2017-03-21 45 1 2 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

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

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Military Commemorations 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I declare that the following order of the day, government business, is referred to the Federation Chamber for debate: Recent Military Commemorations—Ministerial statement—Motion to take note of document: Resumption of debate. BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017

Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 12:02 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to explain why it is desperate to hide in this bill, and the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017, a $50 billion tax cut for big banks and multinationals behind a phoney war on tax avoidance". Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, but we do note, in debating this bill, that this government are 'the hollowmen' of multinational tax action. How is it that the government's actions on multinational tax end not with a bang but with a whimper? The $200 million of revenue that accompanies the diverted profits tax is the bounty of a government that has launched a phoney war on multinational tax avoidance, desperate to distract from their $50 billion tax giveaway to the very companies that they claim to be targeting with this bill. This is entirely in keeping with the government's inconsistency on the issue of multinational tax avoidance—when the coalition was in opposition and now in government. That should be no surprise to impartial observers. To paraphrase David Hume, the coalition are so much the same in all times and places that history informs us there is nothing new or strange in this particular. History's chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of their nature. We only need to traverse through recent history to see this: from when the coalition voted against the previous Labor government's bill to strengthen transfer pricing and anti-avoidance provisions, through their watering down—once they were in government—of tax transparency measures that Labor had enacted, to the distraction we have before us today. The measures the government have introduced, to quote the Labor senators in the other place in their comments in the Senate inquiry into this very bill, have been 'patchy and belated', ' lagging behind the expectations of the Australian community that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax', and 'behind measures announced by the Labor opposition'. In 2013, Labor began clamping down on the loopholes large companies use to siphon profits offshore and avoid paying tax in Australia. Nowadays, transfer pricing and the anti-avoidance rule have become part of the Australian tax lexicon, thanks to Labor's forward-thinking action and the work being done at the OECD under their base erosion and profit-shifting project. Yet the coalition were not having a bar of it. Here is what Senator Sinodinos said about closing tax loopholes in the 2013 bill: We need less regulation, not more regulation. For that, among other reasons, we will be opposing this bill. The former member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, decided to cast aspersions on that bill's estimates of preventing $1 billion of tax losses by stating: It is a nice round number: a billion dollars. It has a whiff of convenience to it, don't you think? Well, that is five times more over the forward estimates than this bill is projected to raise. The now Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, said to the parliament in 2013: Let me just say up-front that the coalition will be opposing this bill— it was a bill which was cracking down on multinational tax avoidance— and we will be opposing it strongly because we think it is not in our national interest. It is a bill that is undermining our national interest. Later on in his speech he described it as an 'overreaction'. When Labor introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012 to crack down on companies overvaluing assets in international transactions, members opposite voted against it. It is almost ironic—and I use that word in the Alanis Morissette sense—that a coalition largely stocked with the same members and senators who voted against Labor's strengthening of transfer pricing rules are here today bringing to the parliament an update on transfer pricing rules that is in line with the 2016 OECD recommendations. On this side of the House, Labor have continued the fight for tax transparency and for multinational tax fairness. This is a core issue for us. Over the last two years Australians have been given an insight into the tax affairs of large firms. Data from the Australian Taxation Office in December has shown that for two years in a row one in three large companies paid no tax. We only have that information thanks to Labor laws, opposed by the coalition. Despite the fact that that information tells us that one in three big companies pay no tax, the Turnbull government still thinks that cutting company tax rates should be Australia's top economic priority—that was the centrepiece of last year's budget. Under laws largely passed by the former Labor government, public, private and foreign owned entities with a total income above $100 million had high level data released for scrutiny by the Australian public. But the coalition objected to those laws when they were in opposition, and then in government they did their best to shield some of Australia's largest firms from scrutiny. Initially their aim was to remove all tax transparency for large private firms, using arguments such as kidnapping risk, described by one expert as a laughable excuse. It is as though the BRW rich list had never existed! They went through their various excuses suggesting that somehow firms might be disadvantaged in negotiations with suppliers, that CEOs might be under kidnap risk or that people might feel 'envious', which was the word that the member for Kooyong used. Yes, it is possible they might have felt envious when they discovered that regular small businesses were paying tax and large private businesses were not. Ultimately, though, they found a way through. You can always rely on the Greens to come to a dodgy deal, and they did in this case. That is why tax transparency applies to large public firms with income over $100 million but only applies to private firms with income above $200 million. In effect, the dodgy deal between the Liberals and the Greens took two out of three large private firms out of the tax transparency net. Nonetheless, the data tells us a lot. If we compare the most recent figures, for 2014-15, with data for the previous tax year we see that the share of large firms paying no tax stayed unchanged at 36 per cent in both years. That points to the coalition's failure to crack down on multinational tax avoidance in their first term. The first iteration of the coalition's attempts to mount a phoney war against multinational tax avoidance was the former member for North Sydney's own multinational tax avoidance bill—one which, when it was produced, had not budget estimates but asterisks. Not even Treasury could say how much revenue it would bring in. The multinational anti-avoidance law, or MAAL, had its genesis in a thought bubble, when the government said in 2014 it would adopt a diverted profits tax. The former member for North Sydney was floundering about looking for something to back up his rhetoric, and so he latched onto Britain's approach of a so-called Google tax. He dropped the idea just as quickly when it was pointed out to him that Australia already had anti-avoidance laws. As I have noted, the bill that made it to parliament had a series of asterisks where there should have been revenue estimates. Let us be clear: if it was Labor that said to the Australian people 'We are really serious about cracking down on multinational tax avoidance, here is our multinational tax package which will raise asterisk of revenue', we would rightly have been laughed out of this place. Yet, that is exactly what the government did. Over the course of the first few years of the Abbott-Turnbull government saw we not only inaction on multinational profit shifting and the shielding of big firms and tax transparency but also cuts to the Australian Taxation Office. Over 3,000 jobs were slashed from the Australian Taxation Office. Then, when Labor proposed a suite of measures including closing debt shifting loopholes, cracking down on hybrid mismatches and a targeted spend on ATO staff in order to bring in additional revenue through compliance, it was ridiculed by former Prime Minister Abbott. Indeed, coalition MPs cheered when former Prime Minister Abbott told parliament in 2015: So far the only idea Labor have come up with is to spend $100 million on the ATO to raise $1 billion. Well, next time they will be telling us to spend $1 billion on the ATO to raise $10 billion. That is the problem. All they can think of is spending more and taxing more. They just cannot help themselves. I actually think that deep down the Leader of the Opposition is better than that, and I would ask him to start demonstrating that now. It should be stated that when you decimate the tax office—and that is being generous; it was worse than a decimation—you lose the auditors and the institutional knowledge that are vital to enforcing Australia's tax laws. When the biggest firms in the world are armed with armies of accountants and lawyers just looking for loopholes and you cut back on tax office staff, it goes without saying that you are going to see increased multinational tax avoidance. Without proper oversight, the revenue evaporates and multinationals get away with not paying their fair share. Belatedly, the 2016 budget included some additional expenditure for the tax office—a $679 million investment, forecast to raise more than five times as much—$3.7 billion. That does raise two questions. First of all, what on earth was former Prime Minister Abbott, now the backbench member for Warringah, going on about when he said that it was a ludicrous idea that there was a link between how much you spent on tax office staff and how much you raised in revenue? In 2015 they were telling parliament that was a ludicrous idea; in 2016 it was an idea right in their budget. Their budget itself said that spending money on the tax office would return money to the budget. The other implication of that, of course, is that if a targeted spend in the budget can raise revenue, as Labor suggested when we put together our package which included a targeted ATO spend, it must also be true that cutting the tax office hurts revenue. It must be the case that the government's savage cuts to the Australian Taxation Office, axing thousands of jobs, have cost revenue over the past three years and have allowed multinationals to get off without paying their fair share. Labor is the party that has sought to take action on thin capitalisation changes. The 2013 budget had a detailed package protecting the corporate tax base from erosion and loopholes. Recently, the member for Higgins, speaking at the Minerals Council of Australia's tax conference, was taking credit for enacting that 2013 Labor budget measure to tighten thin capitalisation. It is true that the measure passed the parliament under the coalition, but it is, essentially, a technicality, given that it was a Labor measure—implemented reluctantly by the coalition. What the member for Higgins did not say to the Minerals Council of Australia's tax conference was that shortly after the election the government set about watering down that thin capitalisation package, which had been announced by Treasurer Swan in the 2013 budget. The coalition dropped Labor's proposal to deny deductions made under section 25.90 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. At the time, Treasury put a $600 million figure on dropping the changes to section 25.90 of the income tax act—$600 million. As the parliament well knows, Labor has continued to apply pressure on the area of debt deductions. In the 2016 election, we took a package to the Australian people which included a worldwide gearing ratio. What this essentially means is that right now big firms can pick their debt deduction rule. There are three rules in the tax act. They are: an arbitrary thin cap threshold; an arm's-length test; and a worldwide gearing ratio. Really, only one of them has strong economic sense. That is the worldwide gearing ratio—a rule that says if you owe a lot of money to the banks then your Australian operation can make deductions up to the same ratio. But if you do not owe a brass razoo to the bank, and if you have an inter-company loan coming into Australia in order that you can send profits out of Australia through the interest payments, then you cannot claim that as a deduction. You cannot claim as a deduction an inter-company loan if you are not a borrower, if your multinational group is not borrowing anything from the banks. It is a perfectly reasonable approach to take. So with three debt deduction rules in the Australian tax law, two of them are not grounded in strong economics and one of them is grounded in strong economics. Labor's proposal is that we keep that one. The other thing that you can say about that measure is it is extremely clear for firms. I will not pretend that every multinational firm likes Labor's plan, but it is very clear what their position will be under it. Their accountants will naturally have looked at their multinational group's position under each of the three debt deduction rules and will know how they are affected according to which debt deduction rule is in place. That package was costed to raise $1.6 billion over the forward estimates, $5.9 billion over the decade. There was a brief period in which Treasurer Morrison was tempted to actually take action on debt deduction loopholes. Prior to his first budget speech, the Treasurer's office was briefing journalists that the government would reduce the so-called safe harbour level and thin capitalisation rules from 60 per cent of total assets to 50 per cent. That would have still been an arbitrary approach economically inferior to Labor's, but it would have cut the amount of debt deductions from multinationals and added to the government coffers. But, at the last minute, Treasurer Morrison backed away from plans to address multinational tax avoidance. He got cold feet. He was, apparently, bullied—a word I know the government likes to use—into backing down. We know that it was a last-minute backdown because the budget includes a glossary term that is not in the budget. So it has a definition of thin capitalisation, but there is nothing in the budget about thin capitalisation. The only reason you would do that is if you had a thin cap measure which you then scrubbed from the budget papers and someone forgot to clean up the glossary. So it is very clear that the government is not serious about multinationals paying their fair share of tax. By contrast, it is clear that Labor is serious about making multinationals pay their fair share by closing debt deduction loopholes exploited by multinationals, a plan which would deliver nearly $6 billion to the budget bottom line over the decade. We have also seen an ongoing drip feed of revelations about multinational tax avoidance. In April last year, the Panama papers hit the press. The Australian tax office, despite the staff cuts that it had been subjected to, was nonetheless on the front foot, with reports noting that it was investigating more than 800 high-net wealth Australian individuals using tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of tax. The ABC's Four Corners program reported on the legal twists, turns and loopholes that multinational companies and individuals use to avoid tax—that emerged from that explosively. But Australians were also getting to know a new Prime Minister and getting to know that this new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Turnbull, said nothing and did even less on multinational tax avoidance. The silence was deafening. Not one coalition MP appeared on the program—not even to rhetorically condemn tax avoidance. The former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, said: … fundamentally the Turnbull government is seeking election on the record of the Abbott government. He was referring in part to the multinational tax space—a record which showed a government that had gone soft on tax avoidance by individuals and firms, that had slashed 3,000 tax office jobs and that had undermined their investigative and enforcement abilities. In response to the Panama papers, other countries stepped up to the mark. Then US President Barack Obama said: 'We should not make it legal to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes. There is a basic principle of making sure that everyone pays their fair share.' IMF head Christine Lagarde said: 'The rules appeared to be skewed towards some and do not apply to all.' Finance ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain put out a joint statement, saying The recent extensive leaks from Panama show the critical importance of the fight against tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and money laundering. Then World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said: When taxes are evaded, when state assets are taken and put into these havens, all of these things can have a tremendous negative effect on our mission to end poverty and boost prosperity. And yet here in Australia it was the deafening sound of silence from a government that is not interested in cracking down on tax havens and multinational tax avoidance. We have seen too the government's foot dragging on the issue of the beneficial ownership register. Almost a year ago, the member for Higgins Kelly O'Dwyer told The Guardianthat 'there needs to be a registry of beneficial ownership in our country' and confirmed that Australia would establish a public register of beneficial ownership for firms. However, at an international summit shortly afterwards on the issue, Australia would only commit to 'exploring options' for a beneficial ownership register. In October 2016 the government committed to consult by the end of December. Halfway through February 2017—well beyond their self-appointed deadline—the government finally released the consultation paper. The failure of the government to make good on its promises on a beneficial ownership register can only be put down to one thing: this is a government focused on looking after the big end of town; its only ability is to get tough is on the weak, but it goes jelly at the knees when it comes to taking on the strong. It is unable to ensure that we have the transparency measures necessary to force multinationals to pay their fair share. Then there is the Common Reporting Standard. Under Treasurer Hockey the government dragged its feet in signing Australia up to the Common Reporting Standard. It refused to join the Early Adopters Group—a large group of countries that were willing to move quickly on automatic information exchange. When introducing the bill to implement the Common Reporting Standard in Australia, Treasurer Morrison then set the timetable which would have let the companies off the hook by not having their accounts reported until the end of 2019. Labor would not have it; we forced amendments on the government to bring forward the reporting date. Rather than letting big companies off the hook and having their accounts reported at the end of 2019, we ensured that that timetable was accelerated. Labor's amendments also ensured that the Taxation Office publishes an aggregated report of Australian financial holdings by foreign residents from each individual tax jurisdiction. The purpose of that is to increase public transparency about Australia's place in the global money flows, because we have seen the transparency matters—whether it is the Panama papers, the Lux leaks, the Senate committee hearings run first by Senator Sam Dastyari and then Senator Chris Ketter who followed Sam Dastyari as chair. Public attention on multinational tax avoidance has been critical in making sure multinationals pay their fair share. Tax transparency groups have called for the amendment that Labor forced on the government. They called for it because they wanted to ensure that Australia was not inadvertently playing a part in tax avoidance schemes originating in neighbouring countries in our region. The government criticised Labor in the House of Representatives for attempting to amend the Common Reporting Standard and then saw sense in the Senate and agreed to support these important changes. Any multinational tax avoidance measure requires appropriate penalties. With the government's tepid measures, the maximum penalty a firm would pay if it failed to lodge country-by-country reports was $5400. For a company with $1 billion of revenue that represents 0.00054 per cent of their annual revenue. To put it into context, the fine for failing to lodge country-by-country reports was lower than the fine for streaking at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Naturally that raises the risk that big multinationals will simply opt to pay the fine rather than to do the right thing and launched their country by country reports. In February last year I introduced a private member's bill to toughen up penalties for companies that do not comply with Australia's new country-by-country tax reporting rules. Labor raised that issue and took the job of taking a stick to companies that do not comply with the Australian tax laws. In May the government finally did an about-face and announced the higher penalties contained in the bill that we are debating today. Like so many other Labor policies that the government has adopted—cigarette excise increases, better targeting of superannuation concessions—we welcome it, but it beggars belief that it took so long and that it came in waves of bluster. The thing about Treasurer Morrison is that he is always confident: he is confident when he is attacking Labor and he is confident when he is adopting Labor measures. He never waivers for a moment in his public delivery; it is his policies that are always wavering. Ten months ago the Treasurer announced the Diverted Profits Tax, but there are hazards in playing catch up—most notably, the propensity to trip as you are attempting to catch up. Immediately before the election and then again in October, the Treasurer promised Australians that he would introduce the Diverted Profits Tax before the end of the year. Was it introduced in this place before the end of the year? No, it was not. He failed to keep that promise, and in October 2016 at the Senate estimates hearings, Treasury officials informed Senator Ian Macdonald that 'the legislation is yet to be drafted'. Eventually draft legislation was introduced but it turned out that what was brought to parliament was a draft—given today's track-covering amendment changes the government's own bill. Let's not forget that the multinational anti-avoidance law established by the former Treasurer was a de facto diverted profits tax. This Diverted Profits Tax aims to ensure that tax paid by significant global entities with a global income greater than $1 billion properly reflects the economic substance of their activities in Australia and aims to prevent the diversion of profits offshore through contrived arrangements. Since the draft legislation was introduced, the government has made tweaks, most behind closed doors. At the last minute we see that the government has been diverted on the diverted profits tax, because now they are amending their own bill. The government has been unable to meet their own timetable on a diverted profits tax. They have been unable to bring to this parliament a measure that raises serious revenue. Let's not forget that Labor's measure over the forward estimates would raise eight times as much as the diverted profits tax we are debating today—Labor's measure would crack down on multinationals eight times more stringently than the government's diverted profits tax. But they cannot even get the drafting right, and that is why today we are seeing the government amending their own Diverted Profits Tax Bill. Of course, while they are failing to make multinationals pay their fair share and fighting for a $50 billion corporate tax cut for the big end of town, the government are punishing working- and middle-class families by taking away penalty rates that will cost a weekend worker $77. In the middle of this year, a millionaire will receive a personal income tax cut from Prime Minister Turnbull which is worth $16,400. The benefits of that will go only to those earning over $180,000 a year, and 94 per cent of the benefits of this top income tax cut will go to the top one per cent—a group that has doubled its share of national income in the last generation. While we have seen wages grow three times as fast for the top 10th of the distribution when compared to the bottom 10th, we have a government that wants to cut penalty rates which disproportionately go to lower paid workers. With one hand, they are cutting penalty rates for low-paid workers. With the other hand, they are giving a tax cut to millionaires worth $16,400. With one hand, they are wanting to give a company tax cut worth $50 billion to the largest companies in Australia—$7 billion alone will go to the big banks. With the other hand, they are going weak on multinational tax avoidance, raising a mere $200 million—raising a tiny fraction through this bill of what they will give back to multinationals through their $50 billion handout. I do not have time in the minutes remaining to me to go through the economic arguments against the corporate tax cut. But, for those who are interested in the economics of it, I would urge them to do nothing more than to look at the government's own modelling. Look at what the government's own modelling says will happen to households as a result of their corporate tax cut. There are three scenarios as to how you might raise the revenue. The first is a federal land tax. We have not had one of those since 1952, so it will probably not be that. The second is cuts in spending—well, they have increased spending, so it probably will not be that. And the third is higher income taxes. A corporate tax cut funded by higher income taxes will boost household income, according to the government's own modelling, by 0.1 per cent—not per year but in total. There is a month's income gain which is, according to the government's own modelling, projected to be delivered in the 2030s. The government needs to drop its corporate income tax cut and adopt Labor's plans to get tough on multinational tax avoidance. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Fenner has moved an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 12:33 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax It is hard to follow 30 minutes of a rewrite of history from the member for Fenner, who enjoyed giving us a good narrative of a Labor version of alternative facts as well as his own manifesto of tax. As fascinating as that was, he barely touched on the very legislation which is before the House today. Where he did, however, his main accusation was that the coalition government has not been taking adequate action when it comes to tax avoidance on behalf of multinational companies. I remind the member for Fenner that $2 billion will be clawed back in this very financial year due to the multinational anti-avoidance legislation introduced by the coalition. The member for Fenner might think that $2 billion is not much, but, in fact, it does represent a dollar figure for action being taken to date by the only party that has decided to ensure that the money that should be paid to the Australian government by multinationals is paid. But that does not mean the job is over, and that is why I stand here today to talk about this bill—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill—which is part of a global response to a global and not just Australian problem. Although it must be said that this bill will place Australia at the head of the pack in how to address the problem. Essentially, the measures in this bill are part of a coordinated and planned response to the fact that more and more business is being done around the world, including here in Australia, by very large companies that operate across multiple jurisdictions. Many of these large multinational companies do the right thing and fully remit their tax liability. There is no doubt about that. But, likewise, there are some that do not. Indeed, there are some multinational companies that seek to consciously avoid paying fair and reasonable tax in the place where they do business. In fact, evidence suggests that some actively plan to do just that. This is one of the uglier realities—one of the uglier by-products, if you like—of globalisation, which is a phenomenon that I otherwise support wholeheartedly because it has not only served our country well but also dragged hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in other lands while facilitating greater peace and prosperity around the world. Nevertheless, even in this modern and highly integrated global economy where markets operate based on the rule of law, and whose design is largely based on Liberal principles to which our country subscribes, the darker side of human nature is still widely evident and poor behaviours still arise, including dodging tax. Action by individual nation-states, such as Australia, as represented by this bill, is therefore needed. Of course, to be truly effective over time, more international cooperation is required so together, with other affected jurisdictions, we can plug the loopholes that allow some multinationals to avoid paying their dues. When they avoid paying their due they effectively rob communities, leaving governments short-changed, with less for hospitals, schools, roads and services and less to fund welfare to support the disadvantaged. This cannot stand. It is, of course, a given that companies will always seek to minimise their tax bill. They are, quite naturally, keen to reduce their tax liability as much as possible so they can boost their after-tax profit and maximise shareholder value. Companies are, common-sensibly, bound to find the lowest possible corporate tax regime they can, and it is common practice that companies often try to stretch the law to the limit to maximise profit for their shareholders. For multinationals, especially, there are plenty of opportunities and many temptations. The truth is that some jurisdictions provide significantly lower tax regimes than Australia. Highly competitive locations, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and Ireland, have prospered mightily by offering companies some of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world—as low as 12½ per cent in the case of Ireland. Our corporate rate, for all but the smallest of companies, is currently 30 per cent. While the US rate is currently a whopping 39 per cent, one of the highest in the world, the new Trump administration has signalled a clear intention to significantly reduce the US corporate tax rate down to as low as 15 per cent. As a medium-sized, free-market economy that is a net importer of capital, it is essential that we keep our corporate tax rate competitive. That is precisely what the Turnbull government is seeking to do courtesy of the Enterprise Tax Plan that the member for Fenner just spoke about. The previous member—it surprises me, given his academic background in economics—seems to be in denial of the fact that by reducing corporate tax you increase companies' return on investment. When they have a higher return on their investment they invest more, and with more investment comes more jobs. Therein lies the value of the Enterprise Tax Plan. However, the bill being debated today is not addressing the competitiveness of our rate, but rather the adverse behavior of some multinationals, which do business in Australia and then seek to abrogate their responsibility to contribute by not paying their fair share of tax. Given the diversity of corporate tax rates around the world, is it any wonder that some large multinational corporations channel their profits to jurisdictions with much lower corporate tax rates? They have been doing it in a number of ingenious ways, all of which essentially amount to shifting profits from high-tax environments to low-tax environments, all with a view to achieving one key objective—to avoid tax. It is one thing to take reasonable and lawful steps to limit one's tax liability, but it is quite another to ruthlessly evade tax by shifting on-paper profits beyond the markets where the transactions take place and where the tax is rightly payable. Aggressive intragroup pricing—transfer pricing, as it is more commonly known—is one way this can be done, especially for debt and intangibles, and it plays a major role in corporate tax avoidance. Transfer pricing describes the price a company charges another arm of its own operation as part of the supply chain to create a product. One subsidiary sells to another subsidiary, which can lead to the practice of large profits artificially being shifted along the supply chain to lower-tax jurisdictions. While the trade in physical goods and services can and has been successfully exploited by such schemes, it is the ever-expanding global trade in intellectual property and online services that is especially prone to manipulation of this type. Tech companies, for example, often maintain that their success is based on the quality of their R&D—their technicians, the priceless brainpower that developed the better mouse trap or the better app. Putting a dollar value on that can be extremely difficult for tax authorities to estimate. It can also be advantageous to a high-tech corporation if the price it puts on such intellectual property is high and if the bulk of revenue earned in a jurisdiction like Australia gets shifted to another jurisdiction where the company says the value of its IP really resides and where the IP behind the better app was developed, which can inevitably be a place with a lower tax rate. Loan arrangements are another issue. Let's say a realistic rate for a loan from one division of a company to another is five per cent. If the rate that ends up being charged is in fact eight per cent, then the deduction that the company may enjoy via a tax concession for servicing its debt in a jurisdiction like Australia is made artificially high. Thus, tax is avoided and the company's profits are increased. None of these tactics are necessarily new. What is different now, however, is the size of the multinationals, the huge growth in their share of the global economy and the sheer scale of tax avoidance, ripping untold billions out of communities right around the world. In Australia alone, a recent report to Senate estimates by the tax commissioner looked at this and suggested that the impact of these sorts of tactics is now measured in billions of dollars. That makes sense in terms of foregone revenue when you consider Australia's tax regime. Corporate tax is the second largest source of revenue for the federal government, at about 20 per cent, after personal income tax approaching 50 per cent. It is therefore the second-most important source of servicing funds for the Australian community, providing services such as health, education, child care and of course a welfare safety net. In 2012-13, for example, 850,000 companies lodged tax returns in Australia and paid $66.9 billion—close to 20 per cent of all receipts, a proportion that has actually declined over subsequent tax years, while inversely the percentage contribution of personal income tax has continued to increase. Our critical exposure to the scourge of corporate tax avoidance is demonstrated by the fact that companies with a turnover of $250 million or more accounted for 60 per cent of corporate tax receipts in 2012-13, even though they represented just 0.2 per cent of all companies, and, according to the ATO, just 69 companies, with a turnover of $5 billion or more, accounted for a very substantial 42 per cent of the corporate tax base. This correlation clearly demonstrates our heavy reliance on corporate tax receipts, and the relatively narrow base that accounts for much of that revenue. It therefore takes only a handful of big companies to divert profits in an attempt to outflank the tax authorities, and, with no corresponding benefit to the wider economy, the impact on Australia's bottom line is potentially devastating. Most of these companies are multinationals, and there is a growing recognition, both worldwide and here in Australia, that some of these massive corporations have been playing governments off a break. Tax law in most countries has simply not kept up with the ingenuity being brought to bear by the legions of lawyers and accountants whose job it is to find ways to play the system and win. International interest in dealing with the problem gained welcome urgency in the wake of the global financial crisis. With most countries strapped for cash to service their obligations, given the depth of the crisis and indeed the slow recovery, there was a broad recognition that reducing corporate tax avoidance was a worldwide problem that needed to be addressed, for too much was being lost, due to the behaviour of some multinationals that were at best cheating; at worst actively participating in criminal activity. The OECD got involved in developing approaches that countries need to take, the G20 also got involved, and I am pleased to say that Australia has been a key player in and around these forums in urging and developing the sort of concerted international action that is now being taken, of which this bill is an important part. At the end of the day, in order for us to deal with multinationals that decide they wish to avoid their tax obligation, we need to take action. That is why our record so far is a proud one, of around $2 billion being clawed back in this financial year alone, and the measures discussed in this bill today will only strengthen that regime. I commend the bill to the House. 12:48 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I am speaking in support of the amendment that has been moved by the member for Fenner, and in doing so I am critical of the government because, although we are supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, it is a soft touch. It is another wasted opportunity for this government to tackle what is a very big issue for our nation's finances—that is, multinational profit-shifting, which results in less revenue coming into the Australian budget, revenue that can fund important health, education and aged-care services and, importantly, go towards reducing the deficit, which has increased substantially under the Abbott and Turnbull governments. This piece of legislation really is a missed opportunity. Under these proposals that we debate here today, the government raises an additional $200 million. However, if they had adopted Labor's much stronger reforms on multinational tax avoidance then the budget would be $1.6 billion better off over the forward estimates and $5.9 billion better off over the decade, a much greater increase in revenue and a much stronger response to a problem that has been identified by a number of countries and dealt with through reforms such as this and others, like the ones that Labor proposed in the lead-up to the last election. Nonetheless, this bill does implement three different elements of the government's tax integrity package. The first is a diverted profits tax, also known as a Google tax, something that has been done in the United Kingdom that we are now following here in Australia. The second is an increase in administrative penalties for global firms with revenue over $1 billion that seek to transfer profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share of tax here in Australia. The third is updating Australia's transfer pricing guidelines to bring them in line with OECD guidelines, which have recently changed as part of the OECD's approach to base erosion and profit-shifting, something that Australia signed up to a couple of years ago. Firstly, the diverted profits tax aims to ensure that the tax paid by significant global entities—defined as firms with a global income greater than $1 billion—properly reflects the economic substance of their activities in Australia, and aims to prevent the diversion of profits offshore through contrived arrangements. If the DPT applies, the Diverted Profits Tax Act will impose a tax on the amount of the diverted profit at the rate of 40 per cent, and the diverted profits tax applies when the ATO believes that an entity is transferring profits to a related entity in another jurisdiction which has a lesser and more favourable rate of multinational tax to that here in Australia, thereby avoiding paying their fair share of tax, and duping the Australian budget and the Australian people out of revenue that would fund important services in our community. That rate applies if a company with more than $1 billion in turnover seeks to transfer funds to a foreign jurisdiction with a tax rate below 24 per cent, and that includes jurisdictions such as Singapore, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Unfortunately, we have seen celebrated cases over recent years of big multinational companies seeking to transfer profits, and they generally do it in the form of a loan to a subsidiary company in another jurisdiction, particularly in Singapore. We have seen some of Australia's large resources companies seeking to transfer their profits to related entities in Singapore. A number of tech companies and IT companies have been transferring profits to head offices in Ireland. Schedule 2 of the bill increases the administrative penalties that can be applied by the Commissioner of Taxation to those significant global entities to encourage them to better comply with their tax obligations, including lodging tax documents on time and taking reasonable care when making statements. The shadow Assistant Treasurer introduced a private member's bill in February 2016 designed to raise penalties for noncompliant reporting. What we are seeing here in this bill is that the government is actually adopting Labor's policies on noncompliant reporting. They say that imitation is a form of flattery. In that case, Labor is flattered by the fact that the government has seen fit and has seen the merit in Labor's policy and has sought to adopt it in some of these measures here today. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to update the reference to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, transfer pricing regulations in Australia's transfer pricing rules in division 815 to include the 2016 OECD amendments to the guidelines. In terms of revenue, schedule 1 raises $200 million over the forward estimates, whilst schedules 2 and 3 have unquantifiable revenue gains. But let's be clear about this. As I said earlier, this is nothing more than the government paying lip-service to the notion of ensuring that big businesses pay their fair share of tax. You need look no further than this government's approach to domestic company tax policy to see how fair dinkum it is about ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax. At a time when our budget is under considerable strain, when the deficit has been increased by a very large amount, when the ratings agencies are starting to question Australia's AAA credit rating—a downgrade of which has implications for anyone who has a mortgage or a business with a loan facility because it means higher interest rates over the longer term—this government is proposing to offer a $50 billion tax cut to corporate Australia, most notably some of the biggest corporations in this country. This comes at a time when we need that revenue to fund important services such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, aged-care services, our education reforms, our health care and its increasing costs. I have to say that for all of the bluster from the coalition about fiscal rectitude, about reining in budget deficits, they sure have a pretty good record when it comes to promising things and putting expenditure in the budget that is unfunded. In fact, they wrote the book on how to do it, particularly the Howard government. They were the best of all of the Australian governments at making promises and spending taxpayers' money but not finding a source in the budget from which to fund them. I am speaking in particular of their policy of reducing the capital gains tax discount that applies to sales of capital gains tax goods—the discount that was introduced when Peter Costello was the Treasurer—and the effect that had on the budget. Again, that was unfunded. The superannuation reforms from Treasurer Costello towards the end of the Howard government years allowed people to pump as much money as they wanted into their superannuation. That was forgone revenue, unfunded in the budget. So they have form on this issue of not funding properly in the budget promises and additional spending commitments. This is again the case with their $50 billion tax giveaway, because the Treasury modelling on the government's company tax cut indicates that it will only generate 0.1 per cent in economic growth and create next to no jobs. The Australian public has seen with their own eyes this government's favourable treatment of big businesses through their treatment of the banks. Some of the organisations that will benefit from this $50 billion company tax cut over the longer term will be Australia's biggest banks. Can you believe it, Deputy Speaker? What the banks have put the Australian public through—the number of people they have ripped off, the number of claims they have denied through their insurance arms, the number of dodgy financial advisers who worked for them who have ripped off Australian taxpayers over recent years—has been astounding. And the Turnbull government wants to give them a tax cut. That says everything about this government's approach to fairness and equity in the Australian budget and taxing people fairly. They are giving the biggest businesses, including the banks, a tax cut, but at the same time they want to slug pensioners. They want to slug people with a disability. They want to slug people who are unemployed. They want to slug single mums and working families. Labor says that that is not on. That is unfair. That is not the way that you should be managing Australia's finances—by hitting the most vulnerable and letting off Australia's big businesses. Since the Liberals took office, net debt in Australia has blown out by an estimated $317 billion. Deficits over the forward estimates have blown out by another $10 billion and a weakening economy has delivered more than $30 billion in revenue writedowns. In 2015 coalition MPs cheered when Prime Minister Abbott told the parliament: So far the only idea they— Labor— have come up with is to spend $100 million on the ATO to raise $1 billion. And they all cheered and thought that that was wonderful from their then Prime Minister—and then, of course, they got rid of him. Yet we find in the 2016 budget—most of which has still not been passed by the parliament—that the government did precisely what the member for Warringah was criticising the Labor opposition for, claiming that an additional $679 million investment will raise more than five times as much: $3.7 billion. If this is true, then it must also be the case that the government's savage cuts to the tax office, in axing over 3,000 jobs, will have cost revenue over the past few years and will do so into the future. Promising to restore some of the tax office's funding in this budget is an admission of failure—it is an admission that they got it wrong—and is not a new crackdown on multinationals. If the government truly had an appetite to close the tax loop holes that are exploited by multinational corporations, they would do something about the one in three big companies that pay no tax at all here in Australia. The 2014-15 tax office tax transparency data shows that 109 companies did not pay any tax, despite reporting more than $1 billion in total income. This transparency data report, covering 1,904 companies in total, is only available thanks to Labor's reforms when we were in government. The former Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, introduced these excellent reforms that now allow Australians on an annual basis to see how much tax private companies are paying. These reforms were passed over the objections of the coalition. Let us never forget that the Liberals and Nationals—all of those on that side of the chamber—voted against these reforms to increase transparency on the amount of tax that Australian private companies are paying to the Australian government. And a couple of years later, after we established these reforms, both the Nationals and the Liberals voted with the Greens to water down those tax transparency laws and ensure that two-thirds of those private companies that were previously captured by those laws were now cut out. Well, so much for tax transparency in Australia! In stark contrast, Labor is tackling multinational profit shifting. Our proposal is to move to a worldwide gearing ratio for calculating the amount of debt that companies can claim deductions on in Australia. Under our preferred approach, deductions would be assessed on the third-party debt-to-equity ratio of a company's entire global operations. That would be achieved by eliminating the existing safe-harbour and arms-length tests and making the worldwide gearing ratio the only test for the level of allowable deductions. This is a shift away from the current safe-harbor rules which let companies claim deductions on up to 60 per cent of their Australian debt without needing to show how this debt relates to their real business activity. This bill makes crystal clear this government's preference to protect their big business mates at the expense of low-income Australians. Labor is committed to ensuring that we are fair dinkum about tackling multinational tax avoidance. That is enshrined in our policies, and that is why I am supporting the amendment moved by the member for Fenner. 