. Many parents and young people have come to me asking, 'But where are the jobs? Where does my young son or daughter go to get a job?' What we have seen from this government is reckless abandonment when it comes to job creation in this country and when it comes to the training of young people. Indeed, all the government wants to do is cut, cut, cut. Well, my message to this government is: there are a lot of people out there who are working hard who do not have rich parents and cannot just go and get a better job, and it is incumbent on us to support them. Jobseekers often find it very difficult to get into the job market. One of the precursors to getting into the job market is training, but there are also things like having stable accommodation and actually having clothes that you can go to an interview in. These are some of the precursors to be able to get a job. By saying, 'We will cut you off for five weeks and you will not have an income,' could potentially start that young person on a spiral. They might not be able to afford rent, they might not be able to afford some clothes to wear to an interview and they might not be able to pay for the petrol or the bus ticket to get to that interview for a job. This government is ignoring all the research that talks about prevention and putting the building blocks in place to support young people to get a job. Instead, it is ripping that support out. But it is not just young people, it is not just families and it is not just new mums; it is pensioners as well. In the 2014 budget we saw the most grievous attack on pensioners. I actually thought pensioners may be one group that the Liberal-National government would not touch. But no, no, no, no—they decided that they would go after pensioners as well. Firstly, we saw the potential cut of $80 a week. The Labor Party stood up against that cut and we were able to defeat it. Of course, they then brought in the unfair assets test. That is reverberating through my electorate. I have been inundated with people who have contacted me saying that they are finding it really difficult with these cuts and that they are left with a lot less disposable income. Pensioners are struggling out there, but, instead of recognising that, this government has included more cuts to the pension in this bill. Indeed, included in the cuts is a measure where a pensioner born overseas will have their rate of pension reduced if they are overseas for more than six weeks. This is unfairly punishing pensioners who choose to spend a period of time overseas to visit family or people they are connected to. In addition to that, the government wants to remove the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payments. These are small payments that go some way to supporting people on income support to start studying. The government really are focused on attacking hardworking middle-income Australians, families and vulnerable Australians. At the same time as saying, 'The budget cannot afford these payments,' they are planning massive tax cuts to big business in this country. If we can afford $50 billion worth of tax cuts in this country, surely we can afford to support our most vulnerable but also to support middle-income families, who are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. Surely we can find it in ourselves to support new mums and dads to have extra time off work instead of demonising them and labelling them as double dippers and rorters. Surely we can find it in our hearts to support young people trying to find a job. This is what a decent country does. It supports its middle-income and vulnerable citizens to make ends meet and have a go. The bill before us is a reheated version of the 2014 budget, which was squarely rejected by the Australian people. 18:39 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. I strongly oppose the bill on behalf of the residents that I represent in this place and strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister and member for Jagajaga. If there was ever a definition of what separates the current government from the Labor opposition, this bill is it. We know this government is ideologically obsessed with attacking and undermining the national social safety net, and this bill demonstrates that again and again with its long list of cuts. Today, in my address to the parliament, I will be focusing on a number of critical measures that this government deems acceptable to reduce the benefits of people who need and support child care, who require paid parental leave and who receive family tax benefit, as well as focusing on the attacks on pensioners and young people. We know that many Australians are struggling to make ends meet, and this bill will make it harder for everyday Australians to make ends meet because it rips money out of the pockets of some of our most vulnerable. The sheer contempt that is being shown to Australian families, soon-to-be parents, pensioners, people living with a disability, jobseekers and young people makes for quite a long rap sheet. It is interesting that the government has ceased even debating this bill. The government is refusing to put up speakers. Looking at the speakers list yesterday, I noted it was very thin but also very thin when it came to marginal seat holders, who did not want to get up and defend these cuts. Anyone who represents middle Australia or who represents working people in this parliament—and there are people on that side, particularly in the National Party, who represent working people—is going to have a very hard sell with some of these most draconian measures, which previous speakers on this side of the parliament have listed in the debate today. I want to be crystal clear about what this bill is about and what it will mean for families in my electorate of Oxley. It contains cuts to families by removing family tax benefits, cuts to paid parental leave for parents, cuts to pensioners, people with a disability, carers and Newstart recipients, cuts in support to jobseekers, cuts to young people by pushing them onto the lower youth allowance, cuts to the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment, and, sadly, cuts to the pension for migrant pensioners who travel overseas. In my electorate of Oxley, I have a wonderful multicultural mix of families who call the south-west of Brisbane home—families from right across the globe who reside and live in the suburbs in the seat of Oxley. Many of them come from Vietnam and I have met with a number of pensioners who regularly travel home to see family and to support family. These measures will have a serious impact on many of my residents. But the saddest thing, when the parliament was sitting last week, was to consider that this government thinks it is okay to pit vulnerable Australians against each other—'You can have support for the NDIS or you can have support for child care. You can support family tax cuts or you can support vulnerable people.' This logic is not the Australian way. I conducted a mobile office in my electorate on the weekend before last, at the shopping centre at Forest Lake, and a sole parent came to me with a long list of issues. She asked me why the parliament continually focuses on cuts to the people who can least afford it. Just once, I would like this parliament to have a conversation about multinational companies not paying their fair share of tax. Just once, I would like a proper discussion about those at the top end of the scale perhaps paying a little more. Just once, I would like a discussion about how we can make large corporations become better corporate citizens. But, since I have served in this parliament, all we have heard is toxic rhetoric about lifters and leaners and double dippers—and on it goes. I was elected in 2016, but who can forget that fantastic image of then Treasurer Hockey and the finance minister, Senator Cormann, chomping down cigars, proud of their efforts. Then on budget night the Treasurer was dancing to the Best Night of My Lifewhen he walked into this parliament to deliver a cruel budget. We later found out that that had a very devastating political impact on the government. There is a reason why so many government members of parliament lost their seats at the last election. The results have spoken for themselves in communities right across Australia. The Australian way is not to cut the safety net out from those who need it; the Australian way is to give a helping hand to those who need it. We know from reading this legislation that the government's proposed childcare changes will leave one in three families worse off—not better off but worse off. Some 330,000 families will be worse off and a further 126,000 will be no better off, so almost half a million families will be worse off or no better off. What do we get from it? We get cuts to Australian families. We get a whole lot of fresh news from this government. In addition to these savings or cuts—and the government pretends that they are not cuts—we are seeing 700,000 Australians facing cuts to their wages. It is interesting to note that when the decision came down last week the government did not focus on those people. They were of course focusing on themselves. The warfare inside the Liberal Party led to the front page of The Daily Telegraph saying 'Divided Liberals are losing faith as senior MPs prepare for opposition'. We know that these cuts will mean 700,000 Australians will lose up to $77 per week. That might not be a lot for the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, who is sitting at the table, or the member for Canning, who is in the chamber today, but it means a lot to residents in my community. It means a lot to those people. Some may say it is deplorable, but I would say it is beyond the pale. We on this side understand that we should not be cutting wages and conditions and, more importantly, we should not be cutting family payments. We heard debate in the chamber today about childcare changes. When these reforms were brought into line in 2016 John Cherry, the CEO of the largest childcare provider, Goodstart Early Learning, said that that decision alone would hurt families. He said: We're extremely disappointed that our families will need to wait another year for the Government to deliver on its promise to make child care more affordable. They have sat on their hands for four years. They have sat on their hands. They have brought a package into this parliament and expect up to one million families will be worse off. Jo Briskey from The Parenthood summed it up when she said that working families had been let down by the government. She said: This budget is an absolute disappointment for families who can't afford to wait any longer for the Government to take action on child care affordability and accessibility. We know that there are a whole range of families that are going to miss out. When it comes to paid parental leave we know that, if the government were to have its way, around 70,000 new mums with a median income of $62,000 would be $5,600 worse off. And on it goes. In my electorate of Oxley 14,334 families receive family tax benefit A. Many of them will be worse off as a result of these changes this parliament is debating today. This is in addition to the 11,477 families who will need $354 as a result of the abolition of family tax benefit part B end-of-year supplement. There have been all of these cuts and changes and a massive horror start to the year. We know that when it comes to social security payments this government cannot be trusted. Look at the robo-debt debacle. Yesterday I was in touch with a resident from Durack in my electorate. A woman called Maree began her horror nightmare on 21 November last year. This woman is on a disability support pension. She has not worked since 2006. She suffers from Parkinson's. She was given a debt of thousands of dollars. She is a wonderful model citizen. She was horrified at this but realised that there had been a terrible mistake. She then contacted Centrelink and demanded a review. The review said that she still owed the money. She knew that she did not owe any money. She knew that so she demanded a second review. Finally, yesterday she was advised that in fact she owed nothing—nothing at all. What about the trauma, suffering and difficulty she went through? Has anyone from the government—a minister; the senior minister, who has run a million miles; or the Prime Minister, who is in a witness protection scheme at the moment—stood up and said sorry? Absolutely not. Time and time again we see this victim blame culture inside the government. It is not, 'We're here to help you. We'll look after you,' but, 'Prove your innocence.' That is not the Australian way. We know that pensioners and young people are also in the government's firing line. While the government has been predominantly worried about the family payments, it is scrapping the energy supplement—a $1 billion cut to pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients. We just heard from the member for Kingston about the impact a five-week wait for Newstart will have. The government is forcing people to live on nothing for five weeks before they access income support. I challenge members of the government to come with me to suburbs in my electorate and look people in the face and describe the impact that this is going to have on them. I have heard horror stories from my local residents, who are fearful. They want to work. We hear a lot of talk about jobs and growth. We hear a lot of talk and slogans from the government. But we know budget measures are all about priorities. Today in The Sydney Morning Herald we saw, 'Company profits soar as wages fall'. Company profits have surged to record highs at the same time as wages have suffered their sharpest decline in eight years. We are seeing income inequality at a 75-year high, with wages growth at a historic low and underemployment at record highs. This is not the Australian way. It is certainly not the fair go that our country has been built on. I understand the government's priority is to look after those who can look after themselves—corporations. We have heard stories about investments in multinational companies. That is its No. 1 priority. The Prime Minister today confirmed that he of course supports the cut of $77 to the wages of 10,500 retail, accommodation and hospitality workers in the electorate of Oxley. This government thinks it is okay to rip their weekly salary apart. I do not support that. This opposition under Bill Shorten will never support a reduction in working people's wages. But, more importantly, we cannot and will not support these amendments and changes being put forward by a government that is completely out of touch and that has lost its way. We know that the Australian community deserve much, much better than they are getting from this current government. 18:54 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to talk about the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is a callous attack on ordinary Australians. It attacks families, pensioners, jobseekers, people with disability and new mothers, and it demonstrates so very clearly how out of touch the government are with the day-to-day lives and concerns of Australians. Even more insidious is the disgusting game the government are playing with the NDIS. It is a clear measure of how ruthless this government are when they say to the parliament, 'Pass these cruel cuts or we can't fund the NDIS.' It is disgusting that the government are using the NDIS as a political pawn. They have disgraced themselves, and people with disability and the community are rightly outraged that they are threatening the NDIS. Since their very first budget the coalition have tried to impose cruel cuts on Australian families, motivated by a warped conservative world view. It is ironic that the coalition always claim they are the party of family values. But this claim is a blatant mistruth as over the last 3½ years they have tried to rip away family support and make life much harder for families. It is the height of hypocrisy to attach yourself to 'family values' when you are blatantly attempting to make the day-to-day lives of families harder. This bill contains massive cuts across the board. They include: cuts to family tax benefits; cuts to paid parental leave; scrapping the energy supplement; introducing a five-week wait for Newstart; and cutting the rate of support for young people between the ages of 22 and 24. This bill introduces $2.7 billion worth of cuts to family payments to pay for a $1.6 billion childcare package. Overall, the bill cuts a massive $5½ billion from the household budgets of low-income Australians. So, at the same time it is giving a gigantic $50 billion tax cut to big business, the Turnbull government is cutting support for hardworking families. I particularly want to examine the impacts these cuts will have on family payments. The government has admitted that the cuts to family payments will leave 1.5 million Australian families worse off. Let's just consider that for a moment. The government is freely admitting that it is going to make life harder for 1½ million families. Let's also consider the practical impacts of the cuts. An average family with two children and a single income of $60,000 will lose around $750 a year. A couple on $75,000 a year with one child will lose over $1,000 per year. These are very significant amounts of money for working families. The cuts will put enormous pressure on already stretched household budgets in an economic environment of very low wage growth and rising unemployment. Australian families are already doing it tough, and these cuts to vital family support are wrong. There may not be many constituents of the Prime Minister in Wentworth who access these family payments, but families in the Hunter and Central Coast regions which I represent certainly do. Many families in the member for Robertson's electorate to my south and the member for Lyne's electorate to my north who access these payments will be much worse off. The government are happy to make life harder for families at the same time as making life much easier for their corporate mates. That is the great difference between the Labor Party and the Liberals and Nationals. We want to make life fairer and better for people; they seem to want to make it much harder. The changes in this bill to Labor's paid parental leave scheme also constitute an attack on working families, and 70,000 new mothers will be worse off each year. The women affected are our teachers, nurses, police, retail workers and hospitality workers. These are not double dippers or fraudsters as the government arrogantly claims. They are the women who make our economy and society function. The irony of cutting entitlements that many members of the government have accessed is not lost on many. The whole point of Labor's scheme was for women who already had access to employer funded leave to also be able to access the government scheme. This is in line with the World Health Organization's advice that new mothers should have 26 weeks off work to bond with their newborn, breastfeed and recover from the birth. This was in fact a recommendation of the Productivity Commission, and the explanatory memorandum that accompanied Labor's paid parental leave scheme made it very clear that it was intending to work in conjunction with employer funded schemes. The debate around this aspect of the bill by the government has been appalling for two reasons. Firstly, they have tried to say that only high-paid public servants in Canberra would lose entitlements, yet again attacking the public servants of this nation. Secondly, they have failed to recognise that the employer related benefits have been won at a cost to ordinary working mums and dads. It has usually been a pay rise that they have given up. It has usually been a condition that they have given away or an extension of the working day that has led to a trade-off for this paid parental leave scheme. So what they are doing here is saying to the mums who work at Coles and Woolies at Cardiff or at Lake Munmorah, 'We're going to take away an entitlement that you sacrificed a wage raise for.' It is disgusting. It attacks nurses, retail workers and emergency service personnel in my electorate. I oppose it completely. This bill also attacks pensioners by cutting the energy supplement for new pension recipients. This measure will cut $365 from a single pensioner and $550 from a pensioner couple. The government is, in fact, creating a two-tiered pension system. This is incredibly ill-thought-out and mischievous. It says to the people who will access the pension from September this year that they are not worthy of the current rate. It creates a second class of pensioners, and we should not forget that the annual pension rate is already very modest. It again demonstrates the warped priorities of this conservative government. Some of the savings from this bill, if it is successful, will be directed to the government's childcare package. Being the father of two kids who are in childcare, childcare is an issue that I am passionate about. I know how important access to quality childcare is. And, of course, the Labor Party supports additional investment in childcare. However, we have serious concerns about the government's proposals. Detailed analysis by the ANU has identified that one in three families will be worse off and over 71,000 families with an income below $65,000 will be worse off. Let me repeat that, because the government has attempted to portray its childcare reforms as somehow taking childcare assistance off wealthy families and providing it to low-income families. Yet, 71,000 Australian families with an income below $65,000 will be worse off. The government is also trying to implement a complicated new activity test that will leave 150,000 families worse off. These changes include removing the current entitlement children have to access two days subsidised early education per week. It halves access to early education from 24 to 12 hours per week and it will result in many children being pushed out of early education altogether if they have a parent that is not working and a family income over $65,000. Early education is of fundamental importance to a child's development. Studies have shown that the first five years of a child's life are the most critical to their overall welfare and development. If this government was serious about enhancing and improving childcare, it would not be making these changes. I am in awe of the work that early education childcare workers do every day. It is a great profession. They do great work under very gruelling circumstances for low pay—pay that, in my personal view, should be increased, and deserves to be increased. For that profession and for that service to be attacked by this government is appalling. This bill also attacks young Australians. The government will make young Australians wait five weeks before accessing Centrelink payments if they are unemployed. Let's be clear what this means: these young people will have absolutely nothing to live on for five weeks. We are not America. Australia is not a country with a philosophy of 'you're on your own', but this is exactly what the government want. They are saying to young people: 'If you happen to have the misfortune of losing your job, you have to wait five weeks for any government assistance.' This, yet again, demonstrates that the government are completely out of touch. That might be okay if you can rely on the bank of mum and dad, which seems to be the government's policy prescription for every problem confronting this country. If you cannot afford a house, rely on the bank of mum and dad. If you find yourself out of work, rely on the bank of mum and dad. That is fine if you happen to be lucky enough to have been born to a wealthy family. Most families have enough trouble making ends meet for themselves let alone trying to support an unemployed young person. So this, yet again, shows the cruel and callous nature of the government. This is amplified when you look at the cut that they want to impose on 22- to 24-year-olds by moving them from Newstart on to youth allowance. This involves a $48 weekly cut. For some Liberals, $48 a week might not seem much, but for a young person in Gateshead, Swansea, San Remo or Windale on an already small, fixed income, it is a huge amount. Often, it is the difference between eating and not eating. It is the difference between paying the electricity bill and having the lights turn off. It is a cruel cut. It is unnecessary when you look at the warped priorities of the government. It will stain their soul forever. Labor will stand up for young Australians against these draconian and severe proposals. Finally, I want to address the shameful conduct of the government in linking cuts from this bill to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is probably the worst aspect of this entire debate. For the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services to excitedly and proudly announce that the cuts of the omnibus bill will help fund the NDIS is appalling. This is gutter politics at its worst, pitting pensioners and job seekers against people with a disability. And it has been called out as such by disability advocates. Champion Paralympian Kurt Fearnley proudly hails from the Hunter region. Kurt is an inspiration and has been a dedicated campaigner for people with disability and for the NDIS for many years. In fact, I first met Kurt in 2013 when he attended the launch of the NDIS pilot project in the Hunter Valley. It was one of the first pilot projects for the great NDIS scheme. For him to call out the naked political cynicism of the government demonstrates how low they have sunk. I really hope that the Treasurer and the minister heard his response to their sick stunt. Kurt said the government should stop using the NDIS as a political football and he wished they would fight for the NDIS as much as they fight for the $50 billion company tax cut. I urge the ministers to meet with Kurt and discuss this. Funding for the NDIS is not dependent on these obscene cuts to our social security system. Myself, my colleagues and all decent people are rightly opposed to the obscenity this government is trying to perpetuate through this bill. Politics is willing. Politics is, by its nature, a battle over ideas. But for the Treasurer, a punitive contender for the leadership of the Liberal Party when the current Prime Minister is turfed out by his own party room, to use disabled Australians as some sort of human shield—saying, 'Pass my cuts or disabled Australians get it in the neck'—shows what an appalling creature the Treasurer is. This is a man content to bring a lump of coal into this place as a stunt, doing a gross disservice to coal workers in my electorate and in other electorates, cheapening a very significant energy debate into a game of stunts. For him to then hold disabled Australians hostage through this political tactic demonstrates the character of this individual—a man who, it should be said, tried to prevent the family of a dead asylum seeker from attending a funeral. This is the calibre of the Treasurer of this country. In conclusion, the omnibus savings bill represents an attack on the living standards of millions of Australians. With devastating clarity it reveals the radical right-wing agenda that the government is pursuing. This government is proudly cutting payments to low- and middle-income families, pensioners, job seekers and young Australians at the same time as prosecuting a $50 billion handout to the big end of town—a $50 billion handout where, I might add, the main recipients will be overseas investors and the US government, which will receive $8 billion of the $48 billion. If you ask my constituents whether they think the government should be supporting families and funding the NDIS or giving a tax cut to the big four banks, I know what the answer will be. That is why Labor is opposing this bill. We can improve child care in this country without attacking families, pensioners, unemployed young people and the disabled. This bill is fundamentally unfair, and I am proud to join my Labor colleagues in opposing it and in doing so standing up for the millions of ordinary, decent Australians in this country. 19:09 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. It is noticeable how few government members of parliament have come into the chamber to debate this bill. Indeed, none of them came in today and only a handful came yesterday. This bill should be opposed, as my colleagues have quite rightly pointed out. Government members have not come into the chamber to debate the bill because they know that it is indefensible. They know that when they go back out to their communities and tell the people they represent that this legislation went through the parliament with their support, the people they represent will be very unhappy with them—and rightly so. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, this bill hurts and hits some of Australia's most vulnerable people very, very hard. Nothing better contrasts the stark difference in values between the Turnbull government and the Labor opposition than this legislation does. This legislation makes very clear whom the Turnbull government represents, whom it sides with and whom it seeks to protect and it does all of that at the expense of our country's poorest and most vulnerable people. It also highlights how out of touch this Turnbull government is, and particularly how out of touch this Prime Minister is. This legislation seeks to cut payments to families, whether they are working or not working, by around $3.7 billion in total, while simultaneously the Turnbull government refuses to change the very generous negative gearing rules and capital gains tax laws. As the statistics will show, those rules already benefit mainly people who are very well off. Even more insulting, the Turnbull government now wants to cut $3.7 billion from those who need it most, while simultaneously saying to the Australian people that they will proceed with tax cuts of $50 billion which, as my colleagues have highlighted, will go to big companies, many of whom are based overseas. It will also go to the four big banks, which for several years now have been making near-record profits. Given the level of tax avoidance that big business has been associated with in recent years, as exposed by the Tax Justice Network and others, I fail to be convinced how reducing corporate tax from 30 to 25 per cent for those entities will make any difference, given that they already use tax avoidance measures to minimise their tax. Indeed, some of them pay very, very little tax. So what difference cutting it to 25 per cent will make to the Australian economy is beyond me. It is no wonder that the gap between rich and poor is widening. If trickle-down economics really worked, the gap would be closing, not widening. When I look at this legislation I am at a complete loss to understand how members in this place who represent rural electorates can support it. Some of the lowest socioeconomic status families live in country electorates that members opposite represent. These are people that are already doing it tough, and their own members will come into the chamber and say that. Yet these are the people that the Turnbull government wants to balance its budget on. It wants to do it on their back, making them live life even tougher than what they already are, while simultaneously giving generous tax breaks to the very rich. Only today The Sydney Morning Herald, in a story by Eryk Bagshaw, reports that company profits have surged to record highs. At the same time wages suffered their sharpest decline in eight years. Those statistics are not being pushed by the Labor Party but are reported in the daily paper. So when the cuts to family payments proposed in this bill are combined with stagnant wages, it is clear that this legislation will hit families even harder than many of them believe they have been hit by the previous cuts that this government has pushed through the parliament following their 2014 budget. Australians will not be fooled. They can see exactly what is happening and they can see that their MPs on the government benches are failing them. Not surprisingly, we see that in the electorates of many of the government MPs their voters are deserting them and looking to other parties. The most recent polling is clear evidence of that. If the cuts in this legislation were in isolation, then the government might be able to find it easier to argue the case. But the reality is that these cuts come when families across the country are facing additional financial pressures. They are being proposed at a time when real wages growth has been minimal for the past two or three years. Working hours for many families have been cut. Indeed, many families are now not even working a full 38-hour week. When cost-of-living expenses—including utilities, government taxes and medical costs—continue to rise, again that directly hits families' abilities to make ends meet. On top of that, the government says that these cuts are fair and appropriate. Nothing could be further from the truth. The legislation makes several changes to areas of family assistance. I do not have time to go through the legislation in detail, but I want to talk about some of the matters that are contained within this legislation. The first matter I refer to is the proposal to change paid parental leave. In particular, I refer to the proposal to limit paid parental leave to 20 weeks, and where an employer provides some paid parental leave the government will only provide the difference if the employer-provided paid parental leave is less than 20 weeks. This, as been highlighted by so many speakers from this side of the House, this will negatively affect 70,000 new mums across Australia. Where a person receives paid parental leave from an employer, it is very likely that the leave will form part of a salary package agreement. It is part of a negotiation. It is probably something that the employee has traded off in order to get. And yet the government now says, 'We will effectively take that away from you.' It would seem to me that unless the employer is prepared to renegotiate that agreement with the new mum, then the new mum will be worse off. It also seems to me, and it is very likely going to be the case, that no employer will continue to pay paid parental leave just to save the government money. The first thing they will do is try to work out an arrangement or renegotiate with their employee to ensure that that component of the salary package is going to be paid in full by the government in the future. I would be most surprised if that does not happen. So the government's own attempt to change the rules, in my view, will backfire on them in the long term. The second matter is the transfer of young people from Newstart or sickness allowance to youth allowance, which will mean a cut of $48 per week in support payments. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I am sure in your electorate you have dealt with issues similar to what I have in mine. In recent weeks I have dealt with many young people who are struggling to find work. They have completed their studies, so they do not want to be doing more study and be on youth allowance. They have completed their studies, but they simply cannot find work in the very profession that they might have studied for. In many cases they are young people who have actually come to Adelaide from a country area. They have relocated to the city because that is where they were hoping that they might be able to find a job in the area that they studied. For them to have their income cut by $48 a week means a lot; it means the difference between them being able to perhaps survive and keep going or not. And for the government to think that it does not matter that it is only $48 a week, then can I suggest to government members, and to the minister in particular, that they have a good hard look at what this will mean. Ultimately, this will lead to other welfare problems which inevitably have to be funded by governments—whether they are federal or state. But to then also say to them, 'Look, you have to wait five weeks before you will get any payment', just adds to the cruelty of this government. Again, not every young person has the backup or the money to be able to carry them through that five-week period. Indeed, many young people actually do find a job, but due to things beyond their control they lose the job—perhaps because where they were working closed down or they retrenched some of the people they employed and so on. So that then means they have to wait another five weeks without work. I have dealt with young people who are struggling because of that. We know that we have a lot of young people who are homeless. This will simply add to it and make their lives tougher. I believe it is one of the measures that no-one in the community who wants the government to act fairly could possibly support. It seems to me that when it comes to young people, in the mind of this government they can be easily sacrificed. If we look at what the government proposes to do with university fees—again, hitting young people; pushing up degrees perhaps to the tune of $100,000 a degree—and if we look at what has just happened with the Fair Work Commission and the penalty rates, which many young people rely on and which this government clearly supports, then we can see that this government has no empathy whatsoever for young people. I want to now go briefly to the energy supplement, because this is going to affect any pensioner who comes onstream in the future. It means a cut of $14.10 a fortnight for a single pensioner and $21.20 a fortnight for couple pensioners. The thing that is wrong with this, firstly, is that it creates two classes of pensioners. Secondly, it will mean that in the future, when we are trying to ascertain what the pension rate should be, it will be a jumbled mess of payments that have to be carefully sorted through. Every time we differentiate in our laws between people it has to be rectified at some stage in the future, and it is left to future governments to do that. Whether a person comes onto the pension now or was previously on it, they face the same cost. If the energy supplement was intended to assist pensioners with meeting their energy bills, then can I tell government members, who come into this place every day and actually crow about this and make criticisms of the Labor Party, that energy prices have gone up around Australia. They have not gone down. The so-called relief that pensioners were supposed to get from taking away the carbon tax did not last very long at all. In fact, as they took away the carbon tax, it gave the operators and the resellers of electricity the opportunity to jack up their prices and they did, and the statistics will bear that out. So, again, these very pensioners that are being denied the energy supplement are themselves also facing the very increases in energy costs that others are being compensated for but they are not. Quite frankly, it is discrimination. The last matter I want to briefly touch on is the pensioners who have come to this country from overseas and who have resided in Australia for less than 35 years. I have spoken about this on another occasion. The truth of the matter is that many of these pensioners have worked and toiled as hard as they possibly can in the time that they have been here. Their goal was to, when they retire, perhaps go and spend some time with family members that they left nearly 35 years ago. For many of them, it is the only holiday that they might ever get in their life, and yet we are now saying to them: if you are away for more than six weeks and you have lived in this country for less than 35 years, it will affect your pension. It is wrong and, quite frankly, it is a shameful treatment of people who have come and put their heart and soul into this country. Australians will see through this legislation and they will see through it even more when they see the odious attempt of this government to try to link it to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which my colleagues have touched on. To try and suggest to the Australian people that this is necessary in order to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is nothing but dishonest spin. Australians will see through it. This legislation is an example of how low the Turnbull government is prepared to sink. (Time expired) 19:24 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I was listening to the member for Makin, my colleague and neighbour, and I thought, 'This cannot all be right.' This Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 is an extraordinary bill, just in its breadth. Most of the time, this government attacks one group at a time but this omnibus horror bill is unique. The minister should be proud of it because he has managed to assemble all of the government's targets in one bill. It is not often you can come to the dispatch box and say that this bill attacks families, pensioners and students. It is an extraordinary effort on the government's part. It used to be that governments would sort of try this sort of thing on; get all the tough stuff out of the way in the first budget hoping to have an election budget later on. But for this government, what an extraordinary effort. Given how much trouble they are in, you would have thought that maybe discretion might have been seen to be the better part of valour in this case, but no. I was actually stunned by some of the things that the member for Makin was revealing to the House. I was struck by what he said about young people and he is dead right—I have had young people in my electorate tell me. I went down to a housing trust place in Elizabeth West, where Jimmy Barnes used to live. They were upgrading an old trust place for future use. They had Boys Town or one of those organisations training young people. These young blokes were very keen. You know when you see young men, 16 or so, getting into construction? They are hard workers and very keen. I think it is a terrible slight on young people to say they are not hard workers because I think these kids really were. But one of those young men had slept at a bus station in my electorate the night before because he had been kicked out of home, kicked out of his girlfriend's home in fact. I think too often in this place, those opposite think that everybody resides with a happy safety net provided by their family but that is just not the case for many young people. They live on the thin red edge of the money they receive from the government or the money they get from work. They do not often get the opportunities that many people in the community are given. It is a terrible thing to do, to make people wait five weeks and basically face very tough circumstances before they can get unemployment benefits. It will not teach a single person any sort of lesson about a work ethic; it will just impoverish them and prevent them from finding work. It is truly an extraordinary thing to put in this omnibus horror bill, this pea and thimble trick where they hack away from families in order to, on one side, put a bit of money into child care. The public will not be convinced by it, will not be fooled by it, will not be hoodwinked by it. They will know it for what it is. I have been getting email after email about this bill from different sections of the community, from young people, from pensioners for good reason. As the member for Makin said, this idea that pensioners, who have often worked very hard in the factories of this nation, who came to Elizabeth in post war migration—many people came from the UK or from Italy or from Greece—are now being told that they cannot go on holiday. It is an extraordinary thing to do, to limit a holiday is if we want to limit the trip of a lifetime, the last trip to a home country often. It might be the last trip that they make to see the place of their birth and their family. This idea that we will have a two-tiered pension system is extraordinary. As the member for Makin pointed out, the clean energy supplement is really a ridiculous proposition. For those who campaigned on this very matter in previous elections to be now hacking it away and basically giving us a two-tiered pension system is extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary. What a horrific bill to present to this House. You just wonder how much trouble this government will get themselves into with penalty rates, with the Centrelink robo-debt system—they are in trouble over that—with the omnibus bill and with this assault on Australian families. It is one initiative after another—in this case, many initiatives assembled in the one package. You have to scratch your head about how they think the public is going to react to this. They have spent all week, including today, navel-gazing about their own jobs. They are more concerned at the moment about the Nationals whip, Mr Christensen, than they are about anybody else. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 1801 ADJOURNMENT WestConnex 1801 19:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to express my dismay and anger about the New South Wales government's latest proposal to convert the former tram sheds next to the Leichhardt campus of Sydney Secondary College into an industrial construction site for the WestConnex toll road project. Last week, without undertaking any consultation with the local community or local elected representatives, the government notified residents it wanted to use this land as a dive site for the construction of the stage 3 tunnel for the WestConnex project. This exemplifies the appalling lack of proper community engagement that has caused so much resentment towards this project. The Leichhardt campus is already overcrowded. Almost 1,000 students are packed into a site that has little open space and only one school oval. That is why the school community has been campaigning for years to have incorporated into the school the very site that Sydney Motorway Corporation are now targeting. In any normal sized school, this land would already be a part of the grounds. If built, the dive site will become a major construction site, where earth will be removed to build the tunnels that make up stage 3 of the tollway. That anyone would propose this type of major construction virtually on the grounds of a local public high school is beyond belief. Daily truck movements and tunnelling activity will expose students to noise pollution, dust and dangerous traffic conditions. In 2010 I was proud to open the sports field adjacent to the tram sheds—prior to that, they had none—following a grant to Leichhardt council from the former federal Labor government under our Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The grounds are heavily used by students as well as local sports clubs on weekdays and weekends. How will sport or any other outdoor activity on the current grounds be enjoyed when they are surrounded, over and under, by an industrial construction site? By any measure, the location is entirely inappropriate for tunnelling. What is worse is that the government does not even know where the tunnel will be going. In the notification letter sent out to residents, Sydney Motorway Corporation declares that they will 'soon release a design report that includes the latest tunnel route, all short-listed M4-M5 link potential construction sites and other details'. This is a project where they have started building the tunnel at one end without knowing where it is going or where it is coming up. They are literally making it up as they go along. Because the government does not know where the tunnel is going to end, there is also no final completion date for the project, which means the site will be in use for an indefinite period of time. There is no set end to the disruption. Besides bad planning, the outrageous thing is that the primary motivation behind choosing Leichhardt High School, or Sydney Secondary College, as it is now known, is simply greed. The choice of site is motivated by Sydney Motorway Corporation—which will be privatised down the track, and its assets sold off—thinking that, because the tram sheds are state-owned land, they will not have to purchase more for the construction site, when other locations are available. The minutes of a recent meeting between Sydney Motorway Corporation and the Inner West Council reveal that the New South Wales Department of Education has given in-principle support to this absurd proposal. It is a shocking betrayal of the school community for the department to secretly enter into negotiations and give tacit approval to such a dangerous plan. The new education minister, Rob Stokes, must intervene to protect the students and staff at the Leichhardt campus from this proposal. Premier Berejiklian should intervene and rule out this proposal immediately. To think that placing an industrial construction site next to a public high school was ever a good idea is completely nonsensical, particularly when there are no entry or exit points apart from driving through an oval—the only oval—that services almost a thousand students. Sydney does need infrastructure. But it does not need to show utter contempt for communities while it is being built, and that is what has happened with this proposal. It is total and utter contempt. It will be opposed by the local community, and the local community will ensure that this does not happen. Forde Electorate: Government Funding 1802 19:35 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It is a pleasure to rise today to speak about the great electorate of Forde and the exciting projects that have been delivered in the electorate over the past few years. I am very proud to say that, over the past two terms, we have succeeded in delivering every commitment made at the 2010 and 2013 elections. I have every intention of continuing that record. In my electorate of Forde, we have some fantastic community organisations, sporting clubs, volunteers and business owners who have a community spirit that is unmatched. Every day, these people and organisations go above and beyond to make our region a warm, welcoming, inclusive and family-friendly community, and one that I am very proud to represent. Their commitment to the local community is what drives me to focus on delivering the infrastructure and government services they need. Because of them, I will continue to focus on that goal. I have committed to a number of important community projects to support local organisations and further enhance our growing region. We committed $350,000 to the Loganholme football club to upgrade their clubhouse. This follows some $17,000 we provided through Stronger Communities grants for their other clubhouse, in Beenleigh. Logan Lightning is a fantastic local football club, and I am proud to be able to support its members, players and supporters. We also announced $100,000 to install lighting at the Ormeau Bulldogs AFL Club so they have the capacity to train at night. As the club is growing, the ability to train only in the afternoon and into the evening really constrains the capacity of teams to train. This exciting project, in conjunction with the Gold Coast City Council, has now been delivered—with the new lights switched just last Monday night. Beenleigh Senior Citizens Club is a fantastic local organisation and one of the largest senior citizens clubs in south-east Queensland. It is a pleasure to support them with $90,000 grant to upgrade their kitchen facilities. This is so important because the kitchen is used not only by the senior citizens club, but also by our local Meals on Wheels groups to provide meals for those in need in our community. Feeling safe in our local community is important. Safe communities are happy communities, and I am pleased to help Logan City Council expand their CCTV network with a further $525,000 through the coalition's Safer Communities program. This is in addition to nearly a million dollars that we provided to Logan City Council in the past. This funding has supported the installation of five new CCTV cameras around Logan, as well as a new mobile CCTV system. For many sporting and community organisations, the cost of electricity can have a big impact. High energy prices can contribute to club fee increases and can cripple a club's ability to expand and invest back into improving their facilities. Through the Solar Communities program, $100,000 has been allocated to six local organisations to install solar panels, including: the Park Ridge Panthers Football Club, Twin Rivers Community Care at Eagleby, Beenleigh Multisports Association, Bethania Community Hall, Pimpama Community Hall and Waterford Demons Rugby League Club. When it comes to roads, the coalition government has committed some $40.6 million in Roads to Recovery funding to Logan and Gold Coast councils. This funding will help local governments to repair and maintain our local road networks. My electorate of Forde is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. We are right in the middle of south-east Queensland's growth corridor and we will continue to face many challenges over the coming years. But, through the efforts of this government in supporting our local clubs and building that much-needed infrastructure, our community will continue to grow, prosper and provide many opportunities for our future. Petition: Kangaroo Island 1803 19:40 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Kangaroo Island is a wonderful community and a very special part of my electorate of Mayo. In South Australia it is a hotspot for both agriculture and tourism. However, Kangaroo Island is also very remote, much more so than a quick glance at the map might lead you to conclude. There is just over 20 kilometres of water between Cape Jervis and Penneshaw, but there is a big difference in the cost of living. Food is very expensive, services are very expensive, as it is to come on and off the island. As of the 2011 census and, despite being about four times the size of metropolitan Adelaide, the island had a population of only 4,417 people. That gives you a sense of its isolation. The waters between Kangaroo Island and the mainland are quite treacherous. At many times of the year the ferries are unable to run for reasons of safety. The disadvantage faced by Islanders also extends to the difficulty they have in accessing many government-funded services, particularly health and higher education services. The ferry currently is the cheapest method of getting off and on the island and costs approximately $190 return. For many families, this is a prohibitive amount to access government and social services as often as they may require. In 2009, the Kangaroo Island Watergap Recognition Report noted that the standard return passenger ferry fare to North Stradbroke Island from mainland Queensland was $11, and that is a return distance of just over 25 kilometres. This worked out to be just 43 cents per kilometre travelled. And yet the same standard passenger fare for Kangaroo Island works out to be $2.32 per kilometre—five times more expensive! There is a high cost of freight to the island, and that affects everything on the island—from coffee through to buying cornflakes in the supermarket. The cost of goods and services is higher again than the extra freight alone. One result of this is a lack of competition, and an example of this is that there is currently no health clinic on the island which bulk bills its patients. The Kangaroo Island community has asked me to table a petition on their behalf. This petition has been signed by more than 779 residents, which is 15 per cent of the entire population of Kangaroo Island. The community is asking to be part of Tax Zone B. In practical terms, this would compensate for the geographic disadvantage faced by Kangaroo Islanders and would be a direct tax offset, not a deduction. In the case of Tax Zone B, it would put tax back into the pockets of individuals and families. A two-parent family could be eligible for rebates of between $376 for their first child and $276 for each subsequent child, depending on their age and educational status. It would be a real bonus to families and to business owners on Kangaroo Island. Other major Australian islands already receive this favourable tax treatment. For example, if you look at Magnetic Island off Townsville, it is in Tax Zone B; and it is only eight kilometres off the mainland. In support of this petition I have written an extensive letter to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer. Mr Speaker, I would like to table the petition here and I seek leave to do that. Leave granted. Ms SHARKIE 265980 In conclusion I would like to thank every resident of Kangaroo Island for taking the opportunity to sign this petition and for being so active on this issue as a community. This change in tax status would make a tremendous difference to my community of Kangaroo Island. It would put more money into the pockets of Kangaroo Islanders and allow them even greater opportunity to thrive. The SPEAKER 00APG The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration and will be accepted subject to the confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders. Bonner Electorate: Community Visitors Scheme 1804 19:44 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Tonight I would like to speak about two volunteer initiatives that are doing wonderful things for lonely and socially isolated individuals and aged-care residents in my Bonner electorate. These initiatives are funded through the federal government's Community Visitors Scheme. One auspice is run by the Wynnum Baptist Church and the other by Anglicare Southern Queensland. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with Sarah Konovalenko, Anglicare's Community Visitor Scheme coordinator, to discuss their work. I also joined with Wynnum Baptist Church last weekend to celebrate their 25 years of service through the scheme. I have always known how vital these services are in our community, especially in Bonner, which has a number of elderly residents, but hearing stories firsthand and meeting people who have benefitted from the scheme really drove home for me the difference volunteer visitors make every day. The Community Visitors Scheme matches volunteer visitors to individuals living in the community or small groups of residents of aged-care facilities. Volunteers visit recipients for around an hour per fortnight to provide companionship through social interaction, conversation and shared interests. The great thing about the scheme is that volunteer visitors are simply regular people willing to give their time to become a companion, confidante and friend to older Australians in need. For giving such a small amount of their time every fortnight, these volunteers make a huge difference to the quality of life of visit recipients. Volunteer visitors increase recipients' sense of wellness and belonging within their community while reducing the risk of social isolation and loneliness. I congratulate Wynnum Baptist Church for 25 years of operating the Community Visitors Scheme in our local area. I thank their scheme coordinator, Johanne Cook, for inviting me to their celebration last weekend. I heard so many lovely stories from volunteers and residents that illustrate how vital the scheme is and the benefits that it brings to our community. One volunteer, just 18 years old, was matched with a resident who had a stroke and was unable to be managed at home. The resident was very well organised and had previously been a fighter pilot in the Vietnam War. The young visitor was told the most marvellous stories from this war veteran—stories the young man will have with him forever. The relationship was of much benefit to both of them. The young man listened intently and the resident inquired about what he was doing, why he was doing it, what his ambitions were, how he was going at uni, and so on. Lives shared. How amazing! I applaud the selfless volunteers of the Community Visitors Scheme. I would also like to invite locals in my electorate to consider signing up to the scheme. There is a growing need within our community and residential aged-care facilities for the services that volunteer visitors provide. The Community Visitors Scheme is one of the most worthy volunteer initiatives that I have been involved with and I encourage those who are interested in joining to contact my office for more details. Ovarian Cancer 1805 19:47 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland One of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is meeting the extraordinary people who live in our communities. Last Thursday I was able to meet many extraordinary and generous people. February is Ovarian Cancer Month and is held to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, how many women are affected by the disease each year, the impact it has on these women and their families, the risk factors for ovarian cancer, and its diagnosis and treatment. I was very pleased to host a Morning Teal to raise awareness and funds to support women and their families affected by ovarian cancer. The Morning Teal was an initiative of the former member for Shortland, Jill Hall, and I am so very pleased to continue this annual tradition. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the sixth most common cause of cancer affecting women in Australia. In 2013, 1,394 new cases of ovarian cancer were diagnosed in Australian women. I was very pleased that there was a great show of support at the Morning Teal from our local community at the Valentine Bowling Club. Over 170 people attended and we were able to raise nearly 2½ thousand dollars for this important cause. We heard from Anne Mellon, who is a clinical nurse consultant at the Hunter New England Centre for Gynaecological Cancer, and Cath Adams, the senior clinical psychologist at the centre. I want to sincerely thank them for not only the important work they do but also their very thoughtful contributions. They were so very insightful and helpful in understanding what women and their families experience. The key message from Anne and Cath was for women to be informed about the symptoms of ovarian cancer and, if they are concerned or worried, to see their GP immediately. Early detection is fundamentally important and can help to increase the survival rate. It was very important that we were able to distribute pamphlets and other material highlighting the symptoms and urge people who had any concerns to start keeping a diary and make an appointment with their GP as soon as possible. I also want to pay a special tribute to and acknowledge the contribution of my constituent, Carolyn Bear, who works so hard fundraising for ovarian cancer. Carolyn is truly an inspiration. She tragically lost her daughter, Kylie, who passed away from ovarian cancer when she was just 34. Kylie was misdiagnosed in the early stages of the illness and Carolyn and her husband, Rob, have had to endure the pain of losing their daughter at such a young age. Since Kylie's passing, Carolyn, Rob and their family have worked tirelessly to raise funds for research and awareness of ovarian cancer. Carolyn creates fantastic jewellery for the fundraising and she and her family have raised over $140,000 for ovarian cancer research. That is a truly stupendous achievement. This is a really special tribute to Kylie, and on behalf of the Shortland community I thank Carolyn and her family and friends for their hard work and dedication to this very worthwhile cause. Our local community, and indeed our country, benefits so much from generous and selfless people such as Carolyn. I also want to recognise and thank businesses who supported the morning tea: FlyPelican; Radisson Blu Plaza; Brownsugar Restaurant; Kaydee's Beauty Boutique; Verve for Life, Warners Bay; Baldwin's Confectionary; Warners Bay Hotel; and Belmont Speciality Cakes. The first prize in the raffle was two return flights to Sydney with FlyPelican and a one-night stay at the Radisson. The raffle was a great success because of the fantastic prizes donated and the generosity of the people of Shortland. That we were able to raise such a significant amount of money in just one morning was a great effort. I also want to acknowledge and thank the Sing Australia Belmont Choir for keeping everyone entertained during the morning. Their contribution was very much appreciated by all who attended. To conclude, the Morning Teal was a very special morning. There was a great sense of community and generosity, and I look forward to continuing to host the Morning Teals in the future. I end by thanking Helene O'Neill for being the master of ceremonies and bringing such a positive approach to what is a very difficult subject. I also thank all my staff for their great efforts—in particular Melanie Field, who did such a great job of organising such an important and worthwhile event. Fisher Electorate: Roads 1806 19:52 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The Bruce Highway, as it passes through the Sunshine Coast, carries around 60,000 vehicles every day. It is heavily congested in the peak-hour periods, and this volume of traffic has already led commuters in my community to give the highway a new name: 'the Bruce Car Park'. In the March 2016 RACQ unroadworthy-roads survey, the Bruce Highway received the most nominations. And who can blame those respondents? As it is, the 100-kilometre journey to Brisbane from the Sunshine Coast can take as long as three hours—as it did for me on Sunday in coming to this place—but it is set to get much worse. Traffic is predicted to grow significantly over the next 15 years, and modelling suggests that this will result in lengthy delays, not only on the run into Brisbane but at a number of major interchanges through the Sunshine Coast. Without action, extensive queuing is expected to develop on other arterial roads in our region, such as on Caloundra Road and the Mooloolah River interchange. The economic cost of this congestion is enormous. It was already at least $17 million a year in 2011, but by 2031 it is expected to increase to $194 million. The human cost is even greater. Every hour spent crawling along the Bruce Highway is another hour that hardworking people in my community cannot spend with their friends and families. These hours add up. Imagine what we could all do with an extra couple of hours a day. Tragically, some families in our region have lost much more than two hours a day. Despite significant improvements over previous years, research by the RACQ suggests that around 12 per cent of all deaths on Australian highways still take place on the Bruce, with 30 losing their lives in 2015 alone. As I have previously reported to the House, last September the government delivered on the first vital phase of these needed upgrades on the Sunshine Coast. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport visited the Sunshine Coast with me, and we announced the long-awaited upgrade of the Caloundra Road-Sunshine Motorway project. This is a $929.3 million project, funded 80 per cent by the Commonwealth, and it will deliver an estimated benefit of more than $4 billion to the coast. The project will widen the highway to six lanes, as well as upgrading the Sunshine Motorway and Caloundra Road interchanges. In my own constituency, we urgently need an upgrade to the Bruce Highway between Caboolture and Caloundra. We need to widen the highway between the Sunshine Coast and Caboolture from four lanes to six lanes—or, even better, to eight lanes—and we need to flood-proof the road between Caboolture and Steve Irwin Way. This week saw the release of Infrastructure Australia's latest Infrastructure Priority List, the authoritative list of nationally significant infrastructure investments that Australia needs over the next 15 years. Its authors have said that the Bruce Highway in Queensland has long been recognised by Infrastructure Australia as a national priority. In the list, Infrastructure Australia have included two new Bruce Highway upgrades: one at Mackay, and Cooroy to Curra. These are certainly important projects. But the widening of the highway between Caloundra and Caboolture did not make it onto that list. 'Why is that so?' I hear you ask. Unfortunately, it is not on the list because the state Labor government have not completed their planning study for this particular stretch of road. The Bruce Highway planning study was announced in July 2015 by the state Labor government—2015. We in the federal government put up three-quarters of the money for this study because we believe in the Bruce Highway and know only too well what is needed. The Queensland government tell us that the study will report in mid-2018. That is three years to do a study when we all know what the outcome should be. My LNP colleagues in the state and federal parliaments—indeed, the members for Fairfax and Wide Bay—have pushed time and again for this report to be fast-tracked. We will continue to fight to get the Sunshine Coast the Bruce Highway that our people deserve. Without doubt, this is the single most important issue that has been identified by residents of the Sunshine Coast, and I will not rest until we achieve it. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 19 : 57 NOTICES 1808 NOTICES

Tuesday, 28 February 2017

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 1815 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Arts 1815 16:01 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I am extremely disappointed to learn that the Australia Council for the Arts has quietly suffered another cut to its funding. This time the government has ripped $9.2 million out of Australia's peak arts funding body, compounding the $100 million in funding that was cut as part of the infamously toxic 2014 budget. This further cripples an institution that has given the breath of life to so many films, songs, books, paintings and other creative endeavours that so many Australians have grown to love, and it silences unique Australian voices that so many have grown proud of. I said in my first speech to the parliament that a thriving arts sector is at the heart and soul of any society, and it is true that the arts matter. I am also reminded of a quote from former Prime Minister Keating, known for his strong support and love of the arts: I always thought the arts were central to a country, central to a society, holding up a mirror to itself, celebrating itself. The Australia Council has been so vital for so many great Australian artists, bringing their ideas to life. Many of them live in my electorate of Wills. We are at a time when technology exposes uniquely Australian creative works to a global marketplace. We should be proud that our government can give a leg-up to those who would define our national identity through their work. More than promoting our unique Australian talents, many artists often go on to become prolific and commercially viable. Some of you have heard of Courtney Barnett. She is a solo singer-songwriter from my home town of Melbourne. The Australia Council supported her financially to tour outside Australia for the first time, and last year she had an album debut at No. 4 on the Australian charts and No. 15 on the UK charts and was nominated for a Grammy Award in the US. Further, Australian artists who become successful on the global stage are proven to drive and support tourism. The 2015 Arts nation report highlighted the growing importance of arts tourism. It found that nearly 40 per cent of international visitors undertake an arts activity while visiting Australia, and one in four visit a museum or a gallery in our country. Some here may have read Meanjin, an Australian literary journal published as an imprint of the Melbourne University Press. Its first edition was published in 1940, and some of Australia's best known essayists have appeared in its pages. Meanjin was informed in 2016 that its Australia Council funding was not to continue. Not only will this mean job losses but it may mean the end of Meanjin's long and storied history. This is just one example. More than one-third of the 147 organisations who previously received funding have no operational funding from this federal government. Labor took a strong policy on the arts to the last election because we believe that the creative industries are central to our lives. Bombing of Horn Island: 75th Anniversary 1816 16:04 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Australia has recently commemorated the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. However, there is another northern outpost that was also very heavily targeted yet barely rates a mention in Australian history books. I am talking about the bombing of Horn Island in the Torres Strait, which was the second hardest hit base in Australia after Darwin. On 14 March 1942, Japanese fighter planes targeted Horn Island as part of their campaign to cripple military positions in northern Australia. Local historian Vanessa Seekee says the island's aerodrome was a strategic, but vulnerable, operational base for Australian and Allied forces when the first raid took place. Coast-watchers in southern New Guinea managed to alert the troops on Horn Island of the impending raid when they spotted a large formation flying en route to the Torres Strait. The government had earlier evacuated residents from the island in anticipation of an attack, but civilian contractors witnessed a mid-air duel between eight Japanese Betty bombers and 12 Zeros and about nine US Kittyhawks. While the Allied forces were outnumbered, they still managed to ward off the raid. Horn Island was attacked eight more times by the Japanese over the next 16 months, and about 500 bombs were dropped, targeting the airfield. Tragically, 156 people died in active service on or around the island, along with 86 civilians and crew on board the ship the Mumutu when it was sunk by a Japanese submarine on 7 August 1942. While historians and media releases focus on the attacks on Darwin, Broome, Port Hedland and Townsville, the Torres Strait is often overlooked. On this 75th anniversary of the first bombing of Horn Island, it is time Australia gave an appropriate level of recognition to this event. Today in the Australian parliament I honour the sacrifices that were made by the people of the Torres Strait and pay tribute to the vital role they played in repelling Japanese forces. Without their resistance, the history books today would tell a very different story. I would also like to acknowledge that on 1 March 2018 we will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion, the only Indigenous Australian battalion ever formed by the Australian Army. Eight hundred and seventy Torres Strait Islander men—about one-fifth of the population of the Torres Strait at the time—joined the ranks, serving alongside 5,000 non-Indigenous troops. The battalion represented a significant contribution to the Australian war effort, and today there are only two surviving members: Mr Mebai Warusam, who lives on Saibai Island, and Mr Awatie Mau at Bamaga. I look forward to honouring the contribution of battalion members in 2018. Hindmarsh Electorate: Keswick Creek and Brown Hill Creek Catchment 1816 16:06 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh Today I rise to speak about an announcement that was made in my electorate only yesterday by the state Labor government. It was a very pleasing announcement of something that I have advocated for a very long time, and that is the Brown Hill Creek and Keswick Creek flood mitigation program. Yesterday, the state Labor government agreed to contribute the final dollars needed to get this project up and running. This is an area, within the Brown Hill Creek and Keswick Creek catchment, where the residents and business owners have faced risks of flooding and property damage, and worse, for years now. The electorate of Hindmarsh is on the Adelaide Plains. When it rains in the Adelaide Hills, the water, obviously, comes from the higher areas of Adelaide down to the lower areas, producing a massive risk of flood. The biggest risk is in the electorate of Hindmarsh. As I said, I have been campaigning for years to safeguard these communities. I am really pleased that it has finally come to fruition. Federal Labor, during the last election campaign, committed $44 million towards the project. Unfortunately, the Turnbull government has repeatedly refused to assist or help and therefore $44 million was pumped into the gap yesterday by the state Labor government. I sincerely thank the state Labor government and the five local councils in the Keswick Creek and Brown Hill Creek catchment. They have come together in an attempt to finally resolve the problem for Adelaide's most at-risk flood area. I want to stress that it is simply not right that the federal government did not pitch in their fair share. In fact, it is a slap in the face for South Australians, especially considering that the catchment area takes in Adelaide Airport, a piece of nationally important infrastructure on federal land. We continually hear the federal government talk about economic growth and jobs. Therefore, you would think they would be jumping at the prospect of assisting to fund a project that will yield more than $240 million in community economic benefit and reduce the flood impacts on Adelaide Airport and the surrounding areas. The cost impact to Adelaide Airport would be from $15 million in damages in a small flood to $56 million in damages in a larger flood. The program will create approximately 80 full-time jobs during construction, it will reduce average home and contents insurance for those residents who live nearby and pay a premium for living in a flood area, and it will increase certainty for future industry investment across the catchment. I am very proud of the role I played in bringing together all of the councils earlier in 2016, along with the state government, to ensure that we could come to an agreement to fund this fantastic project. This is a vital project that will deliver significant long-term benefits to the South Australian economy. (Time expired) North Queensland: Water and Energy 1817 16:10 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson If there were two things that contribute the most to job creation in North Queensland, they would be water and energy. The Liberal-National government is committed to building water infrastructure in the north, with projects like Urannah Dam, Hell's Gate Dam, raising the Burdekin Falls Dam wall and increasing the capacity of the Burdekin Haughton channel already under planning and funded by the federal government. North Queensland also has drawn great confidence from this government's willingness to address energy security and recognise the necessity for reliable baseload power at an affordable cost. Clean coal technology used in ultra-supercritical generators delivers that reliable and affordable power, with something like 30 to 40 per cent less emissions than the some of the outdated technology currently used for baseload generation. I visited one of those low-emissions coal-fired power stations at the port of Mundra in India and saw firsthand the number of people employed by both the largest coal-importing port in the world and the nearby generators and surrounding support infrastructure. More importantly, the reliable and affordable baseload electricity being generated is bringing the Indian people out of energy poverty by creating industries that generate employment. In Queensland we already have a higher standard of living and we have the opportunity to secure that standard of living for more Australians into the future. Queensland's electricity grid is not yet burdened with overreliance on intermittent renewable energy, so not even a cyclone could cause a statewide blackout. But we are in need of jobs. We have abundant coal in Queensland, and a low-emissions coal-fired generator located at the mouth of a coalmine or along a train line where coal is transported would provide enormous cost efficiency and avoid transmission losses that occur when power is sent from the southern parts of the state. That means lower power prices for an industry that is already established and also for new industries looking for a home base to start up. Industry needs energy and it needs energy at an affordable price. Industry also needs to know that it can rely on that energy being there when it is required. A Townsville Enterprise Limited report titled Base load power in North Queensland and the Dalrymple Agricultural Scheme, a report funded by a federal Labor government, noted the need for additional capacity. It said: In March 2014, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) reported under its medium economic growth scenario that there would likely be a breach of the reliability standard (deficit of suitable generation capacity) in Queensland in 2020-21 without increased supply capacity. The Labor funded report found that a $1.778 billion coal-fired power station at a greenfield coalmine mouth would be commercially viable, that it would put strong downward pressure on electricity prices, with a potential social cost-benefit gain of $836 million. (Time expired) Canberra Electorate: Broadband 1818 16:13 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It is official: after 18 months of campaigning, after two petitions to the government and another underway, after numerous letters to the minister, after countless speeches in the parliament and after hundreds of Canberrans taking part in my Send Me Your Speeds campaign, my electorate is finally on the NBN rollout map. Honourable members interjecting— Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Thank you. I have been fighting for Canberra to be prioritised on the map for 18 months, after being left off update after update. I have been fighting for Canberra to be prioritised on the map because some suburbs, particularly in the southeast Tuggeranong area, have some of the slowest upload and download speeds in the country. We are talking less than one megabit per second in the nation's capital, just 20 kilometres from this very Parliament House, in 2017. I am calling Canberra's presence on the rollout map a victory. It has been 18 months in the making and I am feeling pretty proud today. Over the last few years it has been one big empty space, thanks to this Turnbull government. That said, I am not resting on my laurels. I want Canberra to know why we are getting a patchwork of technologies, often in the same suburb or street. In Chisholm, some people will get fibre to the premises while others will get fibre to the node. In Gordon, some people will get fibre to the kerb while others will get fibre to the node. In Theodore, one of the suburbs with the worst internet speeds, some areas will get fibre to the kerb and others will get fibre to the premises or fibre to the node. So we have three different technologies rolling out over Theodore, often in the same street—one technology on one side of the street and another technology on the other. I know the devil is in the detail and in the NBN delivering, so I will continue to campaign on this issue and encourage Canberrans to continue to send me their speeds. I want to ensure that parts of my community who are the most disadvantaged, those with one megabit per second speeds, will finally be able to access an internet service that will allow them to do the things that others outside the nation's capital take for granted: to work or run a small business from home—not a big ask; to download homework, research or study—not a big ask; to sell or shop online; to access government services; and to participate in the community. To be active citizens in the community requires decent download and upload speeds. I do not want to see one area in a suburb have worse internet speeds than a neighbour in the next street. That would be no different to what we have got now. So I am going to continue to campaign on this. Please, Canberra, send me your speeds. McPherson Electorate: Lions Clubs International 1819 16:16 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I would like to inform the House about an important event coming up in my electorate of McPherson and indeed all electorates around Australia. This Saturday, 4 March, marks 100 years of Lions Clubs International, serving communities around the world, including my own on the Gold Coast. It is an ideal time to acknowledge the tireless volunteer work of Lions Clubs members, which often goes unseen. I will quote from the Lions Clubs International members' code of ethics: Always to bear in mind my obligations as a citizen to my nation, my state, and my community, and to give them my unswerving loyalty in word, act, and deed. To give them freely of my time, labor and means. The commitment of Lions Clubs members to this code has brought many benefits to the Gold Coast and, indeed, many communities around Australia. Lions Clubs International is the world's largest service club organisation, with around 1½ million members—all volunteers. After forming in Chicago in 1917, Lions Clubs arrived in Australia in 1947 and 10 years later established on the Gold Coast in my electorate of McPherson. We probably all know a local Lions park or some other community project in our own regions that were provided by a local Lions Club. One of their first projects in my electorate was to build a clubhouse and facilities for the Palm Beach-Currumbin Lions Aussie Rules Club. But many of Lions Clubs activities in our communities go unseen, helping the vulnerable and disadvantaged and those who have fallen on hard times. Among their many local projects is a free movie night for disabled people and their carers. They are all taken by bus to a cinema, given a complimentary box of popcorn and enjoy a few hours of entertainment. It is a simple gesture but one that is so important and brings so much joy to those who could use it. Lions Clubs support drug rehabilitation and support programs on the Gold Coast, helping those who have lost their way get back on track. And in the devastating South-East Queensland floods of 2011, Lions Clubs quietly went about collecting and delivering replacement household items to those who had lost so much. It is a measure of respect in which they are held that a Lions Club call to local hotels and resorts on the Gold Coast for sheets and linen resulted in several truckloads of items provided to homes throughout the south-east. As I mentioned, Lions Clubs members are volunteers. While they provide the hard work, they need our help. This weekend, as part of their centenary, Lions Clubs will be out and about in communities raising money and recruiting new members through their sausage sizzles and other activities. I look forward to meeting up with our local Lions Clubs this Friday to mark this important milestone. If members see them out and about this weekend in their electorates, please remember the great work they do making all of our communities a better place. A big congratulations and shout-out to my local clubs, Robina, Mudgeeraba, Coolangatta, Tweed Heads, Burleigh Heads, Tallebudgera and Palm Beach-Currumbin. Dobell Electorate: Foodcare Service 1820 16:20 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Thank you to Chris, Damen, Peterese, Fred, Rachel, Sharon, Guy, Janet and the Coast Alive Christian Outreach Centre in Charmhaven for their outstanding contribution to our community on the Central Coast. Every Thursday these dedicated volunteers run the Foodcare service, which provides groceries, food hampers and a listening ear to local people in need. They are generously supported by local businesses—the Bakehouse Cafe in Gorokan and Lakehaven Woolworths, which donate bread and baked goods. Food is purchased at a reduced price from the Foodbank in Sydney and the result is a well-stocked shop that serves an average of 30 to 40 customers each week and has helped countless Central Coast families in need. When I visited the team last Thursday, I met Shane and Danielle, whose rental home of 14 years was destroyed in the storm that hit Sydney and the Central Coast on 17 February. The roof was blown completely off their house, damaging the inside and outside of their home, their car and their furniture—all ruined. When I met them, Shane, Danielle and their young daughter were in emergency accommodation and desperately looking for a new home. They arrived at Foodcare shocked and exhausted, and were grateful for the support and care they received. I was so relieved to hear yesterday that the family are now moving into a new home on the coast. I also met Jane, who recently moved to the Central Coast from Armidale. After a period of homelessness she has now found a home to rent, but finding $410 in rent each week for a four-bedroom home to sleep six, as well as childcare fees and the cost-of-living expenses that come with being mum to a 15-year-old, a six-year-old, a five-year-old and a three-year-old is really tough. This is the difference that Foodcare makes for so many families facing urgent or long-term hardship. Help is there to make ends meet. Damen, who is now a Foodcare team volunteer, was once in that position himself. After suffering a motorbike accident that prevented him from working, Foodcare provided the assistance he and Peterese needed to get them through. They are now an integral part of the service that helped them, and are giving back to our community each and every week. Volunteers at Foodcare devote between two to three days a week to order and collect stock, to pack and fill shelves and, of course, to open the shop for service once a week. As with most volunteers, they ask for very little in return. There are many volunteers in our community, and the work that they do is so valuable. The Salvation Army Oasis Youth Centre in Wyong is another place that offers a similar service. They are the true unsung heroes of our community. I thank the Foodcare team for all they do in helping Central Coast families in need. (Time expired) Tuberculosis 1821 16:22 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Australia is, in many ways, a sanctuary—an economic sanctuary, an environmental sanctuary and a sanctuary offering us protection from many of the events, illnesses and miseries in the wider world. Our reality often contrasts starkly with the experiences of some of our closest neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. Many Australians would be surprised to hear, in fact, that tuberculosis is still a major problem in the world and, indeed, right on our doorstep. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 23 to 16 : 36 Mr EVANS 61378 Before the suspension, I was talking about tuberculosis. It kills more people than HIV and malaria combined, nowadays, because those are diseases where significant progress has been made in prevention and treatment, unlike TB. Together, TB, malaria and HIV AIDS kill close to three million people each year. TB is about half of that death toll now, 1.5 million lives, an estimated 10 million new cases of infection each year. Almost all of these are in developing countries and approximately half of the world's new TB cases occur in the Asia-Pacific region, right on our doorstep. I have held a number of meetings recently with a great organisation called RESULTS Australia to talk through these issues. As someone who has been fortunate enough to visit most of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region I have a very deep affinity for the people of these nations, for their cultures, and note the responsibility that we have in our region to take a leadership role. I have seen the difference that targeted Australian aid is making for the benefit of humanity in our region, which is why I am proud to have recently joined the Global TB Caucus. I want to congratulate the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, for his longstanding leadership in that area and for helping me get involved. I also wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, the former member for Brisbane, Teresa Gambaro, for her strong contribution in this area over many years. Not only have I joined the Global TB Caucus, today I have also signed the Barcelona declaration. It is the founding document of the Global TB Caucus, designed to raise the profile of this issue amongst world leaders and advocate for action. I am also very proud to say that last year this government pledged $220 million of aid to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It is a 10 per cent increase on previous funding. More Australians deserve to know how Australia's funding here is one of the global cornerstones in the fight to eradicate TB. That is on top of the $64 million we have contributed, over recent years, in bilateral support to our close neighbours and friends in countries like PNG and Kiribati. Australia is playing a leadership role here. I want to congratulate our Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, for delivering compassionate and meaningful foreign aid leadership. Greater investment in diagnostics, better drugs and vaccines are our only hope for eradicating TB. I look forward to working further with RESULTS Australia. And, of course, members: World TB Day is on Friday, 24 March. Pensions and Benefits 1822 16:38 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise today to speak on the Turnbull government's continuing assault on pensioners and, specifically, its refusal to review deeming rates. In my electorate of Paterson pensioners are still reeling from the New Year's Day pension cuts. There are 3,410 pensioners in Paterson who are worse off as a result of the cuts—made by the Turnbull government in cahoots with the Greens—that were opposed by Labor every step of the way. A third of them—1,040 people—have had their pensions cancelled entirely, leaving them worse off by $191 a fortnight. There are 2,370 pensioners in my electorate who have had their pensions reduced, leaving them $135 a fortnight worse off. But the Turnbull government's assault on pensioners does not end there. The government's failure to address deeming rates is, in effect, a de facto pension cut and one that pensioners can ill-afford. I received an excellent letter just yesterday from Philip Healey of East Maitland. It reflects quite succinctly what many pensioners have told me about the deeming rates. Mr Healey said the New Year's Day pension cuts left him and his wife worse off by $408 a fortnight—that is, $10,600 a year. However, the 'gross disconnect between the pension assets/income test and the financial marketplace' artificially reduces their pension even more. The government deems that Mr Healey's investments earn him 1.75 per cent for the first $81,600 and 3.25 per cent for anything above that. Mr Healey's financial institution had, up until this week, offered a 'deeming account' with an interest rate the same as the government's deemed rate: 3.25 per cent. But the institution has discontinued its deeming account, reducing the rate to 2.6 per cent. Mr Healey is not critical of this decision by his institution, because he says that most had already done that quite a while ago. 'The reality is,' Mr Healey wrote, 'the government's deeming rate is too high.' Mr Healey has done some research as to how he might obtain the interest rate of 3.25 per cent that the government deems him to be earning. He found he would need to change institutions and would need to place all his funds in a 36-month term deposit with interest paid annually. And therein lies the problem: how can the government deem that Mr Healey is receiving 3.25 per cent per annum and reduce his pension each fortnight when it is not possible for him to access any income for 12 months? He and his wife cannot lock away all their savings for three years and go without income for 12 months, because they would have no money to live on. It is a scandal. These deeming rates must be reviewed. St George Men's Shed, St George Academy of Performing Arts, George Bass Trefoil Guild 1822 16:41 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 20 February I visited the St George Men's Shed in its new premises down at Carss Park. The shed is a really important group in our local community, providing the opportunity for fellowship—for men to come together and work on a whole range of projects. Many of our local schools, community groups and others benefit from the industry of the gentlemen at the men's shed. The former Kogarah council, now Georges River Council, is to be commended for its cooperation with the shed in finding the new premises at Carss Park when the previous premises, at Penshurst, were no longer available. Kogarah council certainly did a very good job in facilitating that. I would like to thank the secretary of the shed, Pat Murray; the president, Bernie Dolan; and all the gentlemen I chatted with on the day. It is always good to visit, and it was particularly good to see the gentlemen from the shed in their new premises. On 23 February I visited the St George Academy of Performing Arts, led by Lucy Lu, who is in charge of the academy, at its Hurstville studio. The academy has grown in recent years and has sites at Hurstville, Carlton—also in the St George area—over at Lidcombe, and in Waterloo as well. It has been in operation since 1998 and teaches dance and musical performance to students from preschool all the way through to university. On the day I was there, there were a number of young ballerinas who had recently completed an important part of their training, and it was good to be able to acknowledge their success. To Lucy and all the parents and kids who are involved in the St George Academy of Performing Arts: congratulations on all your great efforts. I look forward to catching up with you soon. On 20 February I attended the AGM of the George Bass Trefoil Guild at the Panania Girl Guides' hall. Of course, the Trefoil Guild works very closely with our local Girl Guides in helping the girls as they come through their Girl Guide experience. On the day, year 11 students from Danebank Rachel Hens and Isabel Lynch spoke about their visit to Tanzania as part of a school trip to support the Katoke Trust for Overseas Aid. It was very interesting to hear their presentation. Congratulations to Danebank on that important community involvement. I would also like to thank Val Kemp, president of the guild, and Mrs Gwen Cartwright, who arranged for the girls from Danebank to come and give that presentation, which was very well received. The guild does a great job in our community, and I look forward to visiting again soon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 If no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. There being no objection, I call the member for Perth. Chance, the Hon. Kimberley Maurice 1823 16:45 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the Hon. Kimberley Maurice Chance—Kim Chance, as he was more commonly known—who tragically and unexpectedly passed away last week. Kim was the farmer from Doodlakine in the Central Wheatbelt who became a WA Labor hero. He ran against—and lost to—Wilson Tuckey in three successive elections. As a sign of his tenacity, he persisted. He was elected to Western Australia's Legislative Council to fill a casual vacancy in 1992 and retired at the 2008 state election. Kim is best known for having been the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council and the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. As the minister, he led the reform of the national exceptional circumstances policy, leading to a more flexible framework for farmers affected by drought; he negotiated the reform of the single desk for grain marketing; and he promoted Western Australia's primary produce overseas, particularly in the Middle East and South-East Asia. He was a strong advocate for the retention of the Potato Marketing Corporation, ensuring a reliable, seasonally stable supply of potatoes for our local consumers at affordable prices. And he personally implemented the Gallop government's old-growth forest policy, which protected the natural beauty of Western Australia's forests while providing for those in timber communities who may have been adversely affected. The range of people who have placed obituaries in TheWest Australian is itself testament to the high regard in which Kim Chance was held: Western Australian Labor luminaries, including former leaders Geoff Gallop and Eric Ripper; Gary Gray; Alannah MacTiernan; Sheila McHale; Yvonne Henderson; Ljiljanna Ravlich; the former state president and secretary of Western Australian Labor Mark Cuomo; the Geraldton Labor branch; and, tellingly, his former electorate staff. They were joined by friendly Tories, including former Liberal Party president Barry Court and his wife, Margaret; Liberal MLC the Hon. Ken Baston; and member for Hillarys, Rob Johnson; and, fittingly, the Western Australian Farmers Federation; the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council, of which he was a board member; the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia; the Royal Agricultural Society of Western Australia; and the Western Australian grain co-op the CBH Group—very well known in Western Australia. Kim Chance was hardworking, affable, had incredible good humour and was intelligent and compassionate, the epitome of a good Labor minister. His recent passing leaves a very deep wound in the soul of Western Australian Labor. We extend our sincere condolences to his wife, Sue, his family and his friends. Capricornia Electorate: Roads 1824 16:48 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I am pleased to update the House on several key road projects which have received funding from the federal Liberal-National coalition. In the Capricorn Coast area, works are now complete on upgrading a notoriously dangerous intersection at Hidden Valley Road and the Yeppoon-Rockhampton road, making the journey safer for motorists. The $958,000 upgrade was fully funded through our coalition government's road Black Spot Program, one of the many initiatives in place to improve road safety and reduce road trauma. The intersection was a longstanding issue in the Capricorn Coast community. The upgrade was undertaken in two stages. The first stage involved extending Hoskyn Drive to Hidden Valley Road. The second stage involved the recent upgrade of the notoriously dangerous Hidden Valley Road turn-off onto Rockhampton-Yeppoon road. The work is expected to reduce the number of collisions at this intersection. Meanwhile, I am pleased to report to the House that work to repair Pilbeam Drive up to Mount Archer in the city of Rockhampton has been completed. Pilbeam Drive partially collapsed under rock falls during Cyclone Marcia in 2014. The two-year repair work was undertaken thanks to joint federal and state NDRRA natural disaster assistance. Mount Archer is an important asset to our region and it was important to restore access to the summit by repairing the damages to Pilbeam Drive. In addition to the road repairs, I am pleased that the federal government is also contributing $1.5 million towards the first stage of a walking track up Mount Archer and has provided funding for further developments for mountain biking. In a third update, I am pleased to advise the House that upgrades to the Gregory Highway between Emerald and Clermont are well underway in the electorates of Capricornia and Flynn. This $25.5 million project is delivering a series of new intersections, lane widening and overtaking lanes. It has been funded through round 4 of the coalition's Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. These upgrades will allow type 2 road trains to use this road safely and efficiently. They will also ensure that the needs of the agribusiness, mining and construction industries are met, so we can get goods to market in a competitive manner. I am advised that an average of 50 direct jobs will also be supported over the construction phase of the project. This is evidence that the National Party continues to ensure that our government supports investment into regional Australia. Infrastructure 1825 16:50 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt As is the case in most of the country, the Liberal-National coalition government in Western Australia likes to claim it is the party that supports people living in the regions and supports our regional economy. Like in most parts of the country, its actions show the opposite: the Barnett-Grylls Liberal-National government allowed, permitted and agreed to the degradation and eventual closure of the Tier 3 grain lines in WA. For the benefit of those here today who may not know, the Tier 3 lines in WA's rail system comprise more than 500 kilometres of track that used to bring grain from WA's wheat belt to port for export. In 2014, these lines were placed into care and maintenance by the lessee, with the blessing of the WA Liberal-National government. WA exports almost $3 billion of wheat every year, and crop yields are always increasing. Indeed, WA exports 90 per cent of its grain production each year, so getting grain from the farm gate to port in the most efficient way possible is of vital importance. At a time when the mining construction boom is well and truly over, our state has the highest unemployment rate in the country and the state is in chronic deficit after years of Liberal economic mismanagement. Government, therefore, should be supporting economic diversification in growth industries—industries like agriculture. Colin Barnett and Brendon Grylls have walked away from the very rail network needed to transport this grain to foreign markets. Not only does this constrain growth within our agricultural sector; the obvious knock-on effect to closing grain rail lines is that there are more trucks on our roads—roads the Barnett Liberals promised to upgrade but did nothing about. This is not just me saying this. A 2014 WA parliamentary committee report into the freight rail network noted community concern that truck movements on roads would increase with Tier 3 lines closing. The report says: Many local governments do not have the revenue raising capacity to allow them to generate sufficient income to meet required road upgrade and maintenance costs. The report continues: Failure to provide appropriate funding to local governments impacted by the closure of Tier 3 lines amounts to cost shifting on the part of the state government. The same committee report noted that the wheat belt experiences a high road toll compared to other regions in Western Australia. WA is blessed by not having toll roads, though the Barnett Liberal government and this Turnbull Liberal government are doing their level best to introduce a toll road on the Perth Freight Link. The effect is that the cost of using roads is artificially low when compared to transporting grain by rail. This unfairly disadvantages rail—and then one wonders why the WA freight rail operator cannot keep the Tier 3 lines open. To maximise prices for WA farmers, the volumes of grain able to be sold and shipped in the summer months—the European winter—need to be maximised. This needs rail. The WA Nationals and the Barnett government have failed our farmers. (Time expired) Legion of Honour 1826 16:54 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper Today I rise to express my appreciation for a couple in the Cowper electorate who are building a stellar record of dedication and commitment to a very important cause. Barry and Von Gracey have dedicated themselves to keeping alive the memory of the Australian soldiers who so bravely fought at Pozieres in France. I have been to Pozieres. Today it is a simple, peaceful French village, but 101 years ago it was the scene of one of the bloodiest battles ever fought by Australian diggers. The Battle of Pozieres was part of the overall Somme offensive in the summer of 1916. On 23 July 1916, the Australian 1st Division captured the village of Pozieres from the Germans. The division clung to its gains despite almost continuous artillery fire and repeated German counterattacks. By the time it was relieved four days later, on 27 July, it had suffered 5,285 casualties. The Australian 2nd Division relieved the devastated but victorious 1st Division then mounted two further attacks. The first, on 29 July, did not succeed. The second attack, on 2 August, resulted in the seizure of further German positions beyond the village. Again, the Australians suffered heavily from artillery bombardments. They were relieved on 6 August. The Australian 4th Division was next into the line at Pozieres. It too endured a massive artillery bombardment and defeated a German counterattack on 7 August. This was the last attempt by the Germans to retake Pozieres. There were more than 23,000 Australian casualties at Pozieres in less than seven weeks—only slightly less than the Gallipoli campaign, which lasted eight months. Of the casualties, 6,848 Australian soldiers were killed. The fighting around Pozieres Ridge has become part of Australia's military folklore. Official war historian Charles Bean said Pozieres: ... was more densely sown with Australian sacrifice than any other spot on earth. Barry and Von Gracey have spent more than a decade working to keep alive the memory of the men who fought at Pozieres. They have done more to build the relationship between Pozieres and Australia than anyone else. Last year, Barry and Von were awarded the French Legion of Honour by the French government. They are believed to be the first couple to jointly receive the honour since it was introduced by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802. This is an exceptional honour, and I am very proud to be their local member. A few weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of presenting Barry and Von with a federal member's award to provide local recognition of their outstanding efforts in ensuring the Battle for Pozieres and the sacrifice of our Australian servicemen will always be remembered. AFL Women's Competition 1826 16:56 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand In this constituency statement I want to talk about one of the most exciting developments in my community in quite some time—the launch of the AFL women's competition and the early return of footy to VU Whitten Oval in Footscray. My community has embraced the launch of the AFL women's comp with enormous enthusiasm. More than 10,000 thousand people from Melbourne's west—including my daughter and I—turned out to see the Daughters of the West victorious over the hapless Fremantle Dockers in their first match in the comp. Commiserations to the members for Fremantle, Brand and Melbourne in this respect. And the crowds have remained strong through the season with almost 7,000 fans—including my son and I—suffering the indignity of seeing the dogs loose to Collingwood last weekend. The overwhelming—shamefully unanticipated—and long-awaited success of the historic first season of the AFLW sends a strong statement about the importance of gender equality. Football has always captured the hearts and minds of Australians, and this new brand of Australian football is not only inspiring a generation of girls and women in our community to take up the great game but also sending a clear message to boys and men about gender equality. The AFL women's comp brings long overdue recognition to elite female footy players and shows that the hard work of our female athletes is worthy of the attention and attracts community support. This has been amply demonstrated since the competition started. I have loved watching acting dogs captain, Ellie Blackburn's, ability to find the ball and get boot to ball even in the toughest of circumstances and I have wrung my hands at the absence of star forward and inaugural captain, Katie Brennan, to injury in much the same way that I lamented the absence of the captain Bob Murphy from the men's premiership-wining Western bulldogs team last year. The AFL women's comp paves the way to opportunity. It paves the way to respect. It is a defiant rebuttal of the prevailing culture that condones violence against women in our society. The AFL women's comp breaks gender norms like Emma Kearney busting a pack, and it is fighting the gendered stereotypes that support violence against women. Indeed, Our Watch, the national foundation to end violence against women and their children, has recognised the critical role that footy and footy clubs play in the prevention of violence against women in our community. I want to congratulate the Western Bulldogs, their management team and their board on the extraordinary leadership that they have shown on this front in Melbourne and in the competition at large. The leadership role that Susan Alberti has played in this respect has been very well covered but she has been supported at all levels of the club. I want to give my thanks to the club for championing gender equality through footy. With the addition of the AFL women's team to the existing AFL and VFL Western Bulldogs teams, the new Western Bulldogs slogan says it all: 'Three teams. One club'. As a foundation member of the AFL Western Bulldogs Women's Team I cannot wait for the rest of the AFLW season. Go Dogs! (Time expired) Groom Electorate: Infrastructure 1827 17:00 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Last week on behalf of the coalition government I attended the commencement of works for the Warrego Highway Toowoomba to Oakey duplication stage 2 project. This is a project that will improve safety and highway capacity by separating opposing traffic, upgrading intersections and adding new turning lanes as part of the $635 million Warrego Highway Toowoomba to Miles upgrade program. Construction of the stage 2, $160 million Warrego Highway Toowoomba to Oakey project will begin very shortly. It should take about 15 months to complete. I was pleased to see that civil construction company, the Georgiou Group, were well underway with the planning and implementation of the project. It is funded on an 80-20 basis, with the Australian government contributing up to $128 million and the Queensland government contributing $32 million. I had the opportunity to really focus on the economic benefits of the project: 250 direct jobs will be supported over its life. It will represent a key link in Queensland's regional economy, because the Warrego Highway services the agricultural heartland of the Darling Downs and the resource-rich Surat Basin, as well as being a major tourism route to outback Queensland. This is one of the growth corridors of the region, and all projections point to a massive rise in road usage as new industries and neighbouring developments come online. I am very pleased, therefore, that the federal government is continuing to invest in enabling infrastructure such as this in the region as we grow. It has significant safety benefits. These works will improve driver safety and highway capacity, particularly providing safer access to the highway from Gowrie Mountain and Kingsthorpe whilst providing more overtaking opportunities. The overpass on the highway at the Kingsthorpe turnoff will improve safety not only for local but also for those travelling west and, of course, for those visiting the annual FarmFest agricultural field day. It is a recognised road accident zone, so it is important to have this in place. Particularly, though, it will support growth in our region. The Toowoomba Enterprise Zone, just to the east of this site, is growing significantly. That will see hundreds and thousands of jobs over the coming years. It is important, therefore, that Kingsthorpe and nearby Oakey have this safe access so that they can grow. A particular shout out to Oakey: it has a significant future for future residents in our region, to support this work site whilst it deals with its sullied image at the moment in the ongoing challenge of PFAS contamination. Workplace Relations 1828 17:03 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley This is a government that is out of touch, out of ideas and out of options. It chooses to stand by and do nothing whilst penalty rates are cut and the pay of hardworking Australians is slashed. We know that from listening to the Prime Minister and the government, who confirmed that they support the decision today. The government is quite happy to see the wages of hardworking Australians, residents in my electorate of Oxley, cut whilst at the same time handing out $50 billion worth of tax cuts to big business—and cutting payments to families, soon-to-be parents, pensioners and job seekers. We know from analysis done recently by the Grattan Institute that the fact of these tax cuts will mean, even assuming that you get those things in the long run, that there will be a period of time in which national income will fall. We know this because we will see the government giving a tax cut to foreigners, meaning the benefit at first goes overseas. I know that in my own electorate there are 10,500 retail, food and accommodation workers who are looking down the barrel of cuts to their take-home pay. They are part of the almost 700,000 Australians in the same situation—facing the same pay cuts. We know they are going to be $77 a week worse off. We know that is not a lot of money to the Prime Minister or the members of the government. For the workers in my electorate, that is a huge deal. But do the government stand up for these workers? Do they stand by them? No, they sell them down the river. They shift the blame. They run away with excuses. But we have heard today—the cat is out—that the Prime Minister supports the decision. There was a concerted campaign by the PM and members of the government, time and time again, supporting this decision—encouraging and urging this decision. So now we have a situation where some of the lowest paid Australians will go to work on Sunday one week, do the same job and the same hours the next Sunday, and be short-changed $77 per week, and what has this government done? Absolutely nothing. It stood by and allowed it to happen. The fact is that penalty rates put food on the table and books on school desks and go some way to compensating hardworking Australians who forgo family and leisure time to work on Sundays. If the government were truly looking after Australians, they would join with Labor to stand by Australian workers and support our bill to stop the cutting of the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of Australians. I know that the 10,500 workers in my electorate deserve much better than they are getting from Malcolm Turnbull and this government. I stand shoulder to shoulder to shoulder with them. Australians deserve better than this poor excuse for a government. Flynn Electorate: Small Business 1829 17:06 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I rise today to talk about the opportunities and highlight some of the restrictive pressures on the small business sector and its ability to survive. Flynn is home to 14,124 small businesses in a variety of industries, including agriculture, construction, business services, transport, mining and manufacturing. Across the country, small business is the engine room of the economy, accounting for 44.8 per cent of all employment. I will repeat that: 44.8 per cent of all employment. The process for start-up companies is horrendous, especially when they have to go through three levels of government. The owners of a business at Gin Gin in my electorate are having trouble in getting up a quarry, which had to go through all levels of government. They started this process three years ago, and would you believe that today they are still about six months off getting all the approvals done? That is too long, and it costs the owners a lot of money. We know that three out of four start-up businesses fail in the first 12 months. This is unacceptable. The most obvious reason is taxation. The current corporate rate of tax is 30 per cent, and that is far too high by world standards. Other advanced economies in the world are much lower than that, apart from the USA, where the President has already indicated to the world, as he has done on other issues, that he will drop that rate from 35 per cent to a 15 or 20 per cent tax rate. Canada already has 15 per cent, Denmark 22 per cent, France 15 per cent, South Korea 24.2 per cent, the Netherlands 20.5 per cent, Singapore 17 per cent and the United Kingdom 20 per cent. Even Communist China is as low as 25 per cent. So we have a long way to go to be competitive and make our businesses competitive globally. The issue is that our farmers and our businesspeople need support. They not only have taxation issues and payroll tax issues; they have nature to contend with. We have fires, floods and droughts. I do not know which is the worst, but I think fire, as we saw in some parts of New South Wales last week, is pretty devastating to any business, because sometimes you can lose the lot, including your own house. People on the land and big businesses help small businesses become big businesses. Some big businesses become small businesses. (Time expired) Brigid Awards 1829 17:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson (—) (): I would like to congratulate Janice Currie-Henderson for a lifetime achievement award, which was presented at this year's Brigid Awards gala dinner in Sydney for the Irish community. Janice has made a huge contribution to Irish dancing in New South Wales and in Australia, benefitting both the cultural and community life of Australians. I have known her since I was a child, growing up in Beverly Hills. She was one of the founding members of the Australian Irish Dancing Association, the association that is celebrating their 50-year anniversary this year. Janice has been teaching for over 57 years and has produced 20 Australian champions and numerous national team champions in various categories. Her students have performed for Australian prime ministers and also on the world stage, performing in leading productions such as Riverdance and Gaelforce Dance and To Dance on the Moon. This is no surprise. Janice started Irish dancing when she was four, and during her own dancing career she was a national champion and a New South Wales champion on many occasions. Janice has touched the lives of thousands of dance students across Sydney, particularly in the suburbs of Mascot, Kensington, Waterloo, Merrylands, Kingsgrove, Earlwood Beverly Hills, Dulwich Hill, Lakemba, St Marys, St Leonards, Greenacre, Penrith and Miranda. She continues to run a successful Irish dancing business today. It is with great pleasure that I recognise Janice's service to the community and her passion for Irish dancing. Kapeen, Aunty Bertha, Saban, Mr Riley, Bryant, Ms Mary 1830 17:11 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I wish to inform the House of the passing of a Bundjalung elder over the weekend. Aunty Bertha Kapeen, a great community leader and advocate, was a remarkable woman. She was a mother of eight, grandmother to 30 and great-grandmother to 23. Aunty Bertha was the matriarch to an enormous network of family and friends. She was born and raised on Cabbage Tree Island to Robert and Florence Bolt in 1935, and she was the ninth of 13 children. In 1955, she married David Kapeen and they had eight children—Denis, Julie, David, Thelma, Kerry—who has unfortunately passed away, Monica, Ernist and George. She became the first Aboriginal postmistress on Cabbage Tree Island. She wrote two books that are still popular today and co-authored a history on Aboriginal women's heritage and was awarded the Ballina Electorate Woman of the Year in 2008. She was intricately involved in the Aboriginal child and family centre at Porter Park. She was also a life member of the Aboriginal Education Consultative Group and the chair of the Bundjalung Elders Council for over 20 years. She also belonged to the Salt Water Women Art Group. Aunty Bertha leaves behind a legacy that showed a great love for her community. Rest in peace, Aunty Bertha. Today I would like to acknowledge a truly inspiring a young man from my electorate, Riley Saban. Riley lives in Mullaway, on the northern beaches of the Coffs Coast, and is typical 14-year old boy who attends Woolgoolga High School. He took up the sport called boccia when he was 12. It is an inclusive sport, similar to lawn bowls. Using space provided by Marine Rescue Woolgoolga, he has been training hard at perfecting his skills and is now competing at senior level. He was selected for the national team in December and will this year take part in the New South Wales state titles in March. He then has his eyes firmly set on making the Australian Olympic squad for the 2020 Olympic Games. Riley has cerebral palsy. He has a great attitude towards life and is inspiring to those around him. I congratulate Riley on his outstanding achievements and wish him all the very best for his future endeavours. Many people in Lismore have been on the receiving end of Mary Bryant's generosity. She is a local Lismore cafe owner, always ready with a laugh and a smile. She was recently congratulated for her dedication to upskilling local students at her cafe, Coffee Shots. Mary and Coffee Shots have hosted 54 students in the past four years through Connect Northern Rivers. The students are all from around Lismore and attended TAFE or high school. Mary requested students that suffered from what she says are 'shyness issues' and encouraged many of the students to overcome their shyness and build up confidence. Many of these have gone on to thrive in the workplace, something that Connect employment attributes to Mary's gentle and caring temperament. I would like to congratulate her and all the staff at Coffee Shots for what they do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH 1831 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 1831 17:14 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand When this address-in-reply contribution was interrupted some 2½ months ago I was in midstream talking about how the current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was being led by the nose by that irascible senator, Senator Cory Bernardi, and section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was being used as a political plaything in the coalition to advance various ideological and tactical interests. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I do understand, however, that the member for Moore has just tabled in the House of Representatives a report on section 18C from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, so I will not belabour the point by going back to that particular well. I will move onto another change in circumstances that we have experienced in the interim, between the start and the end of this speech—the election and swearing into office of a new US President. The Australia-US alliance is a long one and one founded on shared values and interests. The United States has been a champion of the rules based international order that has emerged since the Second World War—an international order that has benefited Australia enormously. As a result of the intimate relationship between Australia and the US through ANZUS, Australian security and strategic policy has been closely entwined with that of the United States for many decades now. This is all to the good. This has been a relationship based on shared respect at multiple levels between the Australian and the American people, demonstrated by the fact that Australia is the only country in the world with a positive net migration flow from the United States. I should add that that migration includes my father's partner. We have a close trade relationship—another marker of our relationship with the US. The US is one of our biggest trading partners, one of our biggest sources of foreign investment and one of our biggest destinations for overseas investment. There is also shared respect between our defence forces, who have served side by side in conflicts including the Second World War, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, Iraq and Desert Storm through to the second Iraq conflict in 2003, Afghanistan and more recently operations in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq today Australia is one of the largest coalition partners in the fight against ISIS. I saw this relationship firsthand in 2015 when I visited the MER as part of the ADF parliamentary program. I saw firsthand the practical intimacy and the genuine regard in which the ADF is held in the eyes of US armed forces. Australians like David Kilcullen have worked intimately with US forces at the highest levels, and notably the new US defence secretary James Mattis is a man who is well regarded by the ADF and mutually regards us extremely well also. All of this is intended as a very warm prelude to an area where we have taken a different view to the United States in recent times. The recent executive order on immigration signed by President Trump, that imposes a temporary ban on entry to the United States from individuals with passports from seven nations, has caused much consternation in Australia and in my electorate. Melbourne's west is home to significant communities of Sudanese Australians, of Somali Australians, who have been very concerned about the impact that this ban may have on them and their friends and families. More broadly, Melbourne's west is home to a significant community of Muslim Australians who have been concerned about the characterisation of this executive order as a 'Muslim ban'. Thon Maker, an Australian born in what is now South Sudan and who sought refuge in our country a decade ago, is now a highly successful basketball player in the National Basketball Association in the US and has recently begun starting for the Milwaukee Bucks. There was a period when it was very uncertain whether these dual passport holders would be caught by this immigration ban. It seems that this has now been clarified, and I do give credit to the foreign minister for her interventions on this front. However, I do want to make the point here that the way that this intervention has been characterised has been problematic—not by the foreign minister, by the executive order. Australia and America are both stronger for their diversity, and this is a view that Australia will robustly put within the context of the new US presidency. As Bill Shorten said at the time of this executive order: Australia has had a non-discriminatory immigration policy for more than four decades. It's made us stronger. We don’t just tolerate diversity, we embrace it. We are the home of the fair go for all. All races, all faiths, all cultures. And: Wherever possible, I want the United States to be able to go about its business without interference from Australia. And I would expect the reverse to be true. However, there are some issues where silence will be interpreted as agreement. For that reason, I need to say Mr Trump's ban on refugees based upon their religion or country is appalling and ought to be ended as soon as possible. I share these views expressed by the opposition leader and take this opportunity to reiterate them in this chamber. I also take this opportunity, drawing on the close relationship between Australia and the United States over many decades, as a friend, to say that Islam is not the enemy of the United States. This is a view that President George W Bush expressed so eloquently in the wake of September 11 and in the lead-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Similarly, the people in the nations subject to this executive order are not the enemies of the United States. Many of them are the victims of the same repressive regimes that we have sought to work so closely with the United States in combating around the world. For my constituents I also offer this message: ANZUS has served Australia very well over many decades. The nature of the Australia-US alliance has changed over this time; it has evolved and, as a mutual self-defence treaty, it necessarily has given us great freedom in how we decide how best to make use of this relationship, to make this relationship work for Australia's interests and for our shared interests with the United States. Given this, we should not be precipitate when Australia and the United States disagree. It is okay to disagree within the alliance—and I expect to do so frequently during the presidency of President Trump, to be frank. However, disagreements need not mean the end of the alliance. There are some in this building—particularly in the other place—who seem keen to rush to this conclusion, and I strongly suggest to them that Australia's security and strategic interests should not be used as political playthings in this place. Labor expressed a different view from that of the United States in 2003 when we took a position of principled opposition to the US war on Iraq at that time. I believe Simon Crean deserves enormous credit for being very upfront with this—for travelling to Townsville to speak directly to the Australian troops who were being deployed to Iraq and to outline this principled position. But this did not mean that we questioned the future of the Australia-US alliance; we were acting independently within the context of a mutual self-defence treaty. Similarly, I have long argued for closer ties between Australia and our neighbours in South-East Asia. I genuinely believe that the Australian identity and Australia's strategic and security interests lie in an intimate, interwoven relationship with South-East Asian nations. Diaspora communities from South-East Asian nations in Australia are an enormous strategic asset for Australia and, as countries like Singapore have shown, small countries working collaboratively within this region are able to achieve enormous results through multilateral forums. It is not a binary choice between ANZUS and working closely with South-East Asian nations. This is not an either-or decision; we can have both, and I encourage all members within this chamber—particularly within the other place—not to create a false dichotomy between Australia's strategic interests with the United States and with our allies in South-East Asia. That being said, it is important that, when we disagree with the United States on issues of principle like the so-called Muslim ban, we say so. Australia's second nearest northern neighbour is the largest Islamic country in the world. Malaysia, another Islamic country, is also a key strategic fellow traveller with Australia in our region. Characterising current geostrategic conflicts as the West against Islam hurts Australia's interests with these nations, and we should be explicit in calling this out. However, as I say, this is not an either-or choice, and I encourage members to be reflective when disagreements arise between Australia and the US; to stand up for our principles, true, but not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; and to be consistent in the prosecution of Australian values at home and overseas but not to underestimate the importance and the enduring significance of the Australia-US alliance to Australia's strategic influence and our ability to secure our interests overseas. 17:24 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I am very pleased tonight to make my contribution to the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's opening speech. While this has probably been a little more drawn out than in previous years, I do take this opportunity to take part in the debate. About a month ago it was nine years since I made my first speech in this place in February 2008. I had cause to go back and reflect on some of the points I made in that first speech and look at where we are now. The electorate of Parkes is considerably different from what it was in 2008. After several redistributions, the electorate has moved from 107,000 square kilometres in size to 393,000 square kilometres, which is roughly half the land mass of New South Wales. What has particularly changed in the last redistribution—and the electorate that I now proudly hold after the 2016 election—is that I have gained a large part of western New South Wales: the Central Darling Shire, the unincorporated areas of New South Wales and the City of Broken Hill, which is right on the western side of New South Wales. So I believe I am one of the few federal electorates that is in two time zones, Broken Hill being in central time. Because of that redistribution, I have lost the communities of the mid-western council: Mudgee, Gulgong and the Shire of Wellington as well as the southern half of Gwydir Shire, which includes the township of Bingara. That is difficult, as anyone here would know. The role of being a federal member of parliament is all about relationships. You work very hard with your communities to build those relationships, to understand their hopes and aspirations and to get involved in the problems they come across—and then, because of a redistribution in boundaries, all of a sudden, those people move on and you are looking after another area. Even though there is a process in place the people are quite resentful. They feel that they are taken advantage of because they are chopped round and put in different areas. I have also, in the redistribution, picked up the community of the Gunnedah Shire, which is on the eastern side of the boundary of the electorate of Parkes. I have been working very hard since the election to make connections with the new parts of my electorate. Indeed, before Christmas I opened an electorate office in Broken Hill, staffed by two very capable local people, and they are doing a great job out there for me in the Broken Hill office. I also believe I am the first federal member to have three electorate offices: one in Broken Hill, one in Moree and a main one in Dubbo. The nature of my electorate is that I am actually 4½ hours drive from my main office, one hour's drive from Moree and 13 hours drive from Broken Hill. That does present problems, managing an area such as that. But the advantages of having an electorate like Parkes, with quite separate, diverse and independent communities, is that it is a great privilege to become involved with those communities. I suspect in a large metropolitan area it is hard to have that identity. I can tell you that all of my towns have that strong identity, no more so than Broken Hill. Broken Hill has a magnificent tradition going back to the early discovery, many years ago, of minerals by Charles Rasp. The culture and independence in that town is still very strong today. I understand that as a member of the National Party, a conservative party, who does not live in Broken Hill it presents certain problems. I understand that the people of Broken Hill are suspicious of those who come from outside. But I want to promise the people of Broken Hill and western New South Wales—Wilcannia, Menindee, Tibooburra, Ivanhoe, White Cliffs and all those magnificent communities in the west—that I am going to work very hard to be their voice, in this place, in the Australian parliament. I take it as a great privilege and an honour—something that I do not take for granted. I am going to do my best to be their representative. Likewise with Gunnedah, I did represent Gunnedah Shire in the first term of my government, of which I was a member. Subsequently, it had two terms—six years in New England; it is now back in Parkes—and I am very pleased to be reacquainting myself with the communities of Gunnedah and getting reconnected with the hopes and aspirations of that community. That has also been a great privilege. The Parkes electorate is half of New South Wales with an economy underpinned by agriculture and mining. There is an assumption, I think—I am a member of the National Party, representing a very strong agricultural area—that all the issues I deal with are to do with agriculture. The reality is: I do have a strong agricultural area—I have an agricultural background, and there are some exciting things happening—but 85 per cent of the population of the Parkes electorate are not farmers. I represent nearly as many miners as I do farmers; and I actually represent more Aboriginal people than I do farmers. I believe, after the Northern Territory, I represent more Aboriginal people in this parliament than anyone else, and that is also an honour that I take very seriously. It is a great privilege to represent Aboriginal communities, and I can tell you the work you do as a local member can only be effective when you have a relationship with those communities. With Aboriginal people, you have got to take the time to meet with people, talk with people and not just be another bloke in a suit who turns up every now and then, and blows in and blows out. I have still got work to do in some of the newer areas—Wilcannia, Menindee and places like that—but I can assure the Aboriginal people in those towns that I take this role very seriously. Over the years, we have seen some great success stories come out of those western towns. Young Nathan Johnson is now in the third year of a fine arts degree at the University of Newcastle—and I first met Nathan as a student at Brewarrina high school. Great things are happening through the Clontarf Foundation, and we now have Clontarf, which is a wonderful organisation, across many of the communities in my electorate. Indeed Dubbo has three campuses of Clontarf, and they tell me this year that 300 boys in Dubbo are attending Clontarf on a regular basis and 58 Aboriginal boys this year will do their Higher School Certificate. Last year the cohort of Aboriginal boys in Dubbo who did the Higher School Certificate was the largest ever, and we have seen great success stories ticking through. We have got to make sure that that next follow-on goes and the potential that is harnessed by keeping these young people at school is carried on into further education and employment. We are starting to see that. Other communities—for instance, Boggabilla and Toomelah and right up on the Queensland border—were very proud last year to be major sponsors of the Macintyre Warriors. They went right to the grand final with their rugby league side and were beaten narrowly by Inverell in the final. They were undefeated until I actually went and watched them—I suspect that I might not be invited back, being bad luck. But it was great to be there on a Saturday afternoon in Boggabilla to see the entire community engaged in watching the footy—an alcohol-free event: the kids looking up to the older fellows as role models; and girls' league tag taking place. While in some circles, this might not seem a big achievement, for the people that have got in and organised this football club, it is a great result. This year members of the Army, through their remote Indigenous communities program, are spending the year at Toomelah. Indeed, I think that in August, as part of a parliamentary exchange program, I will be part of a team that is going to go and spend a week at Toomelah with the Army, building infrastructure, engaging with the local community and building relationships in that town. Again going back to my first speech, I recall I mentioned the importance of inland rail. I can say, nine years later, that we are getting to a point where we can point to a piece of equipment and say: they are constructing the Inland Rail. Two weeks ago we were able to identify the preferred route north of Moree through to Yelarbon, using the existing defunct Boggabilla rail line, going right through nearly to the border. It will cross over east of Goondiwindi, which will give Goondiwindi, which has a large inland grain terminal, access to the Port of Brisbane and, indeed, to any port in New South Wales. Inland Rail will mean that, for the first time, every capital city in Australia is linked by rail. At the moment, the ARTC are undertaking community consultation in the area between Narromine and Narrabri. I understand that there are constituents of mine out there who have concerns, and obviously they have every right to be concerned. A railway line through an agricultural district is of great interest because of the effect it might have on access to farms, maybe dividing parts of properties, so the ARTC are working through those issues with people at the moment. This government is committed to this—and in particular I am committed to this—because it will be a steel Mississippi. It will give communities right throughout my electorate, in the 600 or 700 kilometres over which it will travel in my electorate, access to all the capital cities. There will be no reason why industry cannot relocate to western New South Wales and make use of an efficient rail network to deliver goods and services right around the country. The other things that I am very proud of are the policies that are implemented when you are part of a government. You get to see the effect of them. When people do things that are maybe influenced by government policy they are probably not even thinking about the fact that there was a debate, that legislation was drawn up and that a considerable amount of effort went into that. As I drive around my electorate, I see grain silos, hay sheds, new fences and water systems that have all been facilitated through the agriculture white paper that Barnaby Joyce, as the minister, implemented. Accelerated depreciation, which allows farmers to write these things off their tax over three years, instead of 15 or 20 years, has been a great incentive. Not only have farmers had the advantage of having a more efficient water system, being able to store grain on-farm, and having better marketing options, but all those towns have had income generated by the cement companies, shed constructors, contract fencers and contractors who put in water supplies. It has generated a lot of activity, as has the instant asset write-off for equipment under $20,000. That goes right across the country, with small businesses and tradespeople buying toolboxes, electric saws, computers, stainless steel cooking benches for restaurants—a whole range of things. It has generated income which has made a difference to these small businesses. In my electorate we are still dealing with some issues that are quite contentious and quite difficult. I represent a third of the Murray-Darling Basin, from the Border Rivers at the top, right down to the Lachlan in the Murrumbidgee area and right out to the Lower Darling below Lake Menindee. As you can imagine, issues that are affecting one community have an effect on another community. It does not matter where you stand in the river system. If you look upstream at the residents there, with a level of thought, and downstream in another way, you always think that the people upstream are taking your water and the people downstream are wasting your water. It does not matter where you stand. So we need to get that balance right through the Basin Plan and balance up looking after the environment, which is incredibly important—I have some iconic environmental assets in my electorate: the Macquarie Marshes, the Gwydir Wetlands and places like that that are incredibly significant—with the importance of agricultural production. People say to me, 'Why are you growing cotton in the Murray-Darling Basin?' I will point to their shirt and say: 'That's a nice shirt. Where did that cotton come from? Do you realise that the kilogram of cotton that would go to make that shirt is now grown with a fraction of the water, a fraction of the diesel and a fraction of the chemicals that would have gone into that 20 years ago?' Those are the efficiencies of those irrigation systems, which are now progressing into citrus, corn and a whole range of other things. It is incredibly efficient. But we still have that balance. I have my residents at Broken Hill and Menindee, who are concerned. They saw their lakes dry last year. They got up to 90 per cent with the rain that we had over the winter, but there is great concern out there, as water is released from those lakes to the orchards in Victoria and South Australia and also to the environmental assets, that they will be left high and dry once again. The water is incredibly important to the lifestyle and wellbeing of those communities in Broken Hill, Wilcannia and Menindee, those western towns. So it is an incredible balance because of the variable nature of the rainfall, where it falls and the timeliness. In the last winter, I had half of my electorate under flood and half of my electorate under drought, and that is the nature of it. But we need to get this process to a conclusion. We need to make sure that people know where we stand, because my communities are reformed to death. They have had enough of it. We need to make sure that we are going to do some practical things. There was a huge ruckus before Christmas in South Australia, with the water minister in discussions with Barnaby Joyce about 450 gigalitres of upwater with a wet winter, which is going to be nearly impossible to deliver down the system without causing enormous grief and flooding to the river communities. We need to make sure that we can do things that are practical and possible to get the best economic, social and environmental outcome and not get caught up in the debates in this place about who cares about the environment the most because they are going to take the most water out. That is probably one of the most difficult decisions that my electorate is facing. As a part of the nation that feeds the country and a large part of the world, we need to get this balance right and we need to understand the importance of production, the importance of the environment and the fact that these local communities have made a huge sacrifice with the water that has been taken. There is no greater stimulus to a river town than a megalitre of water. If you want to go for employment, wellbeing and social amenity, that water is incredibly important. So we will work through that. As I start my 10th year in this place, it is interesting to look back at the changes and the things that do not change. I am deeply privileged and honoured to have this position and to represent half the land mass of New South Wales, from the edge of the Hunter Valley to South Australia and from Queensland to the Riverina—all those wonderful communities that are out there beavering away, working hard and raising families in an incredibly inclusive environment. It is a great privilege to be their representative in this place, and I look forward to doing it for some time yet. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 I thank the honourable member. I quite enjoyed that journey through your electorate. 