13:03 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to speak on the non-amended bill that was originally introduced by the minister, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, and the Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017. I think everyone—even those not necessarily au fait with finance or economics—certainly understands what multinational tax avoidance is about. It is pretty easy to intuitively understand that many companies around the world have activities in multiple countries around the world and, of those countries that they are active in or are participating in, those countries all have different taxes and different company tax rates that apply to their local jurisdiction. It is obviously in the interest of companies that they lower their tax bills. And, as we know, some of them are diverting revenue or profits from one jurisdiction to another to lower their overall tax bill. So it is important that we do everything we can to make sure that that is not happening within our jurisdiction. If the money that they are making is made in Australia we want them to pay tax in Australia. This bill is going a long way towards recouping more multinational tax, which is obviously a good thing. As a government we provide many services, and those services have to be funded from somewhere and, if multinational companies are getting away with not paying their fair share of tax, that is obviously going to have to be made up for by the Australian taxpayer. So this is very, very important legislation. The Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 forms a package of bills. It imposes a new diverted profits tax that is targeted at multinationals that enter into arrangements with their offshore related parties that basically—and we are coming down to how we measure it—lack economic substance. The Commissioner of Taxation will have the authority to have a look at these movements of cash and, if anything looks suspicious, will have the power to have a very close look at it. The bill imposes an upfront diverted profits tax liability payable on the amount of the diverted profits at a penalty rate of 40 per cent. So, if they are found to be diverting profits to another jurisdiction, we will charge them a penalty rate. This will have the effect of encouraging greater cooperation between multinationals and the ATO, and the ATO have said that this will reduce the length of disputes between the ATO and the multinationals. As a government we introduced previous legislation in 2015 to make multinational companies pay their tax on Australian earnings. We did that to ensure a sustainable revenue base to deliver the services and supports that governments should provide. The previous law, the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law, or MAAL, together with what we are doing now means that around $2 billion in tax is expected to be clawed back this financial year due to a crackdown on multinational tax avoidance. The tax commissioner has said: Pleasingly, we are seeing positive changes in behaviour from taxpayers and their advisors. They are abandoning their contrived structures and restructuring to models whereby the sales are booked in Australia. There have been reports that both Facebook and Google have changed structures in order to comply with our government's laws in response to the laws we introduced in 2015, and Facebook stopped booking its Australian revenue with its Irish office. In addition to the MAAL work, the ATO has also done around 100 audits of large public and multinational corporations that are underway, with 70 related to multinational corporations, in light of the legislation we introduced previously. This new bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, will prevent multinationals shifting profits offshore. Through the bill we are expecting to raise $100 million extra revenue a year from 2018-19. The bill will also, as I mentioned previously, increase penalties for multinationals who do the wrong thing. The change will see the maximum penalty now 100 times more for large multinationals that fail to lodge tax documents on time, and the penalty for large multinationals that fail to comply with obligations will increase to over $½ million. We are also doubling the penalties for large multinationals where they make false or misleading statements to the ATO, and we are going to continue to apply pressure so that they pay the right amount. We need to be very vigilant on this, and we will be doing so. I have explained the rationale for the diverted profits tax. It is an anti-avoidance measure to make sure that these companies that are operating in many different countries are paying the appropriate tax on the revenue they make in Australia—the measure within Australia's anti tax avoidance which will give the commissioner greater ability to determine the profits that have been diverted from an Australian taxpayer to an overseas associate. In making this determination the commissioner will consider whether the outcome from the arrangement reduces the taxpayer's global net liability by more than 20 per cent and whether the commissioner considers that the principal purpose of the arrangement is to reduce the Australian taxpayer's liability. We obviously have to get quite specific as to what determines whether we look into something or not. The commissioner will not impose the diverted profits tax if the taxpayer can show that all the associates in the arrangements have economic substance. But once the commissioner determines that the profits are being diverted, the commissioner will, as I said earlier, be able to issue an assessment at a 40 per cent penalty rate of tax, and this will need to be paid within 21 days. It can be adjusted by mutual agreement during a 12-month review, but the taxpayer cannot appeal the assessment until the end of the review. We think this is really important, because sometimes the threat of these things changes behaviour, and earlier I gave an example of Facebook, which already, because of previous legislation and this legislation, has worked out that if it continues to do what it is doing then it will be slugged the penalty tax and therefore has already changed its behaviour. The DPT will encourage even greater compliance by multinationals with their obligations in Australia. This will encourage greater openness with the commissioner and allow for speedier resolution of disputes. In regard to the rationale for increasing the penalties then obviously, again, companies are becoming more averse to doing what they are doing, because they know that if they are judged to be avoiding tax then the penalty will hit. So, from 1 July 2017 the increased administrative penalties that can be applied by the commissioner to a significant global entity—that is, one with annual global income of $1 billion or more—which fails to adhere to tax reporting obligations will be increased 100 times, where they fail to lodge tax documents on time or take reasonable care. This means the maximum administrative penalty for significant global entities that fail to comply will increase from a very small $5,250 to $525,000. Importantly, the penalties will also be doubled for these entities when they make false or misleading statements to the ATO. The new penalty amounts are based on the 2016-17 MYEFO announcement that the value of the Commonwealth penalty unit will be increased from $180 to $210 with effect from 17 July. These measures also make a minor amendment to ensure that the administrative penalties apply as intended if a significant global entity does not lodge a general purpose financial statement as required under the taxation laws. Again, by increasing these penalties, the penalty amounts will be more commensurate with their turnover and act as an incentive for the these entities to take reasonable care when making statements to the ATO. Obviously the rationale for strengthening the rules on transfer pricing—literally transferring the revenue from one place to another—is that Australia's transfer pricing legislation currently specifies that it is to be interpreted so as to best achieve consistency with the OECD's transfer guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administrations, which was last updated in 2010. To incorporate the OECD's 2015 recommendations, the reference in Australia's legislation will be amended to include the OECD guidelines that were updated in 2015. Doing this will ensure that Australia's transfer pricing rules remain at international best practice and, importantly, are aligned with those of our major trading partners. Incorporating these OECD recommendations into our transfer pricing rules will also provide greater guidance to industry on the application of the arm's-length principle, particularly for cost-contribution arrangements and transactions involving intellectual property and hard-to-value intangibles. Obviously this gives these companies that are trading in many different areas and in many different countries consistency across those borders. The amendments will also clarify how the transfer pricing analysis should reflect the economic substance of the transaction rather than the contractual form of the enterprise. The diverted profits tax will commence on 1 July. It is estimated that it will raise an extra $200 million in revenue over the forward estimates and, again, will reinforce our position as having some of the toughest laws in the world to combat corporate tax avoidance. Around $2 billion in tax is expected to be clawed back over the financial year under our crackdown. Since the establishment of the new laws the ATO has worked to identify 175 companies as potentially being in the scope of the previously introduced legislation, the MAAL. Of those companies that the ATO assessed, 69 were medium to high risk in breach of the MAAL, and they were placed under current audit; 17 are subject to a current risk assessment. So, I commend this original bill as introduced by the minister to the House. 13:15 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The message has to be made loud and clear: if you want a fair society then multinational companies have to pay tax and if you want a strong economy then multinational companies have to pay tax. It sticks in the craw of many hardworking Australians when they pay their tax. They go to work week in and week out, they pay their tax week in and week out and they are happy to make a contribution to society, but what sticks in their craw is when they learn that some of the wealthiest companies in the world and some of the biggest companies operating in Australia are not paying their fair share. Australians are a generous people and they are willing to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the schools, hospitals, roads and ports that make this a great country—a great country in which to do business, to bring up your family in and to run a small business—but what sticks in their craw is when they see that the playing field is skewed so that the biggest companies in the world with some of the largest incomes are not paying their fair share of tax. Frankly, they look at the Turnbull government and they know that the Turnbull government is not doing a good job of reining them in. Australians reading the newspapers over the last fortnight would see that our country, with some of the biggest gas reserves in the world, is exporting its gas overseas to countries like Japan that are earning more taxation revenue through importation taxes on our gas than governments in Australia are earning on the exportation and royalties from that gas. Something is very, very wrong with our taxation system if this is allowed to occur. The government has to get serious about getting tough on multinationals and they have to do something to ensure that one in three of Australia's largest companies start paying their tax. It is a disgrace that those opposite decry government debt yet, according to the 2014-15 tax office transparency data, one-in-three large firms pay no tax at all. The people that we represent go to work every day and pay their tax and they look at this and they know that it is not fair and it is not right. Something has to change. That one-in-three includes 109 companies that paid no tax despite reporting a total income of over $1 billion. How can that be right? How can it be right that 109 companies with an income of over $1 billion are paying no tax? We know this because we looked at the tax transparency data—tax transparency data that would not be available to the Australian people had it not been for the actions of the Australian Labor Party when in government introducing the legislation that made this data available. Of course, we did not have the support of the opposition back then in 2013. We did not have their support. There was full-throated objection from every coalition MP. Every National Party MP who now bellows from the government benches about how we have to do more to rein in this excess was standing on this side of the House arguing against our tax transparency laws. They later voted with the Greens, in the last parliament, to water down Australia's tax transparency laws, taking two-thirds of private companies out of the reporting net. They have a very, very bad track record indeed when it comes to putting in place the framework for tax transparency and when it comes to ensuring that multinational companies are paying their fair share. Comparing the most recent figures for the tax year 2014-15 with the data for 2013-14 shows that the share of large firms paying no tax has stayed unchanged—36 per cent for both years. Under this government there has been no change. This points to the coalition's absolute and abject failure when it comes to cracking down on multinational tax avoidance. Labor led the way on tackling multinational tax avoidance under the Gillard government in the face of blanket opposition. They were not in the boat for ensuring that we could put in place proper multinational tax avoidance laws. The coalition government has had to be dragged into action. Mr Christensen 230485 Rubbish! What did you do? Why isn't it fixed then? Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I hear the member for Dawson piping up. He is a lion in his electorate, but when he comes down here to Canberra he votes for every single one of Malcolm Turnbull's economic policies. He thunders to the newspapers in Mackay and in his electorate, but when he comes in here he creeps into the chamber and votes for every single one of Malcolm Turnbull's economic policies, which are doing his electorate in the eye and he knows it. He is in trouble and he knows it. Back in 2015, coalition MPs cheered for then Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he stood at that dispatch box and criticised the Australian Labor Party for pointing out the obvious: when you invest in the resources of tax collection, you get a return to the taxpayer and when you invest in resources for tax collection, the government gets a return. It means there is more money coming in the door, which means there is more money available to spend on services and infrastructure for the people of Australia. But on that side of the House they laughed at it. The then Prime Minister said: … the only idea that they have come up with is spending $100 million more on the ATO to raise a billion dollars. I know that there are a lot of investment bankers who would look at that and say, 'That's not a bad return on investment, $100 million in and $1 billion out.' That is a pretty good return on investment. Well, those opposite laughed at it. They are slow learners, but within 12 months they were back here doing exactly the same thing. In the 2016 budget, the government did exactly that and decided that they would invest $679 million to raise more than five times that much—$3.7 billion over the forward estimates—to ensure there was revenue coming in the door. Of course, they mucked it up, and they have not been able to undo the damage they have put in place over the last four years. I have in mind the 3,000 jobs they have slashed from the Australian Taxation Office—the people who are charged with the responsibility of chasing down the tax avoiders, including the multinational companies. They are the people who have the expertise to deal with these issues. The coalition parties—the National Party and the Liberal Party—are giving them all a free go by sacking the people whose job it is to collect that revenue. If you are bringing more money in—if everyone is paying their fair share, including the multinational companies—more resources are available to the government to do the things that Australians are looking to government to do. I have in mind some of the big ideas that have been talked about in this place. Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as a keen follower of these things and as a member who represents a regional seat yourself, no doubt you would have seen the government harking back to some of the policies that were put in place by the former Whitlam government in the 1970s, such as decentralisation policies. It was the Whitlam government who really invested in it and had a long-term plan for decentralisation—unlike the current mob, who think decentralisation is a funny graphic on Facebook, and who are stuffing up a program to move a small government agency out of Canberra and into the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate. They think that is an example of decentralisation policy, when it is not. It is monumental incompetence. The member for Hunter, who is in the chamber with me at the moment, has pointed out in precise detail the vandalism that has been done by the Deputy Prime Minister through this strategy. Nearly 50 per cent of staff resigned from the agency, resulting in lost expertise. The member for Dawson laughs at this, but the roosters will come home. This program is going to cost $25 million. It is not just about collecting the revenue; it is about using it properly, and $25 million has been wasted. Can you imagine the number of trainees that we could have put on, the number of apprentices that we could have employed or assisted in regional towns around the country instead of this boondoggle, shifting a small agency to the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate? It is a joke. If you are going to do decentralisation, you do it properly. You need a long-term plan for what you are going to do for the regions. And it is not just about moving a few public servants from Canberra to a regional city, as useful as that might be. You might look at not sacking so many public sector workers in the first place. I have in mind the recent decision of this government to sack over 200 workers from the Australian Taxation Office in regional towns around the country. Added to that are the number of workers they have sacked from the CSIRO, largely from regional towns around the country. So we have a situation where the Deputy Prime Minister is slapping himself on the back for wasting taxpayers' money and moving a few dozen public sector workers to his electorate. At the same time he is sacking hundreds and hundreds of public sector workers from regional towns all around the country. This is not an example of decentralisation and this is not an example of sound use of taxpayers' money. If you are raising the money properly, you have many more resources available to do things, particularly for people in regional Australia. I want to say something about the important initiatives of the Labor government which deal with ensuring that every region around the country is connected to a national broadband network and has the communication facilities available that people in city take for granted. The coalition was not content with stuffing up the Labor government's national broadband network by condemning regional towns all around the country to a second-rate copper-based national broadband network, which is going to cost the NBN and taxpayers more over the long term and which is going to deliver them a lesser service than is available to people in the big cities. Not content with that, they stand in question time, as the Minister for Urban Infrastructure did yesterday, and slap themselves on the back for introducing programs which have been a monumental failure. I have in mind the Mobile Black Spot Program, much heralded by the coalition. Here we are, four years since the launch and 18 months since round 1 of the program. Over 500 base stations were announced. As it has been over four years since the program was announced, you would think that you would have those 500 base stations switched on. Maybe you would allow a bit of time because of the complex engineering work. Maybe you would say 400 of them should have been switched on. Maybe, if you were an absolute coalition supporter with a blind eye to the ill performance on this matter, you would say, 'Okay, fair is fair—maybe it is 300 that are switched on.' No, four years after the commencement of this program, 100 out of 500 have been switched on, and they slap themselves on the back. More than that, they have not learnt from the mistakes they made in this program. If you were going to badge something as a mobile black spot program, you would think that you would ensure that you were putting base stations in areas which are fixing black spots. It stands to reason that the mobile phone black spot program is going to fix mobile phone black spots. But, as an example of how the government cannot properly use taxpayers' money that they are raising, the audit commission has found that 20 per cent of the funded mobile phone black spot programs did not extend mobile phone coverage. Nor did they improve competition, because they gave the overwhelming majority of these mobile black spot base stations to the incumbent, Telstra, further entrenching their dominant position in regional telecommunications. They cannot be trusted with multinational tax avoidance and they cannot be trusted with the funds raised through addressing it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Harmony Day 14 13:30 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa This Harmony Day I have had the privilege of receiving at Parliament House three guests from Amity College, Prestons, in my electorate. It was a pleasure to show this place to these two distinguished students, Mariam and Adna, with their teacher, Ms Makiz Ansari. I have spoken in this place before about the great work that Amity College does in my community and their achievements. The meaning of the name of the school is 'friendship, peaceful harmony and mutual understanding', which are the core values of the school. Originally established by members of the Turkish community who immigrated to the southwest, it now has over 1,700 students from more than 40 nationalities. It is the embodiment of the diversity of communities in Greater Western Sydney, in Werriwa, and, indeed, this country and its ongoing commitment to fairness and, importantly, the guarantee of respect and dignity for all. The message of Harmony Day this year is 'everyone belongs'. This is embodied in the work of this school, its students, its staff and its place in my community. That is why it seems all the more perverse that the    government is again discussing weakening the discrimination laws that protect the fundamental right to dignity and respect, irrespective of creed and culture. This is a dangerous proposal, and the government's obsession with this issue is evidence of the fundamental lack of leadership that we continue to see day in and day out. Multiculturalism 14 13:31 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Yesterday's release of the government's multicultural statement, Multicultural Australia: United, Strong and Successful, is a timely renewal of our commitment to a strong and prosperous multicultural Australia. We promote the principle of mutual respect, celebrate free speech and denounce racial hatred and discrimination as incompatible with Australian society. It is as relevant to our First Australians as it is to me as a fourth-generation Queenslander, to our    war veterans, and to our most recent arrivals. That is what the UNESCO ambassadors who came from Paris specifically to visit Toowoomba saw last week—the first ever UNESCO peace delegation to visit Australia—invited by our Goodwill Committee at Pure Land Learning College. To be there to welcome them, speak at the community forum and engage in other activities during their stay was a privilege and a pleasure. Today is Harmony Day, and Toowoomba is well progressed in its stated aim of becoming a model city of peace and harmony, as supported by a wide range of our faith and community leaders, including our mayor, Paul Antonio, our Catholic bishop, our Anglican bishop, the head of our Buddhist community at Pure Land Learning College and the head of our Toowoomba Islamic society as well. Harmony Day 14 13:33 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The electorate of Solomon, encompassing Darwin and Palmerston, is one of the most multicultural and harmonious electorates in Australia. Today in Solomon, schools are holding special assemblies to celebrate harmony, and workplaces are having multicultural lunches. The Darwin City Council is holding a special citizenship ceremony in honour of the day and in celebration of our diversity and multiculturalism. The Palmerston City Council is hosting a special story time, where attendees are encouraged to attend in traditional cultural dress and hear popular stories from cultures from all around the world. I congratulate the mayors of both cities, the Hon. Katrina Fong Lim and the Hon. Ian Abbott, on the fantastic work they do in fostering multiculturalism within our community. I also want to commend the Northern Territory government, and in particular Minister Lauren Moss. But, unfortunately, on the same day that these groups are celebrating diversity and multiculturalism, the very things that make Darwin and Palmerston great, this federal government is trying to tear them down. This is despite the fact that the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory, as well many other multicultural groups, had appeared before the recent parliamentary inquiry providing detailed submissions reporting the detrimental effects that weakening protections against race hate speech will have. It is not the right message that we want to be sending. A true leader would not consider these changes. It is a disgrace. Those opposite should have a good look at themselves. Multiculturalism 15 13:34 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney This government's multicultural statement is apt for all Australians. Our nation owes its success to more than 300 different ancestries—our First Australians, our British and Irish settlers and our newest friends and neighbours. To this government and to me, multiculturalism is not about us or them; it is about all of us, about unity, mutual respect and values of opportunity, self-reliance and aspiration, whether we arrived last week or whether our ancestors have been in Australia for hundreds or even thousands of years. We will only succeed as a nation when we all feel part of our multicultural success. We all share democracy and an independent judicial system. We all fight with every breath to defend our freedoms of speech, religion, enterprise and association. Australians are so privileged to be free to make their own decisions, without fear of imprisonment or bloodshed. There is great strength in our shared fundamental values and in Australia's peace, prosperity and democracy in the face of radical and ideologically opposed enemies. Because of this unity, our nation is one of the strongest foundations for those who want to apply their own effort and achieve every potential for their family, their business and our country. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, Zed Seselja, for their significant work in building an inclusive and unifying multicultural statement for all Australians. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 15 13:36 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland The Prime Minister has just announced that he is going to make it legal to offend, insult or humiliate people based on the colour of their skin. This is not us. This is not the sort of country we ought to be. We are not a racist country but, from time to time, hurtful, racist things are said. They do not usually affect people who look like me, but they do affect my wife, my family and my community. I represent a community where more than 50 per cent of the people were born overseas, and this is going to hurt them because what the Prime Minister has just done is send a message to the whole country that it is okay to say hurtful, racist things. I say to the Liberal Party: what do you want to say that you cannot say now? I say this more in sadness than in anger. I thought the Prime Minister was better than this. This is the sort of thing you would expect Pauline Hanson to do, not Malcolm Turnbull. It is not going to create one job across this country, but it will tear at our community. Why is he doing this? He is doing it to save his job, because he is weak and does not have the courage to stand up to the right-wing extremists in his own party. The tragedy is this: it is my community, the people I represent, who are going to pay the price for Malcolm Turnbull's weakness. Bridges Renewal Program 15 13:37 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I rise today to announce the opening of round three of the federal government's $360 million Bridges Renewal Program. Why is this program so important to the bush? Road networks are vital to the economy. Ag is booming and access to markets is vital. Poor bridges and load limits stop roads from being road train or B-double rated. The days of the old eight-tonne flattop truck are gone. Since the program started, around $211 million has been invested in 204 bridges across the nation. In the first two rounds, Flynn received $8.6 billion for eight bridges across the electorate, mainly for replacing old timber bridges that were built in the 1940s and 1950s with modern steel and concrete structures. This included $1.6 million for the Monduran bridge, outside Bundaberg; $2.3 million for the Callide Creek bridge at Biloela and $2.2 million for the Deep Creek bridge between Mundubbera and Gayndah. There are other smaller projects like the Louisa Creek bridge at Garnant. There are great opportunities for state and local governments to get on board and I thank them for their efforts in the past. Racial Discrimination Act 15 13:39 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh It is a real shame that on a day like today, Harmony Day, when we celebrate this nation's multicultural beliefs and acknowledge our citizens who have come from every corner of the world, that the government in their caucus room today and in their cabinet are discussing how to water down 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that has served our nation for many years. It has served the people of this nation who have made their home here in Australia having come from every corner of the world. We are one of the most harmonious nations in the world, we are an egalitarian nation, and this government is trying to water down those things that have been put in place to protect people's rights and to ensure that we treat everyone equally. The Prime Minister has been totally controlled by the extreme right wing of his political party, and all he is interested in is his own job. That is the reason he is looking at these laws. Like the electorates of everyone in this House, my electorate of Hindmarsh has people from over 200 different nations who are Australians through and through, who have made their home here in Australia. Those people are being absolutely dishonoured by these discussions at the moment. It is wrong, it is not right, in a nation like ours where we have done so much over past years to ensure that everyone is treated equally regardless of the colour of their skin, regardless of their religion, regardless of where they come from, because everybody is contributing to this nation. To see this government do what it is doing today is an absolute disgrace. (Time expired) Political Correctness 16 13:40 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Political correctness is the enemy of freedom. And what a formidable enemy it is, for it cleverly claims the high moral ground from which it then wields a two-edged sword—one that preys on people's decency and kind heartedness but then bullies people into submission—for its aim is to create a timid mob that thinks, speaks and acts the same. Defiance of political correctness is a defence of freedom. In this country—a proud liberal democracy—we have no more important a foundation principle than freedom. Our forebears fought for it, they died for it, and it is our job now to protect it. It is within this context that I pay tribute today to Bill Leak—editorial cartoonist with The Australian, who died suddenly less than a fortnight ago. Bill Leak was a great Australian who made us laugh and made us think. To my mind, his defiance of political correctness in defence of freedom of speech will be his enduring legacy. I can only hope, I can only pray, that we in this House who also believe in the importance of freedom will display the same fortitude and moral courage that he did. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I warn members that I will not tolerate interjections across the chamber. Workplace Relations 16 13:42 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Last night Australians who watched the 7.30 program would have seen the Third World conditions being promoted by this government at Sydney Airport. We see at Sydney Airport appalling conditions of people working on split shifts as part of this government's new modern and flexible and innovative economy. Split shifts start early, finish late and there are limited guaranteed hours, and it is not worth workers' time or money to go home when they are rostered off and then come back to finish their shift. Workers have been voicing their concern about fatigue levels putting safety at risk. The secret footage obtained by 7.30 reveals bed-rolls and dirty sheets next to a baggage carousel in the staff only area of the Sydney Airport international terminal. But the company comes out and says that any talk that the employees are being forced to do that is utterly false. Of course they would say that because the company is a well-known Liberal donor—Aerocare, who was sent by the Election Funding Authority to the Crown Solicitor for failing to lodge their political donations report. Most of Aerocare's workers are permanent part-time, with a minimum guaranteed salary of $16,000 a year. These are people living below the poverty line, and these people opposite, this government, are out there pushing their agenda to make people work harder and longer for less money. Aerocare have also come out and said that they had a $13 million profit last year alone. So we are seeing airport profits going up, business profits going up, but this mob are driving wages and conditions down, turning people into slaves just to suit their political agenda. (Time expired) Wide Bay Electorate: Older Women's Network 16 13:44 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay It was a great pleasure to meet with members of the Older Women's Network Gympie branch to celebrate the achievements of women as part of International Women's Day during Queensland Women's Week. The branch has been active for nearly 21 years, highlighting the contributions of older women and championing the needs for greater care of and respect for women in their senior years. The Older Women's Network aims to address issues of discrimination against older women, improve access to education opportunities, improve income security for older women, improve quality of life and access to health care and increase participation in decision making affecting older women. It was a pleasure to meet with the members, each of whom provide very special service to the branch and within the community. Some of these people included coordinator Lee Hodgson, secretary Helen Steele, treasurer Barbara Doherty, assistant treasurer Bev Comerford, assistant secretary and assistant newsletter editor Kaye Gaynes, newsletter editor and photographer Lyn Day, trip coordinator Raylee Brennan, birthday coordinator Lesley McDevitt, outreach carers June Idle, Cathy Elliott and Lesley McDevitt, morning tea coordinator Coralie Millard and door reception lady Marcia Millard. The Gympie branch recently launched a special photographic collection highlighting the contributions of women in the local community. The photographs showcase their achievements and are a credit to everyone involved in the project. Workplace Relations 17 13:45 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I also rise today to share with the House my concern at the disturbing footage obtained by the ABC and aired on the 7.30 report last night, showing the impact of inadequate pay and poor working conditions on airport ground staff at Sydney airport. Aerocare is an Australian company which employs over 2,000 workers responsible for moving baggage, loading passengers and carrying out some safety checks on planes before they fly. But Aerocare also has a responsibility to their workforce. Last night's footage showed Aerocare workers sleeping on bed rolls, on grubby concrete floors amongst the baggage carousels in the bowels of Sydney airport between split four-hour shifts. This government's support of cuts to penalty rates is indicative of a government which attacks unions and undermines working conditions. It could not care less about working people. As the Transport Workers Union has said, the conditions which we saw last night at Aerocare are an indictment on the Australian workplace under this government. What these workers face is the result of a government which has utterly failed to protect working families. This government needs to ensure that the concerns raised by these workers are addressed because the welfare of these workers is inextricably linked to the welfare of the travelling public. Barker Electorate: Community Events 17 13:47 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise today to speak about the South East Field Days held at Lucindale last weekend. The South East Field Days event is by far the largest event of its type in my electorate and it attracts approximately 22,000 people over two days. Thanks to Lyn Crosby, the secretary of the committee, and more broadly the Lucindale Lions Club for arranging such a fantastic event. Thanks also to the Lucindale Area School, who organised the Yakka trail and gave me an opportunity to give away over 1,000 gift bags over the days. Country field days promote the best of what local committees have to offer and provide an invaluable chance for regional families to exchange ideas and to socialise with others who share common interests. This Saturday, I am attending a different kind of event. I will be at Keith's Diesel and Dirt Derby. I have put my hand up to take part in Australia's only header demolition derby. Similar to monster truck demolition derbies, the header demolition event is sure to be a crowd pleaser. Competitors will now have the chance to smash their headers into a header driven by their federal member of parliament. Having a background in livestock farming, I have not mastered how to drive a combine harvester. If all goes to plan, I will still be around to attend the Karoonda Farm Fair the following weekend. Each of these shows, field days and farm fares across my electorate attract crowds and give me a chance to have a bit of fun. But, much more importantly, they give me an opportunity to hear the concerns that are emanating from rural Australia. Australian Federal Police 17 13:48 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I rise today in defence of the hundreds of Australian Federal Police and their families who face a 35 per cent wage cut under this government. While I know that these dedicated men and women will not compromise their high standards of work in what they do in their every day in the face of these cuts, I also know that you cannot talk tough on issues of crime, security and terrorism while, at the same time, devaluing the very work that those on the front line do to keep our communities safe. I have personally worked with the AFP and I know firsthand just how dedicated they are. I am particularly concerned by this government's blatant disregard for them and their blatant disregard for the well-being and the standards of living for the people who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. The Australian Federal Police are the people who keep us safe from drugs and from terrorism; yet, the government is prepared to cut their pay by $100 million—10 per cent of their budget in wages—while, at the same time, giving a $50 billion tax break to be big end of town. This government says it has an economic plan, but so far all the Australian people have seen is a protracted campaign of cuts to standard of living and take-home pay, whether it is in the form of penalty rates or, in this case, outright cuts to wages. Karratha Clontarf Academy 17 13:50 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I am pleased to speak about the enthusiastic young students from the Karratha Clontarf Academy, whom I hosted in my electorate office in Broome last week. The Clontarf Foundation aims to improve education, discipline, life skills, self-esteem and the employment prospects of young Indigenous males. Now, in its eighth year, the Karratha campus is one of the most isolated academies in Australia. It has a record 152 students enrolled this year. Twenty year 12 students will graduate from the academy this year. This is not only another record for the Karratha campus; it doubles the previous highest for the campus—another great boon for the team led by director Brad Cox, together with Greg Townsend, the operations officer. Also, in attendance at the event was Nathan Perrin, the regional manager for north-west Western Australia, and Xavier Ennis, the very enthusiastic employment officer for the Kimberley. The 16 students from years 7 to 9 did a tremendous job in delivering a presentation to me. It was of a very high standard, which was surprising given that all of those young men had never had any public speaking experience whatsoever. It was a great credit to them. Improving hospitals, improving schools, providing clothing for rural and remote communities, as well as providing free school supplies, were some of the objectives that we discussed that the students would deliver if they were to be Prime Minister for the day. It was incredibly insightful. I want to give a big thanks to these young men for taking the time out to visit me whilst they were visiting Broome. They were all very well mannered, respectful and incredibly engaging. It is a real credit to Clontarf and their families. Australian Federal Police 18 13:51 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra AFP officers have not received a pay rise for two years and now 280 of them are facing pay cuts of up to 35 per cent of their wage. This from a government that prides itself on being tough on crime; this from a government that maintains it is a friend of law enforcement. This government is cutting $100 million from the AFP's budget, which is more than 10 per cent of the AFP's overall national policing budget. Of these officers, many live and work here in my electorate of Canberra. They protect and provide security for the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. They work in witness protection, in surveillance and in counter-terrorism. They are proud servants of democracy; they are proud protectors of our community; and they are proud defenders of our nation. How does this government pay them back? By cutting their wages by 35 per cent. This government has got form when it comes to ripping pay and conditions from hard-working Australians in uniform. In 2014 this government tried to cut the pay and conditions of ADF personnel, but, thanks to fights by Labor, defence associations and veterans, the government backtracked. It took them five months to do it but they backtracked and reinstated those conditions and pay. This government is trying it on again with our AFP officers. As we did for the ADF, Labor will stand with the AFP against the unfair cuts to pay and conditions—(Time expired) Regional Employment 18 13:53 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise today to give support to the work of the Regional Ministerial Taskforce, announced by the Prime Minister to promote jobs and growth in our rural, regional and remote areas. Rural, regional and remote Australia is different to where most Australians live, the city, and we need a different policy emphasis to ensure we achieve our best for us and for the nation. I welcome the expertise of the committee: with the Prime Minister as chair, Senator Fiona Nash as the deputy chair and a membership consisting of experienced ministers from the portfolios most relevant to regional Australia. I am looking forward to feeding information into the taskforce on the issues that I understand the best—the issues that concern rural, regional and remote Australia. In my electorate of Grey, population growth is low. People are moving out of country towns and starting new lives in places where they believe more opportunities are at hand. Local economies are struggling. Young doctors, lawyers and teachers are uninterested in resettling in rural and regional areas. Small businesses are reluctant at times to take the risk on a small town. It is clear to me that the issues that rural, regional and remote areas face are quite different to those for the rest of this nation. It is time to get serious about this sector of our population, and I believe the taskforce will be a positive and effective way for the Turnbull government to come up with realistic means to closing the gap between the city and the bush. Australian Federal Police 18 13:54 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham A number of my colleagues have talked today about the devastating impact that cuts to penalty rates for 700,000 of the poorest paid workers in this country will have. It turns out that those workers are not the only workers the government has in its sights for pay cuts. Labor was frankly shocked and disgusted today to see the reports stating that AFP officers—officers of the Australian Federal Police who do so much to protect us—are up for pay cuts. These are people who have not seen a pay rise in two years. They are in the middle of an enterprise bargain. We are being told that 280 of their hardest working officers are facing pay cuts of up to 35 per cent. This is a government that loves to shroud itself in the Australian flag. When the AFP does a big drug bust, Minister Keenan loves to get up and look like he is tough on crime. They love to talk the talk when it comes into the parliament, but when they go down the hall to the cabinet room we see something very different—and that is a huge cut to the AFP budget. We are seeing projected cuts over the next four years of $100 million. Would you believe that the people who are up for pay cuts are the very same people who protect the Prime Minister? These are people who put their lives on the line for our Prime Minister every day and yet he is threatening to cut their pay by 35 per cent. It is not good enough, and Labor will fight against these cuts. They are unfair and they are unAustralian. Fadden Electorate: International Boat Show 19 13:56 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I was proud last Friday to officially open the seventh Gold Coast international boat show and marine expo in the fabulous Gold Coast Marine Precinct. It was the largest ever expo and the first in Australia with over 230 exhibitors, a third of them for the first time, showcasing much of the gear that they proudly make in Australia. The marine precinct employs almost 3000 people and that number is set to double in the coming years, as growth is strong. It is proof that manufacturing is well and truly alive, not just on the Gold Coast but across Australia. We are a nation of boaties. In Queensland two out of nine people over the age of 16 hold a boat licence—that is 840,000 of us. There are over a quarter of a million registered vessels. Let's face it, 85 per cent of our country lives within 50 kilometres of the ocean. The boating precinct is so close to the beautiful Broadwater, and it is the only boat show that is held right where products are designed, manufactured and pushed into the water. It is a world-class boat show. Sales of over $50 million for the weekend are testimony to it. I would like to thank all of those involved and especially the pioneers of this industry, Patrick Gay AM from the Gold Coast City Marina, Tony Longhurst from Riviera, Stefan from Stefan Boating World and so many others who contributed to making this boat show world-class. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 19 13:57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I can see why many Australians think that the coalition's obsession with watering down the Racial Discrimination Act is simply irrelevant. Watering down section 18C will not create jobs; it will not train apprentices; it will not reopen TAFEs; it will not help our teachers in the schools; it will not make seeing the doctor cheaper; it will not make the NBN faster; and it will not deal with the gas emergency that we have got right now in manufacturing. The one thing this change will do is make it easier for people to be insulted or humiliated on the basis of race. This government does, I concede, have someone with a sense of humour—they choose Harmony Day to weaken protections against racism. They have never been able to answer one simple question: what insult to they want people to be able to say that they cannot say now? I understand that it is possible to consider watering down these laws if you never know what discrimination is like. It is easy to support cutting penalty rates if you do not know anyone who relies upon them. It is easy to dismiss hurt that you will not feel; it is easy to weaken protection that you will never need. But this is not leadership and this is not what Australia is about. The only two cases the Prime Minister held up today as his rationale could be solved by improving the process—and not by changing the law. This is not about free speech; this is about the Prime Minister appeasing his party. How much more will Australia throw overboard to save one man's job? Labor will never support the right to be a bigot. Gilmore Electorate: Mind the Gap 19 13:59 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore On Friday, 17 March I joined University of Wollongong's Professor Alison Jones, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, Professor Robbie Collins from the Shoalhaven Campus, Lifeline's South Coast Chairman Stephen Long, Local Aboriginal Elder Uncle Tom Moore, Shoalhaven City Council Mayor Amanda Findley and Noah's Ark CEO to get the Mind the Gap facility happening in Nowra. I was incredibly proud to turn the first sod for this $2.46 million facility that will improve mental health support in our region while creating new job opportunities. My passion is employment, and this facility will create 20 full-time jobs and another 11 in research and administration. I want to acknowledge the cooperation of all these organisations, including the former Mayor Joanna Gash and the previous Shoalhaven council, in getting this to happen. Congratulations to all involved. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 20 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Minister for Foreign Affairs is absent overseas on official business in Washington, and the Treasurer will take questions on her behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Racial Discrimination Act 1975 20 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today is Harmony Day—the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. Why, on today of all days, has the Prime Minister chosen to weaken protections against racist hate speech? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Today we are strengthening the Racial Discrimination Act. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 We are strengthening it because we are making it clear, and we are standing up for freedom of speech. We are standing up for the freedom of speech that underpins our society—the greatest multicultural society in the world. This is the Australia that the Labor Party believe. They believe that Australia is a nation of racists only held in check by Gillian Triggs and section 18C. I can tell you that we have more respect for the Australian people than the Labor Party do. We know that our precious freedoms, including our freedom of speech, are the very foundations of the nation—the great democracy—that has caused so many people to come from every corner of the world to join us in the most successful multicultural society in the world. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 We are here in this House of free speech, and it is hard to be heard with the screams of the Labor Party. They are not very interested in hearing anything but their own prejudices. Section 18C has lost its credibility. It lost it a long time ago. It needs to be reformed, and we are putting it in language that does the job. What we are delivering is a stronger and fairer section—a section that will do a better job of protecting Australians against racial vilification and, at the same time, ensuring that university students are not hauled through the courts for years for putting posts on Facebook and that cartoonists, like the great late Bill Leak, do not have to look over their shoulder to see if there is a commission or a lawyer waiting to pounce on them. Let's be clear: the language that we are proposing to insert in this bill is precisely the intent of the bill when it was first introduced. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 If I go to the explanatory memorandum of the law when it was introduced in this House by a Labor government, it says: The Bill maintains a balance between the right to free speech and the protection of individuals and groups from harassment and fear because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin. The language we are using is appropriate, is consistent with the intention of the legislation, is clear, is plain and better sets the balance. It is a stronger law and a fairer law standing up for freedom of speech and protecting Australians against racial vilification. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The level of interjections is ridiculously high. I am not going to keep interrupting ministers. There were interjectors on both sides disrupting the debate. I simply say to those members that I will deal with them. We are not going to have that level of noise for the rest of question time. We are really not. This is particularly addressed to the members for Lalor, Gellibrand, Griffith and Hume, who seemed to be arguing through the Prime Minister's answer with someone on the other side. I will refer members to my previous statements on this and act accordingly. Renewable Energy 20 14:05 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how the government's recent energy announcements will make renewable energy reliable for households and businesses, including in the great electorate of Goldstein? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, his great electorate of Goldstein is located in the state of Victoria—the state whose premier has an energy policy that is calculated to take that state down the same road as South Australia. It has been driven by the recklessness of the Labor Party's ideology instead of economics and engineering. Ideology is no substitute for planning. The Labor Party have taken an approach to energy which puts thousands of Australian jobs at risk, which has seen the price of gas go through the roof, which has seen gas less available to businesses and more expensive than ever and which has seen South Australia enjoy—if that is the right term—the least reliable and the most expensive electricity in Australia. Labor have no plan for energy security at all. They have a huge renewables target, but how are they going to get there? They do not know any more than Jay Weatherill did. What this debate needs is engineering and economics. Every step we have taken is securing Australians' energy future. The Labor Party left us with a gas market that was short of gas and the price going through the roof. Why was that? Because Labor governments, especially in Victoria, where the honourable member's electorate is, have been banning exploration. Victoria has lots of gas—lots of conventional gas, in fact, so there is no need for fracking—but a left-wing Labor government will not allow it to be developed or explored. Of course in South Australia, across the border, the Labor government will allow base load power to be closed down—one power station after another. They have a wind resource that can generate up to 150 per cent of the state's demand or, depending on the wind, nothing at all. So what did they depend on? A long extension cord into the Latrobe Valley. We are dealing with that. We have addressed the gas issue. We are working with the gas producers. They have given a commitment to ensure that there will be gas available for peak energy requirements on the east coast. That is a vital commitment which we have secured. We continue to secure more gas for domestic purposes for Australians. But above all, we have taken the biggest step to make renewables reliable by committing to the plan to increase the generation capacity of the Snowy Hydro scheme by 50 per cent. It will be the biggest pumped storage system in the Southern Hemisphere and one of the biggest in the world. That is our approach: engineering, economics and a plan to secure Australia's energy future. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 21 14:08 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister has claimed that today's changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act are about increasing freedom of speech. What forms of racial speech does the Prime Minister want people to be able to say that they cannot say right now? 14:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. The question is really this: what is the speech that the Labor Party say would not be prohibited under the revised wording? What is it? The terms 'harass' and 'intimidate' are clear English terms. It is perfectly plain what they mean. They are to be found in many statutes. The reality is that the language 'offend, insult or humiliate' has been criticised by one expert after another. Indeed, the High Court itself has been obliged to define it as involving 'serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights'. That is Justice Susan Kiefel, our Chief Justice. It is plain that a statute should speak in language that is clear and accurate. What we have there is a statute whose language creates a pall of insecurity over writers, students and cartoonists, because people look at those words and they say, 'So that means that any insult, any offence, any humiliation, any hurt feelings are prohibited.' It is not an academic point. We have seen it with the university students at QUT— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 We have seen it with Bill Leak. A clear statute with clear language provides better protection. It provides protection both for Australians against racial vilification, but also the protection of free speech. Australians are entitled to speak freely. It is one of our fundamental rights. We are striking the balance at the right point between protection against racial vilification and protecting free speech. We have the balance right. Labor has lost the plot on this and on so many other issues. Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lalor is warned. Energy 21 14:11 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on why energy reliability is important for Australia's booming wool production sector? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to the ongoing viability of wool production and processing in Australia and the thousands of hardworking Australians it employs? 14:12 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. He, more than most, would be very aware of the huge turnaround we have had in the wool sector. In fact we are experiencing the best prices in 29 years. That is in real terms. This boom means that people in the western districts, which the member would be very aware of, are actually making a dollar and getting ahead. This has been assisted by the investment by the Commonwealth in such things as dog fences, especially in south-west Queensland. It has also assisted in bringing more people into these districts—shearers are bringing their kids and families and bringing commerce into the towns. This is something that is so formative for our nation. In fact, the Labor Party was started by shearers. It is also important that we understand that the returns are also based on the fact that we are getting great returns from fat lambs. So if we get a ewe that now cuts about $65 worth of wool because of the record prices that we are getting and a fat lamb at about $120, that means that we are getting a return of about $180 from a ewe unit if you put a Border Leicester ram over it. These are brilliant returns for people on the land. But of course there are risks with this. One of the biggest risks is that we want to keep Australian manufacturing workers in jobs, too. But we are losing Australian manufacturing workers because of the price of power. The price of power has become ridiculous. We have seen this especially in Adelaide. Adelaide would know better than most. In Adelaide we have Michell, one of our last major wool processing plants. They have said, 'Wool processing is energy intensive, so when faced with a $300,000 rise in the contract price of electricity, the business has decided to switch to the spot pricing market, but it can prove volatile. In the past week we've shut down two or three times. It was cheaper than paying the power bill.' This is what is happening to Australian jobs and Australian workers. Australian workers are losing their jobs and their jobs are going to China. Their jobs are going overseas because the Labor Party will not deal with the power crisis. It is only this side of the chamber that says that we are brave enough to build a new coal-fired power station. If we need a new coal-fired power station, we will build a new coal-fired power station. It is only this side of the chamber that is talking about hydro-electricity and hydro storage, to make sure that we can get new base load power on. We are trying our very best, in areas such as the processing of wool, to make sure we keep Australian workers in Australian jobs in Australia. But, of course, until the Labor Party decide they want to go into bat for Australian workers, until the member for Hunter and the member for Shortland start standing up for Australian workers, then we will have the Labor Party, led by the nose by the Greens, leading Australian jobs overseas, putting Australian workers out of work. The wool industry is one of the most classic examples of Australia so desperately trying to keep Australian jobs in Australia, and what are the Australian Labor Party doing? They are sending them overseas. (Time expired) Racial Discrimination Act 1975 22 14:15 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan My question is to the Prime Minister. As someone who has been subjected to racism time and time again as I was growing up and even in my life now, please give me an answer: what exactly does the Prime Minister want people to be able to say that they cannot say now? 14:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I understand the point the honourable member is making. Ms Plibersek 83M You don't; that's the point. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 I can assure her that my government—and, I believe, all Australians—are absolutely opposed to racism in any form. The suggestion that those people who support a change to the wording of section 18C are somehow or other racists is a deeply offensive one. Among the people who have called for its reform are Warren Mundine, Justice Ronald Sackville, and Professor Sarah Joseph from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, who questions whether the section in its current form is actually consistent with our international human rights obligations to protect freedom of speech. In fact, Professor Joseph said that what may save it from being in breach of our international obligations to protect free speech is the narrow interpretation that the High Court has put on it, which I quoted earlier. But surely it is better for the language of the statute to be clear, and the object has always been as it is in the honourable member's state, where there is legislation to prohibit racial harassment, and that has been well considered by the courts on many occasions. Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills! Mr TURNBULL 885 It is a concept that is well understood. We stand for free speech, we oppose and condemn racial vilification, we oppose and condemn racism in any form and we are united on that. This will be a stronger, a clearer and a fairer statute. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides. The member for Melbourne Ports will cease interjecting. Climate Change 23 14:17 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Senior members of the US military and national security establishment last night warned on Four Corners that climate change is a massive security threat, with sea level rise and droughts fuelling conflict and terrorism. Do you agree that there are national security implications from climate change? If so, given that most fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground to meet the two-degree limit we agreed to in Paris, will you rule out letting the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility or any other public money subsidise the Adani coalmine and associated infrastructure, or are you happy to use taxpayer funds to threaten our way of life? 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member would be aware, the government is very alert to the risk of climate change and the national security implications—particularly of rising sea levels, particularly in our region—that it involves, and of course we have substantial programs right through the Pacific in particular to help our neighbours in the Pacific deal with the consequences of rising sea levels and all of the security implications thereof. As far as the Adani coalmine is concerned, I would simply say this to the honourable member: I understand that he and his party want to prohibit all coalmining in Australia. I understand that; that is their policy. Were Australia to stop exporting coal tomorrow, not only would billions of dollars of export revenue be lost, not only would thousands of jobs be lost but there would be no benefit to the global climate whatsoever, because if our coal exports stopped, they would simply be sourced from other countries—obviously Indonesia and Columbia being two that spring to mind immediately, but there are many others. The reality is that the Australian coal industry produces coal of a cleaner quality, a higher quality, than many of its competitors, with low sulphur and low ash. If our exports were stopped, as the honourable member would do, it would achieve nothing except to reduce the living standards of Australians and absolutely shatter the lives and livings of the communities that depend on the coal industry. It would be an exercise in ideological futility and an exercise that—I have to say to the honourable member, with great respect—is so characteristic of his party, which seems to want to de-industrialise Australia for no purpose other than an ideological one. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:20 The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the member for Murray, I have a couple of welcomes. I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation visiting from the United Arab Emirates National Defense College. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome. We also have present today the former member for Longman, the Hon. Wyatt Roy, in the gallery this afternoon. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 23 14:21 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I refer the minister to the situation of Pullar Cold Storage in Cobram in my electorate of Murray, which is experiencing significant increases in energy charges. Will the minister update the House on why a practical approach to delivering energy reliability and affordability is necessary, and is the minister aware of any obstacles? 14:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Murray for his question and acknowledge his deep concern about the rising electricity prices for those in his electorate, including Pullar Cold Storage in Cobram, which is a family owned business that can date back nearly seven decades, employs 15 people and recently went out to tender for its electricity contracts. The offers that came back were 135 per cent higher than over the previous three years, some $350,000 higher than over the previous three years. Why is this happening in Victoria? One of the reasons is that the Andrews Labor government was determined to see the closure of Hazelwood—one of its ministers said that its continued operation was 'disgraceful'—and they tripled coal royalties on those in the Latrobe Valley. We also know about the moratoriums and the bans on conventional and unconventional gas extraction, when Geoscience Australia tells us there are more than four decades worth of reserves in Victoria. That is why we on this side of the House are determined to rein in network costs, determined to get more gas into the market. That is why the Prime Minister's meeting with the LNG providers was so important. We are determined to reform the infrastructure and the pipelines for gas, to get those costs down and to invest in pumped hydro storage. But we know that not all of those opposite are happy with the Leader of the Opposition's energy policy, because on the front page of The Australian just last week the member for Hunter was quoted as telling caucus of their overreach, that they were getting ahead of the public when it comes to energy policy. The member for Hunter might be what we would consider Labor's oracle, but for the Leader of the Opposition what he says is heresy. But he is not the only one ringing the alarm bells when it comes to Labor's policy, because Ben Davis, the Victorian Secretary of the AWU, has warned about 'the rush away from gas and coal'. In his words, it is 'potentially crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs'. That is what the head of the AWU in Victoria said. So members of the Leader of the Opposition's own front bench and members of the Leader of the Opposition's own union have warned him about Labor's energy policy. But somehow the Leader of the Opposition thinks that, if you do not know where you are going, any road will lead you there. That road of your energy policy goes to fewer jobs, higher prices and less electricity stability. In other words, Labor's energy policy is a road to ruin. Workplace Relations 24 14:24 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The ABC has today revealed that workers at Sydney airport are sleeping rough between shifts in their own workplace because they cannot afford to go home between their shifts. When there are real problems like this, why is the Prime Minister's priority today weakening protections against racist hate speech and ignoring workers like this who are suffering? 14:25 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth My government is focused on delivering the strong economic growth that Australians seek and securing their energy future, on ensuring that the opportunities for our children and grandchildren are even greater than those that we have had. That is our objective and that is what we are delivering. What Labor focus on is one ideological agenda after another, whether it is undermining our energy security or seeking to engage in an anti-business campaign the likes of which we have not seen for several generations. Only yesterday we heard the Leader of the Opposition defending his track record as a Labor leader, as a union leader. His shadow Attorney-General said how proud they all were of his leadership, of all of the workers he sold down the river, of all the penalty rate deals he did, of all of the payments that came back to the Australian Workers Union, carefully documented in the royal commission and not exposed. Mr Bowen DZS It's happening on your watch! Mr TURNBULL 885 I thought the member was defending the Leader of the Opposition there. I thought— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Shorten 00ATG On relevance. I asked about the scandal at Sydney airport right now, today. What are you doing about these workers, Prime Minister? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr TURNBULL 885 I will ask the minister for transport to address the issue at Sydney airport. 14:27 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to clarify the record in relation to the incidents referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. On this side of the House we take aviation safety very seriously and we are proud of Australia's enviable safety record. My office this morning has sought some assurances in relation to the reports that were in the media last night and again this morning. I am aware of concerns that were raised in relation to operations by Aerocare, which is an Australian ground handling company working for many of the major airlines at our major airports. There are a range of mechanisms in place in relation to aviation safety systems, where anyone who is concerned about any safety issues can raise those issues with our safety investigators or the regulatory agencies. These include the ability to make confidential reports directly to the ATSB, which is the Australian aviation safety investigator. I would encourage anyone with genuine concerns in relation to those matters to raise those concerns with our airports, to use those reporting mechanisms. Opposition members interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ I hear those opposite interjecting. It is irresponsible to make allegations without going through the process of actually making those reports known to the safety investigator, being the ATSB. It is typical of Labor to be seeking to scare the Australian travelling public rather than going through the proper processes. I emphasise again that on this side of the House we take aviation safety— (Time expired) Energy 25 14:28 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on why affordable and reliable energy is important for successful Australian manufacturing and farm exports? How would alternative approaches jeopardise the prosperity of hardworking Australian exporters and the jobs they create? 14:29 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff It is interesting. The Leader of the Opposition is critical of us, saying we are focused on 18C, yet every question has been about 18C. But on this side there was another solid question about our national economic plan, about this government's plan to keep boosting economic growth, to keep driving jobs. He asked what it is that we are doing to focus on new export markets. I am very pleased to answer the member for Forde because, unlike that side of the House, he does not have an ideological preoccupation with 18C. He is focused on real-world concerns that we on this side know resonate with Australians—concerns about jobs, about economic growth, about wages and about opening export opportunities. This government's opening of export markets is part of the reason— Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills is warned. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 that we continue to see strong growth in exports. We have seen, for example, Australia's largest ever trade surplus, of some $4.7 billion. And our economic plan is translating into more jobs for Australians. The Exporter Sentiment Index revealed that half of Australian exporters are now in a better financial position than 12 months ago. In fact, nearly 50 per cent of exporters are expecting to create more Australian jobs as a result of this government's positive plans with respect to opening export markets. So the contrast is very clear. But the key that underpins the opportunities for our exports is reliable and affordable access to energy. That is what is under threat from Labor Party policies. It is only going to be a coalition government that continues to provide affordable and reliable energy. We have seen some genuine concerns in the business community. For example, the ABC recently reported that the head of the Food and Grocery Council said that 'manufacturers will quit Australia if affordable, reliable energy cannot be guaranteed.' He also said: To stop production through a lack of energy is just a disaster. So we know that Labor's policies when it comes to energy are going to be a complete disaster. That is why we have the vision, under this Prime Minister, for nation-building projects like the Snowy Hydro 2.0. That is because we are about growing opportunities for Australian manufacturers, not closing them off. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party will say and do anything. On 14 November last year, this guy opposite turned around and said: I am not a rampant greenie who thinks there is no place for fossil fuel in our energy mix in the future. But then, two weeks later, on 29 November, he had a Labor-Green stacked committee that says that we should close down all fossil fuel power plants. That is the kind of tossing and turning we see from the Labor Party. As Australians know, this Leader of the Opposition will stand in a ute in his hi-vis vest pretending to celebrate the future of Australian manufacturing, but on Friday he will be sitting on some almond milk crate in the inner city somewhere claiming that he is going to be so proud to see the demise of Australian fossil fuels. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:32 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the United States of America, hosted by the Australian Political Exchange Council. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you. I am also pleased to inform the House that we have just been joined on the floor of the chamber by a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the United Kingdom, led by Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 25 14:32 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to these reports today— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hotham knows the rule on props. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I refer to reports today about some Australian Federal Police officers facing pay cuts of up to $35,000 a year because of cuts to allowances for working late nights and weekends. Why is the Prime Minister cutting the pay of hardworking police officers who protect Australians at the same time as he is cutting the penalty rates of nearly 700,000 Australians? Why is the Prime Minister determined to cut the pay of Australians who work on Sundays? 14:33 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth My government is absolutely committed to defending and supporting our national security agencies, the Australian Federal Police, the security service and the intelligence services, and we are giving them support— Ms Macklin interjecting— Ms O'Neil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Jagajaga! The member for Hotham will not use her prop. Mr TURNBULL 885 at a level they have never had before. I will ask the Minister for Justice to respond to the question concerning the AFP pay. 14:33 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Well, you have never seen a better example of the post-truth politics that occupies the minds of the Labor Party. What complete rot and absolute nonsense! To march in here and say that says everything about your ability to understand this portfolio. Let's go through the record in relation to the AFP and to Australia's national security. I will go through the record of this side of the House and then I will go through your record in government, which was shameful. In office, we have supported our agencies through the very difficult job they need to do in the environment, which is a deteriorating environment, of our national security. We have provided $116 million to the National Anti-Gang Squad, with strike teams in every state and territory which link back into the brains here at the Australian Gangs Intelligence Coordination Centre; $21 million for the trade union royal commission task force, to go after dodgy unionists—the ones who like to punch on against police officers; $25 million to expand the AFP's national forensics lab; $15 million for the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre; $128 million for the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce; and $180 million for the specific protection of the AFP officers who protect us—their personal protection and also protecting their network of buildings around the country. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— Mr KEENAN E0J Now let us compare and contrast what happened between 2007 and 2013. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Shorten 00ATG Yes, on relevance. Are you cutting the pay of our police officers—yes or no? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. I have cautioned members, including the Leader of the Opposition, on points of order. Points of order are not an opportunity to repeat the question or to paraphrase the question. Mr KEENAN E0J I was interrupted as I was going to run through the record of the Labor Party in office between 2007 and 2013—a shameful record. They cut the guts out of the Commonwealth law enforcement community. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Justice will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs is warned, as is the member for Canberra. And the member for McEwen can leave under 94(a). The member for McEwen then left the chamber. Mr KEENAN E0J When the Labor Party were in office they cut $128 million from the Australian Federal Police between 2010 and 2013. They cut $30 million and 88 staff from the Australian Crime Commission, completely gutting that agency—a specialised agency that protects us from organised crime and terrorism. They cut $27 million and 56 staff from AUSTRAC, our anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing agency. It was a shameful record of abuse of Commonwealth law enforcement when they were in office. When we arrived in office, my most important job was rebuilding from the damage rort by the Labor Party during the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Energy 26 14:37 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Health and Minister for Sport. I refer the minister to media reports that show that multiple hospitals in New South Wales faced an influx of presentations to emergency departments during recent extreme weather events. How is energy security essential in delivering healthcare services across Australia? 14:37 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Berowra, who, as a former board member of Mercy Health, understands just how important energy security is to health during times of extreme weather events. It is absolutely fundamental to maintaining secure supplies for ventilators, for life support machines, for dialysis machines and for operating theatres. Can you imagine the circumstance if, in an operating theatre during a critical operation, electricity supplies were to be disrupted? That is the fundamental importance of energy security to the health system in Australia. There are two recent examples relating to the same extreme weather event and how it played out in different states in different ways. In early February, when there was an extreme weather event facing both South Australia and New South Wales, there were fears that in New South Wales the health system might have been disrupted. However, because of a stable grid and because of good planning, we saw continuous supply to the hospital system— Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland! Mr HUNT 00AMV and continuous protection of life support machines— Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland is warned. Mr HUNT 00AMV and of dialysis machines and of ventilators, things which could simply not be more important. Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland will leave under 94(a). The member for Shortland then left the chamber. Mr HUNT 00AMV However, the same event at the same time in a different state—South Australia—played out in a different way, where hospitals in Millicent, in Mount Gambier and in Penola were all forced on to backup generation because they were forced to have load shedding because the South Australian grid was unstable. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV And I hear mentions of backup generators. The problem is, it does not always work. We know that in September the Port Augusta hospital had its power go down and then its backup generator go down, and that is the problem: the people opposite have no conception that if you really care about health you have to really care about a stable energy system. That is why the Prime Minister is responding to the South Australian energy debacle with a plan for the second great wave of the Snowy hydro scheme to create the greatest battery storage system in the Southern Hemisphere, increasing by 50 per cent storage that supplies to the grid the stability that is needed for our hospitals, for our health system, for our kidney machines, for our dialysis machines and for our ventilators. These are the reasons energy security matters. This is why an expansion of stability through the Snowy hydro scheme does not matter just to the electricity system, does not matter just to the energy system but matters also to the health system. If you compare that with the opposition's approach, which is to increase instability in the grid, decrease stability in the health system—(Time expired) Workplace Relations 27 14:40 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Prime Minister. The Reserve Bank of Australia has today said that growth in labour market incomes had been unusually weak and 'if it were to persist, would have implications for consumption growth and the risks posed by the level of household debt'. Given this comment, Prime Minister, why is the government threatening demand and the economy by supporting pay cuts for Australians? 14:41 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question, and I note that the honourable member refers to the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission relating to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates in retail, hospitality and fast food. And the justification the Fair Work Commission gave—this is the Fair Work Commission, which the honourable member has again and again and again pledged to support, just like his leader; he has extolled the virtues of the independent umpire, but not now—was the increase in employment: more jobs, more businesses opening, page after page of examples of small businesses that said that the high rate of Sunday penalty rates and public holiday rates at the moment prevented them from opening. There are pages and pages of them. It was a decision based on evidence. The Fair Work Commission is backing small business, and so are we. Now, on the Reserve Bank, I will ask the Treasurer to add some remarks. 14:42 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As the member opposite may not know, household consumption in the December quarter grew by 0.5 per cent and was the strongest contributor to our economic growth. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Jagajaga! Mr MORRISON E3L The Reserve Bank has also drawn attention to the issue of wages growth, and the wage price index has been growing at 1.9 per cent, and this is the biggest challenge facing the economy, to lift what Australians are earning in this country. But what the Labor Party does not understand is that you cannot get a job in a business that is closed and you cannot get a pay rise in a company that is not earning any money. Those opposite think the money just falls from the sky to pay people's wages, and that is why they think they can tax business all day and all night and drive them out of business and people can still get wage increases. Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite! Mr MORRISON E3L Those opposite simply do not get it that if a business does not make money it cannot pay people wages. Now, the real heroes of this economy— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney has been warned already. Mr MORRISON E3L are the small businesses who have been putting their hands in their pockets year after year after year, after they have seen their profits go backwards, and they have kept those employees in jobs. Those opposite should say thank you to those small businesses rather than seek to punish them with higher taxes. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. She has been warned twice. That is it. Taxation 28 14:44 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is ensuring that multinational companies pay tax on what they earn in Australia? How does Australia's approach compare with the approaches of other developing or developed economies? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Canning for his question. He knows, because he is part of the Turnbull government that is making multinationals pay their fair share of tax in this country. I hear those opposite scoff, but we know that those opposite, the Labor Party, when they were in government did absolutely diddly squat when it came to the issue of making multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Here is the record: this year alone, as a result of the measures that we brought into this parliament, we will claw back $2 billion in revenue from multinationals. That is the advice from the Australian Taxation Office. That is $2 billion that those opposite, the Labor Party, voted against. They came into this place and said they were going to vote against making multinationals pay their fair share of tax. That is important revenue to support schools and hospitals and to pay down the disastrous deficit that those opposite left us through their fiscal mismanagement when they were in government. Labor did oppose those laws, but the laws that we were able to pass through the parliament gave the tax office the power, the resources and the penalties to get the job done—some $3.7 billion is estimated to be collected as a result of the measures that we have introduced and passed and which were opposed by the Labor Party. There are some 71 audits currently underway, involving 59 multibillion-dollar multinationals. That is the action that the Turnbull government is taking with the powers, the resources and the penalties that we have given the tax office to get the job done. It is having an effect—Facebook are now booking their Australian revenue in Australia and not in Ireland, as was occurring under the laws that were favoured by the Labor Party. On top of that, Google have also changed their arrangements. Chris Jordan, the Commissioner of Taxation, has said multinationals are now: … abandoning their contrived structures and restructuring to models whereby the sales are booked in Australia. On top of the measures that we introduced through the multinational anti-avoidance legislation, we have introduced legislation to make sure that people buying things from overseas at a low value will pay GST, just like if you went into a street anywhere in Australia and walked into a shop you would pay GST in those premises. We are levelling the playing field. There is the tax that is now applied to digital services online, and the diverted profits tax, which was introduced in the budget, will come before this chamber again to ensure that it can be passed. We have taken action on multinational tax; those opposite wanted to let multinationals fleece us. Taxation 29 14:47 Mr BOWEN ( DZS McMahon ) ( ): My question is to the Treasurer. There are reports today that the government is preparing to back down on its centrepiece $50 billion tax cut for big business—just like the Treasurer backed down on an increase in the GST, on state income taxes and on dealing with the excesses in negative gearing. Can the Treasurer name one major tax reform he has been able to hold onto for more than a year? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook He must have missed the answer I just gave: multinational anti-avoidance legislation, diverted profits tax legislation, low-value goods legislation to make sure that people are paying taxes on goods that they buy from overseas— Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L and the biggest changes to superannuation that those opposite did not have the gall to bring into this chamber. They talk big in opposition, but when they were in government they did not go anywhere near it. This side of the House brought those reforms into this parliament, even against—and I am no less aware of it than anyone in this chamber—the opposition of some on our own side of politics. We had the courage to make those changes and we remain absolutely committed to ensuring that companies in this country can remain competitive. I met with the new Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, on the weekend and he made it very clear to me that their timetable to get the company tax rate down from over 30 per cent to 15 per cent is by the end of the year. Those opposite have a plan to strand Australian businesses in the international economy. They want to see investment go offshore—and the jobs, the wages and the living standards that goes with it. The only party in this chamber, apart from the Greens, that wants to see businesses pay more tax is that of those who sit opposite. They want to see small businesses pay more tax, they want to see medium-sized businesses pay more tax and they want to put a tax on jobs and a tax on incomes. Those opposite, the Labor Party, are addicted to higher taxes, and for one reason: they cannot control their spending. If they were prepared to come into this chamber and support the government when it came to making sure businesses were able to employ people in more situations by having a lower tax burden and if they would support us on the savings that were necessary, they would not be putting our AAA credit rating at risk, which they are. Workplace Relations 29 14:50 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. How does the government's commitment to industrial relations reform help protect employees' pay and conditions by putting an end to corrupting benefits paid by business to unions? 14:50 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Groom for his question. He was a distinguished minister in Queensland in the Newman government and he has come to join us here in Canberra. He, like all members on this side of the House, wants to see the recommendations from the Heydon royal commission introduced into the parliament and passed into law. The Heydon royal commission was one of the most far reaching royal commissions into trade union behaviour in Australia's history, and one of the very important recommendations from the Heydon royal commission was that corrupting benefits paid to unions by businesses should be banned and people who engage in them should face criminal sanction as a consequence. Yesterday, the government announced that we would introduce corrupting benefits legislation to ensure that businesses were not stood over by unions and did not pay the unions money and cash, membership lists and other things in order to get a benefit and an advantage from the union at the expense of the worker. Over the last few months, there have been plenty of examples that have had quite a public airing. The Prime Minister is fond of talking about Clean Event, Chiquita Mushrooms and others, but there are several payments over a long period of time from businesses to the union in Victoria which need to be explained. Visy Industries, for example, paid $191,000 to the AWU between 2004 and 2007. IUS Holdings, an income insurance provider, paid $566,000 to the AWU between 2004 and 2007. Alcoa paid almost $90,000—which would be of interest to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—to the AWU in Victoria between 2005 and 2006. Sugar Australia paid $16,000 to the AWU in Victoria between 2004 and 2007. Austral Bricks paid $14,000 between 2005 and 2007. There is a pattern here. Apart from the pattern being that these businesses have been paying this money to the AWU in Victoria over a certain period of time, the question is: the secretary at that time could tell us why those payments were being made, and who do you think was the secretary of the AWU in Victoria at the time? Our old friend over here, our old china over here, the Leader of the Opposition. He was the national secretary or the state secretary during that period from 2004 to 2007 when all of those unexplained payments were being made to the AWU. Tomorrow, when I have more time, I will explain what the businesses got in return. There are many enterprise agreements signed in that time when this guy was running the show. (Time expired) Taxation 30 14:53 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. On 9 September last year, when asked to name his greatest achievement since deposing the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, the current Prime Minister said, 'reforms to business tax'. Is the Prime Minister still committed to his centrepiece $50 billion tax cut for big business in full? If not, what will the Prime Minister's new greatest achievement be? 14:54 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. As all honourable members know, if you increase the return on investment, you get more investment. If you get more investment, you get more jobs. That is why her leader, the member for Maribyrnong, defended and promoted company tax cuts in the past, that is why Paul Keating cut company tax, that is why Peter Costello cut company tax and that is why countries around the world have reduced company tax—because they know it will increase investment, increase productivity and increase jobs. The member for McMahon was so enthusiastic about it that he took pen to paper and actually wrote a book on the subject. We are committed to growth; we are committed to investment. The Labor Party used to claim they were. I am not sure they were ever really committed. They used to claim they were, but now they are engaged in an anti-business, anti-investment, job-destroying, ideological campaign which can only result in a poorer Australia with fewer opportunities for our children and grandchildren. We are committed to growth, we are committed to jobs and we are committed to opportunity. National Security 30 14:55 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on actions the government has taken to protect hardworking Australian families from criminal gangs? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach? 14:56 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for her question. The government has increased the number of visa cancellations quite dramatically over the course of the last two years. We have increased the number of visa cancellations of noncitizens who are committing crimes in our country against Australian citizens. The number is up by some 1,200 per cent. We have concentrated on outlaw motorcycle gangs. There are now 138 outlaw motorcycle gang chiefs and leaders who we will have cancelled the visas of, and we have made our country a safer place as a result. These people have been involved in drug running and extortion, and there is a bit of an overlap, because some of them have involvement in the CFMEU. We know that the links between the Labor Party and the CFMEU run pretty deep, but the Leader of the Opposition heard recently that, even as of last week, the CFMEU had 56 matters currently before the courts, and there are 110 CFMEU representatives before the courts, facing a total of 1,076 suspected contraventions. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked about that: nothing to see here. He has never heard of crimes being committed by bikies or by CFMEU members. Of course, he also has a very patchy memory of his past behaviour, it has to be said, too, because he set up the Fair Work Commission and appointed Labor affiliates to positions within the Fair Work Commission, and when he referred the inquiry about Sunday pay rates to the Fair Work Commission he was envisaging that Sunday pay rates would be cut—because when he was a union leader that is exactly what he sanctioned in the EBAs that his union presided over. Now, he wants you to believe something different, but I always say about this Leader of the Opposition: look not at what he says; always look at what he does, because this bloke is not straight up and down, and the Australian public have got it worked out. The CFMEU repaid a bit of a favour to the Labor Party last week, because there was a protest in Brisbane where the bikies were marching against the Fair Work Commission decision. The bikies do not have a great attention span, as it turns out. I read in The Courier Mail that they walked off the job. Do you know where they went? They went to the Grosvenor strip club in the Brisbane CBD. They put down their bikes—pushbikes in this instance, it looks by the photo in The Courier Mail—and the CFMEU flags, and the police were called, because, quickly, fights broke out between the CFMEU members who were not on task but were in the strip club on union dime. What we know is that there is a lot of irony here, because, whilst the CFMEU workers were in Brisbane ripping off their gear, in Canberra they have a union leader in the Leader of the Opposition who is ripping off workers. (Time expired) Taxation 31 14:59 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Days after last year's budget the Treasurer said, 'At the centre of our plan for jobs and growth is a 10-year enterprise tax plan.' Is the Treasurer still committed to his entire 10-year plan, a plan the Prime Minister described as his greatest achievement? If not, isn't the government's so-called plan for jobs and growth just in tatters? 14:59 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The government is absolutely committed to our comprehensive economic plan to support jobs in this country. But the member opposite wrote a book—an entire book—about the reasons we should be reducing company tax. He used to believe in a lot of things. Mr Bowen DZS There are other things in the book! Mr MORRISON E3L He says there are other things in the book, but I suspect those who have read it would doubt that there was anything in the book other than his impassioned plea that we cut company tax in this country. The person in this chamber more than anyone else who needs to answer the question of why they have walked away from their commitment to reducing company taxes is the shadow Treasurer. This is the person who paraded himself as a great champion of rational economic policy, sitting at the feet of Paul Keating—who also said that we should cut company taxes. The shadow Treasurer even said that cutting company taxes was a Labor thing, a Labor stance. That is what he thought it was. When he had the opportunity to support the reduction in company taxes, to support jobs, to support investment, to support higher wages and to support growth—all things he knows are the dividend of that policy—he ran a mile. The shadow Treasurer is a craven policy coward. He is someone who will not stand up to this populist Leader of the Opposition, who will say whatever to whoever, whenever he likes, to crassly court a short-term vote. You would hope that the shadow Treasurer, who holds himself up as the great professor of Keynesian economics, would stand his ground in the face of a crass populist like the Leader of the Opposition. But when he walks into that shadow cabinet room he withers on the vine. He cowers in the corner and he cuddles up into a foetal position, rocking backwards and forwards and saying, 'Whatever you want, Bill; whatever you want.' You cannot have a person like this shadow Treasurer stand in control of the nation's finances when all the Leader of the Opposition has to do is whistle at him and he just gets out the chequebook. What a coward. Small Business 31 15:02 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister advise the House how union behaviour is impacting on small business, leaving mum and dad small business owners suffering at their expense? What action is being taken to level the playing field and stop corruption within the union movement? 15:02 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Flynn for his question. He fights for the more than 14,000 small businesses in his electorate each and every day. He ran his own small businesses and, like all of us on this side of the House, he knows small business creates jobs. He knows small businesses create opportunities, and he wants to back them. But militant unions and the ALP do not. While we try to help small business hire more Australians, Labor and militant unions sell workers down the river. They reduce take-home pay for hardworking families. The Daily Telegraph has told the story of fast-food workers whose weekend pay was cut because of backhanded deals by union bosses in enterprise bargaining agreements. Unlike small business people, who do the right thing, militant unions are rewarding themselves at the expense of the very people they falsely claim to represent, with backhanded deals. While small business follows the rules, the new ACTU secretary believes unions should not. Unions cry foul that workers' pay will be reduced, but let us not forget the Fair Work Commission was established by Labor. Its commissioners were appointed by Labor and its review was started by Labor. That man sitting opposite said he would abide by its decisions—he said it not once, not twice, but three times. And now Sally McManus will turn a blind eye as militant unions break the law. She said so in her very first interview. That is why we are stamping out dodgy deals and levelling the playing field for small businesses and helping them to grow. But what about the so-called workers' champion here? What about the member for Maribyrnong? Does he believe that there should be more jobs in small business? Does he believe that the playing field should be level? Does he think that union kickbacks are wrong? Does he agree with Sally McManus that laws are meant to be broken? This man is a handbrake to jobs, and he does not believe in a fair go for small business. All small business owners ask for is a fair go—that is all. That includes small business people such as Frank Michalopoulos, who runs a burger shop in Matraville with his wife and mother in the member for Kingsford Smith's electorate. He said it is hard to grow their business when they have to pay staff more than their competitors on Sundays. 'It is successful, but how successful can it get?' he asks. It is a good question. It is better than the questions that we get asked by those opposite. But the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Maribyrnong are not listening to small business; they stopped listening a long time ago. Labor and the unions love to hold small business to ransom, just as they did with owner-driver truckies with the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. The only ones they now listen to are the militant and thuggish union bosses, who do not respect the rule of law. That is a very sad reflection on the principles they once held near and dear, and it is a very sad reflection on the shonky leader opposite. Economy 32 15:05 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Wages growth is at record lows, underemployment is at record highs and the unemployment rate has increased to nearly six per cent. Is the Prime Minister still committed to his entire $50 billion tax cut for big business, a plan that the Prime Minister has previously modestly described as his greatest achievement? If not, what is left of the Prime Minister's one-point plan for jobs and growth? 15:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Not for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition has been loose with the facts. He was preceded by the member for Sydney. In the interview that she was referring to, the journalist said, at a conference in Micronesia: … what would you say is your greatest achievement since being Prime Minister? I responded: Jobs and growth—3.3 per cent economic growth, what about that? Continued strong growth in jobs. A continued strong transition from a mining construction boom to one that is more diverse. That was my answer. If you go on for words and words, we go through the Defence white paper, innovation, superannuation, business tax cuts reform, NDIS—we talk about all those measures. The reality is that the member for Sydney and her leader have stood up here and said that I was asked what my greatest achievement was in my year as Prime Minister and that I said the business tax cut. That is completely and utterly false. The answer is there. Once again, there is no regard for the truth. Talk about post-truth politics! This is the parallel universe which they inhabit. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG I think I know what is coming. Alright, let's do it—I call the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Under standing order 201, I ask the Prime Minister to table the document he was reading from. The SPEAKER 00APG I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, he might have highlighted the need to update the standing orders but I am sure there is one that covers ridiculousness! Trade Union Joint Police Task Force 32 15:08 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on the work of the Trade Union Joint Police Task Force? What are the threats to the success of the task force? 15:08 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Bowman for his question. The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found one thing very clearly after its 21-month investigation, and that was that there is widespread lawlessness amongst some in the union movement. The new secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus, confirmed that on her first day in the job, when she said it was all right for unionists to break laws that they did not agree with. When that happened the member for Moreton and the member for Batman took to Twitter to claim that that made her a cross between Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King! This government is not prepared to stand by and watch lawbreaking from any section of Australian society. You need to look no further than the state secretary of the CFMEU in Victoria, John Setka. He heads up the CFMEU—the bikie wing of the union movement. He has been charged and convicted in relation to 40 separate charges—five times for assault, seven times for wilful trespass, five times for resisting arrest and five times for assaulting police. Where did we last see John Setka? In 2016 at Bill Shorten's election night party. The SPEAKER 00APG I have said many times that ministers, and all members, need to refer to members by their correct titles. I warn the minister. Mr KEENAN E0J I will rephrase, Mr Speaker: we last saw John Setka, the head of the CFMEU in Victoria, at the Leader of the Opposition's election night party in 2016. What an endorsement of this sort of behaviour, where someone who punches on with police is invited to come and celebrate after the 2016 election. We in the Liberal Party will not stand for lawbreaking, and we have established joint task forces with the Australian Federal Police and their state police counterparts to investigate and prosecute union lawbreaking. We have invested $21 million so they can do their job. I have been advised just recently by the Queensland Labor government that they are going to withdraw Queensland police from the task force. They apparently think there is no union lawbreaking in Queensland, which is interesting because the CFMEU has a branch in Queensland and the former president of the CFMEU has been charged for allegedly colluding to organise construction on his home, making a personal gain in excess of $400,000. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton will leave under 94(a). The member for Gorton then left the chamber. Mr KEENAN E0J So the Queensland Labor government withdraws Queensland police resources from this joint task force going after union corruption. Clearly this task force's success is one of the reasons why they have decided to withdraw police resources. The Leader of the Opposition wants to run the country like he ran the union, and that means a wink and a nod to corruption, turning a blind eye to people who have a rap sheet as long as John Setka and doing nothing about union corruption in any state of Australia. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Racial Discrimination Act 33 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need to protect Australians from racial hate speech. 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— 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Today the government has announced, on Harmony Day of all days, when the rest of the world is celebrating the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, that it wants to give licence to more racial hate speech. Of all the extraordinary days to make an extraordinary decision, the government has chosen this one. They decided for the backbenchers who they rolled in making this decision, the number of people on that side who have taken a principled stand, that they would smuggle away and bring the bill into the Senate first, not introduce it here. That is not because it is the Attorney-General's bill, because last year we had amendments to the Native Title Act—that was a bill belonging to the Attorney-General, and there was no appropriation attached to it. It could easily have been started in the Senate. The reason they started this bill in the Senate is simple—they think their own members of parliament are going to be able to hide. Well they cannot. No member on that side of the chamber can hide from answering the simple question: do they want to lower the bar on racial hate speech in Australia? It takes a pretty extraordinary human being to be elected to this place, where you get to be a voice for people who need your help, and decide the people you need to speak on behalf of are the racial bigots. It is a pretty extraordinary choice that people make when they come into this place and decide that when they see an example of racial hate speech the person whose voice is not loud enough, that the person they need to stand up for, is not the person on the receiving end of the racial hate speech—it is the abuser who they think is just is not allowed to say enough. Be in no doubt, members on this side will oppose anything that involves lowering the bar on what is deemed acceptable hate speech in this country. No-one is fooled by the Prime Minister's line 'we're strengthening the act'. Strengthening the act! Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW If their argument, as the argument of the poor interjector who just cannot wait for his turn and who, when he got the chance to ask a question today, decided to ask it on a completely different issue because of the humiliation of the answer that would follow—those opposite are in the situation now where they have to answer a basic question. When the bar is lowered—and it has to be being lowered; it cannot be being strengthened if the argument is freedom of speech; if the argument is freedom of speech then it must be by this change you are allowed to say more—what more will people be allowed to say? The answer will be a form of racial hatred. How on earth is this country ever going to be improved by more racial hatred? This might be a dinner party conversation over cocktails and champagne for those opposite, with that brand of champagne that the Prime Minister keeps mentioning that we look bewildered about. But it is real for the person who this afternoon, on the train line that I live on, will find herself being racially abused on the way home. It is real for the kids in the local shopping centre in my part of Sydney who will come home trembling after their parents have been abused. Government members interjecting — Mr BURKE DYW I hear the interjection from those opposite. They really do not know. Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Member for Hughes. Mr BURKE DYW Maybe it is because they have too many constituents who attended the Cronulla riots. I do not know. But, certainly, it is the situation that, for people who do not get their voices heard by those on the opposite side of this parliament, racial hate speech is real. It is real, it hurts and it is demeaning. The last thing this parliament should be doing is changing the law to allow more of it. Those opposite claim that somehow the language at the moment just allows too much in. The Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Kiefel, when she was Federal Court Justice said to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate are 'profound and serious effects', 'not to be likened to mere slights'. Yet, if this government gets its way, three of those words will be gone. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting — The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Goldstein is warned. Mr BURKE DYW How on earth do you decide that it is too extreme to have a law saying it is wrong to humiliate someone? What sort of human being looks at people who are being racially abused and says humiliation is okay, insults are okay, offence is okay. If their argument is that it is just words, why do they not object to defamation law. If it is just words, why do they not object to gag clauses that prevent non-government organisations from speaking out against the government. Why do they not object to clauses that prevent employees from talking about what happens at their workplace. The answer is simple: they are the forms of freedom of speech that they get a benefit from curtailing. They can imagine themselves being defined. They can imagine themselves being the minister who does not want the NGOs speaking out against them. They can imagine themselves being in the situation where they are an employer and they do not want their employees to be able to say something, and so they whack it into a work contract. But the moment it is a form of freedom of speech that they might want to use because they would never be the victim of then they say, 'Oh, no, we can change the law on those.' If you believe in freedom of speech, then why does freedom of speech only become a public issue if it involves getting stuck in people on the basis of their race? If you believe in freedom of speech, why is it that when you see the person being abused on the train you decide the abuser is the victim who you want to stand up for? How many times have we heard the Prime Minister when he talks about family and domestic violence say, 'Not all disrespect leads to violence, but all violence begins with a lack of respect'? Well, that is not just true of family violence. Racial violence in this country is real. If those opposite think that racial violence and racial hatred have nothing to do with each other, then get into the real world. Get into the world beyond the IPA. Get into the world beyond their little dinner parties where they can chat about how wonderful these issues are in theory. It is not theoretical when you are dealing with a child traumatised through having seen how their parents are treated or when you are talking to woman who is wondering whether she can continue to keep her job because of what is said to her on the way to and from work. These examples are real. Government members interjecting — Mr BURKE DYW If those opposite want to say all of this would be covered by 'harassment', all of this would be covered in exactly the same way, then how has it got anything to do with freedom of speech? If the amendment changes nothing, then what has it got to do with freedom of speech? The answer is really simple. Those opposite simply do not want to say out loud what it is they want people to be allowed to say because they know the answer is offensive. They are fooling nobody with these claims. As I say, this is real. For those opposite who think some of their members will be protected by the bill starting in the Senate, no it will not. It will be interesting to see which of the five on that side get chosen to be given permission to speak today. I bet they have chosen their number very, very carefully. I bet there are some people who have made their position very clear over the years that have folded today. Make no mistake, no-one expected that the member for Wentworth would be less sympathetic to opposing racial hate speech than his predecessor as Prime Minister. No-one thought we would see the day when the leader of the Liberal Party was overtaken in decency by the leader of the National Party in their party room in deciding how they should deal with racial hatred. But we are in new times, where we have a Prime Minister who stands for nothing. Today the end of the Turnbull prime ministership is complete. There is nothing left of that man—imagine after all those years of wanting to be Prime Minister and now realising that his time will come and go without ever having a government that he could believe in or that anyone else could believe in. I urge those opposite who have stood up for this issue in the past that, when the issue comes here, if you are true to your word, cross the floor. If you are true to your word, you will get a choice to either stand with the nutters who have been arguing that this is all about freedom of speech or to stand with your communities and the victims of racial hatred—(Time expired) 15:23 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I have never stood in this place and heard a member spew so much hatred towards his fellow Australians, as we have just heard from the member for Watson. Why would he have such a low view of his fellow Australians and such a lack of faith in the people he is sent here to represent as to think that, if we are not here watching their every word and making sure that we have outlawed thought and speech, that will unleash some tsunami of racism, homophobia or whatever ism he cares to name. This is actually a debate about the fundamental way that we view Australian society. I have an optimistic view about my fellow Australians—a very optimistic view. I believe in their common sense; I believe that when given a chance they give their fellow Australians a fair go. That is why we have the most successful, diverse, multicultural society in the world. Apparently that is not a view shared by those opposite. They take a very pessimistic and dark view of their fellow Australians. They think that we need to legislate out impure thoughts; they think that we need to outlaw speech because, if we do not do that, we will see the dark side of human nature—the dark side of what they believe is Australian nature. We heard an enormous amount of overreach from the member for Watson—it really was quite an extraordinary amount of overreach for what are relatively minor changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. I want to go through those changes because most sensible Australians—and I believe in the common sense of Australians—would agree with what the government is trying to achieve here. They would agree with the balance that has been struck with these very sensible reforms. This bill does three things, and the third thing concerns some very trivial and technical changes to the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission that have been recommended by the commission itself. The first two things are what this reform is all about. We are reforming the Racial Discrimination Act to remove the words 'offend, insult and humiliate' from paragraph 18C and insert instead the word 'harass'. I think most sensible Australians would agree that 'offend, insult and humiliate' are essentially the same word and taking away those three words and replacing them with 'harass' replaces a subjective test with a more objective test. We are also inserting a requirement that the test applied in determining whether 18C has been breached is an objective standard, which is considered to be the standard of a reasonable member of the Australian community. Most members of the Australian community are reasonable members of the Australian community. That is a view that we share but apparently it is not shared by members of the opposition. The second important thing this bill does is reform the way the Australian Human Rights Commission deals with complaints. I do not think anyone who has perused Australian newspapers over the last 18 months could disagree that this is an important goal. When cartoonists are prosecuted or when students are alleged to have said something on Facebook are treated in the way that the students at QUT were, I think most sensible Australians would know that the government needs to act to ensure that we do not see a repeat of this sort of unjust treatment of people. We are reforming the complaints-handling process of the Australian Human Rights Commission to provide that the commission is required to observe the rules of natural justice, including the appropriate notification of the existence of a complaint, timely resolution of the complaint and specific provision for consideration of relevant exemptions. We are also saying that the threshold required for the commission to accept a complaint should be raised. There are a number of other things that we are doing but in particular we are giving the commission the power to terminate at an early stage complaints if they are unmeritorious. This reform of the complaints-handling process, along with the law reform, will ensure that we do not see a repeat of the sorts of prosecutions we have seen in the past, which have effectively called into question the whole basis of this law. When people see the persecution of the students at QUT or when they see a cartoonist being hauled before the commission for a cartoon, they know something is wrong with that. That is why the government needed to act. These reforms still retain the balance to make sure that people are protected from the harassment of racial vilification. These reforms actually strengthen our anti-vilification laws and enhance freedom of speech while improving complaint handling process of the Australian Human Rights Commission. This is all about striking a balance, and this government has got the balance right. It is not just this government—or apparently if you listen to the opposition, it is all about sections of the Liberal Party who want this change—but there is a very broad consensus within the Australian community for changing the way that racial vilification legislation has operated. It includes people like Sev Ozdowski, a former Human Rights Commissioner. He has been quoted in the newspapers as saying that there should be no right to be offended, but he has also said in his evidence to the very successful joint standing committee hearing that we had on this issue that: There is no doubt in my mind that racism needs to be curtailed but I am yet to see solid empirical evidence that the insertion of section 18C into the act in 1995 diminished racism. This is a former Human Rights Commissioner who is saying this. He went on to say: …I have seen the chilling effects of that legislation on the discussion of any cultural characteristics. Questions about cultural practices are risky to ask. It also builds resentment and distrust. It creates a 'them and us' attitude. In my view it may put multiculturalism at risk. It also creates enormous repercussions that damage the respondent to a complaint, regardless of whether the allegation is proved or not. He went on to say that: Being accused of racism is a similar thing to being accused of sexual violence. It is having a very negative impact on people who are accused of racism. That is from a former human rights commissioner who is pointing out that the status quo—the existing way the Racial Discrimination Act operates—is having this chilling effect on debate within our society but is not actually achieving what it is supposed to achieve. His comments have been supported by other submissions to that joint parliamentary inquiry. George Williams, who is actually a former Labor candidate and current dean of the University of New South Wales law school, said: I would prefer to move to an objective test in this area again— which is what the government has done— because I would like to see stronger protection for free speech in this context while still preserving this for serious cases that are serious as they relate to general community standards. Again, this is the reform that the government is choosing to enact with these changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. He has been supported by other distinguished Australians. Justice Ronald Sackville said that section 18C is: … "too wide in its reach and places too much emphasis on the subjective responses of the targeted individual group, as distinct from objective community standards". Professor Sarah Joseph from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law said: … I do believe that section 18C, as drafted, is drafted too broadly and I have said that for some time. There is an international human right to free speech, and I do not believe it is displaced by any comparable right to be free from offence and insult, whereas I do think that it can be displaced by rights regarding freedom from humiliation and intimidation. That was an overview of some of the submissions that were made to the joint standing committee inquiry into this, and they were quotes from people who would not be automatically considered supporters of the government by any means. It shows that there is widespread concern within the community about how the current Racial Discrimination Act acts. That widespread concern has been ventilated by the treatment of the late Bill Leak in terms of what happened to him in relation to him exercising his free speech with a cartoon in the The Australian and in relation to what was, quite frankly, an appalling treatment of students at the QUT over the course of about two years. The problem with the Labor Party is that they do not believe in the common sense and the goodwill of the Australian people. They think that they are standing here outlawing free speech and outlying free thought. They think that that is the way that we are going to enforce this Stalinist view on Australian society—that people cannot utter what they think. That is the way that they believe they are going to control free speech and free thought within Australian society. The government, in response to widespread community concerns about the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act, has charted a sensible middle course here to make sure that people will not be subject to racial harassment. We will not be prosecuting people for expressing their view or seeing a repeat of the horrors that have resulted from the way that the Racial Discrimination Act is acting at the moment. If the Labor Party believed in the Australian people—if they believed in their common sense—they would easily support the government in this sensible measure. 15:33 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs On the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—of all days—we have seen a stunning and shameful capitulation by the Prime Minister to the right wing of his party. The Prime Minister could not have been more definitive in his comments up until a few months ago. Just to take a single example, in October 2016 the Prime Minister told Neil Mitchell on radio: We have no plans to amend Section 18c. And he said: We did not take an 18c amendment proposal to the election in this year in 2016. Now, just three months into the new year, the Prime Minister has buckled. This Prime Minister used to stand for something. He used to have courage and principles. How far away that feels now. This Prime Minister is prepared to trade away protections for Australia's multicultural communities in order to save his own political skin. When presented with the choice of siding with bigots or siding with Australia's multicultural communities, this Prime Minister has chosen to side with bigots. It is disgraceful. This sustained ideological vendetta against section 18C is beyond all sense. The government are two sitting weeks out from the budget, and are they talking about housing affordability? Are they talking about fixing the deficit? Are they talking about doing something about reducing the national debt or doing something about the penalty rate cuts that are being inflicted on 700,000 Australian workers? No. They are fixated on making it easier to be a racist in Australia. Their priorities are completely backwards, and they will be punished by the electorate for it. Make no mistake: any change to section 18C is a weakening of laws against racist hate speech, and it sends a terrible message to multicultural Australia. Replacing the words 'offend, insult and humiliate' with a single word—'harass'—is not a harmless change. It destroys the clarity that has been achieved through 20 years of court decisions which have set the bar high for successful complaints under section 18C. These four terms—'offend', 'insult', 'humiliate' and 'intimidate'—are taken together as a whole. They are a composite phrase and have been interpreted by the courts as setting a high bar for successful complaints. In the words of the now Chief Justice of the High Court, Susan Kiefel, in a judgement on an 18C case in 2001—'To offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate are profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.' There you have it—the existing law is clear, the existing law works and the existing law does not enable vexatious complaints without merit to be upheld in the courts. Has the Prime Minister and his right wing ever bothered to read the facts about section 18C? Are they aware that, in the 21-year history of 18C, only 96 cases have actually reached court? That is under five a year. Changing the wording of this law will introduce a new destructive ambiguity and a new uncertainty into section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which may, in fact, lead to an increase in the number of court cases. Prime Minister Turnbull and his right-wing cronies are yet to explain what it will mean to be 'harassed'—that is the new term—by racial hate speech. Will victims of racial abuse have to have proof of repeated attacks in order to make a successful complaint? Is it going to be enough to be shouted at in public? What if someone shouts racial abuse from a car and then drives past—does that count as harassment? Why is the change necessary and what practical difference will it make? They do not have practical answers to these practical questions, because they have not even considered the implications of what they are proposing. This push to change section 18C is being driven by blind ideology and nothing else. If this government thinks it can get away with presenting this change as 'nothing to see here', it is deeply, deeply wrong. Labor will fight. Labor will mobilise in the same way that we did in 2014. Liberal MPs that are clinging onto slim margins in their electorates will feel it. The Prime Minister himself will feel it and he will regret his decision to ever give in to the right wing of his party. Labor made our choice long ago. We stand with multicultural Australia and we stand against bigotry. We will fight these changes to section 18C and we will not give up until section 18C is safe once more. 15:38 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes What a dark view the Labor Party have just shown that they have of their fellow Australians. You simply do not trust your fellow Australians with free speech because you do not believe in free speech yourselves. You want to see a government bureaucracy, headed by the likes of Mrs Triggs, to monitor and control not only the speech of Australians but the type of cartoons that they can draw. I have a different view. I have a different view of the average Australian. I believe the average Australian is good and decent and rejects racism in all manners that it may come up. I believe that the average Australian has a sense of humour and a disrespect of pompous authority. But they have had a gut full of political correctness. It is simply a corrosive toxin that is undermining our Australian culture. The member for Isaacs says today that section 18C is clear; it works; it has clarity. Let me go through what happened to the late Bill Leak. This is from his submission to the parliamentary inquiry only a few months ago. He said: I was put through two months of incredible stress by the Commission’s investigation— That is the Australian Human Rights Commission— The first complainant … didn’t have to justify anything she did. No one asked her any questions and it didn’t cost her a cent … the tortuous process had thrown my life into a state of utter chaos, and it’s not over yet. Three months after the cartoon was published, two more complaints were received and accepted by the Commission … So now, two months after being notified of the first complaint and four months after the publication of the cartoon, the possibility that I may yet be required to defend myself in court still hovers, like a dark cloud, over my life. Two weeks ago, on Wednesday evening, in his final speech, Bill Leak talked about how he had to flee from Islamist terrorists and move to a safe house. He said: … last year I realised there’s another group of people who are just as capable of making life hell for me if they fail to be amused by my wit and artistry. Of course he was being facetious. It’s just my luck that causing offence has been made an offence at the same time that taking offence has become fashionable. So now there’s a mob that won’t only punish you if your cartoon offends them, they’ll punish you if it's offended someone else. They may be a little less murderous than your Islamist terrorists, but they’re no less unhinged and dangerous. They’re also driven by the same authoritarian impulse to silence anyone who transgresses against the unwritten laws of political correctness. I’m talking about the thought police at that rogue totalitarian outfit, the Australian Human Rights Commission. Thirty-six hours later Bill Leak was dead of a massive heart attack. And you come in here and claim that section 18C is working fine and you do not want to change a syllable. If you cannot see that there is a problem with what happened to Bill Leak and the QUT students, then I say shame on the lot of you. Shame on you all. What is also disappointing is that the program that we heard that Labor are going to run out—the campaign against this—is actually divisive and separates Australians. It tells the minority that they need protection from racist Australians and all that is there to protect them is 18C. This breeds division and dissent in our society. That is the campaign that you lot are about to run. So I would ask you to think twice. Look at what these changes are. They are minor changes to clarify the act so that what happened to Bill Leak will never happen to any Australian ever again. That is what we want these changes for. We hope that Labor get on board with this. We do not want to see this program of dividing one Australian from another by this false campaign that they have got. I hope that they change their attitude. The average Australian is decent and good—(Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the member for Barton, I remind the member for Isaacs that he had his turn. He has been constantly interjecting. He is warned. 