17:44 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Once upon a time, the address-in-reply debate was about parliamentarians expressing our loyalty to the Queen and our thanks to the Governor-General, but more typically these days it is used by a government to set out its agenda for governing—or, in the case of this government, its lack of agenda for governing. The Liberals might be occupying the Treasury benches, but all members of parliament have a responsibility in setting the direction of this nation and showing leadership. Today I want to pay tribute to the new members of parliament who have joined the 45th Parliament, because they are already playing a role, but over coming years they will play an increasingly important role in setting the agenda and the direction for our nation. It is an immense privilege to be elected to the House of Representatives to represent a community that we feel passionately about, but this privilege also comes with great responsibility. I can assure new members that, over time, the challenges will change—the local challenges, the national challenges and the international challenges will change—but those challenges will never diminish. We face many challenges as a nation, but with those challenges come great opportunities too. Our task is to face those challenges resolutely, face them bravely and grasp those opportunities wisely for the benefit of the people who live in our electorates and for the benefit of our nation. We are in a unique position as members of the federal parliament to make real what we believe would really improve our country. We are almost uniquely placed to do that, and that comes with the responsibility of having a vision, being able to articulate that vision and—very, very importantly—being able to implement it, to make it real. From our new members of parliament we saw a number of fabulous first speeches—maiden speeches, as they used to be called—and I want to focus a little bit on these first speeches of my colleagues because they show a group of people who really have a vision for our nation and the talent and the application to bring that vision to life. I want to start with a couple of people who have made not one first speech to this parliament but two. The first, of course, is my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro, the shadow assistant minister for defence industry and support, the Hon. Dr Mike Kelly. There is a reason that this member of parliament broke the rule that Eden-Monaro is a bellwether seat. He was an extraordinary, extraordinarily diligent member of parliament when he was last elected and will be again this time and for however long he holds this seat, which I know will be a long time. He has made an enormous contribution to our nation through his active service and to the Australian parliament, and I am so delighted to welcome him back. He comes from generations of dairy farmers who really gave life to the dairy industry in the region that he represents. You can see the old photos of Mike's ancestors up on the Bega Cheese factory wall in their little historical section there. But he also comes from generations of people who fought for their country. The other member of parliament who has given not one but two first speeches is of course Steve Georganas. Again, it is so wonderful to have Steve returned as the member for Hindmarsh. People voted for him because they know he will fight for jobs, for better health services, for investment in education and for the pensions. He has so many pensioners in his electorate. I went to a pensioners meeting with him last time I was in the seat, and many of them had not actually clocked the fact that there was some other guy representing them for one term. They still thought Steve was their member of parliament and were delighted to be able to vote for him again. I also want to make special mention of my friend and colleague the member for Barton, the Hon. Linda Burney, who really is a unique embodiment of our Australian history. She spent the first decade of her life not counted as a citizen of this nation. She has experienced the destructive power of racism and exclusion but she has fought against racism and exclusion by fighting for something much more powerful—for tolerance, for inclusion, for recognition. Seeing her sung into the parliament by her sisters and seeing the work that she is doing with Senators Malarndirri McCarthy and Pat Dodson in enlivening our Indigenous cultures here in the parliament and in the Labor Party has been really fantastic. We have new members for Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and it is a great thing to see three such terrific new members, in Ross Hart, Justine Keay and Brian Mitchell, replacing those infamously negative three amigos. We know that the north of Tasmania, in particular, has really done it tough, with cuts to community services and welfare organisations, underemployment at a huge scale, unemployment, of course, and, sadly, a state and a federal government who are leaving Tasmanians really to face these problems on their own. These new members of parliament will stand up for jobs, for services and for the people they represent—not like the last three members, who were just apologists for a string of Liberal Party cuts. We also have a terrific new cohort from Queensland—new members for Oxley, Longman and Herbert. The new member for Oxley, Milton Dick, spoke so knowledgeably and thoughtfully about multiculturalism and, in particular, the very significant Vietnamese community that he represents in his electorate of Oxley. He talked about multiculturalism not just as a great social strength in Australia but as, increasingly, a terrific economic asset for this nation. The member for Longman, Susan Lamb, spoke about education and lifelong learning and told her compelling personal story. She sees education and lifelong learning in her own life, in the lives of her children and in her community as being the key to a lifetime of opportunity and success for ourselves, for our children, for their children and for generations to come. The member for Herbert is proof positive that none of us should ever take a single vote for granted. Cathy O'Toole is living proof of that. She has worked in the mental health sector and she has made it her business, since coming to this parliament, to fight for better resources and better supports for her community, particularly for mental health services in that community. In the Northern Territory we have got the wonderful member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, who has served his country in so many ways—like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, as a member of the ADF but in other ways too, in the community, both in Australia and overseas. I know Luke will continue to make a very strong contribution, through our parliament, to his constituents and to our region. Our new colleagues from Western Australia are the members for Fremantle, Burt, Cowan, Perth and Brand. We have a wonderful new member for Fremantle in Josh Wilson, who believes that our work as parliamentarians is fundamentally about the custody and stewardship of the things that we share: public health and education, public transport, fair and safe working conditions and our environment. Our member for Burt, Matt Keogh, is committed to fighting for an affordable and accessible justice system, to correct the injustices that he has seen in his professional life, to protect against infringement of the rights of his community. He will use his legal experience, including experience of volunteering with domestic violence support services, to work for better outcomes for victims of domestic violence. Our wonderful member for Cowan, Anne Aly, is someone who represents a very typically Australian story in many ways. Her parents made a life-changing decision to leave Egypt and arrived at the Bonegilla Migrant Camp in Albury-Wodonga in 1969. Their daughter Anne has become an internationally renowned Australian academic and is the recipient of the prestigious Australian Security Medal. She was the only Australian invited to present at the White House at President Obama's summit, where she talked about how to deal with violent extremism. Our member for Perth, Tim Hammond, spent much of his career holding powerful and well-resourced organised interests to account on behalf of vulnerable individuals and vulnerable communities—people like victims of asbestos. It is fantastic to have on our team someone who stood up for the victims of asbestos rather than for the companies that sold this deadly product. Our member for Brand, Madeleine King, will be working to make Australia a confident, progressive and enterprising nation by supporting better access to quality education. Madeleine has such big shoes to fill—so many Labor Party stalwarts have held the seat of Brand—but I know Madeleine can do it. In my own state of New South Wales there are the seats of Lindsay, Macarthur, Macquarie, Paterson, Werriwa and, of course, Dobell. The member for Lindsay, Emma Husar, gave such a moving account of her family's experience of domestic violence during her first speech. How important it is to have members of parliament who are prepared to bear witness—to talk in this parliament about their own troubles, to show that they are able to identify and empathise with the challenges that ordinary Australians face. Emma has been so brave and has become such a beacon to so many people by standing up and having the confidence to be an advocate for ending the national crisis we have in domestic violence. I know that we are all committed to supporting Emma and her campaign. It is a campaign that all of us share. There is our member for Macarthur, Mike Freelander. I am not sure if you remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, but during our new member for Macarthur's first speech a baby cried out in the gallery and Mike Freelander said, 'I like that sound.' Mike likes that sound because he has cared for the children of Macarthur for over 30 years as a paediatrician. He has joined our team in the federal parliament because he is so committed to protecting and building Medicare, and he is already bringing his firsthand experience of our health system into our policy development processes, working in particular on our policies on very young children and their first thousand days of development. Our member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, had a couple of goes before she got to this parliament. In fact, if we look far enough back in her history, some people will remember that she was reporting on Canberra—she was a reporter before joining us now as a newsmaker. Susan Templeman said she had to run because she could not sit by and see Australia become a backward-looking or defensive society, losing its interest in issues like the republic or reconciliation with our First Australians. She was worried that we were moving away from inclusion and distancing ourselves from Asia, and so that motivation to see an outward-looking, modern Australia has propelled her to Canberra, where I am sure she will make a huge impact. Our member for Paterson, Meryl Swanson, told such a terrific story about the miner's lamp that she had with her on the floor of the parliament when she made her first speech. She spoke also, of course, about the changing economy in the area that she represents—the growing opportunities for newer, cleaner industries including renewable energies, automated vehicles, robotics and other leading-edge environmental ideas. But the member for Paterson was very clear that she sees it as critical that it is a Labor government that helps communities to transition. We do not leave people to deal with these huge changes on their own. We know, when we have the car industry closing in South Australia and Victoria, when we see the huge changes that are happening in our economy, that it takes a Labor government to help people to transition to the new opportunities that arise for them. The member for Werriwa, Anne Stanley, talked about the struggle that her family would have faced, without Medicare, through her mother's experience with multiple sclerosis—the hospitalisations, the medical tests that were required. For Anne, fighting to protect Medicare is not just political; it is deeply personal. I have known our member for Dobell, Emma McBride, for many years now and I have seen the way that her community love the work she has done in the local health system for more than 20 years—in mental health for 15 years and in her local community hospital in Wyong for the last decade. I have visited that hospital with the member for Dobell and I have seen how well known and how knowledgeable she is about the local challenges facing her community. But it is not just health that drives Emma; it is also the strain that she has seen on local infrastructure and services, and the fact that she knows that a Labor government would prioritise investment in these local services. In Victoria we have new members for Wills and Bruce, who are both people I have known for a very long time. I thought the first speech from the member for Bruce, Julian Hill, was an incredible first speech that spoke eloquently about the challenge of growing inequality in our country and in our world. It was wonderful to have Julian lay out so eloquently the fight that he will engage in to act against poverty and the stark and indefensible growing gap between the richest and poorest Australians and the richest and poorest around the world. The personal experience of our member for Wills, Peter Khalil, again speaks of the sacrifice of millions of migrants, who, as he says: … helped to build Australia—not just its physical environment but the diversity of its culture, the generosity of its peoples and the depths of its humanity. Our new parliamentarians are a more diverse group than we have ever had before. I know that; I made more than 80 electorate visits during the election campaign and I met all of these members many times, as well as many of our candidates who were unsuccessful. There were many worthy people who did not make it into our federal parliament. But those who did mean that almost half of our parliamentarians on the Labor side are now women. That is a fantastic achievement, and an achievement we have managed because we set targets, we laid out strategies to meet those targets and we went for them. We also have, of course, a larger number of Indigenous members and senators than we have had in the past, and that is something I am very proud of as well. Each of the members of parliament that have joined us in this 45th Parliament took the opportunity to thank their constituents and to acknowledge what a privilege it is to serve. And that is not just true of the newbies; I think that each one of us feels that, and this address-in-reply is an opportunity for every one of us to thank our electorate for placing in us the trust that they do, for electing or re-electing us to the parliament. It is absolutely vital that we take every opportunity we have in this place to make life better for the people who have put their faith in us. I know that is what our new MPs will do. It is what I endeavour to do every single day, and I am grateful for the continuing opportunity that my constituents have given me to allow me to do that. We have a strong team, a united team, and because we have a strong and united team I am convinced that we will have the opportunity to continue to deliver for the people of Australia, particularly should we be re-elected. 18:04 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Firstly, in this address-in-reply I would like to reaffirm that it was a privilege to return to the House of Representatives with the new 45th Parliament of Australia, having once again been re-elected in July as the federal member for Capricornia. During last year's election campaign, the coalition committed an unprecedented $330 million in infrastructure and other funding that will benefit the people of Capricornia and surrounding parts of Central Queensland. Shortly, I will outline this funding as part of our economic plan for jobs, order and growth in Capricornia. Before that, this area of Central Queensland is both the gateway and the farm gate to northern Australia, and we are arguably Queensland's most important mining, agriculture and Defence training location. Recently we have been through a difficult time as the needs of Defence, national security and agriculture clashed. I refer to plans by Australian Defence to expand facilities at the Shoalwater Bay military training ground. I am pleased to report that there has been a good outcome on this issue for landholders in this area. By way of background: Shoalwater Bay is north of Rockhampton and is located in the Shire of Livingstone. Singapore is one of the many countries that train at Shoalwater Bay with our Australian troops. In the middle of last year, under the joint Australia-Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, Singapore pledged to invest $2.25 billion in Queensland based military training sites at Shoalwater Bay and Townsville. However, late last year, as Australian Defence leaders began further outlining their plan to expand the Shoalwater Bay facility, it emerged that military might require additional surrounding farmland. Some farm owners struck a deal and willingly sold their properties at a large profit. However, during the course of this process fears were raised about the prospect of Defence enforcing legislation to compulsorily acquire farmland as a last resort. For the past two months, this has caused great anxiety, uncertainty and anger amongst the landholders, seafood sector, workers and small business in that district. Families like the Geddeses Couti-Outi Station feared their historic family property would be consumed by Defence. Last year I met with stakeholders and I promised that I would sensibly and firmly push behind the scenes to ensure that their concerns over the possibility of forced land sales were heard at the highest levels of the federal government. I was in constant contact with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. I had the defence minister come to Rockhampton to meet with the stakeholders. Several weeks ago I took the Deputy Prime Minister out to Couti-Outi Station to talk with a group of farmers, small business and workers representing the entire district. On the first Monday back in Canberra the member for Flynn and I met with the Prime Minister and defence minister for further robust talks. We met gain with the Prime Minister, the defence minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and, as a result, on the first day of parliament this year I welcomed a pledge from the Prime Minister that no landholder in the Shoalwater Bay district would be forced to sell their property to Defence. This has come as a big relief to local landholders. Farmers who do not want to sell voluntarily will still be able to approach and talk to Defence themselves, but the government has confirmed that Defence will only purchase land from willing sellers around the Shoalwater Bay training area. This successful outcome for local landholders demonstrates my strong representation to lobby behind the scenes as appropriate for a desirable outcome for the local district. So what about other elements of investment in Capricornia? I mentioned before that, over the coming years, the federal Liberal-National coalition has committed an unprecedented $330 million in infrastructure and other funding that will benefit the people of Capricornia. One key part of this pledge is water infrastructure. Projects like Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton must go ahead to create long-term jobs. We will cooperate with the state and private enterprise to help get it off the ground as soon as possible. Other projects, like a feasibility study for Urannah Dam, near Mackay, and water infrastructure for Clermont were also vital to secure a future for the region. Unlike Labor, the Turnbull-Joyce government promised to chip in $130 million to cover 50 per cent of the cost of building Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton. On top of this, the Commonwealth will pay a further $2 million to ensure that the state government can complete the final business case required for the project to proceed. The Turnbull-Joyce coalition further committed $225,000 to secure water infrastructure for Clermont and Theresa Creek Dam and $3 million towards a feasibility study for Urannah Dam, near Mackay, benefitting an area from Eungella to Collinsville and the northern tropics. It is clear from the federal coalition's commitment to Capricornia that we want to move ahead with water projects in northern Australia. But when it comes to Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton, the Queensland state Labor Party is holding us back. Despite a federal commitment of $132 million, the current Queensland Labor government, led by Annastacia Palaszczuk, is leading a go-slow on supplying the business case to us. This is despite the fact that in 2006 Labor Premier Peter Beattie promised to have Rookwood Weir built by 2011. It is the same year that Annastacia Palaszczuk, the current Labor Premier, was elected to parliament. Essentially, she was elected on a Labor promise to all Queenslanders to have Rookwood Weir built by 2011. So, where is Rookwood Weir? And why, 10 years after that Labor promise and five years after Labor said it would be finished, are they still dawdling over their business case? This is why Labor is bad for Central Queensland. The longer they stall the business case then the longer they stall water security and the potential for 2,100 new jobs. I am now hearing rumours that the consultants hired by the state government to complete this business case may already be demonstrating a negative bent away from Rookwood Weir. If this is substantiated, then that attitude is unacceptable. In other areas of Capricornia, community sport is also an important social and economic element. That is why the Turnbull-Joyce government also delivered $14 million in sports and health infrastructure in Capricornia. Sport contributes a valuable part of the social fabric of our local communities, and by enhancing local facilities sporting groups can attract state and national competition. This injects further money into small business in our local economy. Investment in sport is part of our $330 million water, jobs and growth plan for Capricornia. Let me recap, and provide an outline of figures covering what we will achieve over the coming three years. As I mentioned, the Turnbull-Joyce government has committed $130 million towards Rookwood Weir, which would lead to 2,100 jobs. Plus there is $2 million for the state to finish the final business case for Rookwood Weir. There is $225,000 to secure water for Clermont and $3 million towards a feasibility study for Urannah Dam near Mackay. We have also committed $30 million to a Bowen Basin jobs-and-investment package. This is to help with training, following the earlier coal downturn and includes infrastructure grants and grants for small businesses to expand into new areas of expertise. In other areas of the community, we are providing $10 million to kickstart a Mackay Regional Sports Precinct, located at CQU's Ooralea campus in Mackay. There is $75 million to help kickstart the Walkerston heavy vehicle bypass—or the Bowen Basin Service Link—in Capricornia, west of Mackay, to rid Walkerston of heavy vehicles and dangerous loads entering the Peak Downs Highway. There is $1.5 million for Emu Park's Hartley Street Sports Reserve, stages 2 and 4; $1.5 million for the stage 1 Pilbeam Walkway up to Mount Archer in Rockhampton; $600,000 for the Rockhampton Hockey Association for a second artificial turf; and $7 million towards Rockhampton Hospital car park. At the time of this pledge, this was the only funding on the table for this project. State Labor had no money in their budget and had to scramble to find funding—the biggest issue in Rockhampton and they continued to ignore it. We are also fixing mobile phone blackspots. New priorities include Yeppoon, Emu Park, Clermont and Sarina Range near Koumala. Other areas where coverage has either already been improved or is soon to be fixed include Clarke Creek, Gargett, Marlborough and Mount Chalmers Road near Yeppoon. We have committed $50,000 for solar panels at Rockhampton's women's domestic violence shelter, $220,000 to kickstart repairs to the battered Putney beachfront on Great Keppel Island—this project is underway; $350,000 for the Sarina BMX track facilities; $250,000 for Sarina's Field of Dreams project, Mackay Regional Council; $60 million for a four-lane highway from Gracemere to Rockhampton to ease dangerous congestion of freight trucks, cattle trucks and commuters; and $98.6 million to create four lanes on the Bruce Highway north of Rockhampton for a safer and more efficient entry point to the city's northern outskirts. We are committing $3 million to support Beef Australia 2018, which provides a $40 million direct injection into the Central Queensland economy and hundreds of millions of dollars into our global beef trade. There is $350,000 put towards widening the intersection on Bondoola Road near Yeppoon to allow for better access of B-double road trains involved in the timber sector and other industries. There is also $90,000 to install solar power and solar battery storage at several community organisations. Under the scheme the Central Queensland Aboriginal corporation in Rockhampton, the Dreamtime Cultural Centre in Rockhampton, Emu Park State Emergency Service, the Marlborough State Emergency Service, Sarina Bowls Club and Sarina Surf Lifesaving Club will each receive $15,000. We also encourage a $400 million investment in two new solar farms at Moranbah and Clermont to generate power and jobs. One of the saddest facts about Central Queensland and North Rockhampton in particular is that it has the highest rate of domestic violence outside Brisbane. One of the highlights of my political career was to successfully lobby for a permanent Federal Court circuit judge in Rockhampton, also servicing Mackay, Gladstone, Emerald and Central Queensland. This will help families struggling in Family Court and domestic violence matters, among the most vulnerable in our community. I would like to thank Senator George Brandis for his assistance with this. On top of this, the federal government's free trade deals with China, Japan, Singapore and Korea have helped cement confidence in our CQ Beef export sector, one of the factors helping to deliver record beef prices in Central Queensland. This has encouraged investors to consider new ventures such more abattoirs in Capricornia that will create more future jobs. We also support the expansion of coalmining. We approved all environmental factors under strict Commonwealth conditions to pave the way for Adani coalmine 160 kilometres west of Clermont in Capricornia. Sadly, green activists who are bedfellows of the Labor Party have tried to stall this project and the thousands of jobs it would create. In the past few years I have also been able to secure federal funding for other local infrastructure, either completed, underway or in the pipeline. There is $190 million to build future CQ defence projects under the Australian defence white paper, $10 million for the Yeppoon beachfront, $7 million towards the development of Rockhampton's riverbank precinct, $2.3 million towards a new Capricorn rescue chopper hangar, $300,000 for Rockhampton's new Meals on Wheels kitchen and $3 million for 16 Green Army projects for young people who have been doing a great job repairing community recreation sites in the electorate. Further to this, after much lobbying, the Turnbull-Joyce government is spending $166 million to fix up the notoriously dangerous Eton Range on Peak Downs Highway west of Walkerston. Our coalition government is also providing $35 million to replace four country bridges in the Isaac shire on the Peak Downs Highway. Speaking of major road projects, last term the Deputy Prime Minister officially opened the $136 million stage 2 Yeppen South project on the Bruce Highway on the southern outskirts of Rockhampton. Finally, as we look ahead into the future, I want to recognise that a key issue facing families in Capricornia is labour hire or casualisation of the workforce. As we see a dramatic change in the way our resources and mining companies operate in a downturn, we are seeing people removed as permanent staff to be made casual staff where they have no access to sick leave, holiday leave or essential family leave. This is causing families to break apart. It means people turn up to work sick, because they do not have an income. It takes away the leisure time spent with children. This is an issue that I will certainly be talking more about in the future. In the meantime, Capricornia has a great future, and I am proud to be part of a coalition government that is taking a keen interest and delivering for our region. I would also like to thank all the people who supported me in winning the seat of Capricornia for the second time: my staff, my family, the enormous number of volunteers who helped us. It certainly is not a job that one person does; it is a team effort, and I truly thank all of those people. 