15:43 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton The previous speaker, the member for Hughes, said that all Australians are decent people. I hope that is true. It is true in the main, but let me read you a tweet that I received this morning, and then I want the member for Hughes to back in what he has just said. It says: '@LindaBurneyMP: Why are you Abos allowed to harass people for dollars outside grocery stores? You are uneducated drug addicts and disgusting. Change it.' She is talking about 18C. She is talking about what you people are about to try and do. International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—what a mess! What a total mess of trying to weaken 18C on a day that is about the elimination of racial discrimination. People that have never experienced racism cannot possibly stand in the shoes of those that have. Many of the people that are advocating for these changes, that are so passionate about these changes, have not stood in the shoes of Aboriginal people, have not stood in the shoes of people from a non-English-speaking background and have not stood in the shoes of people that represent those people. That is very, very clear, or you would not be advocating the nonsense that you are advocating. To say that 'insult, offend, humiliate' are not strong in relation to replacing them with the word 'harass' is just a complete nonsense. 'Insult, offend, humiliate' are exactly the effects of racial vilification and hate speech. Harassment is about being and feeling annoyed; it is not the deep feelings of insult, it is not the deep feelings of offence and it is certainly not the deep feelings of humiliation. How does 'harass' replace these three descriptors? It does not replace these three descriptors. Look at the hypocrisy, look at the cowardice of how this is being dealt with by the government—and I do say the cowardice. These changes are not being introduced into this House, where they can be debated, where they can be voted on, where the government has the numbers by one and where, therefore, the government would probably win the argument. The cowardly way in which this government is dealing with this piece of legislation is by introducing it to the upper house, where it is clear that these changes are not going to be successful. Therefore, in the normal scheme of things these changes to the legislation will not make it into this House, thereby saving the Prime Minister's face. That is what this is about. I wonder how the large Jewish community of the seat of Wentworth feel about their local representative. I wonder how they feel about the fact that this person, our Prime Minister, has slowly and surely diminished, day by day, by wiping out what he stood for six or eight months ago. This, as has been said, is the last part of that diminution of this Prime Minister. He now stands for nothing. He stands for nought. He stands for nil. To these people opposite, who are advocating these changes and saying that they are doing it because it is going to guarantee free speech in this country, I repeat the question asked by Anne Aly today: what is it that you want to say after these changes that you cannot say now? I challenge you to be able to articulate that. You have not made the case in six years about the need for these changes, you have not made the case in the last six weeks, you have certainly not made the case in the last six days and you have not made the case in the last 24 hours. There has not been one piece of articulation where you can explain the questions that were asked in the House today. I say to you: if you really want to advocate to protect freedom of speech in this country, desist from what you are doing. It makes no sense, it is mischief-making and you are in fact undermining your own leader. Let's be honest: that is what this is really all about. 15:48 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I think it is very important to start this debate in a respectful tone and to acknowledge the fact that there are differences of opinion, but in the end we have to preserve, protect and advance freedom of speech so we can deal with and discuss difficult and challenging ideas while at the same time making sure that all people in this country are free from harassment. That is the basis upon which the government has put forward this proposal. It is not just about strengthening the law; it is about promoting an idea of increasing respect. But one of the cheap party tricks used by so many people in this debate has been to ask the simple question that they think is so smart: what is it that you cannot say that you would like to say? I can tell you, as I have written about this subject matter many times. For instance, a couple of years ago, a man by the name of Anthony Mundine did an interview on Channel 7's Sunrise program. During his interview with Andrew O'Keefe, Mundine said Aboriginality and the 'choice' of homosexuality were incompatible, and homosexuality should not be shown on prime-time television—not my words; his words. The basis of his comment—again, not my words; his words—was 'Aboriginal law'. At the time, I served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, and it was not actually clear what I could say in terms of condemning the basis of his commentary about people like myself. That is at the heart of what needs to be addressed in the reform of this law: whether we can stand up and speak out against bigotry that comes from ethnic communities towards other minority groups as well as other ethnic groups. Are we going to have a test in law that establishes something that is consistent, that is not just about people expressing difficult and challenging ideas? I will defend Mr Mundine's right to say that awful, awful thing; it is about whether he did it in a harassing way which sought to limit other people exercising their freedom or not. When it comes down to it, we know that there is good precedence for changing the law exactly as has been proposed. I need to remind the members opposite that they used to argue that we should keep 18C because it was preceded by three independent inquiries, and they supported the current law—until you actually go and do the research and look at it. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody is a matter that is of very significant relevance to the previous member, and I respect the legitimacy in which you raise the issue. Let's understand what the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody actually recommended—that there should be a federal civil offence against racial vilification, but that should exclude demonstrations against the behaviour of particular countries, publications or performances of works of art, and the serious and non-inflammatory discussion of ideas of public policy—in short, what the government is currently proposing. It does not included 'offend, insult, humiliate' at all. The royal commission explicitly counselled for the definition of vilification to be based on the spirit of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial violence, discrimination or hostility—again, not 'offend, insult, humiliate'. That was the royal commission, not me. Then there was the 1991 report, by the then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, on the national inquiry into racist violence. In this report, the commission called for the creation of a civil offence against 'incitement of racial hostility', 'an express prohibition of racist harassment', as well as a federal crime against 'racial violence'. The commission also recommended the creation of an offence of 'incitement to racial violence'. Finally, there was the Australian Law Reform Commission's 1992 report, titled Multiculturalism and the law, which examined the issue of racial speech. It recommended a civil offence that supported making incitement to racist hatred and hostility unlawful. While it provided no explicit definition of racial hatred, it is clear that the intention was to focus predominantly on speech that could act as a precursor to violence. Even then, one commissioner in that inquiry dissented from the recommendation, expressing the view that 'in a democratic and pluralist society freedom of expression is of special importance, which may necessitate tolerance of obnoxious and hateful views which do not incite violence'. This is extremely important. What it shows is that the three independent inquiries that were used as the basis for the introduction of this law—independent inquiries, not parliamentary inquiries that looked at different parts of legislation, and politicians deciding what they thought it should be. Actual independent inquiries, including a royal commission, considered this law and never recommended the current one, and said we should focus on harassment. 15:53 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Quite frankly, Australians deserve better. They deserve a government that will stand up for them, not a government that is so wracked by its own internal divisions that it would put them at risk by removing their rights to protection. This is a government that is united in their attack against workers, united in their support for tax breaks for the big end of town, united in their disdain for Australian pensioners and Australia's most vulnerable, yet divided on the rights of Australians for protection from racial and ethnic hate speech. It is a government that is using section 18C to create an ideological divide within its own party lines and that is beholden to the far right on its backbench. And of all days to do this, it has chosen today—a day that coincides with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. On 21 March 1960 police in Sharpeville, South Africa opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration against the apartheid pass laws. Proclaiming the day in 1966, the UN General Assembly called on the international community to redouble its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. Harmony Day—as we celebrate it here in Australia—is more than just about eating exotic food and wearing exotic clothing. It is more than just celebrating our great cultural diversity by having some naan bread with your lunch and finishing off with some Turkish delight after dinner. It is more than just paying lip service to those who continue to face real barriers to participation because of the way they look, because of the clothes they wear or even because of their foreign-sounding names. It is about respect. It is about fostering a society in which we respect all, regardless of their race, their colour, their ethnicity, their cultural heritage or their religion. It is a day for promoting substantive equality by eliminating barriers to participation for all people. It is a day when we reflect on who we are as a nation and how we can remain vigilant against racism, discrimination and the hate speech that divide us. As I look over the divide to the other side of this chamber, I see a government made up of people who have never had to defend themselves because of their race—with a few notable exceptions. I see a government made up of people—with a few notable exceptions—who have never felt the sting of race hate and never had to sit alone and cry tears for their children, who are subjected to hatred and discrimination for no reason other than their ethnicity, race or religion. I see a government made up of people who are unable to stand up for those in their electorates who have to deal with race hate on a regular basis, and that makes me sad. This year's theme for the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration. The theme acknowledges that every person is entitled to human rights without discrimination and that the rights to equality and nondiscrimination are cornerstones of human rights law. How ironic then that this government is today talking about removing the rights of Australians to recourse for racially and ethnically based hate. How ironic that this government is today talking about removing the provisions that for several decades have served this country well in protecting thousands of its citizens from racial and ethnic hatred. Perhaps they think that it, too, is a gift. I want to particularly address the discussion around removing the words 'offend' and 'insult' in section 18C and replacing them with 'harass'. Harassment, by its definition, leaves it open to argue that the offending behaviour must constitute an ongoing and protracted campaign against a person because of a characteristic such as race. Section 18C currently operates so as to capture some of the forms of racial harassment because it captures acts which humiliate and insult. In other words, harassment is already implied in the act, already used in the consideration of complaints. The inquiry did not recommend any changes to the law. This actually has the member for Goldstein's tiny little fingerprints all over it. It is a sad indictment of the ability of those members of this parliament to represent all Australians if they cannot, or will not, attempt to stand up for the rights of the people they represent. Instead of trying to take away the right to recourse and protection, this government would better spend its time—(Time expired) 15:59 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore As a migrant of Eurasian heritage, I see the need to protect ethnic and racial minorities on the one hand but I also see the duty to protect mainstream Australians from situations of reverse discrimination. As I said in my maiden speech, multiculturalism and reconciliation is a two-way street of give and take, with neither group taking advantage of or having a lend of the other. The sentiment in the proverbial pub is often resentment that sometimes ethnic minorities use the provisions of the law to take things too far. Our challenge is to make a law that is fair to all. I have listened with interest to the members who have contributed to this debate. As chair of the inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia, I, along with other members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 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 became concerned that justice did not appear to be done and that ordinary Australians were being penalised by a law and a system which inflicted substantial costs and inordinate time delays on respondents to complaints concerning matters that did not appear to offend mainstream community standards. 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. 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 our 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. 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. The government's 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 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— (Time expired) PETER KHALIL MP 16:04 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I am going to put the same question to those on the government benches that we on this side have all been asking—and we still do not have an answer. What do you possibly want people to say that they cannot already say now? I get it: at least some of you want to change 18C because it is about free speech. But what racial hate speech do you consider so acceptable that it is currently being curtailed by 18C? Today is Harmony Day. It is a day held to celebrate our cultural diversity and respect for everyone who calls Australia home, no matter where we came from. I have always argued we should not just tolerate but embrace our diversity. It is a strength of our multicultural society. Our multiculturalism works because we do not have to choose between our identities. If you are of Egyptian heritage, like me or the member for Cowan, or Greek, Vietnamese, Ethiopian or Lebanese, you should and can be a proud to be Australian and at the same time be proud of your cultural heritage. Yet this government has chosen today, Harmony Day 2017—today of all days—to announce that they are proposing to gut section 18C of the RDA. They are proposing to gut what has been one of the solid foundations of our successful multicultural society. For over 20 years, section 18C has protected our community against racial hate speech. But over on that side they have selective amnesia. They forget that there is a subsequent section, section 18D, that protects free speech for members of the press, artists, academics and anyone who is genuinely communicating their views in the public interest. Sections 18C and 18D, introduced by the Keating government, survived 11 years of the Howard government and were maintained when Labor returned to power. These governments all understood the need to maintain laws against race hate speech. I feel sorry for the member for Moore, the previous speaker, because he chaired a committee that made no recommendations for any change to 18C. The proposed change to 18C really is just another destructive obsession of the far right-wingers, who have hijacked this dysfunctional government. They have forced their own Prime Minister to change his position—which, albeit, is not too difficult to do—in spite of his repeated claims, time and time again, that he had no intention to pull apart the laws that have served us so well for decades. These changes remove the clarity achieved through 20 years of judicial decision-making. The PM has been rolled by those who—to use the words of his own Attorney-General—want the 'right to be bigots'. Was he serious? How ridiculous! How disgusting! And what a complete misunderstanding of the law by the first law officer of this land. No-one has a right to be a bigot. We have a right to free speech and freedom of expression, but that comes with a responsibility to exercise that right with some basic decency. We cannot, under the law, all shout 'Fire!' in a cinema. Neither can anyone shout racial abuse without legal consequence. I learnt that in the first year of law school. This is personal for me and for millions of Australians. As a son of migrants from Egypt, growing up in a housing commission in the seventies and eighties, I experienced racist hate speech firsthand. I have been called a 'wog', a 'sandnigger' and things that are much worse and that are best not repeated in this place. There is nothing more vile than racism, and there can be no good in allowing it to happen. It is ugly, it is hateful and it shakes the core of one's being as a human being. It brings the individuals who use it and the society that condones it down into the abyss of hate and division. And of course it severely affects and deeply hurts the victims throughout their lives. It goes against the basic decency and fairness that should be the foremost factor in our relations with each other. Nobody deserves to endure abuse based on their race or ethnicity, and those who use racial slurs as a weapon deserve to be—must be—held to account by the law. That is what this act does. That is what section 18C does, and it has done it so well for decades. I know that the majority of Australians abhor racism, and section 18C reflects those values. We on this side of the House—Labor—support a modern multicultural Australia where people are not subjected to racism and hate speech without legal consequences. We stand on this principle with multicultural Australia. We wish this was not a fight we had to have in 2017. There are far more vital issues in Australia, which we are focused on—Medicare, and fighting for penalty rates and for access to education and health care. Watering down Australia's race hate laws will not create a single job, build a single road or benefit our healthcare or education systems. This Prime Minister is doing nothing to stand up for ethnic communities. But we will oppose hate speech and our voices will join across this land to oppose these unnecessary and ideological changes. We do so because the Racial Discrimination Act makes Australia a better country. 16:09 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I previously spoke in the Federation Chamber about this issue of the Racial Discrimination Act. Firstly, I would like to say that this is an issue where fair minds can differ. The amendments to section 18C of the act are not a watering down of this important piece of legislation. Rather, they act to strengthen them. Opposition members interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 Those opposite can sit there and mock and laugh, but that is exactly their modus operandi: whenever anybody has a different view, they mock; they try to put those people down in an effort to silence them. Several weeks ago when I stood in the Federation Chamber I argued for the repeal of section 18C. Does that make me a racist? Those opposite might say yes. I am not a racist, and neither are any of the people in my electorate who have come to me or written to me and argued for something similar. But I acknowledge that a pragmatic approach is needed in order to amend the legislation to remove the subjective language in the provision—namely, 'offend, insult, humiliate' and to address the many shortcomings in the administration of complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission. If those opposite seriously think section 18C requires no amendment then they are clearly living with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Tell that to the QUT students who were dragged through the commission. Tell that to the now deceased Bill Leak. The Bill Leak case is another classic example that has compelled this government to act in the interests of all Australians. It is one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system that people can understand the laws that govern them. It is indisputable that the words 'offend, insult, humiliate' are open to very different interpretations. They are subject to the vagaries of the sensibilities of those within earshot. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. What is insulting to one person may not be insulting to another. What is humiliating to one may not be humiliating to another. Add to this the problem that the current test is one whereby the offensive, insulting or humiliating words are judged against the views of the racial group of the complainant. This subjective test pits one group of Australians against another, because what is offensive, insulting or humiliating to one group of Australians may be entirely at odds with the experience of other Australians. The legal test that is currently enshrined in the legislation as it is sets Australians against their fellow Australians. The sensible amendments proposed by the government provide an objective test whereby the harassment or the intimidating behaviour is judged in the eyes of the ordinary Australian. The amendments create a truly objective test. No reasonable Australian would support the intimidation of another person. No reasonable Australian would support the harassment of another person. The government wants to strengthen section 18C by inserting protections in the form of the word 'harass'. It will be unlawful to harass a person or intimidate another because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin. These sensible amendments provide much-needed certainty to a very uncertain provision. They provide the requisite degree of objectivity that many Australians are crying out for. Those opposite want to perpetuate the madness of political correctness. We are here to stop it. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 43 COMMITTEES Human Rights Committee 43 Report 43 16:14 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report 2 of 2017. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e) Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Human rights scrutiny report 2 of 2017. The committee's scrutiny report examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. This is in accordance with the committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The report is a technical examination and does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures. A key purpose of the scrutiny report is to provide parliament with a credible technical analysis about the human rights implications of legislation. In performing its function, the committee receives independent legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation. The committee is served by an external legal adviser to the committee and secretariat staff. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and never have been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports. Like all parliamentarians, committee members are free to engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party, conscience, belief or outlook. Scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation. There are some matters in this current report where this may be the case. Twelve new bills are assessed in the scrutiny report as not raising human rights concerns. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to seven bills and legislative instruments and has also concluded its consideration of a number of matters. A number of these concluding matters demonstrate that many Commonwealth agencies are positively engaging with the human rights scrutiny process. In relation to a number of bills and instruments, following constructive correspondence with the relevant minister to explore questions of human rights compatibility, the committee has been able to conclude that these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with human rights. In exploring these questions, the committee seeks to enhance the understanding of, and respect for, human rights in Australia. For example, in relation to the Narcotic Drugs Regulation 2016, the initial human rights analysis of this regulation identified that restricting classes of people who could be employed by licence holders engaged and limited the right to work and the right to equality and non-discrimination. This limitation had not been addressed in the statement of compatibility. In accordance with its usual approach in its longstanding analytical framework, the committee sought further information from the minister as to whether these limitations were permissible under international human rights law, including: whether the measure is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective; how the measure is effective to achieve, rationally connected to that objective; and whether the limitation is a reasonable and proportionate measure to achieve that objective. The further information provided by the minister in response to these questions allowed the committee to conclude that the measure was a permissible limitation on human rights or, in other words, was compatible with human rights. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's work. With these comments, I commend the committee's report 2 of 2017 to the chamber. BILLS 44 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 44

Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016

Consideration of Senate Message 44 Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 44

Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017

Second Reading 44 16:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in a form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 16:19 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I rise to speak in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017. These laws come at a critical stage for the federal government as we work to reduce taxes for small business and as we continue to focus on the important priority of budget repair following those years of growing Labor debts and deficits. I was unfortunate enough to hear the last speaker on this bill, the Labor member for Whitlam, before question time today. I imagine that businesspeople, especially small businesspeople, would not have known whether to laugh, cry or shudder at his confusion between business turnover and profit. I am not sure, either, whether that was deliberate or inadvertent confusion on his part. But we do know that most of those on the opposition side of this chamber have never had a background in small business. And on the specific topic of multinational tax avoidance, the member for Whitlam and all Labor members who are speaking on this bill are trying to make a lot of noise here as a distraction, because the fact is that when in government during those Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, they did absolutely nothing about multinational tax avoidance. This government has already achieved $2 billion of tax clawed back from multinationals through our work to date on the subject. And here we are now, with our second tranche of measures—$20 billion of budget repair by this government so far in gross terms and counting. It is important to note that about two-thirds of that budget repair has come from eliminating waste and wasteful spending. But when it comes to the one-third of our budget repair efforts that look at tax revenues, it is important, for both proper governance and community support, that we ensure that existing taxes are fairly applied and properly enforced as they were intended when those tax laws were passed by this parliament. The last thing that we want, when budgets are tight and taxpayers feel pressured, is to let some big taxpayers shirk their responsibilities, leaving other honest taxpayers to shoulder an unfairly high burden. I will return to this point again and again. This government's work to date is already paying dividends—$2 billion of additional taxes raised because of the good steps we have already taken in combating multinational tax avoidance. Now, we are here to do more when it comes to combating multinational tax avoidance and diverted profits. I held another round of mobile offices in every suburb of my electorate over the last fortnight, and can I say that people are attuned to the way that the world is changing and the newfound capacity to use new technologies and different legal models and different jurisdictions around the world to evade local laws. It is a line of reasoning that applies equally to tax, to product safety and warranties, to intellectual property, to labour laws, to the trade in goods and services—you name it. Australia needs to keep its tax laws up to date as the world changes. Indeed, in cases like this where international cooperation is necessary to solve a problem and ensure enforcement of and compliance with tax laws around the world, Australia should be at the leading edge of efforts and international cooperation—and, with this new bill before the parliament, we are. These laws mean that Australia is at the front of the pack, leading the world in combating the increased ability in this new world to shift profits and avoid paying a fair share of taxes. When I talk to locals about multinational tax avoidance, they talk about it in terms of lost taxes that could have been spent in areas like health and education. They talk about in terms of being able to afford the things we need to support local jobs and maintain our lifestyle and grow our economy. They talk about not disadvantaging our local small businesses who cannot and do not attempt to avoid paying their fair share. They talk about how better enforcement will enable us to afford the benefits of lower taxes and better services for those small businesses who are at the centre of our local economy and most need it. That is why the integrity of our taxation system matters for the people in my electorate of Brisbane. By their very nature, these bills go hand in hand with our plan to grow the economy. In my maiden speech I noted that the Liberal Party was founded on the notion that the small-business middle class needs a strong voice. In Robert Menzies' most famous address, 'The forgotten people', he said that the rich and powerful 'are as a rule able to protect themselves'. He said he wanted to represent 'shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on'. We want small businesses locally to grow into big businesses and to create the jobs and the opportunities that Australians critically need. My family, coming as they do from small business, are naturally suspicious of concentrated power, whether that is found in the clumsy power of central governments, the institutional influence of big trade unions or the market power of big multinational businesses. I believe the more powerful you are, the more responsibility you have to wield your power in a way that is true to your origins and that benefits and protects the little guys coming from the same place where you started. This is yet another area where some of the world's biggest businesses, who have enjoyed the fruits of Australia's economy, have an obligation to share in the responsibility of contributing back. They must accept and abide by our tax laws to ensure a level playing field for all. One important part of this government's measures to tackle multinational tax avoidance will see an increase in administrative penalties for significant global entities. This increase in the penalties will help ensure that these entities do not opt out of their reporting obligations. It means that, from 1 July this year, increased administrative penalties can be applied by the Commissioner of Taxation to a significant global entity—that is, an entity with annual global income of $1 billion or more—who fails to adhere to tax reporting obligations. The maximum penalty will be increased 100 times over for these entities where they fail to lodge tax documents on time or take reasonable care when making statements to the ATO. By increasing these penalties, we are simply encouraging businesses to comply with our taxation standards. Once enacted, the maximum administrative penalty for significant global entities who fail to comply will increase from about $5,000 now—a piddly fine that would not deter most people in cases of multinational tax avoidance—to a more serious deterrent fine of over half a million dollars. Penalties will be also be more harsh for these entities if they make false and misleading statements to the ATO. By increasing the administrative penalties, the penalty amounts will be more commensurate with their turnover and will act as an incentive for these global multinationals to do the right thing. The Diverted Profits Tax Bill is an anti-avoidance measure which will help ensure that any money made by multinationals which is subject to Australian tax will be payable to the ATO. When implemented, these laws will give the Commissioner of Taxation greater powers to recoup legitimate tax dollars that have been taken offshore. The legislation will commence on 1 July this year, and it is expected to raise $100 million in revenue a year from the 2018-19 financial year. It provides a powerful new tool for the ATO to tackle contrived arrangements and uncooperative taxpayers and it will reinforce Australia's position as having some of the toughest laws in the world to combat multinational tax avoidance. If the commissioner determines that profits are being diverted, a penalty rate at 40 per cent will be applied, and it will need to be paid within 21 days. The liability can be adjusted by mutual agreement during a 12-month review period, but the taxpayer cannot appeal the assessment until the end of the review period, after which, generally, no new information would be considered. By making it easier for the commissioner to apply Australia's anti-avoidance provisions and applying that 40 per cent penalty rate of tax, which cannot be appealed until the end of the review period, this will encourage greater compliance by multinationals, encourage greater openness with the tax commissioner and allow for the speedier resolution of disputes. We know these laws will work, because, as I mentioned earlier, already the Turnbull government's efforts in this place are paying dividends. Around $2 billion of tax is expected to be clawed back this financial year under this government's earlier measures cracking down on multinational tax avoidance. That is $2 billion that would have otherwise not have been able to fund more schools, hospitals, pensions and government services. It is $2 billion of tax burden that would have fallen unfairly otherwise on the shoulders of other taxpayers, such as the small businesses at the heart of our economy. The $2 billion in tax liabilities from multinationals is expected to come from assessments relating to just seven audits of large multinational companies in the energy, resources and e-commerce sectors. This is further proof that the implementation of the government's multinational anti-avoidance legislation and the recently established Tax Avoidance Taskforce within the ATO are effectively dealing with noncompliance behaviour of multinationals in Australia. While it is clear that the opposition love to talk about the big end of town, it seems to me that it is this government that is actively working to make sure multinationals pay their fair share, while the other mob appear to be busy running around running interference to distract from their big deals with big businesses and big unions to cut penalty rates. Of course, we know that the opposition voted previously against the last set of multinational tax avoidance measures presented in this place—just one more sign of the hypocrisy of today's Labor Party. They kick and scream, fight tooth and nail and deliberately mischaracterise tax cuts aimed predominantly at small business, yet they did not back the last measures to penalise the biggest businesses for tax avoidance. I am not sure if it is deliberate or inadvertent hypocrisy, but it is a worrying sign, certainly, that the shadow Assistant Treasurer had trouble last week working out the difference between custodial and beneficial shareholders. Hopefully, they will not be missing in action this time around. In conclusion, it is clear through our major successes already achieved in this area that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 is necessary if we want to keep Australia up to date as the world changes. The community in Brisbane wants these laws. No-one in Brisbane works harder than the small business owners and operators. They are paying their fair share. In fact, I would suggest they are paying more than their fair share. This bill helps to decrease the pressure of their tax burden. We are supporting their ability to invest in their businesses, to grow their businesses, so they can turn their mind to putting on their next employee—a job for a local in Brisbane—improving our local economy. That is what this government is all about. Through greater powers and greater penalties we are simultaneously ensuring integrity in our tax system and continuing our important work on budget repair. I commend this bill to the House. 16:31 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I think it only right, before getting to the body of what I want to say on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, to refer to the remarks just made by the member for Brisbane, and particularly to those he made towards the end of his contribution, where he had a bit of a crack about the Labor Party's policies in relation to tax avoidance, which, it has to be said, are much stronger than the approach taken by the government. His remarks were almost like being flogged by a wet lettuce leaf. The critical thing is that the government has seriously mismanaged its budget and has put the AAA credit rating of this country at risk. The figures that we are seeing and have seen in the budgets and in the mid-year financial statements is that the debt and deficit that this government has been delivering for the nation are continuing to grow. Net debt has blown out to an estimated $317 billion since the Liberals took office. That is up from the $184 billion it was when they took office. They have blown out net debt for the nation, and the deficits over the forward estimates have net debt blowing out by a further $10 billion. Since their first budget, the budget deficits have blown out tenfold, from $2.8 billion to $28.7 billion. When it was announced in the last budget that the government would introduce this diverted profits tax, Labor signalled that we would support it. We supported it because we support any attempts to close tax loopholes. Labor supports these measures, but we do note that the government has squibbed the opportunity. It has lost the opportunity to close even bigger loopholes in multinational tax. If the government was actually serious about getting tough on multinationals, it would do something about the one in three big companies in Australia that are paying no tax; 109 companies are paying no tax, despite having over a billion dollars in income. All of this really boils down to one thing, the attempt by this government to distract from its $50 billion tax cut for big business. It will do anything to distract from what it is trying to do, give tax cuts to the people earning the most in this nation. What will the government get for its diverted profits tax? It will raise $200 million over the forward estimates. It will give away $50 billion but it will only be raising several hundred million dollars. Labor led the way when it came to putting forward a policy for tackling multinational tax avoidance. Right back in the time of the Gillard government, the Labor Party was looking at how we could make sure that companies were paying their fair share of tax here in Australia. The Labor government looked at investing $100 million to give the ATO the proper resources so that it could raise $1 billion of additional tax revenue in this country. But what did former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the then Leader of the Opposition, say? He criticised the Labor government for trying to invest in the ATO to make sure that it had the proper resources to raise revenue from multinational companies that were avoiding paying their fair share of tax in Australia. Now, in its last budget, what has this government done? Now it wants to invest over half a billion dollars—$679 million—to try and raise $3.7 billion. Which is it? Is the government saying that you cannot give the ATO resources to raise the revenue that companies should be paying here or is it saying that we can invest lots of money to raise that revenue? When we look at the track record of this government, what do we see that it has actually done? It has axed 3,000 jobs from the tax office over its time in government. Imagine how much revenue we could have been getting if we had had a properly resourced ATO over the term of this government. The hypocrisy of this government is shown in its approach to dealing with the fair payment of taxation by multinationals in this country. It highlights the difference between Labor and the Liberals. We will put people first, and the Liberal Party is just looking after its mates in big business and multinationals. Our reforms, which we took to the last election, if implemented would have delivered $1.6 billion over the forward estimates. Look at that difference: $200 million over here from the Liberal government and $1.6 billion would have been raised under Labor's approach if we had been put into power at the last election. That would have been $5.9 billion over the next decade in comparison to several hundred million dollars and a whopping big $50 billion tax cut. The thing about that $50 billion tax cut, of course, is: who is the major beneficiary of that tax cut? It is foreign shareholders. It is not Australians, because we have tax imputation in Australia. Who gets the main benefit of a tax cut for big business? Foreign shareholders. Thanks very much, Turnbull government. This is all while the government wants to make cuts and changes that will negatively affect households across the nation. It wants to make changes to family tax benefit and changes and cuts to Medicare and it wants to not properly fund our school system. All of the things that this government wants to do will hurt working families. They will hurt ordinary Australians. Meanwhile, the government makes this piddly little attempt to try and say it is chasing multinational taxation, but it is not doing the job properly. All of this, meanwhile, is putting our AAA credit rating at risk, because the people on that side of the House cannot manage a budget properly. The people on that side of the House are driving up debt and deficit. They like to talk about how they are the great fiscal and economic managers of the Australian political scene but, in reality, they are fiscal vandals, and this legislation only serves to highlight just how out of touch they are with managing the nation's finances. When it comes down to it, this $50 billion tax cut—Malcolm Turnbull's one-point plan for jobs and growth—by the mid-2030s will result in a rise in household income of 0.1 per cent. Well, knock me over with a feather. That is an entire—wait for it!—one month's income growth in the 13 years that we have between now and 2030. It is absolutely ridiculous, if this is what you are pinning all your hopes and dreams on for economic recovery. Yet this is what they bring us. There are a few other points in this bill that I want to turn my attention to. There are the increased administrative penalties. That is a good thing. We support an increase in the administrative penalties. It is good to see they are making a substantial increase, to make sure there is proper compliance with taxation laws in Australia and these proposed changes to the taxation law. It is great to see that the government has decided that they really want to enforce compliance with the taxation law—which is really not doing half the job it needs to do—but what are they doing about increasing the penalties on a range of corporate offending provisions in the Corporations Act that ASIC and many others have been screaming about for probably more than a decade? They have been saying, 'We need higher penalties to make sure that the law is complied with in a whole range of areas.' Everyone agrees that this needs to happen, yet all we get is a slight change to the penalty unit, which is great, but no wholesale analysis of the changes that need to be made to corporate regulatory enforcement. They will make this change to taxation law—that is good; we support that—but if you are going around making changes to ensure there is compliance by business with the laws of this country, which are so important, let's get on with the program and get it right. The other issue addressed by this bill is transfer pricing. This implements the new OECD-consistent guidelines that have been updated to include issues surrounding intellectual property and hard-to-value intangibles, which are vitally important to make sure there is effectiveness in the regime that is being implemented by this legislation. There is one other thing I want to touch on before I end. It is the amendments that have now been moved to this legislation by the government. These are supported by the Labor Party. We are not taking any issue with what they are seeking to do. The amendment clarifies the interaction between the diverted profits tax and the rules for controlled foreign companies to ensure that double taxation does not occur. That is the right thing to do. We have no difficulty with that. It does concern me somewhat, though, that given the commitments made by the government about when this legislation would be introduced and the way in which they dragged their feet and only got it into this parliament after they said it would happen, they could not even get the law right that they introduced. That is a very troubling and concerning thing and it is not the first time I have had to raise this point. We saw it with the crowdsource funding legislation that has been put up by the government, where a failure to consult properly with industry, in that situation, has led to legislation that is probably not going to be as effective as it could be, and that is something that we on this side of the House would like to see. It is very concerning that we see a detailed tax law amendment—that we desperately need to see, to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in this nation, as they should, especially as we need to arrest the debt and deficit that has been growing massively under this government—yet they could not get the legislation right when they introduced it. Of course, this is the process: you move an amendment. I am not filled with confidence about this government's capacity. Let me close by saying Labor does support the bill, but the bill does demonstrate the wrong priorities of this government. It raises $200 million. It does not get anywhere near the $1.6 billion that Labor says these sorts of tax reforms should be raising and, at the same time, it is not delivering the sort of revenue it should. We have a government that is making cuts to family tax benefits, changes to pensions, is not supporting education or Medicare and is delivering a $50 billion tax cut to business with most of the benefits going to overseas shareholders. This is a shame and a travesty, and it demonstrates the wrong priorities of this government. 16:42 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I have heard the speakers on the government side talk about this Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 as the great step forward in combating multinational tax avoidance. I have heard them brag about the government's performance over the last four years. I really wish it were true. The community is well ahead of the government on this. The community has an expectation that our biggest companies start paying the tax that they owe us. This government, for four years, has stepped away from combating multinational tax avoidance and wound back laws, cut staff to the ATO and weakened Australia's capacity to collect tax from our biggest companies. Today, in their fourth year—they are not approaching their first budget, they are approaching their fourth budget—they have come into this parliament with a bill which, in its totality, will generate—on its own figures—$200 million over the forwards. Anybody out there who has been reading or paying attention to the number of large companies in Australia that do not pay any tax at all will wonder how $200 million is the figure for the big centrepiece of combating multinational tax avoidance. Schedule 1 is $200 million. Schedules 2 and 3—asterisks—are for increasing administrative penalties and updating transfer-pricing guidelines. Schedule 1, diverted profits tax, is the one that generates the big numbers: $200 million. Labor's policy on the same matter, diverted profits tax, would have generated $1.6 billion over the forwards. This one: $200 million. The centrepiece of this government's combating multinational tax avoidance bill is $200 million over the forwards. What a very sad state of affairs that is! We heard today the Treasurer, in question time, at the dispatch box, shouting proudly about the government's tax collection measures. He was referring to a $3.7 billion revenue gain as if it was a change in law. Actually, it was not. That $3.7 billion—and I am glad to see it being collected—was actually caused by the government's decision to replace some of the staff at the tax office that they had cut in the previous years. This government, in its first three years, managed to cut 3,000 staff at the ATO. It was an enormous cut in a government department and an incredible loss of knowledge. The public sector is a really interesting thing. People do their job and, almost as a by-product of doing their job, they develop relationships and an understanding of businesses and of the sector, and a knowledge of what works and does not work. They become this great resource of knowledge. When you make savage cuts to a department, you do not just lose its capacity to do what needs to be done today, which is to pursue companies that are avoiding tax, but you also lose the capacity of that organisation to think and to contribute to policy debate. You lose people's relationships and the connections that help them do their job well. You do damage which is impossible to replace in the short to medium term. It cannot be replaced. Every time this government gets out the knife and cuts more away of our public sector, we lose something incredibly valuable, and we lost that at the tax office. Now, of course, we have the government in the last budget—the budget of 2016—putting back $678 million to employ not 3,000 staff but 1,300, some of which are already there, and 390 new specialised officers. That replacement of those staff is estimated to generate $3.7 billion in revenue—by replacing staff that they cut before. What would those 3,000 staff have done? We have had a Treasurer walk in here and brag that he is going to generate revenue by putting back staff that he cut. What an achievement! It is the fourth year of the government—destroy it in the first three years and then jump up and down and ask for applause when you put some of it back. What we actually have today is a government that has repaired some of the damage it did—not all of it, but some it. Some of the damage from those cuts cannot be repaired. What we have today is a government that has walked into this House with its major, multinational tax avoidance package that will generate $200 million over the forward estimates. I want to talk a little bit more about the ATO's capacity—those 3,000 job losses undermining the enforcement capacity and the loss of knowledge. In 2014, the ATO Second Commissioner, Neil Olesen, admitted that for every dollar spent on staffing resources they would yield six in revenue collected. In 2015, the coalition ridiculed Labor's PBO costed proposal for additional ATO staffing as a way of clawing back revenue. They said it was not true. Now, of course, they demonstrate by their own figures that it is true, and it always was—by the ATO second commissioner's own figures, for every dollar you spend on staffing resources, if you spend them the right way, you can yield six. What a return that is. What a savage cut those 3,000 positions were. You do not pay attention to this government's spin. They have a lot of spin. They have not much more than spin. It is like on a cycle—lots of action but no speed. The coalition's diverted profits tax will raise just $200 million over the forward estimates compared to Labor's plan, which would have been $1.6 billion over the forward estimates. It is also worth looking at what else this government has done in terms of winding back the tax office's capacity to ensure that businesses pay. If the government were serious about getting tough on multinationals, they would do something serious about the one in three big companies that pay no tax. The most recent 2014-15 tax office transparency data shows that more than one in three large firms pay no tax at all, and 3,000 staff were cut from the ATO. This includes 109 companies that paid no tax, even though they reported more than $1 billion in total income. They paid no tax at all—109 companies with a total income of $1 billion. The transparency data report, covering 1,904 companies, is only available because of Labor's tax transparency laws which passed the parliament in 2013 over the objections of the coalition. The coalition objected to these tax transparency laws. They certainly were not committed to anything to do with non-payment of tax back then. The Liberals and Nationals voted against those laws at the time and, a little while later, they joined with the Greens to water those laws down further, taking two-thirds of private companies out of the reporting net. They voted against Labor's transparency bill and then, when they got into government, they weakened it. The effect of that weakening is absolutely clear. If you look at the 2014-15 year and the previous year, the share of large firms paying no tax at all remained at 36 per cent. There was no change whatsoever as a result of this watering down of this law—none. Labor led the way on tackling multinational tax avoidance under the Gillard government against the blanket opposition of the coalition. While the coalition government has had to be dragged into action, over 3,000 jobs were slashed in the first three years, undermining the enforcement ability and losing institutional knowledge. What we have is a government that has not acted in any serious way over the last four years. They can come in here, jump up and down, and ask for credit for this bill, and we will support it because it is better than nothing, but, honestly, after four years, this is it—two hundred million dollars over the forward estimates when one in three large companies do not pay tax. I want to quote then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, back in 2015. This is an extraordinary quote: So far the only idea they have come up with is to spend $100 million on the ATO to raise $1 billion . Well, next time they will be telling us to spend $1 billion on the ATO to raise $10 billion. That is the problem. All they can think of is spending more and taxing more. They just cannot help themselves. I actually think that deep down the Leader of the Opposition is better than that, and I would ask him to start demonstrating that now. So, back in 2015, we were being bagged over the dispatch box because we said, 'You have to resource the tax office properly so that it can pursue these big businesses and raise more tax.' We were saying $100 million could raise $1 billion. The ATO representative said you could raise six for one. Now we have the Treasurer doing exactly that, replacing some of the staff that he cut, with $679 million to raise $3.7 million. When we suggested that in 2015, it was a terrible idea! At that time, the government were cutting the staff of the tax office. They changed their minds, and now they think it would be a good thing. They have promised to restore some of the tax office funding. That is an absolute admission of their failure in cutting it in the first place. We have an interesting situation here. We have a government that is not only quite soft—I think that is the appropriate word—on combating international tax avoidance but also going after some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. They are cutting welfare payments; they are cutting family payments; they are cutting the energy supplement; they are reducing the pension for people who travel overseas for more than six months, unless they have been here for more than 35 years—you name it. They are reducing access to child care for the most disadvantaged, from two days to one. Across the board, at the lowest levels of economic strength, they have the knives out. They are cutting and cutting and cutting. We have heard today that there will be major cuts to some of our Federal Police. We know that they are in favour of the recent cuts to penalty rates which will hurt up to 700,000 of our lowest paid workers. But, while the government are cutting and cutting and cutting away at the most vulnerable end, it does not really seem that their hearts are in ensuring that the biggest end of town contributes to this society in the way that we need them to, in the way that they should. You only have to look at the figures under their $50 billion tax cut to business, including to some of the biggest businesses in Australia and many international ones. This is a $50 billion tax handout to big business which, it is estimated, will increase household income by 0.1 per cent by the mid-2030s. This is a huge handout to big business that, all the figures show, will not actually provide a return to taxpayers, who will pay for that tax cut in lost tax revenue. Also, based on the latest figures, the estimate is that that $50 billion handout will cost this country $4 billion in interest. So we have a government that, on one side, introduces a tax cut of $50 billion that will cost $4 billion in interest, and, on the other side, introduces its fabulous centrepiece to counter tax avoidance that generates $200 million over the forward years. What a difference that is. When you look at those figures, you would have to say that this is no more than a fig leaf. You have a government giving $50 billion in tax handouts, paying $4 billion in interest to get it and introducing measures to counter international tax avoidance by the biggest companies in the country and some of the biggest around the world that will generate $200 million. You have to assume that this is absolutely a fig leaf and nothing more. I would be making a completely different contribution today if I thought the government were actually serious about this. But, again, look at the history. Do not listen to the spin; look at history. They have voted against, have argued against, every measure to combat tax avoidance that Labor introduced. They watered one down when they got into government. They cut 3,000 staff from the tax office without a qualm, without a word, as if the skill level and the work that the ATO do is not important. That is the actual history. And then they pick up a small part of a Labor policy that would have generated $1.6 billion, and water it down so it only generates $200 million over the forward years. This is not a policy to combat tax avoidance. This is, at best, a fig leaf. I really urge the government, if it wants a genuine debate on restructuring the economy, if it wants a genuine debate on restructuring welfare, to look at the whole band of where the money is. You have to look at the biggest businesses and you have to go all the way through; you have to look at it all. You cannot just look at the most vulnerable people in society but give the biggest businesses in the world a free pass, and that is what you are doing. That is what you have been doing for four years—not one but four years of government. After four years, this is all you have got? You have got to be kidding. 16:57 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Multinational tax evasion in this country has reached epidemic levels, and, as the Commissioner of Taxation himself said, 'Enough is enough.' The previous speaker, the member for Parramatta, was correct: there is something missing in this bill. Some of the measures could well be effective if they are properly implemented. Yet the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017 raises virtually nothing, a fig leaf—a measly $200 million. When you consider that one in three private companies pay absolutely no tax, and one in four public corporate entities pay absolutely no tax, to say that, through a measure like this, all you are going to raise is $200 million proves it could well be merely a popgun. If we assumed, for example, that five per cent of tax revenue that is lost to tax evasion and aggressive minimisation were returned to the budget, that would be something like $13 billion over four years. So what is quite implausible about the bill is the estimate that it is only going to raise $200 million. This bill could well be a toothless tiger. I do accept that the efforts of the tax commissioner, using anti-avoidance provisions which were put in place by Labor, have made some progress in exposing tax evasion by some of our most respected companies. Those efforts are most welcome, and they go to the competence of our tax commissioner. But he has been hamstrung in his efforts by this government's failure to follow Labor's reform agenda, which was to crush the debt deduction loopholes which have been bleeding revenue. That is still a major issue which has not been dealt with by the government. Labor put a comprehensive package in the 2013-14 budget and most of it was knocked out by the Abbott government. The truth is a significant number of our most respected companies have become fiscal termites, eating away at the foundation of our corporate tax system. We must give our tax commissioner all of the power and all of the weapons to deal with these fiscal termites. When we are dealing with the fiscal termites, they generally specialise in debt dumping and aggressive transfer pricing. We know that two of our most respected companies, BHP and Rio, have been very much into transfer pricing—that was on parade at the Senate inquiry into multinational tax avoidance. Over a two-year period, that Senate inquiry into multinational tax evasion gave an insight into the very tawdry behaviour of so many so-called respected companies and executives. As the tax commissioner himself said at the time, 'Enough is enough'. Corporate Australia has a moral and legal obligation to pay tax here and to support the economic system which supports them. A progressive tax system for corporates and individuals is central to a country's capacity to fund its own growth—growth with equity. The sort of rampant tax evasion we have seen here and around the world has trashed public faith not only in our political system but in our whole system of government. It is pretty clear from what we now know publicly—largely thanks to Labor's transparency legislation, which meant that we knew the figures around what tax was paid by companies in any one year—that there has been a culture of avoidance in our most respected company, BHP. They have tried or sought to evade tax on $5.7 billion, which they have held in their Singapore tax shield. Rio has been up to this as well. Both BHP and Rio have also sought to evade state royalty payments through their transfer-pricing activities. The governments of Western Australia and Queensland have been treated very poorly. When companies are rorting the system, both at the state and federal level, they give a green light to everybody else to get in there and do the same. The shame with BHP in particular is that it has backed up its evasion with unprecedented political interference and thuggery—most recently in the Western Australian state election. We have seen the newspapers over the weekend, where its acolytes were bragging about their success in taking out a leading politician, Mr Grylls. Let me make it very clear: I welcome the election of the McGowan Labor government in Western Australia and I welcome their win in the Pilbara, but we are not going to get better politics in this country when business lobbies in general and the mining lobby in particular do not practice what they preach. They claim to be honest taxpaying corporate citizens. Many are, but some are not. Sadly, the Big Australian has become known as the Dishonest Australian for its activities in the use of its Singapore tax hub and, now, for its attempts to fleece revenue from the state governments of Western Australia and Queensland. It might be okay if political campaigning was all that BHP was up to. Most people would say: 'Fair enough, it's a private entity. Go out and defend your economic interests; you are perfectly entitled to do that.' And they are. The problem here is that behind that apparent use of our democracy are their shady operations, their dishonest operations and their tax evasion. Behind the scenes, they are deliberately evading the laws of our nation, and it does not make their political activities respectable when the purpose is actually to cover up a much more evil intent. They are fleecing from federal and state treasuries billions of dollars of essential revenue which needs to be there to fund health and education, among other things. What we have in this country is a 'Commodities Kremlin', where some of these big companies are behaving like governments, treating the people of this country with contempt and behaving as if they are above the law. That sort of behaviour produces political polarisation and alienation with the political system, which we have seen in parts of the world, including here. We have this 'Commodities Kremlin', through the Minerals Council but particularly through BHP and Rio, where they do what they want when they want and they get even with those who have been in their way. As I said, normal political practice would say that it is shareholders' funds and to use them as they wish—it is a democracy. But when it has been used in the context of covering up, if you like, a darker layer of activity which eats away like termites at our revenue base then I think we should think again. The failure of the Business Council of Australia to speak up against aggressive minimisation and evasion completely erodes any credibility it has as well. Why is that important? Because the Business Council of Australia has been the loudest advocate for the $50 billion unfunded corporate tax cut, which the government says is the central element of its drive for jobs, investment and growth. The $50 billion unfunded corporate tax cut is a pure form of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economics operates on what I call voodoo logic—that tax cuts for the wealthy will drive economic growth and improve the lives of everyone in the community from the top down. Hey presto! A lot of money to the people at the top, it all comes down, everybody is happy and on we go. Well, the results internationally from this have been appalling: a growing concentration of wealth and income at the top across most developed economies, most particularly in the United States; a hollowed out middle-class; and vast armies of working poor—as we saw on Four Corners a week or so ago. The truth is that corporate tax cuts alone cannot, necessarily, drive jobs, growth and investment, and it is absurd to claim so. It is utterly absurd and insulting to claim so. To see our Prime Minister put forward purest form of trickle-down, when he sits there in his Point Piper mansion—a multimillionaire who has his portfolio in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven—and expect that the Australian people would believe that a corporate tax cut is going to drive higher wages and many more jobs is just preposterous. But yet that is where our economic debate has got to under this Prime Minister. In the time remaining I want to talk about some of the myths, about the so-called elixir of this unfunded $50 billion corporate tax cut. It is a con to start with. The average rate paid by Australian companies is 24 per cent, not 30 per cent. We have heard before that, in any one year, one in three, or one in four, are paying nothing. So the notion that people are getting a tax cut is a nonsense when tax is not being paid. The truth is there are a few companies that pay it; many do not. The fact is that a corporate tax cut does not necessarily encourage investment and does not necessarily encourage growth, because many people are not paying any tax at all. David Gonski, a very respected businessman in this country, spoke out against the stupidity of the government and the Business Council last week and made the very obvious point that it will not necessarily drive jobs and growth. If we look at OECD countries between 2011 and 2016, Australia's GDP increased by 15.6 per cent and we were ranked 11th in the OECD, but not one of the 10 countries who achieved stronger economic growth over that period did so by cutting their corporate tax rate. It does not matter where you go on the data, there is not any real international evidence that backs up the claims that are being made for this corporate tax cut. The other ridiculous myth is that the corporate tax cut will flow through to increased wages. That would make a cat laugh. Profitability in the Australian economy is high. The profit share is going up; the wage share is going down. We are not seeing higher wages as the profit share goes up. So that claim is absurd. The other one is that somehow global capital is scarce; we have to be part of a race to the bottom—take our rate down; get it below a tax haven like Ireland or Singapore. The US is about to go from 30-plus down to 15. Race it down, race it down—what a nonsense. The fact is that the world is awash with capital. What they are looking for is a safe haven and profitable investments. If there are profitable investments, they will come to this country at zero, 15, 30, 35—and they do come here. But many of them come here knowing that they are going to pay nothing, because they can get away with it. So we need a strong set of laws to make sure that the effective rate paid is closer to the nominal rate. There will always be deductions that companies should be claiming, and that is good for investment. But, as in our personal tax system, we have in our corporate tax system a gap—a big gap between the nominal rate and the effective rate. The effective rate here, at 24, is not the rate of 30 that the government talks about. The fact is the world is awash with capital, and people are coming here for a whole variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the corporate tax rate: the rule of law, the quality of our people and the quality of our institutions, which of course will be starved over time. If we join a race to the bottom in tax rates, both personal and corporate, we do not have the money to invest in the infrastructure of the country that brings the investors to the country in the first place. So it is just a con job. The $50 billion unfunded corporate tax cut which the government now appears ready to drop, leaving it without any central economic message or reason for being, is going nowhere. Worse than that, what we have had in this country is a number of people who sit on the boards of some of our most respected companies who have been part and parcel of breaking what I call the Australian social contract. We need to see a lot better behaviour from some of our most respected companies and to see their public rhetoric matched by their private action. We need to see an end to the white-anting of our tax system by respected companies and a renewed commitment to the country that has nurtured them so that they pay their fair share of tax and we as a country can raise the revenue we need to grow more strongly and to grow fairly. 17:12 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Mr Speaker, I commend the government for taking this key step to combat multinational tax avoidance. Until now, too little has been done to recover the unpaid tax that is rightfully owed to Australians. The additional burden that hardworking Australians and taxpaying businesses bear as a result of multinational tax avoidance should not be understated. Whilst standing orders prevent me from moving amendments to further strengthen taxes in a bill, there are still changes that I strongly urge the government to incorporate into the final version of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017. Currently, this proposed tax only applies to the very biggest of businesses, namely, 'significant global entities' with an annual global income of $1 billion or greater. The Nick Xenophon Team believes that this threshold should be reduced from $1 billion to $250 million. Whilst I appreciate that the Australian Taxation Office faces significant difficulties when chasing multinational tax avoidance, a company with $250 million in annual global income is still a very big business. Indeed, this would align with the Australian Taxation Office's own classification system, which rightly identifies companies with turnover levels of $250 million or greater as large businesses. Secondly, the 'sufficient foreign tax' test should become more stringent. Naturally, tax rates between countries will differ, but this bill proposes that the diverted profits tax would only activate when tax reduction strategies result in a 20 per cent or more reduction in total tax paid. The Nick Xenophon Team believes that this threshold should be lowered to 10 per cent, such that, in the technical jargon, 'the foreign tax liabilities of foreign entities resulting from tax avoidance schemes is 90 per cent or more of the reduction in the tax liability'. This would also further reduce the incentive to shift genuinely Australian-based business offshore just to take advantage of lower taxes elsewhere. I also urge the government to consider how to reverse as much as possible the burden of the enforcement of the diverted profits tax from the Australian Taxation Office and onto multinational companies. The accounting trail for multinational companies is notoriously opaque and complex. Even the government tax departments have difficulty in finding the web. For example, one possible approach could be to require up-front disclosure by multinational companies if they believe they may have transactions that would attract a diverted profits tax, to be combined with significant penalties for failing to disclose. I believe this would dramatically assist the Australian Taxation Office in their efforts to investigate potential multinational tax avoidance. This bill is only the starting point on a range of measures that the government should consider in strengthening Australia's ability to recover unpaid tax from multinationals. Multinational tax avoidance is particularly widespread in the big tech giants. In 2014, an investigation by The Australian Financial Review concluded that between 2002 and 2013 Apple had shifted an estimated $8.9 billion in unpaid taxes from its Australian operations to tax havens in Ireland. Although the numbers are secret, the tax-dodging strategy is not. The same investigation by The Australian Financial Review referred to Apple Sales International 2009 accounts, which state: The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction …The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent. This is absolutely utterly appalling. The huge multinationals of Facebook and Google are no different. These two companies have a duopoly on online advertising that is only strengthened with every passing week and month. Digital advertising is the biggest source of advertising revenue in the local media sector and, to echo the comments of my colleague Senator Xenophon, he believes that many politicians: … don’t realise the commercial and social impact they are having, particularly on the ability of Australian media companies to provide news and local stories. Although Google earned an estimated $2.5 billion in income from local advertising in 2015, it only declared revenue in Australia of one-fifth that amount. Google paid just $16 million of tax that year, a paltry 0.64 per cent—just a fraction of one percent—of its estimated revenue of $2.5 billion. This means that Google is only paying $1 of tax for every $157 they earn in revenue. This is a tax rate that any person in this chamber, and certainly any Australian, would be absolutely envious of. But it is wrong, and it needs to change. Facebook Australia is wholly owned by Facebook, its parent company in the US. By market capitalisation, Facebook is a $400 billion company, and it makes more than $1 billion in profit every three months. These figures are absolutely staggering in their size. Yet, in 2015, Facebook Australia's gross revenue figures were reported to be a measly $33.5 million. Investment bank Morgan Stanley estimated that Facebook Australia actually earned between $500 million and $600 million from advertising in our country in 2015, yet Facebook Australia only paid $814,000 in tax. This is absolutely disgusting. Facebook, Google, Apple and a plethora of other multinationals are absolutely dudding the Australian people. Let's be very clear: this is taking money out of our schools, this is taking money out of our hospitals, this is taking money away from pensioners and this is taking money away from aged care. Australian workers and businesses who do the right thing are labouring hard under taxes to afford the services our community needs and to try to close our budget deficit, but some big businesses seem to believe that they are more equal than others and that these taxes do not apply to them. We need to get better at clawing back these millions and billions of unpaid taxes. To quote The Australian: … Facebook and Google have made billions out of being innovative businesses, we need to find innovative ways to make them pay back a fair share of their profits to the companies they are taking content from. In relation to Google and Facebook, one idea that should be considered is requiring them to pay a content fee to host Australian media stories. This would allow local media companies to compete more effectively with the Google and Facebook duopoly. This is not a flight-of-fancy idea: the European Commission is actively investigating a similar proposal for the European Union. As my colleague Senator Xenophon said: … Facebook and Google’s market dominance amounts to unfair competition. They cannibalise existing media outlets, which provide content, which they sell on for vast profit. It’s critical they pay their fair share of tax, but we need more than a super profits tax. Or, may I add, we need more than just the proposed diverted profits tax. Another idea that warrants full investigation and consideration is the possibility of taxing companies according to metrics other than profit, such as input costs. According to Professor John Mangan from the University of Queensland: In this way society gets a return on the use of all scarce resources; discouraging inefficient resource use and providing firms with incentives to minimise costs. The incentive for transfer pricing disappears as firms now want to minimise rather than maximise internal costs of production or operation. One way in which they may do this is to reduce discretionary internal costs such as executive salaries. Unitary taxation with profit apportionment agreements may be another approach that could be considered in international bilateral or multilateral tax treaties. Recommendations from the Senate Economics Reference Committee's two reports on corporate tax avoidance in 2015 and 2016 also provide very useful ideas for the government to act upon. In summary, I support the government for taking a moderate but constructive step towards addressing multinational tax avoidance, and I urge the government to strengthen this bill by reducing the significant global entity threshold to $250 million, further tightening the sufficient foreign tax test and considering penalties for multinationals who do not disclose that they may have diverted their profit tax liability. I encourage the government to view this bill as an instalment towards ensuring that everyone in Australia who directly benefits from the Australian economy pays their fair share of tax so that those of us who do the right thing—small businesses in particular—do not have to bear an unfair burden compared to those who do not. That will fund our hospitals, that will fund our education system and that will provide funding for the most disadvantaged in our society. 17:22 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The government has two tax bills on the books at the moment. One aims to give a $50 billion tax cut to some of the biggest companies in Australia, and that includes giving a $7 billion-odd handout to the big four banks. That tax bill keeps getting lower and lower and lower on the agenda, on the Notice Paper—somehow we never seem to get around to debating it in this place. That is probably a good thing; perhaps the government is starting to get the message from the Australian public that people are sick of multinational companies making huge amounts of money in Australia—operating here, selling here, employing some people here—and then paying no tax. People are increasingly sick of Australian based very large companies operating here and making millions if not billions of dollars in profit and then, through clever accounting schemes and loopholes in the law, paying no tax. People are sick of finding out that, for example, when it comes to LNG exports people can extract resources from underground or under the ocean in Australia, sell them off and countries like Japan make more on tax from those LNG exports from Australia than Australia does itself. People are sick of watching mining booms come and go, leaving behind crashing house prices and high levels of unemployment in states like Western Australia. We look around and ask what has the public got to show for it—what lasting infrastructure is left? Have we really benefited or have we just missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to raise the money we need to build the infrastructure and services that Australians rightly expect? It is no surprise that the government is deciding to soft pedal on its tax cuts for big businesses and instead push higher up the agenda something that might have the effect of making some big multinational companies pay something close to their fair share. But, as is always the way, the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. The Australian public does not accept being asked to pay more to see the doctor or less money going to people who find themselves between jobs and looking for a new job, or paying more to get certain health tests, only to fund corporate tax cuts. The Australian people are rightly saying the parliament has to be the custodian of the public interest—not the corporate interest but the public interest. It should be our job as parliamentarians not to do whatever big companies want but instead to stand up to big companies and say, 'You have to pay your fair share of tax if you want to operate in Australia,' because that way we will have enough money available so that people can go and see the doctor and take their kids to go and see the doctor and not be asked to pay big co-payments along the way. So the campaigning from inside this parliament and outside the parliament might have started to have an effect. What the government has brought here is a good start. It is following some other countries who say to multinationals, 'Look, if you are going to operate here you have to pay effectively a minimum amount of tax here.' The Greens hope that that will have some effect, and that is why we are supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill. It is one of a suite of measures that are necessary. The Greens took to the election a very comprehensive 18-point plan for ending the epidemic of tax avoidance and making sure that the companies that operate in Australia—which is a good place to do business—pay their fair share of tax, and we are pleased that in the last couple of years the government has clearly looked through the Greens policy that we took to the election and decided that there are some good things in it. If you are going to have a law, that law is only as good as its enforcement. If we have a law that looks good on paper but the Australian Taxation Office does not have the resources to chase it up, then it is not going to deliver the kind of extra money that the government has proposed. The Greens were the only party that went to the election saying that over the coming few years we will restore all of the funding that has been cut from the ATO. To give you an idea of what has been ripped out of the ATO, if you were to restore all of the funding back to the ATO that has been taken out of it, on last year's figures you would be looking at $1.62 billion over four years—$1.62 billion that needs to go back into the ATO, because that is how much over successive years has been taken out of it. If you want to know why we have a problem with declining revenues in this country, a squeeze on revenues, that is a good place to look first. We have taken money out of the ATO, and that means fewer people able to chase not only companies like Google, like Facebook, but also those large companies that operate here as well, and make them pay their fair share of tax. We are pleased that the government has come some way towards restoring some funds to help implement legislation like this, but unless we fully restore funding to the ATO it is not going to be enough and we are going to find ourselves back here doing half measures all the time. Ultimately this comes down to whether as a parliament we say that we will be the guardians of the public interest. We will say Australia remains a good place to do business, and we want it to be a good place to do business, but tax is the price you pay for doing business in a prosperous country like Australia. Everyone wants the Australian economy to do well but people do not want large companies operating here and using their money and their wherewithal to hire clever accountants and lawyers and get themselves out of paying tax. I am glad that this bill has been elevated rather than the company tax cut bill for debate because it suggests, as the penny drops, that the government might have heard the message that there are better ways to balance the books than taking the axe to the young, the old, the sick and the poor. This might be a good start in having more money coming into the public coffers that should have been here in the first place. There is a question—and we will pursue this in the Senate—about whether the tax office is going to commence its investigations at a too late or too low of a point, where the presumption about the amount of tax being paid is the right one. We will pursue that when we get to the Senate. But for here, as a good start it is much better that we are debating this bill than the bill to cut company tax. It is much better that we are debating this bill than a bill to give $7 billion to the big banks. For that reason, the Greens will be supporting the passage of this bill through the House. 17:30 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Firstly, in summing up, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. I thank them for the support for these measures that has been expressed by members on both sides of the House and, as we have just heard from the member for Melbourne, by the Greens, as well. This bill continues the government's strong stance against multinational tax avoidance. It implements three new measures announced in the government's 2016 budget. Earlier today in question time I made reference to the results that the government is getting on making sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Some $2 billion has been clawed back on the advice of the Australian Taxation Office from multinationals this year as a result of the measures we have already introduced. These measures go beyond those. Most taxpayers comply with Australia's tax rules and pay the right amount of tax. The coalition has always believed that taxes should be lower but that everyone should pay them. We should ensure a system of great integrity to make that the result. However, there are some who do not share that view and do not pay their tax, and there are some who try to avoid paying Australian tax by diverting Australian profits to low-tax countries. The measures in these bills will help ensure that the Australian tax payable by significant global entities properly reflects the economic substance of the activities that those entities would carry on. This bill also encourages multinationals to provide relevant information and to cooperate with the ATO to ensure faster resolution of tax disputes. The diverted profits tax will strengthen Australia's anti-avoidance rules and complement our transfer pricing rules by targeting multinationals who enter into arrangements with offshore-related parties that lack economic substance to avoid Australian tax by diverting profits to lower tax countries. It is expected that the diverted profits tax will apply in very limited circumstances. Most companies do the right thing and meet their tax obligations. The diverted profits tax is focused on tax avoidance arrangements that are artificial or contrived. The diverted profits tax will allow the commissioner to impose the diverted profits tax on the basis of a reasonable assessment of the available information and impose an upfront tax liability payable on the amount of the diverted profits at a penalty rate of 40 per cent. Where a multinational changes a diverted profits tax assessment through an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, they will generally be unable to introduce information that was not previously made available to the ATO. We will also introduce tough penalties for multinationals who fail to comply with their tax reporting obligations from 1 July 2017. Large multinationals that breach their tax reporting obligations will now face penalties of $525,000 rather than $5,250. This increase is much more in line with the financial size and capacity of large multinationals and provides greater incentive to comply with their tax reporting obligations. Transfer pricing rules will also be updated to give effect to the 2015 OECD transfer pricing recommendations. These changes will ensure our transfer pricing rules remain in line with international best practice. Together with the DPT, they will ensure that profits made in Australia are taxed in Australia. These changes also send a clear message to multinationals and the international tax community that Australia is absolutely committed to conducting multinational tax avoidance. We continue to be a leader on the world stage in this regard. Just on the weekend when I was attending the G20 there was a substantial report provided by the OECD on the BEPS process which highlighted the fact that Australia was in the top of the pack when it came to implementing the base erosion and profit shifting agenda. We are a world leader when it comes to combating multinational tax avoidance. That is a far cry from the situation we inherited when we were elected to government in 2013. We have been an early adopter of the BEPS recommendations and are taking steps to ensure that our rules not only comply with our agreed minimum standards but are effective across all BEPS issues. The international corporation which is essential to make these BEPS processes work has been brought about by both working through the OECD and the G20. I had the opportunity to thank the many other countries who have been working together on these measures. It means that you get a greater pressure on compliance between jurisdictions for companies that operate on a multinational basis. We continue to implement the OECD BEPS package and are currently progressing work on new rules to enhance the ATO's ability to detect tax avoidance by requiring advisers to report aggressive tax schemes to the ATO. The government is taking a strong, world-leading but balanced approach to multinational tax avoidance, and we are getting results. The Turnbull government has said that enough is enough when it comes to multinationals diverting profits offshore and failing to meet their tax disclosure responsibilities. Once again, I commend the bill to the House. 17:36 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 56 17:37 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 8 (lines 5 to 12), omit subsection 177J(6), substitute: Modification where foreign entity is CFC (6) Subsection (6A) applies if:    (a) the foreign entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(d) is a CFC (within the meaning of Part X); and    (b) an amount of attributable income (within the meaning of that Part) of the foreign entity has been included as a result of the operation of that Part in the assessable income of:       (i) the relevant taxpayer; or       (ii) an associate (within the meaning given by section 318) of the relevant taxpayer, if the associate is a Part X Australian resident (within the meaning of that Part) and is not a trust or partnership. (6A) For the purposes of the DPT provisions, reduce the DPT tax benefit to the extent to which the amount included in assessable income as mentioned in paragraph (6)(b):    (a) would not have been so included if the scheme had not been entered into or carried out; and    (b) is directly referable to the DPT tax benefit. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 56 17:37 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017 56

Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017

Second Reading 56 Third Reading 57 17:39 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016 57

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016

Second Reading 57 17:40 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I am speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. This bill seeks to amend means testing for Youth Allowance and Austudy recipients to make it consistent with other payments as well is to create an automatic entitlement an issue of a health care card to all recipients of Youth Allowance and Austudy. Youth Allowance is payable to students studying at university or TAFE, including Australian apprentices. Some of the changes in the bill will align Youth Allowance and Austudy with existing rules for Abstudy and other changes in this bill will also apply to Abstudy. This bill will also amend the Social Security Act to allow for the most recent Australian Statistical Geographical Standard Remoteness Structure to be applied when assessing whether an applicant for Youth Allowance lives remotely. Schedule 1 amends means testing for student payments in a number of ways. Independent Youth Allowance and Austudy recipients are currently exempt from assets testing if they are a member of a couple and their partner receives an income support payment. This bill would remove the asset test exemption from this group of recipients. Current payment recipients will remain eligible for payment unless they and their partner have assessable assets over $375,000. Under existing legislation only Independent Youth Allowance and Austudy recipients' interests in private trusts are considered for means test purposes. This bill will make the means testing of interest held in private companies and trusts by Independent Youth Allowance and Austudy recipients consistent with other income support payments. Currently any periodic gifts or allowances received by recipients of Youth Allowance or Austudy from family members are included in the means test. This bill will exempt these gifts from means testing. Eligibility for dependent Youth Allowance recipients is subject to a parental income test. Currently the parental income test does not include any tax-free pensions or benefits. This bill will change the parental income test to include tax-free pensions or benefits. It will make the test the same as the calculation of income for the purposes of family tax benefit. By making the two tests the same, the reporting on families and the department will be lessened. The bill will create an automatic entitlement to a health-care card for recipients of student payments. Student payment recipients are the only income support recipients who are not currently automatically entitled to receive a health-care card. When the bill becomes law, the health-care card will entitle students to access the extended Medicare safety net threshold and discounted prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Student payment recipients who live in remote areas of Australia can be eligible for additional benefits such as a relocation scholarship. The Social Security Act currently refers to the 2006 remoteness structure which is now 11 years out of date. This bill will amend the Social Security Act to instead consider the most recent remoteness structure. It will amend the Social Security Act so that it automatically considers the most recent remoteness structure instead of requiring a legislative amendment to this effect every five years. Since the bill was introduced into the parliament in October last year, an amendment has been added—specifically schedule 4. This amendment will make it easier for young people from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. Currently, students from regional or remote areas who need to move from their parental home to study can qualify as independent if, since leaving secondary school, they have over an 18-month period, earned 75 per cent or more of wage level A of the national training wage schedule included in a modern award—in the 2016-17 financial year, this was equal to $24,042—or, for at least two years, worked at least 15 hours each week. This amendment will allow applicants from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent after only 14 months of paid employment, as per the other conditions that I have just mentioned. Claimants can check whether their address is classified as regional or remote for youth allowance purposes on the Centrelink website. It is expected that around 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify as independent as a consequence of this change, and that will be a helpful thing for them. It is argued that this measure will allow students to take a gap year following the completion of school and still qualify for youth allowance as an independent in time to commence study the following year. We certainly do welcome these sensible changes to youth payments. As someone who grew up in regional Victoria and had to move to Melbourne to pursue my ongoing education, I do know of the challenges experienced by many young people who are moving from the country to the city to study. It can be very difficult and expensive for those young people. There is a significant regional divide in the proportion of school leavers who go on to higher education. While 37 per cent of school leavers in major cities go on to further study, this drops to 20 per cent in inner regional areas, 16 per cent in outer regional areas, 13 per cent in remote areas and just four per cent in very remote areas. I hope the changes in this bill will help those regional students. As I said, Labor will be pleased to support these measures in the bill. However, we do remain deeply concerned about a whole range of cuts that this Liberal-National Party government is trying to inflict on young Australians. Labor, of course, strongly oppose the attempts by the Turnbull government to deregulate Australia's university system. In the 2014 budget, the Abbott-Turnbull government launched an all-out assault on Australian universities and Australian students by trying to bring in $100,000 degrees. Let's be very clear: this government wants to make it harder and certainly more expensive for young Australians to go to university. Labor believes that your parents' credit card should not determine whether or not you go to university. Those opposite might try to pretend that, as a result of this bill, they are the friends of students. But I think if you look at a wide range of different things that this government is trying to do to students you can see why Labor is very concerned. The government does appear to be making it easier for regional and remote students on the one hand, but they are going to make it much harder for those young people if we see penalty rates slashed, as this government supports. In order to be deemed independent in the 14 months that students will have to earn money, young people will have to earn $24,000. Of course, that will be so much harder if and when their Sunday rates have been cut. The cut to penalty rates will mean that young people will take longer to earn the required amount and, of course, some of them just will not be able to meet that $24,000 target in the 14 months that they have available to them. For example, a part-time retail worker on the minimum rate of $19.44 an hour who works every Sunday would have to work an additional four hours a week, 17 hours a month or 240 hours over the 14 months in order to earn the money that they will lose from the cut to their penalty rates. This is the very real implication of what the penalty rates cut will mean for these young people and, of course, it relates to the bill that is in front of us. On top of that, the Turnbull government is attacking young Australians by trying to introduce a five-week wait period for Newstart. This is a cut that is due to be debated in the Senate this week. In the 2014 budget, this government wanted to make young people wait six months before accessing any income support. Six months is really what those opposite wanted, and many people here in this House voted to say to young people, 'You will have to wait six months before you get any form of support if you cannot find a job.' They could not get that through the parliament, so now they are trying to get this new one-month wait. There is no evidence whatsoever that this would be something that would actually work, let alone any evidence to suggest that young people would be able to survive with no form of income support over a four-week or five-week period. It is actually a five-week period because there is currently a week that people have to wait to get access to Newstart. The government wants to add another four weeks to that. So young jobseekers, if this government got its way, would have to wait five weeks with absolutely nothing to live on—to buy food, pay the rent or even get the bus to look for a job. They would have absolutely nothing to live on for five weeks. I certainly hope that when this is debated in the Senate, maybe as early as tomorrow, we will see this very, very cruel measure, pursued by this government over the last 3½ years, defeated again and that finally this government will take it out of the parliament. No amount of window dressing can hide the fact that this Liberal-National government has consistently targeted young people to find budget savings. It is not just the effort to say to young people, 'You will have nothing to live on for five weeks'; they also want to say to young people aged between 22 and 24 that they are going to be pushed off Newstart onto the lower youth allowance. This is a cut of $48 a week—almost $2,500 a year. We have not heard the minister talk about these cuts to payments to young people, which would leave many young Australians in dire poverty. I hope that this measure will be defeated in the Senate tomorrow and that this government will take this cruel measure out of the parliament. All of these measures—the deregulation of university fees; saying to young people that they will have nothing to live on for five weeks; saying to young people that they will get moved off Newstart onto the lower youth allowance—should be removed from the parliament. I would also say to those opposite that one of the main reasons that we have so many students in rural and remote Australia not going on to further education is, of course, because they do not get the support that they need at school. If students in rural and remote Australia do not get a good education at school, of course they are not going to get the chance to go on to further study. That is one of the big reasons why we argue so forcefully for the Gonski education reforms, to make sure that all Australian children, including those in rural and remote areas, get the best in life. We will support this bill today, but we certainly have not lost sight of the attacks by this government on Australia's young people: cuts to Newstart, cuts to universities, cuts to schools—a terrible record on the way in which this government is trying to attack young people. Labor certainly will not be letting any of you forget it. 17:55 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I note very much the points that have been made by the shadow minister for human services in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. I also note that the minister responsible for this bill has chosen not to come into the House and speak on the bill. Nor are there any speakers on the government side for their own bill. I find this absolutely remarkable. In fact, I find it almost impossible to understand. Why would the minister responsible for this bill not come into the House, particularly understanding that there is bipartisan support for this bill? It is absolutely remarkable. I am not sure whether it means that the government is so busy that they cannot speak on their own bill, or whether the minister does not think it is important enough, or whether in fact they are just too lazy to come and do it. You would have thought that there would be National Party people, since this is going to be completely advantageous for those regions that in many cases are represented by the Nationals, who would come and speak on a bill that is going to be very helpful for young people in their areas. Given that, certainly this side of the House has speakers prepared to put forward our views on this bill. As the shadow minister has said, Labor is going to support these amendments, which aim to make it simpler and easier for students in regional and rural areas to qualify as independent to access the youth allowance. This is a very good thing, but I will come to some of the issues that the shadow minister raised towards the end of my speech on these particular amendments. The bill will adjust the criteria for qualifying as independent. It will allow those from regional areas to qualify as independent after 14 months of paid employment. Previously, as the shadow minister pointed out, it was 18 months, so that is a great step forward for young people living in rural and remote communities. Currently students from regional and remote areas who need to move from their parental home to study can qualify as independent if—these were the criteria—since leaving secondary school they have over an 18-month period earned 75 per cent or more of wage level A of the National Training Wage Schedule included in a modern award—in the 2016-17 financial year this was equal to $24,000 or thereabouts—or worked at least 15 hours each week for at least two years. Of course those things are often very difficult in rural and remote communities. Also, their parents must have earned less than $150,000 in the previous tax year. As a result, 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify as independent. This will make a real difference for young people living outside our cities, who often have to relocate to attend university or to find employment. I am sure that is the experience of many members of this House and their families in a personal way; but also, more importantly, it is the experience of the constituents they represent. For those who now live in cities, to attend a university that is not too far from home is not challenging; but of course for young people living in regional and remote communities it is impossible if they do not leave home to do so. This applies to much of our country. These amendments will make a real difference for young people living outside our cities, as I have said, who need to relocate to attend university or to find employment and other training. Like the previous speaker, the shadow minister, as a young girl I also grew up in regional Australia, and I understand acutely how difficult it can feel to leave in order to get an education or to find work. So on that basis, and on the basis that this is a good amendment to the legislation, we will be supporting this change, and I also will certainly be supporting it. But it must be noted that this is ultimately a token effort from the Prime Minister and the government, who want to force young people to live on nothing for five weeks if they are under the age of 25 and need assistance. It is absolute hypocrisy that on one hand the government is taking away from young people and on the other hand is offering these amendments in relation to student assistance. This is the same government which also wants to see the incomes of jobseekers between the ages of 22 and 24 reduced by $2,500 a year by shifting them off Newstart and onto Youth Allowance. I think those two measures are absolutely reprehensible. I see a theme that has well and truly established itself with this government, and that theme is that we are going to fill our budget black hole by ripping the money out of the most vulnerable and the most needy in our community. I do not understand how that can be government thinking. It can only be, to me, a cynical move to attack the most vulnerable, hoping that in attacking the most vulnerable there will not be repercussions for the government. But I say this to the government: one thing that Australians truly understand is fairness. They understand, and make judgements of, governments that are not fair. They understand very much that the measures are in the main about reducing the income of students, and that expecting young people to live on nothing for over a month is fundamentally unfair and, as I said, hypocritical. This is the same government that does not understand that young people need to be supported while they finish their studies. That is a basic matter of fairness, but it is also a basic application of good economic management. If you want an economy, if you want a community, if you want a country that is innovative and that is able to challenge the economic and employment issues that are coming down the track towards Australia then you want a workforce that are well qualified, you want a workforce that are numerous and you want a workforce that are able to complete their studies. It seems to me that there are warped priorities from this government. Understand that taking money out of students' pockets, ripping off young people and expecting them to get by with less is not good economic management—and I make that point very strongly. This bill does nothing to fix the other problems experienced by young people at Centrelink—hours on the phone or in service centres and months of waiting for processing. I know that last year many students who had applied for Youth Allowance and student allowance had waited up to six months for their applications to be processed. That is not the fault of Centrelink staff; it is the fault of a government that is starving Centrelink of the resources that are needed. The problems with Centrelink are not just about eligibility; they are about ease of access. I speak to Centrelink staff on a regular basis, and they will tell you that they want to help the people who contact them. They want to do their jobs. But in many instances it is almost impossible. They are totally overstretched and unsupported by the government, and I hope that overstretched and unsupported staff are not going to find it more difficult with the measures that we are talking about today. There have been over 5,000 job cuts in the past five years, 35 million unanswered calls, robo-debt, a pay freeze, and month-long waits for age pension applications—not to mention a minister who is intent on attacking staff and misrepresenting Centrelink clients at every turn and cannot even be bothered turning up for a speech on his own piece of legislation. In fact, as I said, no-one from the government— Mr Butler HWK That's extraordinary. Ms BURNEY 8GH It is extraordinary, as the member for Port Adelaide has just said, that the minister and no member of the government can find time to come and speak on their own legislation. The real problems at Centrelink will not be solved by these amendments; they will be solved only when the government finally start valuing its biggest department. The Turnbull government have bought into their own rhetoric. They do not believe in our welfare safety net. While I welcome these amendments, they do not change the overall narrative of this government, who still think we are all either lifters or leaners. To those opposite, the welfare safety net is nothing but an unnecessary nuisance. I want to speak about that. The welfare safety net in Australia is something we should be proud of. Many countries, including many First World nations like America, do not have a welfare safety net. It is something that is a right; it is not something that is a gift to the Australian people or Australian individuals—certainly not Australian young people. The welfare safety net is a right and it is a well-earned right for the people of Australia. The government have spent so long demonising those who cannot find a job, those who need support while caring for a loved one or those receiving a disability support allowance that they are starting to believe it is okay to treat people poorly. As I said, Labor will support these amendments to this piece of legislation, because it does mean that young people in rural, regional and remote areas will qualify more easily as independent in relation to accessing student payments, but by the same token I reiterate: where are the government on their own piece of legislation? Is that not a demonstration of the sentiments that have been expressed by myself and by the shadow minister—that the government have very little care for young people, very little care for those that require assistance and a hand up at certain points in their lives? Those issues are not missed or forgotten by those on this side of the House, and they will not be missed or forgotten by those people who are most drastically affected by some of the government's other measures, including those outlined by the shadow minister for human services in the omnibus bill, which is about to be considered by the other place. So, with those words, I conclude my comments in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill. Once again, I say it is a great shame—and I draw the attention of the House to the fact—that the minister chose not to speak on his own legislation, and the government chose not to put any speakers up in relation to this piece of legislation on something that has bipartisan support. 18:08 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Good evening, Deputy Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to address the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. There are three main points I would like to make in my speech tonight: first, to give my support for the bill and the process involving it; second, to talk a little bit about Indi—my electorate—and some of the wonderful things that are happening there with young people; and third, to put the call out for a much stronger approach and recognition from this House to support young people, and particularly young people in rural and regional Australia. Clearly, I have some ideas that I would like to share with the House about how we might do that. I am proud to support this legislation. Regional students must have support to go to university and access higher education, and this bill goes some way towards addressing this. As we have heard, the legislation will align means-testing rules for student payments with other welfare payments; the automatic issue of healthcare cards to recipients of student payments, removing the requirement for separate application; and the automatic update of the geographical classification, which is used to assess eligibility for independent rates of youth allowance. I welcome these amendments and I am really pleased that we have got this far. One of the reasons we have got this far—and I would like to take a minute to acknowledge it—is the work of Senator Bridget McKenzie from the other place. Senator Bridget McKenzie has taken a lead role in understanding the problems we have with rural and regional Australia and going out to the community, doing the listening and then coming back with this legislation. In 2015 Senator McKenzie hosted a series of regional higher education forums across country. The forums were an opportunity to discuss the barriers to accessing higher education for regional and remote students and how to overcome them. She has clearly listened, and the results are in this legislation tonight. These changes are a win for young people and their families across regional Australia, but they are particularly of benefit to the people in my electorate. I would like to take a moment to share with the House some of the amazing things that are happening with and through the young people in my electorate and to talk about why it is really important—and that we need legislation—to look at the problems young people are experiencing in their ability to participate in our society. For us to play a role in getting rid of those problems and barriers, we need to go the next step. But first I would like to talk about some of the wonderful things that are happening in my electorate. Next week, as members of parliament will probably know, is National Youth Week. Local governments across north-east Victoria are delivering the 2017 Youth Politics Camp. This camp gives young people an opportunity to learn more about our political system—to come to understand why politics is important and how it works, how young people can participate and have their say, and how they can build their networks and discuss issues with other people who care about politics. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of local governments in my electorate: Amanda Aldous from Benalla Rural City Council; Tom Arnold from Wangaratta City Council; Jenny Corser from Alpine Shire Council; Sal Kimber from Indigo Shire Council; Inga Hamilton from Strathbogie Shire Council; Jodie Bell from Mansfield Shire; and Rachael Habgood and Anthony Nicholson from the City of Wodonga. They have come together as local councils to run the Youth Politics Camp, which is in the first week of April. It is going to be a most amazing experience, and I am really looking forward to being there. These people, as youth coordinators, have engaged, mentored, supported—and they really respect—the young people of my electorate. So, for that, I want to say, 'Thank you, team'. Other activities that are having an amazing impact are the leadership development programs that are happening in Indi. One particular one, in its ninth year, is the Wodonga Youth Leadership Program. It provides opportunities for young people with a desire to strengthen their 'inner leader'. The program allows young people to develop their skills in decision making, project management, conflict resolution and communication. These people, together with the RED Carpet Youth Awards and the Eagle Award in Wodonga, get recognition for the projects they undertake in our community to make it a stronger place. So the Wodonga Youth Leadership Program has been a great success and has been identified by other local governments across the state as something they want to use in their own areas. I would like to talk about one particular graduate. In 2016 Liam Shay, who is currently working at Wodonga TAFE, never thought he would take on the responsibilities of a social worker, until he participated in the program. Liam describes the program as one that was challenging and that exposed him to people and opportunities he never would have experienced otherwise. Clearly, Liam and his friends are going to go from strength to strength in leadership. I know that rural and regional communities like mine will thrive when organisations, groups, communities and people gain the skills and confidence to seek their own solutions, to make plans and take effective action to get results. We will be even better when we, as adults, include processes in our organisations where we open our arms to young people and say to them: 'We want you to come on board. We want you to be involved. We want to hear what you have to say. But, most of all, we want to walk side by side with you in our communities.' One of the things that I do as a member of parliament to support young people in my electorate is give community members from across my electorate the opportunity to volunteer in my Canberra office every sitting week here in Canberra. These volunteers have become a really important part of the infrastructure in enabling me to represent my community. They understand local issues, they help me stay connected with the community and they bring joy and fun into our office. While this is not specifically a young person's program or a student program, this year I have had the pleasure of welcoming four young people as volunteers—Billy Munro, Tahlia Biggs, Claudia Weatherall and Cory McKinnon. They have been joined by Sean O'Neill, who is one of my permanent staff. Sean comes from Wangaratta. He is studying in Canberra and works in my office two days a week. They have also been joined by Jamon Shay—coincidentally, the brother of aforementioned Liam Shay. Jamon is in my office as part of the Australian National University Parliamentary Internship Program. As part of his internship, he will be looking at the engagement of young people in political processes, which is a fantastic thing for me, for Indi and, of course, for his degree. I would like to acknowledge two young people in the gallery tonight. Claudia and Jamon, thanks for turning up. I would like to talk a little more about these volunteers. When they come and work in Canberra you get to know them better. Tahlia, from Wodonga, who is now living in Melbourne, is a mentor and facilitator for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from all around Victoria and in some cases nationally. She helps young people engage in areas of education, voting, health and well-being. I am delighted to see Linda Burney in the chamber. Linda took the opportunity speak with them and inspire them and give them the courage. When young people come to Canberra and they get the opportunity to meet members of parliament, they can get to know us as individuals, and they can see, 'Well, I could be like that when I grow up.' And I know, Linda, that that is exactly what you provided to Tahlia. Billy is a young musician from Wodonga. He works as a structured workplace learning team member at North East Local Learning and Employment Network. He leads our young people in music industry projects. Cory, from Yackandandah, is now studying a double degree at Deakin University. He is studying a bachelor of law and a bachelor of international studies. In 2014 Cory was part of the Wodonga Council Youth Leadership Program. He volunteered in my office and he just loved being part of the hurly-burly and the bustle. I know that he spread the warmth and the love of parliament—which I think people so rarely see—back to his educational environment and back to his community of Yackandandah. Claudia, who is with us tonight, is from Wodonga and is now living in Melbourne. She graduated with a bachelor of arts from the University of Melbourne. Following her completion of the Victorian parliament intern program, she came to my office. This week while she has been up here, she has been the person to guide and help the people from my community who are visiting, as happens in the offices of many members of parliament. This week we have had the Alpine Valley's leadership program doing leadership development work, and Claudia has been able to sit in on their program for the two days. She has also provided great insight and help in our office. So thank you, Claudia. I really appreciate having you here. One of the things that makes what happens in Indi so important, and what Bridget McKenzie and the minister have been able to do with this legislation, is to say, 'We've got to go and listen to young people and we've got to get rid of the barriers that stop them participating.' There are so many barriers and challenges that young people who live in rural and regional areas face. So, while it is of course really good that we have begun working with these problems around youth allowance and we have sorted out some of the obvious inconsistencies, there is so much more to do. One of the most critical periods for students is the transition period from December to March when they leave school and work out what they are going to do next. There many factors that affect students during that period. Many country kids take the opportunity to have a gap year, and they want to go and earn money rather than going straight on to university—which is often a good thing; I am not against it. But we have found that the statistics show that the number of students going on to study after the gap year is really low. It is a matter of getting the money, getting yourself to university, leaving home and doing all the really hard yards that go with it. The statistics show that the number of young people from rural and regional areas studying in university is shamefully low. As Senator McKenzie has said, 'A postcode should not determine whether a young person can secure a university degree'—but, sadly, for us it does. We have to do a whole lot more work on getting our young people into study. I am told that, while only 10 per cent of Australians live in rural and remote areas, the evidence suggests that there are a lot fewer of us that actually take on study. Regional students make up only 18.8 per cent of domestic undergraduate students at university compared with 26.4 per cent of the population. That is really shameful and we have to do a lot more work to correct that. But I will not talk more about the problems, because that is not what tonight is about. What I would really like to do is talk about what we as a parliament can do, and I want to focus on some of the work that I would like to put out there. One of the most important things that I think that we could do as a parliament is have a minister for youth affairs. I am not talking about a minister like we have a minister for age affairs or for health, but a really special colleague—one of us who is a networker, a facilitator and a community development person, who can work within the government and with the opposition in a bipartisan way to make sure that all of our policies actually take account of young people. The youth affairs minister's job would be to ensure that every single piece of legislation that comes before the parliament has considered the impact on young people and, where appropriate, the youth affairs minister would then be able to go and work with, for example, local government in my electorate, with the leadership programs in my electorate, and say, 'Okay, we're doing this fantastic work now on legislation that we passed yesterday around rural health and we are looking at pathways to get more doctors into rural health.' So the youth minister's job would be to work with young people and help them understand where the jobs are and where the barriers are and then they would come back to parliament and work with the government and say, 'Here's the plan of how we need to do it. Let's work together in a bipartisan way to really support the legislation that we passed yesterday about getting more doctors to the country. So how can we work with young people to make sure that they can get the training that they need in the communities that they live in, if that is appropriate, and not have to go to Melbourne or Sydney?'—which is often one of the disincentives. Next week, on Monday, my colleague from Mayo and I are going to be moving a private member's motion in which we will be calling for the introduction of discussion around a young person's minister. And I really ask my colleagues in the parliament tonight to think about how we would do this, because young people are so special, and the way they work is so different—the digital natives in particular—to how we work. Our solutions are not going to be their solutions, so we need a really clever—and I am sure we can do it—way of working with young people, not only the scheme I am doing, with volunteering, and not only the internship program that is being offered now with Canberra University, but around how we can get the ordinary community leaders, the kids in our schools and the kids who run our community groups so well, interested in parliament and how it works and get their voices heard in this place. So, the member for Mayo and I are hoping we can start a discussion with our colleagues on both sides of parliament, and then perhaps after the budget comes down we can spend some more time in the winter and spring sessions bringing up for next year a private member's bill that hopefully gets the support of both sides of parliament and that gives us a young people's minister who will really help us do the work and give us that step up. With young people's involvement, this country really could reach its potential. The Prime Minister is always asking us to be innovative. The way to do it is to get our young people into parliament. 