18:20 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter How fortuitous for me to be following the member for Capricornia and the contribution she just made to this place. Sadly, I will not have the opportunity to canvass all my own issues, if I respond to everything she said. However, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, there was a fair bit of licence involved in all of it. I am just going to focus on one issue that she raised—that is, the expansion, or proposed expansion, of the Shoalwater Bay training area. The member for Capricornia, I noted, while canvassing this issue, was very, very careful not to share with her constituents and this place one thing—that is, when she first knew about the proposed expansion and therefore land acquisitions, whether they be compulsory or non-compulsory, she did not mind standing alongside ministers well before the election campaign to announce that $2 billion would be invested between her region and the hinterland beyond Townsville. But what she and her ministers did not tell her constituents is that that investment would necessitate very significant land acquisitions—that is, the acquisition of prime agricultural land in her region. It beggars belief that anyone, including the member for Capricornia, believes that the Singaporeans could spend a billion dollars in Shoalwater Bay—and I know it well as former Defence minister—without coming to the conclusion that it must by definition include land acquisitions. The member for Capricornia, I will put to this place, knew well and truly before the election that Defence would be chasing land acquisitions in her electorate but she chose to keep that a secret from her constituents. I put it to this place that the member for Capricornia was elected on a fraud. She was elected by concealing from her constituents those land acquisitions. I will say this: the fact that those land acquisitions are not now necessarily compulsory does not change all that much. We welcome it and we congratulate the landholders who took the fight up to this government. By the admission of the member for Capricornia, this is prime agricultural land, the withdrawal of which will take up to 60,000 head of cattle out of the beef supply chain at a time when we can least afford it. The Singaporeans when they come to train here—and we welcome our relationship, the joint training exercise and everything they do here in Australia—do not go into Rockhampton to do their shopping. They do not go in for a beer, a hamburger or for their supplies. Nor would we expect them to. But guess what farmers do? Farmers regularly do. They come for their groceries. They come for their hardware. They come for their furnishings. They come to the motor mechanic to have their car serviced. They have the motor mechanic come to the farm, if necessary. The Singaporeans will not be doing any of that so, regardless of whether the acquisitions are compulsory or non-compulsory, the acquisition of that land will have a very significant impact on the economy around Rockhampton. That is something else the member for Capricornia chose not to canvass in her contribution this evening. She needs to explain how her economy will not be adversely affected by the acquisition of so much prime agricultural land and the withdrawal, therefore, of so many cattle et cetera out of the regional economy. If she is going to come in here and talk about what has happened in her constituency over the course of the last year, or indeed over the last parliamentary term, she should be honest with her constituents about when she knew about those acquisitions. Again, it defies credibility that she only suddenly learnt of the acquisitions after the election. It also defies credibility that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—no less the Deputy Chair of the National Security Committee of the cabinet and no less the Deputy Prime Minister of the country—did not know of the land acquisitions until after the election. I suspect no-one in Rockhampton, or its surrounds, believes that. On a happier note, come Thursday I will have represented the Hunter electorate in this place for 21 years. What a great honour and privilege it has been to represent what I would argue is the best region in the world. That is a proposition that is not without credibility. Everyone knows that we make the world's finest wines and our vineyards are just wonderful. We are one of the three top thoroughbred breeding clusters in the world: Newmarket, Kentucky and the Hunter Valley. Go to Randwick in Sydney on any Saturday and 70 to 80 per cent of the thoroughbreds running there will have been born and bred in the Hunter Valley. We have beaches to match any locality not just in Australia but also in the world. We hold world-class concerts. When I was young, if I wanted to see a band or an entertainer, we went to Sydney. Now Sydney—I am happy to report—comes to us. We have the largest coastal saltwater lagoon in the country in the form of Lake Macquarie, and, of course, we have the wonderful Port Stephens—so water sports are in the Hunter in abundance, not only for residents but also for visitors to the region. I am not taking credit, but I believe, I think with some validity, that the Hunter region is a better, wealthier place than it was when I was elected 21 years ago. It has gone through a very significant transformation in that time. I am intrigued by those—usually those with an anti-coal agenda—who still say that we lack economic diversity. We always strive for more economic diversity, and we must continue to do so, but we are far more economically diverse than we were 21 years ago. Our unemployment rate, although too high and indeed climbing—and it has been climbing since the election of the Abbott government and now Turnbull government—is infinitely lower than it was when I was elected 21 years ago. Coal continues to be a critical player in the Hunter economy and it will continue to be so for many decades to come. Coalmining has brought wealth to many families who would not have dreamed of that level of opportunity without it. It has created many knock-on jobs in manufacturing et cetera, and it has helped us to leverage economic diversity, because the wealth coal brings and the demand coal brings help to justify and to make more economically feasible other projects. The Hunter Expressway is a perfect example. The $1.7 billion Hunter Expressway, planned, paid for and constructed by a Labor government, would not have been feasible without the traffic generated by coalmining. It is a really good example of a project that probably would not have passed muster on any cost-benefit analysis without coalmining. The Hunter Expressway, having been leveraged by coalmining, now presents new economic opportunities which will bring more economic diversity into the future, and that is a very good thing. By the way, coalmining is not within our top five employers as an employment category. But it is still very, very significant and very, very important and, again, it drives other jobs in construction and manufacturing et cetera. When coalmining is strong— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! It being 6.30 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1848 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Tasmania: Small Business 1848 18:30 Mr HART 263070 Bass The Labor Party understands how important jobs are to our society, to the lives of ordinary Australians. The Labor Party understands the important role small business plays in sustaining our communities. Labor also stands for people. I stand here today having worked as a legal practitioner and having grown and managed a small business. I represented both individuals and corporate clients and many family businesses. I understand the pressures of small business both as an adviser and a partner in a small business that employed local people in both Launceston and Davenport. I know small business does well when everyone does well, when people have disposable cash in their pockets and security of employment. In other words, when people are living week to week or pay to pay our communities suffer. We know the growing inequality and reduction in disposable income is the real enemy of small business. This government has no comprehensive economic plan for Tasmania, and this has been highlighted recently by the fact that the government has declined to confirm the direction of the Tasmanian Major Projects Approval Agency. The agency was established to act as a single point of contact for those wanting to undertake major projects and navigate their way through federal and state obligations. The authority's funding will run out soon and there has been no word on whether it will be renewed. I am also concerned that the current government is continually devaluing the worth of Australian workers by exaggerating the cost of labour. Under this government we have seen our lowest paid workers lose their penalty rates. Under this government we are seeing record profits by big business, but real wage growth remains stalled—a key indicator of growing economic inequality—and this government wants to give big business a tax cut. It is significant, in my view, that recently economic commentators have named low wages growth as one of the key risks faced by the Australian economy. Labor took to the last election its plan for jobs in Northern Tasmania. This included the commitment of $150 million towards the UTAS transformation project and a $75 million commitment towards TasWater's $250 million sewerage infrastructure project. The government belatedly committed to the UTAS project but is yet to provide any commitment to the sewerage infrastructure project other than to make reassuring noises as to its priority status on the major projects list of Infrastructure Australia. The UTAS project benefits not just people within Bass but also those in the electorate of my good friend the member for Braddon with the relocation of the Cradle Coast campus. There is no doubt that this project—with $150 million worth of federal money, $75 million worth of state money and $75 million worth of university funding—will provide important jobs in construction as an infrastructure project. In the long-term it will also play a significant part in the revitalisation of the CBD of Launceston as well as driving better education and jobs outcomes for young Tasmanians. This project together with the City Heart Project has formed the core of the Launceston City Deal. The memorandum of understanding between the three levels of government has been signed. The associated fact sheet describes the object of the City Deal as follows: The City Deal will be focused on improving the lives of Launceston residents by supporting education, employment and investment to build on the region's natural advantages. The City Deal will include the development of a new university campus in the centre of Launceston and revitalisation of the historic CBD. Each of these objectives is consistent with the commitments Labor made to Bass at the last election, and I will do my best to ensure that our community realises the benefit from infrastructure investment and better education outcomes. Labor's long-term vision for Bass also provided for the Sewerage Improvement Project. The combined sewerage scheme in Launceston dates back to the 1860s and just 33 per cent of TasWater's waste-water plants met their environmental licence in 2015. Without a modern standard tertiary treatment plant, water quality will not improve, the environment will continue to be degraded and the health and safety of Launceston residents will continue to suffer. I said at the time it was important to make a start, despite the fact that the capital requirement was very significant and the project would take many years to plan and complete. It has the potential to work in concert with other large infrastructure projects, in particular the UTas project. Labor has the vision to build and invest for the future through infrastructure and better educational outcomes. I am strongly of the view that it would be inequitable for the burden of such a significant capital project to fall purely upon the ratepayers of Tasmania. I know that view is, unsurprisingly, shared by many in local government in Tasmania. These long-term infrastructure projects will ensure that there are well-paid, full-time, highly skilled jobs for our young people. The flow-on effects of these projects, particularly if the sewerage project follows the UTas project, will be substantial. The increase in employment will see a growth of disposable income in the community that will flow to our fabulous local businesses both in construction and in the wider community. As I said earlier, Labor stands for people and investing in people. Labor recognises that we live in communities and the fact that we are not simply consumers in an economy ruled by overriding individual self-interest. We believe that there is public good in investing in the future, which is why we campaigned on the transformative power of investment in education in driving economic growth, particularly in my state of below-average income and poor education and health outcomes. Labor will always invest in our future by investing in our schools. Labor will back our people by giving them the education they deserve, not the discounted option this government continually offers. The evidence is clear: low socioeconomic communities are further impacted by poor educational outcomes. My electorate of Bass would benefit more than most out of additional funding based upon needs and/or disadvantage. The Gonski education reforms are vital for lifting those communities out of poverty. Lastly, I would like to say something about some of the amazing people, businesses and local authorities in my electorate. My electorate is blessed by the natural environment of north-east Tasmania and the Tamar Valley. Tourism is obviously a significant contributor to the northern Tasmanian economy, and the quality of food and wine in the region is well reported. Even—or should I say especially—the far-flung areas of the electorate like Flinders Island show a commitment to innovation and excellence in food and tourism, based upon experiences and quality of product. There are new business ventures such as distilleries, restaurants and tourist attractions which show the quality of the northern Tasmanian product and a commitment to innovation. Dorset Council has received federal funding from successive governments to establish mountain bike trails, which are now of international standard and reputation. An international event will be held at in Derby in north-east Tasmania on 8 and 9 April which will host thousands of international visitors and overseas competitors keen to experience some of the best mountain bike trails in the world in competition. West Tamar Council and George Town Council have shown their commitment to their local communities by supporting local community groups such as the George Town RSL and realising that subregional sport needs facilities at a local level which should be supported by federal, state and local government. That is not to downplay the important leadership role played by the City of Launceston council and the many community projects facilitated by Meander Valley Council and Flinders Council. I look forward to seeing businesses like Definium Technologies delivering high-technology manufacturing jobs and the University of Tasmania delivering local jobs through the AMC, the Australian Maritime College, particularly having regard to the expertise held by that college in undersea robotics. There is significant potential to facilitate the redevelopment of the University of Tasmania Newnham campus through co-locating defence manufacturing alongside the AMC at Newnham. This potential extends to replicating the expertise in Antarctic Ocean studies for defence related industries, using the expertise held by the AMC in maritime training and undersea robotics to assist the delivery of large defence projects like the submarine project awarded to South Australia. But it is the goodwill and community spirit of people within my electorate that constantly reinforce to me the privilege of serving in this place. There are other fantastic community groups that are purely volunteer driven and that provide the lifeblood of our communities. These include amateur dramatics societies, church groups, overseas aid groups and even the organisers of a music festival who sought to use the gathering of thousands of young people to raise money for overseas aid. Murray Electorate: Decentralisation 1850 18:40 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray It gives me great pleasure to rise in this place and contribute to the grievance debate. My contribution relates to decentralisation, regional development and population dispersal. In Australia we have an unhealthy reliance on our capital cities—87 per cent of Australians live in urban areas, 64 per cent of our population live in the capital cities and 81 per cent of our population live within 50 kilometres of the coast. When you take all of those measures into account you can see that the dispersal of our population in Australia is rather lopsided. We should be looking for a balance of development between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan Australia. We know that regional Australia can deliver a much more liveable, equitable, efficient and environmentally sustainable outcome for all Australians. We also know that the cost of relocating 100,000 people into our major capital cities is measured in the billions of dollars when we have to have renovations done to our freeways and we have to build infrastructure in the inner cities to cope with such an expansion of the population. It is probably measured in the tens of billions of dollars. However, we can put 100,000 people into regional towns and cities in Australia and the cost can be measured in a few millions of dollars, with a little bit of additional infrastructure. In the main, the infrastructure is already there—the electricity supply, the gas supply, the road network, the sporting infrastructure, the housing blocks. It is all in place already; all we simply need to do is move the people in and they can enjoy what we have to offer in regional Australia. We also should be looking at some of the other important opportunities present in, for example, tertiary education. In the seat of Murray we have the University of Melbourne medical school based at Shepparton, and the university send their medical students up there for a couple of years during their six-year training program. The University of Melbourne also has an agricultural university at Dookie, and again they send their students to Dookie for a number of months to gain first hand experience. La Trobe University at Shepparton has nursing, allied health and business education, and many of the students are doing very well. These education institutions play a very important role in offering opportunities for students to get their tertiary education and their tertiary qualifications in the regions as opposed to having to go to Melbourne, Bendigo or Ballarat. So there are fantastic opportunities right in the seat of Murray. The National Party are proud of the fact that we are driving decentralisation and we have been very proactive when it comes to pushing these results into rural and regional Australia. We are looking to see how we can take government agencies into the regions. We know that the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee will be holding an inquiry into the operation, effectiveness and consequences of relocating Commonwealth entities, as well as the economic, environmental and capability implications. The Minister for Regional Development, who is also the Minister for Local Government and Territories and the Minister for Regional Communications, Senator Nash, has stated: Public service jobs are a huge driver of downstream jobs, especially when placed in regional and rural towns. Regional Australia deserves the benefits of public sector employment just as much as any capital city. It is certainly the case that when you bring high quality, highly educated bureaucratic and administrative staff into the regions the boost that they can give regional towns and cities, with their co-curricular activities after work, taking positions on boards and in sporting organisations and helping to grow the community, is amazing. Relocating the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale was one decentralisation initiative undertaken by the coalition government. Relocation of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to Wagga Wagga was another. Planned decentralisation works have also been successful in Victoria, where they have moved the TAC to Geelong and the State Revenue Office to Ballarat. At the Victorian level, they are looking to relocate WorkSafe as well. The Commonwealth government has relocated the National Disability Insurance Agency to the regional city of Geelong, and that is certainly something that we wholeheartedly agree with. In the electorate of Murray we are also campaigning very vigorously to have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority relocated to Shepparton, given the fact that the decisions that are made by the authority have a huge impact on the daily lives of the people who live in the Goulburn Valley. When it comes to agricultural produce, there would possibly not be an area that is as productive as the Goulburn Valley in the whole of the Basin. So, with these decisions that are being made by the authority, it would be a good fit for members of the authority to actually live and work in the environment where those decisions are having consequences. I think it would certainly be a win-win for everybody. I know that the Shepparton mayor has been a huge driver in this happening, and the Committee for Greater Shepparton and the CEO of the committee have pushed very, very hard for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to relocate to Shepparton, because it would be a good fit. Peter Thompson from Geoff Thompson Fruit Packing, a major employer and a serious fruit horticulturalist, also thinks that this plan has real merit. We have to acknowledge that growing regional Victoria and regional Australia is not just something that will happen by taking a few government agencies out into the regions. It is also contingent upon a large proportion of government investment in amenity. Programs like the Building Better Regions Fund enable the federal government to co-invest with the state government, local government and community organisations to grow a whole range of different projects, whether they be sporting facilities or our Mobile Black Spot Program, where government is co-investing with the private sector in telecommunication for better mobile telephone capacity. There is also the NBN and the investment in rail. We need to invest in passenger rail so that we can get cars off the roads. And, again, it grows the amenity of the people who are living in the regions when they know that they are better connected to our capital cities. They love living in the regions, they love being separated from Melbourne and Sydney, but they also love the concept that they can be connected to their capital city by a couple of hours on a train. Sporting and cultural facilities play an integral part in this. It is great that in the city of Shepparton we are going to build a world-class art museum on the banks of Victoria Park Lake. There has been a huge push from the community to make sure that the project, a build of over $35 million, is going to proceed. Other highly talked about projects are some of the road upgrades that have taken place around Shepparton, including the $20 million investment into the arterial to get trucks out of the centre of Shepparton, and upgrades around the outskirts of Yarrawonga. In moving towards better population dispersal, we need to look at it not as a one-off option but as an all-in. It is moving some agencies out of the capital cities. It is real investment—co-investment by the federal and state governments—in regional areas. It is a matter of looking at all the preferred decentralisations and other regional development initiatives that will lead to us having a much better spread of population and much less congestion in our capital cities. Economy 1852 18:50 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne So many people in Australia at the moment are at breaking point, and it seems that this parliament just does not get it. The economy has been let off the leash. It is running rabid and it is starting to devour its young. We are at a tipping point in this country where the generation that is in power now is possibly, for the first time ever in peacetime, about to leave the world and the economy worse off for the generation that comes next instead of leaving it better off as should be our obligation. We have an appalling situation at the moment. Young people in this country are almost permanently locked out of the housing market. Back in 1990, when a young person finished university, an average house cost six times the average young person's income. Fast forward a couple of decades, and it costs 12 times an average young person's income. And what happens here in Canberra? We preside over a tax system that the government will not let us change that says we will reward people who have already got their first house by giving them a tax break to buy their second, third or fourth house even if it costs us billions of dollars a year and even if it pushes the prices of property out of reach of people. And it is not just buying; so many people have written off the idea of ever buying their own home. They are focused on renting. Even renting is becoming so unaffordable for people. If you happen to find yourself living on youth allowance because you are trying to study—and you now know you are not going to get as much for working that shift on Sunday, because the government is allowing penalty rates to be cut—you struggle now in inner-city Melbourne or inner-city Sydney to find a decent place even to rent somewhere close to where you work or where you study. And so what happens? People who are doing their degrees at the moment are living suburbs away from where they are studying, suburbs away from where they have to do weekend or night-time work, and they are spending all their time struggling to get by. When I went to university, we shared a three-bedroom house. We each had a room. It cost us $60 a week each. That was half of Austudy as it was then. With youth allowance now you will struggle to find one bedroom in a three-bedroom share house anywhere in a capital city that is less than the cost of your whole youth allowance. And so people are forced to do things that sometimes they might not even want to do. They are forced to work hard just to get by in a way that we did not have to in previous generations. When it comes time to look for a job when you have finished your degree or have finished school, the picture there is even worse, because we now have youth unemployment at nearly 13 per cent, more than double the general national rate. In the last 20 years, the total wealth held by young people in this country as a proportion of this country has halved. People at the top of the age spectrum who have already done well continue to do better, and it is happening at the expense of young people. Of course there are many people right across the age spectrum who are doing it tough. We know that. We know, if you find yourself in your 50s and you have lost a job, not to look to this government for help, because this government wants you to wait weeks before you even get the dole. And then, when you try to find another job, you are going to find that pretty hard. If you try to get back into housing, especially if you happen to be a woman who gets divorced later in life, you are at risk of finding yourself homeless. That is the kind of society that we are creating and presiding over at the moment. And it is not just happening here; it is happening right around the world. We now have the appalling situation where, as Oxfam tells us, just eight men—and they are all men—own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world. The poorest half of the world have as much wealth as the top eight men put together. Why are we in this situation where in a rich country like Australia—where we have the abundance of natural resources around the world—some people cannot find a decent job, some people cannot get a decent roof over their head and young people especially who do the right thing, who go to school, who do further study and who then go to look for a job find themselves living hand to mouth, getting casual work—contract work—and unable to find a place to rent and unable to find a place to buy? The economy is turning toxic. The last three decades have seen governments—it does not matter whether it is Labor or Liberal in this country—tell us that it is not the job of government to govern and look after people and make sure the economy works for people. They tell us that they are going to stand back and let it rip. If it moves, lock it up; if it doesn't, sell it off. Sell off the Commonwealth Bank. Make sure that health is something that the government does not look after but something you have to take out private health insurance for, even if it costs the budget billions of dollars and just pushes the cost of health care up and up. Sell off all our electricity networks and then act surprised when power becomes unaffordable for people. Why is it that we are in this situation where not only has anything that is a public essential service been handed over to the private sector and turned into a commodity but, more than that, under Labor and Liberal for the last 30 years, citizens have been turned into competitors and consumers? I am not a passenger on a tram anymore; I am a customer who the operator hopes enjoys their transport experience. We have all been forced into this situation where we have to incur bigger and bigger debts to get through university or TAFE or just to stay alive, and then we are pitted against each other and asked to compete, and told that if at the end of our working life we find ourselves without enough money to retire on it is our own fault for not investing enough in superannuation. People have had enough. People cannot understand why we are living in such an amazing country where we should be able to look after each other and yet are told day by day that, no, we have to have more cuts to welfare, we are going to have more cuts to wages. Why? So that we can give the big four banks a tax cut of about $7 billion. Just in the last week or so the Commonwealth Bank said that it had made a profit of $4.9 billion. The banks in Australia, the big banks, are the most profitable in the world, and this government says, 'Wouldn't it be a good idea if we gave them an extra tax cut of $7 billion. Oh, by the way, we don't have enough money so that you can go and see the doctor anymore and we're going to have to ask you to pay a bit more to go to university.' The government says, 'We're quite happy to find billions of dollars a year to prop up people who've got several investment properties but we can't find our way to building some more-affordable housing for all of you to have.' This is reaching breaking point. If you want to know why One Nation is doing so well right across the country, it is not because they espouse racist rhetoric, because in many ways that goes against what so many people in Australia stand for. It is because they are peddling false solutions to the people who are feeling real pain, to the people of Australia who are saying, 'Why is it that I can't get a decent job when I've done the right thing? Why is it that industries are moving offshore from Labor and Liberal governments who've said it's not their responsibility to keep jobs here?' They are angry, and we need to listen to the fact that these people are angry, not just in our regions, not just in our outer suburbs, but right in the inner city as well. So many people know that we are at a tipping point and they are looking for some alternatives. That is why Bernie Sanders did so well and struck a chord. It shows us that there is a way of dealing with the problems that are facing us without resorting to racism, without saying, 'We're going to pick a particular group and blame them,' but it requires a bit of courage. If we are really going to tackle inequality, if we are going to make Australia feel like it is a place where everyone has a place, if we are going to make this a place where you get good health care, you get a good education and you have the right to a roof over your head as a right, not depending on your income, we are going to need to stand up to the powerful. For too long, this parliament has been acting in the interests of a powerful few and not in the interests of the public. We need to change that. Turnbull Government 1855 (Dunkley) (19:00): Mr CREWTHER 248969 I rise today in this grievance debate to discuss a matter which I believe is of pertinence to all Australians, not least the many residents in my electorate of Dunkley. When the coalition came into government in 2013 it was clear that the Labor Party had acted irresponsibly and had left Australians, particularly young Australians, with a huge burden to carry for the future. The Labor Party had gifted the Australian people with a massive debt, which, if left unattended, would cripple Australia's future. Former Prime Minister John Howard left us with a situation where we had approximately a $20 billion surplus, whereas the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years of mismanagement debt and overspending meant a situation where we had, at the end of their term, over $300 billion in gross debt. And at the end of their term, just to remind everyone, we kept on spending money on the credit card, with more than $1 billion a month in net interest payments. Throughout those Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor years of mismanagement, we also saw $191 billion in record budget deficits, as well as 200,000 more people unemployed during that time. The coalition came to government in 2013 and immediately began the responsible and sometimes difficult process of ensuring that Australians would not be burdened with a debt to carry and service throughout their lifetimes. Responsible government has continued under the Turnbull-led coalition team, and I am proud of the achievements of this government in working to deliver for the Australian people, as well as for the people of my electorate of Dunkley. Some of the achievements in the eight months since the election include passing important legislation through parliament that affects people's lives, like reform of industrial relations through the Australian Building and Construction Commission, reform of unions through the Registered Organisations Commission, stopping the drownings at sea and closing 17 detention centres through our immigration policies, as well as many savings measures to help balance the budget and to create jobs. We have been getting on with the job of repairing the budget. Indeed, the Turnbull government passed nearly half of our budget repair measures through the parliament in the first seven weeks of sitting. The $21 billion worth of measures include the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill, worth about $6.3 billion; the tobacco excise increases, worth $4.6 billion; superannuation reforms, worth $2.8 billion, to make Australia's retirement income system fairer, more flexible and more sustainable; and the Working Holiday Maker Reform Package, worth $560 million, which will mean that backpackers should not pay less tax than Australian workers. These are just some examples. The Turnbull government is protecting the tax base by combating tax avoidance, particularly by multinational companies, to ensure that everyone pays the tax they should on the income they earn in Australia. We passed the multinational anti-avoidance legislation, established a Tax Avoidance Taskforce in the ATO, and introduced to parliament a UK-style diverted profits tax. These measures are expected to raise $3.9 billion over four years. The coalition is the only party with a plan to reduce the budget deficit and arrest Australia's debt. The problem we are facing is a Labor which continues to work against what is responsible and what is expected by the Australian people—that is, ensuring growth for the Australian economy and reducing debt. We are now in a situation, thanks to Labor's years of mismanagement, of having over $400 billion in gross debt. What this means for the people in Dunkley is that, if you are a child in Dunkley, you, as well as many of your peers, may be paying off this debt for generations to come, unless we take action now. Labor also wants higher taxes for hardworking Australians and Australian small businesses. Labor is a triple-A threat to our AAA credit rating, with higher taxes, debt and deficit. Unfortunately, we are still fixing Labor's problems after their years of mismanagement. Imagine if Labor got back into government in 2013, or at the next election, and did the same thing they did over the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Imagine the debt we would be in. Would we be in $500 billion debt, $600 billion debt, $800 billion debt—how far would a future or even a possible Labor government have gone? We would already be risking our AAA credit rating and, to use a term from the past, would risk becoming a banana republic. Bill Shorten and Labor have rejected our enterprise tax plan and they want to deny more small businesses and their hardworking employees access to further investment and growth opportunities. This is despite Bill Shorten saying in 2011—and more recently in 2016, and I could quote many, many more occasions but this one is of particular note: Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. That is quite different to what he is saying now. Labor knows that we have a plan to help hardworking Australians earn more wages, and they are actively opposing it. Labor wants higher taxes and more debt and took, for example, $16.5 billion in higher deficits to the election. I want the opposite: I want the 16,000 small businesses in Dunkley and the many families who operate these businesses in my electorate to thrive and prosper in a strong economy. If it were not for a coalition government with such a deep conviction and deep respect for the hardworking men and women of small business, we would not have support for the small businesses in my electorate and across the nation. Indeed, the coalition is supporting small businesses rather than dampening business—small businesses such as The Cake Cottage or Colour Collections hairdressing in Frankston, the Pine Forest Bakery in Frankston North, Blue Bay Cheese in Mornington, Hart Marine in Mornington, Bolwell sports car manufacturers in Seaford or many other businesses such as Globeline Automotive Services led by Amedeo Sacco in Seaford. There are so many more small businesses in Dunkley that I could speak of who would benefit from us cutting down our debt as well as reducing our taxes. And we are cutting taxes. The government has promised that the tax rate for small businesses will fall to 27.5 per cent—down from 28.5 per cent—over a period of time. By 1 July 2026, the corporate tax rate for all companies will fall to 25 per cent. We remember a former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who reduced the corporate tax rate on more than one occasion. I quoted Bill Shorten before, the grand master of backflipping, who has also talked— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I remind the member for Dunkley to refer to members by their correct title. Mr CREWTHER 248969 I withdraw the remark. I would like to note, though, that he talked many times about the benefit of tax cuts, and now he is talking against them. We need to stop living in this dream that the Labor Party talks about of having increased spending and higher debt. We need to reduce this debt and cut our red tape. On 31 December 2015 the government announced reforms which, when implemented, will result in annual reduced compliance costs of $4.8 billion for business, community organisations and individuals. We need to cut our red tape even further. There are many businesses in my electorate, such as the local candle making business in Frankston, Mind Body Soy, which is operated by a lady called Jeanette. My office recently discussed with Jeanette the challenge of increasing electricity costs. Jeanette operates her business from her home in Frankston, in my electorate. Her last electricity bill was $385 with Simply Energy and the bill is now pushing $400 regularly. Labor's persistence in being irresponsible with our debt as well as with their tax cuts and energy costs means that over 150,000 people in my electorate of Dunkley and over 16,000 small businesses will suffer. I am working extremely hard for the people of Australia—the many families and children—and the hardworking people of Dunkley, people like Jeanette and many others who are trying, for example, to start up a business or make their own small business thrive. I hope the Labor opposition will join us in our efforts to reduce taxes. We need to work hard to reduce debt, reduce our small business taxes, reduce energy costs and encourage growth and employment within small businesses in Dunkley and across the nation. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important issue today in this grievance debate, and I look forward to working with you and many others in this parliament to see our debt reduced and a strong, responsible government. Western Sydney 1857 19:10 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I rise to speak about a number of serious issues facing Western Sydney at the moment as a result of an uncaring Liberal government at both state and federal levels. Western Sydney is home to two million Australians, and the region is our nation's third-largest economy. In Western Sydney we have hardworking, generous and vibrant communities that contribute a huge amount to the success of our city, our state and our country. We have young families building futures for themselves. We have older Australians enjoying their retirement after a lifetime of work and paying taxes. We have tradies who keep our communities going and growing, and we have doctors and nurses and schoolteachers and police who all give so much, day after day, and never ever get the recognition they deserve. We have a community full of hardworking people who know the value of a fair go. They value integrity, and they are also fair minded. We are not affected by nimbyism, nor do we expect too much. But it seems that, everywhere you look, the state and federal Liberal governments are hell bent on unfair policies that hurt Western Sydney communities. First up is their plan to build Badgerys Creek airport without corresponding conditions and infrastructure that I have been calling for on behalf of my community. From day one, I have been fighting to make sure we get our fair share out of this project if it goes ahead, including a curfew like the one that the eastern suburbs enjoy. I do not understand why residents in the east are spared 24-hour flight movements while communities affected by Western Sydney Airport are being told they are not good enough and are treated like second-class members, asked to put up with flight noise all night long. It is pretty simple: what is good for the east should be good enough for the west. Just as members of parliament who represent electorates in the eastern suburbs defend their curfew, so too will I keep fighting to make sure that there is some equity on this issue, because Western Sydney already has a major jobs and infrastructure deficit. It would be ridiculous, absolutely absurd, for this airport to be built in a way that does not deliver maximum benefit for the communities that it affects. That is why the north-south rail line is so important. In fact, completely aside from the airport, this rail line is so desperately needed that it should be built whether or not the airport goes ahead. But, if the airport is to be built, the north-south rail line must be included—it absolutely must be included—as part of this project. This rail line will service the needs of residents living in south-western communities through to those in the north, areas that have seen and will continue to see massive, unprecedented population increases. And, importantly, it will provide a much-needed and long-overdue public transportation link for those who live in these areas and have suffered with the public transport deficit for years. I will also be fighting to ensure and secure a local jobs plan, because we deserve a decent chunk of any jobs that are created from this airport. Our youth unemployment rate in Western Sydney is around three times higher than the state average, and our underemployment figures are getting worse year on year. There are thousands and thousands of people in my electorate who are desperate to find work, and there are thousands more who do not have but are desperate for additional hours in their casual or part-time jobs. We need a comprehensive plan for jobs in Western Sydney if this airport is to be built. Of course, it will not be the solution to our jobs crisis, but we would be crazy not to demand that local people from our communities get priority. Those conditions are not unreasonable. They are fair, so I will keep fighting to make sure that my community is listened to. The government seem to have their ears closed when those from Western Sydney speak up, so I will summarise slowly so they have time to take note. We want a curfew just like the eastern suburbs have. We want a north-south rail line that is operational from day one, and we want a local jobs plan to make sure that our communities secure benefits from any jobs that are created. Another significant issue facing Western Sydney at the moment is the proposal to build a massive incinerator at Eastern Creek. The proposed plant is planned to consume 1.1 million tonnes of waste each year, a scale unprecedented across all of Australia. So now we have become guinea pigs too. This plant will necessitate 168 additional heavy trucks on local roads each and every single day. This will place an enormous amount of pressure on local road infrastructure, which is already starved for funds because of the arrogant and eastern-suburbs-focused Liberal government in New South Wales. Based on the hurried process of the New South Wales government, we are entirely unsure of the health impacts that this plant will have on local communities. We are entirely unsure of the waste management processes that will be put into place to ensure that hazardous materials are excluded. And we are entirely unsure of what will happen to the 45,000 tonnes of solid ash by-product that will be produced each year. These are issues on top of the environmental impacts of air pollutants that will spread across the entirety of Western Sydney and reduce air quality and the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of people. I want to make it clear to the NSW government that Western Sydney is not a dumping ground for the rest of Sydney's problems. The member for McMahon, the member for Chifley and I have made a joint submission to the Berejiklian government pointing out the flaws in this proposal and recommending it be opposed. Now just to place on the record here, Western Sydney has had to face off against toxic waste in the east being dumped on us, they want us to suck up a 24-hour airport and now they want us to suffer an incinerator. At some point, the fights are fatiguing and you want to wake these arrogant, incompetent Liberal members up to remind them that we are people and we deserve rights and amenity just like the rest of Sydney. Another issue facing my community is the recent and shameful decision to reduce penalty rates for 700,000 working men and women across the country. These cuts will hurt my community hard—and in fact a recent report in TheSydney Morning Herald showed that Lindsay was among the most affected electorates in the country. We have a large amount of retail and hospitality workers in our community, and they are now at risk of losing some of their take-home pay in this most unpreceded attack on workers. That is not acceptable. I guess it is not too unprecedented in fact: a lot of my community will recall many a rally to stave off Work Choices in 2006 and 2007—and don't think for one second that they have forgotten how to fight for their working rights and the rights of so many low-paid workers. These cuts to penalty rates will affect low-paid families that are already doing it tough. Members on the opposite side should face up to the fact that this decision will hurt working families and reduce their ability to make ends meet. They should face up to the fact that this decision will result in struggling families being unable to put food on the table at the end of the week. And who does that serve? It is truly unbelievable, and how those opposite can sit there and do nothing about it is beyond me. Make no mistake: our nurses, police and firefighters will be next, because this out-of-touch Liberal government has proven that they will not so much as lift a finger to protect the pay and conditions of hardworking men and women, no matter what the consequences are. If they do not change their ways soon, I can see what the consequences will be back the other way, because the voting public will give them one hell of a wallop at the next election. And so they should. Another significant concern in Western Sydney in my electorate of Lindsay is our chronically underfunded health and hospital system that has led to our hospitals having the worst emergency and surgery waiting times in the state. In fact, as I have mentioned many, many, many, many times before, my local hospital, Nepean Hospital, has the worst waiting times in New South Wales—in fact I have mentioned this hospital so many times in this place that I am sick of talking about it and will probably need admission there myself. I just want to see some relief for the hardworking medical staff and their patients. Waiting times are so long that it is dangerous and does not lead to better patient outcomes. And the NSW Liberal government has been dragged kicking and screaming on the back of my hard work to announce an expansion—but in five years from now. However, already there are significant concerns and calls from the current board and medical staff that the Liberal government's plans are not adequate to fix our local hospital crisis. Doctors at Nepean have told me the proposed funding will not even cover the current infrastructure backlog, let along address the future needs of our rapidly growing population. These capacity concerns must be taken seriously, because my community should not have to live with these dangerously high waiting times well into the future. Our local residents must be at the heart of our planning with this hospital—and that means planning for the future, not just planning for the next election cycle. As I travel throughout my community of Lindsay, I am consistently told that Nepean Hospital is a top priority for locals. Our community deserves quality health services, so I will continue to fight for increased funding for Nepean, which includes higher operational funding in particular so we can actually employ the doctors and nurses we need, not just build new wards that sit empty as is the case at the moment—two unoperational operating theatres that would significantly reduce waiting times are currently waiting and starved of funding and the nurses and the doctors that they need to run them. The fact is that you wait up to 340 days at Nepean for the same surgery that you wait just 27 days for at Camperdown hospital—27 days. How anybody can rationalise that kind of difference is incomprehensible and reprehensible. All of these issues are important to my community. And, time and time again, my constituents are being let down by the Liberals, who not only refuse to stand up for their interests but actively work against them, treating the western suburbs of Sydney like the poorer cousins of the east and dumping what the east would not in a million lifetimes endure. We work hard, we pay our taxes. We deserve governments who look after us and the things that are important. Once again, I call on this government to act to ensure that the people of Western Sydney in my electorate of Lindsay are treated with dignity and with fairness, and are afforded the same as the east. Mackellar Electorate: Volunteers 1860 19:19 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I would like to take the opportunity today to talk about the community that I am so proud to represent in this place. I have spent my whole life—being born, growing up, working my first job and raising my family—amongst a truly generous people. There is no shortage of Northern Beaches men and women who are willing to contribute their expertise, time and money to the multitude of courses that we support. Not a day goes by without a community group, a volunteer organisation or an individual contributing. I have said it time and time again: on the Northern Beaches we do not wait around for others to come and fix our problems. We roll up our sleeves and we give things a go. The South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club, led by President Martin Haywood, is one of these organisations. Every year since 2006 they host the Bush to Beach. Not satisfied with the enormous contribution they make to the safety of our waterways as a patrolling club, they choose to extend their knowledge and give back to a community that does not have access to beaches. Since its inception, Ken Passmore and Jack Cannons have worked tirelessly to raise funds in our community so that the Brewarrina community in remote outback New South Wales can bring 50 Aboriginal students and their carers to Narrabeen Beach, to familiarise them with the beach and to talk about water safety. The program aims to encourage school attendance and to reward hardworking students with a weekend at the beach. It creates a bridge between what is too often a disadvantaged present and a bleak future to a world of possibilities. After a gruelling 12-hour bus ride, the kids take boards out and play in the surf—some for the very first time. Then we all have dinner together—the annual 'Brewarrina Baked Dinner Night'—cooked by so many members of the South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club. This year, the day was another great success thanks to all the volunteers at the club who helped to pull it together. Thank you for inviting me to share in this wonderful opportunity to change life for the better. There are 14 fire stations in Mackellar, all run and manned by volunteer firefighters. If you think about it, that kind of dedication really defies logic. To voluntarily put yourself in danger in order to keep your community safe, without asking for anything in return, is quite extraordinary. This summer has seen record heatwaves around New South Wales, with plenty of days being declared total fire bans. On every one of those days there is a team of dedicated residents that stands ready to brave the heat and face the very real danger of a bushfire. These teams are known as Toban crews. Our brave firefighters are of course also supported by a multitude of volunteers playing crucial parts behind the scenes, from feeding the firefighters in the fire stations to manning the communication channels that are vital to keeping our community safe. On behalf of the whole community I thank them for their efforts, and I look forward to meeting each and every one of them during their upcoming AGMs to celebrate a great year of volunteerism. The Avalon Soccer Club is a treasured organisation within the Northern Beaches community. In recent times, under the dedicated Presidency of John Kowtan, the Avalon Soccer Club has grown to over 1,100 players. With such growth comes a need for improved facilities. The club's home ground at Careel Bay Playing Fields is home to seven mini fields. However, like many sporting facilities across this country, those fields are closed if it even looks like raining. The drainage on the mini fields needs fixing, fencing around the playing fields needs installing and barrier netting to prevent stray soccer balls being lost in adjacent mangroves needs erecting. Earlier this year, I voiced my concerns with the Northern Beaches Council to fight for drainage, fencing and barrier netting for the Avalon Soccer Club. I am pleased to announce that, today, the Northern Beaches Council committed to me that the drainage will be fixed by September this year, that the feasibility of further barrier netting is being investigated in consultation with the soccer club and that fencing will be installed in the coming 12 months. This is a great result for a great community organisation like the Avalon Soccer Club. I encourage all community organisations to contact me if they have issues they need help with. I am here to help and will always do my best to fight for you on the things that can make your lives better. The West Pittwater Community Association was created to protect the unique character, culture and environment of West Pittwater in Mackellar. By providing a collective voice and protecting the environment, the West Pittwater Community Association ensures their members are part of a balanced and happy community. I am hoping to be of service to the association and community in West Pittwater by helping secure funding for an additional and badly needed power connector. It is my honour to support an association that envisions a supportive community, where civic pride is encouraged and promoted, where interest in community affairs is fostered and where there is ultimately goodwill amongst residents. The West Pittwater Community Association gets involved and actively seeks to protect our local fauna and flora. It also plays an essential role when it comes to securing both public and private property, such as the local wharves and reserves in the area. The Mona Vale Hospital Auxiliary comprises a group of women who you do not want to mess with. They tirelessly dedicate their energy to helping improve services for patients at the Mona Vale Hospital. Under the leadership of president Noma Moran and vice-presidents Gail Carew and Kay Tomsett, the group continues to thrive and actively engages their members. They staff the kiosk at the hospital, they assist in the Assessment and Rehabilitation Unit and new Beachside Rehabilitation Unit, they run raffles, they man stalls, they organise fashion parades—the list goes on and on. For over 50 years all members of the auxiliary have contributed to the best of their abilities, be it by knitting, crocheting, sewing or baking goods to raise money for the hospital. Every cent they raise goes towards purchasing equipment for those who have suffered bad health. It is quite incredible. Never complaining, they quietly contribute to the community. They are an inspiration to all who see a problem and just keep walking: if you stop, find the right people and give it a go, chances are you will find a solution. I thank all those who have supported and continue to support the group and their committee for their commitment to the Northern Beaches. As I said, they are not an easy group of people to say no to. Last Thursday I was truly honoured to attend the season launch of the mighty Manly Sea Eagles. Talent laden and youth filled, Manly's 2017 line-up is sure to give this year's NRL premiership a shake. Over the last decade, our Manly Sea Eagles have done us proud, being one the most successful clubs in the NRL. Manly has made the finals in eight of the last 10 seasons, appearing in four grand finals and winning two. Delving deeper though, Manly really should have been awarded a third premiership, were it not for the member for Melbourne's club's misdeeds. It appears that, for a brief period of time, the Melbourne Storm's numbers just did not add up—kind of like the policies of the Greens party. This Sunday, Manly take on our mortal enemy, Parramatta. Good luck boys. Play hard and you will do us proud. I wish coach Trent Barrett, assistant coaches John Cartwright and Anthony Seibold, and captain Daly Cherry-Evans all the best for 2017. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I thank the member for his contribution and am pleased that he got to meet the wonderful children from Brewarrina. The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting. ADJOURNMENT 1862 ADJOURNMENT 19:29 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29 QUESTIONS IN WRITING 1863 QUESTIONS IN WRITING My Aged Care magnets (Question No. 63) 1863 63 Mr Keogh 249147 to ask the Minister for Aged Care on 07 November 2016: In respect of the $14,090 contract to National Promotions Australia (CN3384003) for reprinting My Aged Care magnets, (a) how many My Aged Care magnets had previously been printed by the department, and at what cost, and (b) was the full allocation of these magnets exhausted; if not, why were more magnets printed. Mr Wyatt M3A The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: a)– b) The My Aged Care magnets were first produced in May 2014. The Department of Social Services and the Department of Health have printed approximately 276,000 magnets at a total cost of $41,564. At the time of the new contract with National Promotions Australia to print 100,000 My Aged Care magnets, the previous allocation had been fully exhausted and there were approximately 40,000 on backorder. The My Aged Care magnets are distributed by aged care stakeholders, including assessors and service providers, as well as departmental staff. The magnets are a popular resource which enable consumers to have easy access to the My Aged Care contact details when they are needed, and serves as a reminder that the service is available. Aged Care Legislative Review (Question No. 613) 1863 613 Ms Butler 248006 to ask the Minister for Aged Care on 10 November 2016: To date, how many submissions have been received on the Aged Care Legislated Review, and of those, how many deal with the effectiveness of the arrangements for protecting equity of access to aged care services for LGBTI people. Mr Wyatt M3A The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As at 10 November 2016, 13 submissions to the Aged Care Legislated Review have been received. As at 10 November 2016, no submissions received make comment on the effectiveness of arrangements for protecting equity of access for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and/or intersex people. Aged Care (Question No. 614) 1863 614 Ms Butler 248006 to ask the Minister for Aged Care, in writing, on 10 November 2016: In respect of the National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Ageing and Aged Care Strategy stating that 'A formal review of the Strategy will feed into the broader review in 2017 of the implementation of Living Longer Living Better aged care reforms', has this formal review begun; if so, who is conducting it. Mr Wyatt M3A The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The formal review of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Strategy has not yet commenced. Aged Care (Question No. 615) 1864 615 Ms Butler 248006 to ask the Minister for Aged Care, in writing, on 10 November 2016: The National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Ageing and Aged Care Strategy states that (a) the Minister's department will report progress against this strategy annually, ensuring that there are adequate mechanisms to publicise this strategy and the release of annual reports, and (b) the annual reports will be reviewed by key stakeholders as part of a consultation process to set priorities for the following years, has the Minister's department reported progress against the strategy annually; if so, (i) in which annual report(s), and (ii) which key stakeholders have reviewed them. Mr Wyatt M3A The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In April 2014 the Government decided to replace the annual reports with one report at the completion of the Strategy.