18:23 Mr HART 263070 Bass It is always a pleasure to hear the well-informed views of the member for Indi. Thank you for your contribution on this legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. This bill makes amendments to the Social Security Act 1991. Firstly, means testing arrangements for social security benefits paid to students, such as youth allowance and Austudy, are brought into line with other income support payments. Of particular note is the exemption of periodic gifts or allowances from family members from means testing. This means, importantly, that parents and other family members can now provide financial support to young students without the fear of causing them any problems with Centrelink. This is a good move and is important as a large percentage of students rely on ongoing parental support in order to be able to continue studying, even when they are engaged in some form of paid employment or are receiving income support. Secondly, this bill ensures that all students who are in receipt of income support receive a Health Care Card from 1 January 2019. Students receiving youth allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY living allowance will no longer have to qualify for this card as a separate benefit but, rather, will be issued one automatically as other income support recipients are. This measure will see around 240,000 students accessing a range of concessions, including PBS prescriptions at a reduced rate as well as the Extended Medicare Safety Net. Making Health Care Cards available to all independent recipients of student payments acknowledges that young people have limited earning potential whilst undertaking their studies. Labor supports any measure that eases the financial burden on students. Thirdly, this bill also enables the Australian Statistical Geography Standard's remoteness structure that is used to assess eligibility for student payments to be automatically updated. Youth allowance recipients whose family home is outside of a major city can qualify for additional assistance, such as a relocation scholarship. Whether a location is considered to be outside of a major city is defined by the remoteness structure as published by the Australian Statistician after each Census. Currently the act must be amended each time the remoteness structure is updated. As a result, the act currently relies upon the remoteness structure from 2006. This bill would amend the act to automatically refer to the most up-to-date remoteness structure and to make sure that the instrument is consistent with ABS standards. Overall, these amendments will have a beneficial impact for students through ensuring consistency across income support, and I am happy to support these particular measures. Labor understands that whilst a small number of recipients may be worse off, it appears that the impact will be minimal and that there is a sound rationale to ensure consistency with means testing arrangements for other payments. Put another way, whilst there are some individual iniquities between some students who are dependent for the purposes of their eligibility and other students who are independent, the overall impact of the measures within this proposed legislation is beneficial. But let's not fool ourselves here. If Mr Turnbull, the Prime Minister, really wanted to support young people he would not have reintroduced into this parliament measures that will push young people into poverty. The Australian Council of Social Service reports that between 2012 and 2014 poverty rates increased for those receiving youth allowance to over 50 per cent. Research by the Educational Policy Institute found that living costs for university students in Australia are the third highest in the world. It is estimated that two-thirds of Australian university students are living below the poverty line and, as a consequence, are suffering financial stress. This figure is even higher for Indigenous students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds—and I might say that that is, in particular, people from my electorate of Bass. The current rate of youth allowance is almost $160 per week below the median income poverty line. Young people need stable and decent living conditions in order to successfully complete their education, which is difficult to achieve without sufficient income. The recent universities conference held here in Canberra highlighted these issues, with representatives noting that the student experience is rapidly changing as a result of needing to balance part-time work with full-time study. Students are facing unprecedented stress from cost-of-living pressures and the associated issues arising from tight financial circumstances. I would also echo the sentiments of opposition leader Mr Bill Shorten, who recently made the point that this is a government that is at war with young people. Thousands of Australian students employed in the retail and hospitality sectors have just had their penalty rates slashed. These are the people affected by this decision and are typically those who are in low-income households or in insecure work. Students from my electorate of Bass have called this decision 'a real kick in the guts', because they rely on their weekend penalty rates to make ends meet. The nature of university life means that students tend to do more work outside of normal business hours and on weekends so as not to interfere with their studies. Cuts to penalty rates leave students with the unenviable decision of either having to increase their employment hours to maintain their income—thereby potentially compromising their studies—or copping a pay cut that leaves them unable to afford even the basics. Last week, the member for Gorton visited Bass in his capacity as the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations. I was able to introduce him to Ruby, who is a part-time university student who works in the retail industry and relies on her Sunday penalty rates. Ruby explained to the shadow minister that these cuts to her penalty rates are, in a word, devastating. Ruby said: I live pay cheque to pay cheque at the moment. I rarely save money. Losing that bit extra makes it a bit harder. People like me in my situation, we spend money on little luxuries that go back into the community and it means I'll have less money to do that, pay the rent and other essentials. This Liberal government is no friend to Australia's students and young people like Ruby, despite what they seek to introduce by virtue of this legislation. The Prime Minister is pushing ahead with legislation that will leave jobseekers under the age of 25 with nothing to live on for one month. This is a holdover from one of the more toxic zombie measures from the 2014 federal budget—which, I must say, was a low point in fairness, even for this Liberal government. Changes to the eligibility age for Newstart will also push jobseekers that are between the ages of 22 and 24 onto the lower youth allowance, at a loss of $48 a week. This leaves thousands of students worse off—especially when they graduate and are looking to enter the workforce. Let us not forget that this is the government that also wanted to give our current cohort of students the deregulation of university fees, with the risk—a real risk—that many students would leave university with crippling debt. Many students in this situation might be forced to make a choice between entering the housing market and completing their education to attract high wages. On the issue of the housing market, of course, this government of the rich and privileged, for the rich and privileged fails to take reasonable steps to address housing affordability. An ongoing reluctance to review negative gearing deductions means that first-home buyers are increasingly priced out of the market by investors buying their fourth or fifth property. Even in my home state of Tasmania, the median house price increased by 6.5 per cent in the last quarter, with first-home buyers and young families increasingly competing against well-resourced investors. Young people need support to finish their studies, to find a job or to purchase their first home, not savage attacks that make it harder for them to find a job, to buy a property or to support themselves. The government has recently moved a fourth amendment to this bill that gives effect to the 2016-17 MYEFO measure, 'regional and remote student access to education—additional support'. This schedule is intended to make it easier for young people from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. Currently, students from regional or remote areas who need to move from their parental home to study can qualify as independent if, since leaving secondary school, they either have earned, over an 18-month period, 75 per cent or more of wage level A of the National Training Wage Schedule included in a modern award—in the 2016-17 financial year, this was equal to $24,042—or have worked at least 15 hours each week for at least two years. Also, their parents must not have earnt more than $150,000 in the previous tax year. This amendment would allow applicants from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent after only 14 months of paid employment, in accordance with the conditions I have just outlined. As a result of these changes it is expected that 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify as independent. Labor will support this amendment, which makes it easier for young people to access income support for tertiary education. However, the more cynical amongst us might call this a token effort from the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, to shore up his shaky leadership and to appease his colleagues from the National Party. Why else would this government provide assistance to a small group of regional students whilst they still have their cuts to young people before the parliament? If the Prime Minister and his government were truly concerned about opportunities for young people, they would not be trying to make them live on nothing for five weeks or pushing jobseekers under the age of 24 onto youth allowance—a cut of almost $2,500 a year. The icing on the cake, of course, is the cuts to penalty rates, which will have an immediate effect if they are introduced. This government has a choice as to whether it joins Labor in introducing legislation to oppose that. Thank you for receiving my submission on this bill. 18:34 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. I would like to commend my colleague the member for Bass for his forensic and excellent contribution to this debate. I speak in support of the bill and in support of the most recent amendment, 'regional and remote student access to education—additional support'. These changes will improve the administration of payments to students and ensure consistency with other payments. Ensuring consistency across income support is a sound rationale and one that Labor supports. It is also an important feature of this bill that all recipients of youth allowance and Austudy will automatically receive a healthcare card. This acknowledges that young people have limited earning potential while undertaking their studies. I am also pleased to note that the amendment, 'regional and remote student access to education—additional support', recognises the disadvantage faced by young people in regional and remote areas. This amendment will make it easier for young people from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. This change is expected to benefit about 3,700 regional and remote students, and that is good news. This will particularly help students who want to take a gap year straight after school. They can work for that year and still qualify for youth allowance as an independent in time to commence study the following year. It is also important that this bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to provide that the most up-to-date 'remoteness structure' will be automatically used when a youth allowance recipient or applicant's family home is in a remote area. That is of particular importance to country kids who move away and need that extra bit of support—kids in the area that I represent, Paterson. So I do support this bill, but I wonder if it is any more than a token effort by the government to feign support for students and young people when, really, it could not care two hoots about them. Some of the large structural changes it is putting into place erode some of the most important supports we can provide for our young people. If this government really did care about young people and about students, it would not have before the parliament other measures that will cause them hardship and force them into poverty. It would not be pushing jobseekers under the age of 24 onto youth allowance—a cut of at least $48 a week, almost $2,500 a year. If the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, really wanted to support young people, he would not have reintroduced into the new parliament measures that will push them into poverty. The Prime Minister is continuing Mr Abbott's attack on young people, in my opinion. He is knowingly pushing them into poverty. Young people need support to finish their studies or to find a job, not savage attacks that make it harder for them to find work. If this government truly supported young people and students, it would not be talking about introducing $100,000 degrees. Who in this chamber would have paid $100,000 for their degree? We were part of the lucky generations. For some in this place, higher education was free—thank you, Labor! For others it was a manageable debt we repaid through HECS. I was one of those people who started uni in 1989, when HECS was introduced, and we had the earning capacity that allowed us to pay it once we graduated. How on earth will these young people ever get on top of a $100,000 bill for their degree? Labor believes access to higher education should be based on merit, not on wealth. Deregulation of university fees and $100,000 degrees shut the door on our students and Australia's future economic prosperity. Also, $100,000 degrees put up a barrier to young people entering the housing market. As if it is not hard enough, with first home buyers pitched in bitter battle against seasoned, cashed-up investors, this government wants to saddle young people with an education debt that could be the deposit for their first home. One hundred thousand dollars is nothing to be sneezed at, and it could be the changing, pivotal point in someone's life. There are two things this government could do to address this diabolical situation. It could axe forevermore any talk of $100,000 degrees and it could listen to Labor when it comes to reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax. That would go some significant way towards ensuring young people can get the education they need and afford their first home. These issues are not new, and they are on the table. All we need is this government to listen. We are relatively lucky in the electorate of Paterson that our house prices have not gone crazy like those of the capital cities. But I want to turn to today's ABS property price data. It is the latest sign that the Australian housing market is moving beyond the reach of young first home buyers. Today's release shows that the average home price is $656,800, after rising at its fastest pace in at least the last five years. The December quarterly increase of four per cent is the largest increase since the data series began in 2011 and is a gross increase in average prices of $25,400. The Reserve Bank of Australia has today reiterated concerns around recent increases in investor lending and growth in household debt outstripping growth in household income. So, there you have it, straight from the ABS today. We know that houses are becoming exponentially more expensive, and we are pricing out young people. Our young people also earn lower wages, and that is part of the conundrum. Their struggle is the same. In Paterson, house prices have not risen as quickly and as steeply, but people in my electorate earn less money—that is why this struggle is the same. They are competing with investors, some who are onto their sixth and seventh investment property. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has also found that finance to housing investors has rocketed by more than 27 per cent over the last 12 months. So the last quarter had the highest rise, but looking at the last 12 months the annual increase has been the largest since 2014. In New South Wales investors make up more than half of new mortgages. At the same time, the proportion of first home buyers in the market fell and remains at near-record lows. Don't these stats speak volumes about what is really going on? We have to do more to help young people buy their first homes. Another thing that this government could do if it truly cared about young people is stop the cuts to penalty rates. I know one family who live in my electorate whose daughter studies at uni in Sydney and works part-time in retail. She works Sundays and public holidays specifically so that she can make the most money she can in the shortest possible time, because she is studying a double degree. When these cuts to penalty rates come in, her weekly pay will drop by $50. That $50 buys her food for the entire week. So what will she do about food when the cuts to penalty rates come in? Work more? Maybe, if the hours are there and if her study commitments allow it. Eat less? I know the two-minute noodle staple of the student diet is the thing that a lot of kids rely on, but she cannot reduce her food bill to much under $50. If this government cared about students, it would also end the Medicare freeze so that more students could access doctors that bulk-bill. It would properly fund our hospitals so that the health of our young people is looked after. It would fully roll out Gonski so that our schools are properly funded and our students are given the very best start to their education that we can provide and so they learn in the best possible environment. In fact, they learn to learn, to go on learning for the rest of their lives, as our ever-increasing economy will require. The government would sort out the second-rate NBN as well—that is a diabolical situation. In my electorate—in fact, in my own family—we do not have the internet. The federal member for Hunter does not have the NBN. We are too far from the exchange to get ADSL. So, yes, I buy dongles, and I have children in high school. My girl in year 12 this year regularly rings me and says: 'Mum, we're out of internet. We need to get some more.' It is happening right across all of our electorates. It is disgraceful to think that, in this connected age, so many people are not connected. Further, if this government cared about Indigenous young people, it would be more than a little concerned that so many of our young Indigenous men end up in jail rather than in higher education. This government has cut billions from schools and from universities. It has cut billions from vocational education and from TAFE, and our apprenticeship numbers have plummeted by 40 per cent. It has cut training and employment programs and group training organisations that were getting young unemployed people into jobs, particularly in country areas. Yesterday I read a story in my local newspaper, The Maitland Mercury, about the apprenticeship shortage in the Hunter Valley. The Hunter Valley Training Company's CEO, Sharon Smith, said the company had experienced a 40 per cent decline in the numbers of apprentices over the past four years—forty per cent in four years; that is just extraordinary. This was, in part, due to the downtown in mining, but equally to blame were the removal of some federal government programs, such as the apprentice tool allowance, and increases in TAFE fees—which, again, have been exponential. This will likely lead to shortages of trades-qualified people, particularly in the mechanical engineering and fabrication and construction sectors. Hopes are being pinned on an increase in apprenticeships and traineeships in service industries, such as aged care, youth work and business administration—but there are still going to be skills gaps. On a national level, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Australian Industry Group have all said the number of apprentices and trainees in Australia more than halved between June 2012 and June 2016. About 299,000 people were in vocational training in 2012, and that figure dropped to 106,000 in the June quarter last year. I want to say that again: there were almost 300,000 people in vocational training in 2012, and in June last year that dropped to 106,000. That is not sustainable for an innovative country. Gen Y is Australia's most educated generation, yet it faces the worst job prospects in decades. Our young people are living in a world of uncertainty. They are worried about how they will afford their education and even whether an education is worth it—will it lead to a job, and will that job be permanent and full time? Or will they be part of an increasingly insecure, casualised workforce in which people work fewer hours than they want and fewer hours than they need? This simplifying student payments legislation does, in some small way, improve the lot of our young people. It recognises regional disadvantage and it recognises students need help with healthcare costs, but it does not go far enough. Students need choice, they need education they can afford, they need skills that are relevant to the jobs of today and tomorrow and, most importantly, they need the financial backing of their government to help them on their way. Australia offers many opportunities for young people, but the outlook is not at all rosy. Our young people are worried about their futures, they are drowning in debt and they are living in poverty. This government needs to do much more to support our young people, our students, who are the very backbone, the very future, of what we are trying to build in this great nation. If there is anyone who needs our support it is the young people. I implore this government: please, get on board; you are at the steering wheel of our country at the moment. Time and time again in question time I hear the government saying, 'What about what you did when you were in government?' Here is the breaking news for the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and all of those men on the front bench: they are at the steering wheel now. It is time for them to put the pedal to the metal and get on with supporting our young people—making some real, positive structural changes that this country sorely needs and not abandoning our young people, and, therefore, abandoning the future of this country. 18:48 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise today to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016 and discuss its impact in improving opportunities for young people from regional and remote areas. This amendment will improve access for young people from these areas to higher education, as well as entrance and retention rates, by making it easier for them to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. Labor is standing by this measure, as it works towards the core Labor value of equality of opportunity for regional and remote students and young people, as compared with them competing with their inner-city counterparts. The barriers faced by regional institutions and campuses, such as geographical dispersion of catchment, higher proportions of disadvantaged students and smaller participation rates, have rendered many of these institutions unviable to continue operating. An example close to home is the now defunct Rockingham campus of Murdoch University in my electorate of Brand, which closed its doors to local students in 2015, due to low enrolment and a lack of funds. Vocational training in higher education institutes only operates effectively and efficiently with scale—there needs to be a weight of numbers. These numbers have to be present to provide the facilities, the services and the all-important teachers and lecturers, and that is not a scale that exists in my electorate of Brand. This means regional and outer suburban students travelling to inner-metropolitan campuses will be under further pressure to move out of their family homes. This is not new, though. From my own personal experience, I went to school at Safety Bay Senior High School. It is a mere 45 minute drive from Perth, but, for a young person without a car, that would mean at least a two-hour trip both ways on three buses getting out of Safety Bay to Rockingham to Perth out to the campus at Crawley. Fortunately, students these days do not have as much difficulty getting to the campus at UWA by public transport, as WA Labor built the southern suburbs a railway, and students now have an equity of access up to UWA, to Curtin and also to Murdoch University. As financial hardship is the No. 1 reason students drop out of university, this amendment works to alleviate the pressures many of us remember as students of trying to pay rent while studying full time—and, for regional students, all this was without the luxury of sometimes dropping into your parents' place for a hot meal. However, this amendment benefits only about 3,700 students. Our young people in the regions and in outer suburbia are struggling with youth unemployment. In my electorate, that is at a staggering 14 per cent. Instead of meaningful higher education reform or embarking on job creation policies, the Prime Minister is trying to shore up his shaky leadership among the Nationals and the far right with today's sad announcement the government intends to water down the laws that seek to protect many Australians from racial discrimination. But, with regards to the Nationals, who knows what will happen come the next election. Like Colin Barnett, the Liberals under the member for Wentworth might ditch the Nationals for One Nation. I hope it is not so, but you never know. I want to speak on universities for a moment. They are complex institutions. I had 10 years working at the University of Western Australia. Three and a half of those were in the vice-chancellery working for the then chief of staff, Professor Alan Robson. I have learnt how complex higher education funding is. It is tough to get right, it is tough to do, but it must be done. We must apply our efforts to engaging actively with all universities and all their various stakeholders—and I can tell you there are many—to fund education properly and also to fund research and science effectively and properly so that the most people get the most benefit. This government took full deregulation of higher education for students off the table but has failed to bring forward anything other than an options paper. The university sector is now faced with a policy black hole created by the Abbott and Turnbull government, and it is a real shame for the students of this country, not to mention the scientists, researchers and all the other workers in the university sector. Returning to the topic of the students who will benefit from this legislation, I am happy for that small number who will benefit and I support this bill, but I do have to ask: why support a small group of regional students yet at the same time attack penalty rates day after day in this place. When given the chance, the Liberal-National government failed to protect penalty rates of 700,000 workers—penalty rates which many students rely on to survive and pay their rent and to perhaps get that extra serving of the two-minute noodles that we used to eat. I do not fondly remember them, but they were there! And why direct this amendment specifically toward regional students when, as reported in the Bradley review of 2008, students from a lower socioeconomic background in a metropolitan area such as my electorate have lower retention and completion rates? WA has the lowest school leaver university entrance rate in the country, sitting at just 47.6 per cent in 2015 compared with 67 per cent and 59 per cent in Victoria and New South Wales-ACT respectively. We have the lowest rate in the country, and it is getting progressively lower. Prime Minister Turnbull is offering relief to regional students but in WA 76 per cent of our population live in the metropolitan area and we have to consider the difficulties they all face in getting into higher education. You have to look no further than my own electorate of Brand to see the impact economic background has on opportunities for education in my state. In 2015, only 33 per cent of students in Rockingham-Kwinana finished year 12 with an ATAR mark. That is well below the state average, but it is not the lowest average. Young people in Brand need support and they need a government that works for them. If the Prime Minister really wanted to support young people, he would not be pushing them into poverty with Newstart eligibility changes which mean some young people are faced with living on nothing for five weeks while others are facing a cut of almost $2,500 a year. It beggars belief and one wonders what the personal experiences of members of the government were in their own student lives. Why would this government try to ram such changes through when young people of low socioeconomic background identify financial problems as the stress point in their university experience at a rate of 69 per cent in comparison with those in higher income brackets, which was reported by Monash University in 2013 to be an average of 53 per cent. It is a considerably higher rate of stress for students from those lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Monash University also found that lower socioeconomic students access student support services such as accommodation services, financial counselling and legal advice more frequently. Yet not only is this government directing money from the budget to the regions, which I do respect; it is also cutting funding to community legal centres. We all know where that is getting us. There are people who are in economic stress who need to access these legal centres more often than they used to, and that funding is being cut as well. Those of low SES background have always accessed these legal centres, and that is the reason they are there. I believe the Abbott-Turnbull government does not fairly represent the young and disadvantaged of Brand. Young people need support to finish their studies or find a job, not face savage attacks that make it harder for them to find work. Western Australians do not want a government which leaves young people with nothing to live on. If this government were truly concerned about opportunities for young people it would emphatically rule out university deregulation and the potential of $100,000 degrees. There are already enough barriers for young people in Brand to access tertiary education, even with the great Labor initiatives of HECS and HELP and with of course cost caps and positions opened. With the Liberals' commitment to higher fee degrees the government will tilt the board against Australian students trying to get a better education. ATAR rates in Brand are, as I said, at 33 per cent—what will they be once Mr Turnbull and his team implement their neoliberal agendas in our higher education system? What is Mr Turnbull saying to potential students other than education is just out of reach for people from their economic background? It is hard enough even becoming eligible to go to university, to get through school, without coming up against such extraordinary fees. No wonder young people sometimes cannot see uni as an option for them—no wonder they sometimes give up. The young people of Brand have been ignored for too long, and I will do all I can to help them participate in vocational education and higher education. I support this amendment because I support equality of opportunity and bridging the gap between the disadvantaged and the privileged in this country, but with particular respect to education. This does not discount the fact that I think young people in my electorate and young people Australia wide have been failed by successive Liberal governments. Only the Labor Party truly values the effect of a strong education and the effect it can have on transforming a person's life. My own experience in higher education policy, as I said, was working at the University of Western Australia for a number of years. Many good policies have been put up to respective governments. I note a policy I helped develop in relation to the WA Nationals' Royalties for Regions scheme, which sadly was not funded because the Nationals leader at the time insisted on universities building campuses in the far regions, and we know it is very difficult not only to build them there in the first place but also to make them economical and viable. Instead, there are novel propositions—they are not even that novel, quite frankly—about giving students from the reasons opportunities to undertake scholarships which support them through their time living in the city, in the metro area, which support their parents in visiting the students and support the students being able to return several times a year to their family farms or wherever the places are that they come from. These things are important—the connection to home and to family for regional students is critical for their ongoing mental health, especially in their first couple of years at university, when they are living outside the place they call home and all that is familiar. I know we implored the then Nationals leader, Mr Brendon Grylls, to support this initiative but sadly we had no luck. I only hope that the new state Labor government will look at this prospect again and perhaps seek to support regional students as they do go off on their adventures to university. One thing I would say about the gift that education can bring is: often there is a sentiment among people from the regions that they want to keep young people in the regions and in their home town. That is understandable. They love their children. The young people give a vibrancy to the community. But the greatest gift we can give as people that provide education is a good education with all the services and all the facilities. Rural students deserve that as much as city students. I urge these communities to be more free of spirit, let their young people go and support them in their adventures when they go into the main population centres. They will enjoy better access to better facilities, all the services and all the community that a university can offer. It is a worthwhile gift and something that they should support. We all know that when you help people achieve their best they are more inclined to return the favour and return to their home town. In concluding, I would note that the government has not put forward many speakers to support this bill. It probably says a bit about how the government views social services legislation. I note the minister is now in the chamber. I hope we hear from him soon. So to conclude I would state that we support the bill, but I do hope that the government would seek to do more, especially in higher education reform and in support for students from low SES backgrounds. 19:01 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank all the members for their contributions to this second reading debate. By way of summarisation of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016 at the second reading debate, I would note that the first measure in the bill will from 1 January or 1 July after royal assent—the first of those two dates—introduce four changes that will simplify the student payment means test and remove anomalies. Firstly, the family tax benefit income test and the youth parental income test will be harmonised so that family tax benefit income details can be automatically re-used for the youth parental income test. Parents will no longer be required to resubmit their income information to support a youth payment claim by one of their children. Secondly, the integrity of the student payment means test will be improved by removing an anomaly that allows some partnered youth allowance and Austudy recipients to be subject to a more generous assets tests than applies to all other youth allowance and Austudy recipients. Thirdly, integrity will also be improved by extending the trust and company rules that already apply to all other income support payments to student payments. As a result, all of the income or assets held by students through a trust or company will be taken into account when establishing their entitlement to a payment. Finally, the pension income test exemption for regular gifts from immediate family members will be aligned across the social security system so that it also applies for student payments and other social security benefits. The second measure in this bill will ensure that for the first time from 1 January 2019 all students receiving income support will receive a concession card. This change will allow all students receiving youth allowance, Austudy and Abstudy living allowance to automatically receive a healthcare card. This will guarantee that around 240,000 students will receive pharmaceutical benefits scheme prescriptions at the concessional rate and access to the lower threshold of the extended Medicare safety net when they receive a student payment. It may also provide greater access to bulk-billing, allowing students to focus on their studies without worrying about medical costs. This measure simplifies eligibility for the healthcare card rather than requiring students to meet additional requirements for the low-income healthcare card, as per current practice. Both cards provide the same Australian government health concessions. Under the current rules, student payment recipients are the only income support recipients not to qualify for an automatic issue healthcare card. These students have to make a claim for a low-income healthcare card if their income is below a certain limit in order to be issued a concession card. Under this measure, the healthcare card will be available to all student payment recipients as soon as they start receiving an income support payment. The measure will enhance a streamlined administrative arrangement for student payment recipients and support the implementation of improved student payment systems. It will improve consistency across the income support system by ensuring all income support recipients are automatically issued a concession card. It provides sensible solutions to a simplified and efficient welfare system. The third measure in the bill will from 1 January or 1 July—the first of those two dates after royal assent—simplify the process for adopting the latest version of the Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure published by the Australian Statistician which is used to assess eligibility for student payments under the Social Security Act 1991. Currently, youth allowance recipients whose family home is in a location geographically categorised under the remoteness structure as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia can access additional benefits or concessional qualification requirements under the act that are not available to students from major city areas. These additional benefits for regional and remote students are in recognition that students from these areas are more likely to have to relocate to study and to have significantly lower participation rates in higher education than students from major city areas. Since 2011, the geographical remoteness structure used in the Social Security Act to determine eligibility for those additional benefits is the 2006 Australian Standard Geographical Classification, which is published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, this remoteness structure is out of date. It was superseded in January 2013 by the 2011 Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure. The remoteness structure is updated every five years by the Australian Bureau of Statistics following each census. The next update to the remoteness structure is due in January 2018. This measure will introduce amendments to the act so that qualification for student payments will draw upon the updated remoteness structure without the need for future legislative amendment. This measure will simplify the administration of student payments and will ensure that the assessment of qualification for youth allowance and the relocation scholarship is based on the latest available information on geographical classification. Together, the measures in this bill will assist in simplifying and supporting access to the payment system and support future welfare reform. There is also an amendment that will be moved during the reading stage. The amendment will add a fourth measure to the bill that will give effect to a 2016 election commitment. It is part of a package to support regional students' access to education. This measure will amend the rules governing when a person is to be regarded as independent for the purposes of youth allowance and the relocation scholarship. It will reduce from 18 to 14 months the period that young people from regional and remote areas of Australia have to earn the amount required to satisfy the workforce independence provisions. This measure is to commence from 1 January 2018. The measure recognises that regional and remote students face additional costs in pursuing tertiary education and, similar to the measure to automatically update the geographical classification used to assess eligibility for student payments, it recognises that regional students have much lower participation rates in higher education than students from major cities. The reduced period from 18 months to 14 months will allow students to qualify for Youth Allowance four months sooner than under current arrangements. Students will be able to take a gap year at the end of secondary school and, subject to them satisfying the upper qualification requirements for Youth Allowance, will be able to receive payment as independent the following year. Students who are considered independent for the purposes of Youth Allowance do not have their rate of payment affected by parental income, as is the case for dependent recipients. Currently students who qualify for Youth Allowance under these arrangements may commence study prior to qualifying for student payments or take two gap years before commencing study and qualifying for payment. The longer students are disengaged from study after completing secondary school, such as for more than a year, the less likely they are to commence or complete tertiary study. It is estimated that approximately 3700 regional and remote students will qualify for Youth Allowance as independent under this measure. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation and proposed amendments announced. Consideration in Detail 71 19:09 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2). Leave granted. Mr PORTER 208884 I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: [independent test for Youth Allowance and scholarship payments for students] (2) Page 9 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4—Independent test for Youth Allowance and scholarship payments for students Social Security Act 1991 1 Paragraph 1067A(10 ) ( c) Before "a period or periods", insert "for the purposes of Parts 3.4A, 3.4B and 3.7, except section 1070G—". 2 At the end of subsection 1067A(10) Add: ; or (d) for the purposes of Parts 2.11 and 2.11B, this Part and section 1070G—a period or periods of employment over a 14 month period since the person last left secondary school, earning the person at least the equivalent of 75% of:    (i) the maximum rate of pay under Wage Level A of a transitional Australian Pay and Classification Scale or modern award generally applicable to trainees; or    (ii) that maximum rate as varied or replaced from time to time by the Fair Work Commission; that applied at the start of the period of employment. 3 Subsection 1067A(10A) Omit "Paragraphs (10) (b) and (c)", substitute "Paragraphs (10) (b) and (d)". 4 Subsection 1067A(10A) After "Part 2.11", insert "or 2.11B". 5 Subsection 1067A(10A) Omit "(10B), (10C) or". 6 Subsections 1067A(10B) to (10D) Repeal the subsections. 7 Application provision The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to: (a) claims for a Youth Allowance made on or after the commencement of this item; and (b) working out if a person is qualified for a relocation scholarship payment at a time on or after the commencement of this item. [independent test for Youth Allowance and scholarship payments for students] Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 71 19:10 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave, I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017 72

Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017

Second Reading 72 19:11 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I rise to speak on the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1). In doing so I note that Labor has long pointed out the need for a VET ombudsman. We have argued long and hard for that in the parliament. It is a position we took to the last election and it is a position that we have moved in amendments in this House. It is, of course, the reason we will be supporting this bill which seeks to establish an ombudsman for the VET sector. In doing so we also point out that (1) what an unnecessarily long road it has been to get us to this point and that (2) there are some deeply troubling reasons that this ombudsman is required. This parliament must keep in mind that that were circumstances which are never ever allowed to happen again. We took a policy of establishing a VET ombudsman to the last election for the simple reason that we know students need someone in their corner to stand up for their rights and to fight back against the bad practices and dodgy providers we have seen so many horror stories about in recent years. The Labor Party has always stuck up for students and we are pleased that the government is now adopting another one of our policies to this end. An unfair situation was allowed to develop because those opposite were simply not paying attention to the VET system and were too busy changing ministers—five times. We are very pleased that finally the government is putting in place a system and resources to help students who have been victims of dodgy VET providers. Fifteen months ago Labor moved to establish a VET ombudsman in the Senate and at that time the minister said he would look into it. At that time the minister promised that he would progress the idea. Late last year when the government introduced their VET Student Loans Bill, the assistant minister said in her second reading speech that the government would establish an ombudsman. Finally some action, but a closer look at the bills revealed nothing about an ombudsman at all. In fact a year after looking into it and issuing a discussion paper seeking feedback from the sector on the idea of an ombudsman, still nothing. This is despite the reason for these very bills declared that the idea of an ombudsman was the most popular idea of all of those that were put forward by the government in their discussion paper. This is despite students, providers and consumer advocates all calling on the government to establish a VET ombudsman. So once again it fell to Labor to move an amendment to the government's VET Student Loans Bill last year to establish an ombudsman, at which time the government then gave an undertaking to come back to the parliament with stand-alone legislation. The government was once again dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing, but we are very pleased that we now stand here today to see this legislation before the parliament. We will keep leading the broader debate on skills and training. The Leader of the Opposition hosted a national summit just last week to bring together businesses, governments, TAFEs, unions and providers to work on long-term policy solutions for opportunities for jobs for the economy, and we know that that relies upon a strong VET sector. Those opposite supported the expansion of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, but, when they came to government, they did not take responsibility for its administration. The Senate inquiry into the VET Student Loans Bill revealed that the government were told about emerging problems in the implementation of the VET FEE-HELP scheme in 2014, but they did nothing about it. In fact, when we had the Senate inquiry into the VET Student Loans Bill, we heard some of the following quotes. The Consumer Action Law Centre said: … particularly during 2014 … we started to receive a spike in complaints related to the marketing of VET products … An Australian Competition and Consumer Commission official stated: We started to see complaints in mid-2014. … They started to come out as a bit of a trend in that mid to late 2014 period. Both of these are placing on the record that, under this government's watch, not only was this program allowed to blow-out but also too many Australian students were allowed to become the victims of dodgy providers. The Department of Education and Training themselves said: … both of those agencies— ASQA and the ACCC— started to get concerned through the volume and nature of specific complaints towards the end of 2014, and they talked to us at that time. Then they reiterated or continued expressing those concerns into 2015. Senator McKenzie asked: Did you advise the then government … ASQA responded: In the second half of 2014, yes, we did. I place this on the record here tonight because this goes to the reasons why it is so important that we have a VET ombudsman. It is because, despite the four different pieces of evidence I have just read into the Hansard on what was presented to the government in 2014, they sat on their hands. Now we have the position where we have thousands of students who have been treated appallingly badly, billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted and misused and, of course, the entire VET sector have had their reputation tarnished as a result of the government's inaction. These are the reasons why it is so important that this bill establishes an ombudsman for the sector, and it is one of the reasons why it is so important that we look into ensuring that the ombudsman has all of the powers into the future that they need to do this job and do this job well. The human face of the VET FEE-HELP rorts is well known in this place. There have been extensive reports, including those outlining dodgy private providers standing outside Centrelink signing up pensioners and the unemployed with an offer of an iPad and a promise that they would not have to pay. We have heard about predatory brokers travelling to remote Indigenous communities with the sole purpose of rorting students and, indeed, rorting taxpayers. We have heard about bottom feeders going door to door, selling false hope and signing up the disadvantaged and the desperate to totally inappropriate courses. And we have heard about the fraudsters accessing people's tax file numbers without their permission and enrolling phantom students, only for people to discover later on that they have a debt that they never signed up for, never wanted and will never benefit from. It is a massive problem. The Auditor-General's report from December estimates that $1.2 billion in inappropriately issued loans will never be recovered. This is why this ombudsman is so important, because it provides a pathway to justice for those Australians who have fallen victim through no fault of their own. We also stand here tonight to say that the government are on notice that they need to make sure that this ombudsman works. Through Senate inquiries and in public debate, stakeholders have strongly supported the idea of an ombudsman—from consumer law advocates to providers and, of course, most importantly, students. Many have argued strongly for an ombudsman with a broader remit beyond the loan scheme or indeed with the powers of arbitration. These ideas have merit and should remain under consideration as part of the longer term reforms of the VET system that are so desperately needed to make sure that it is better meeting the needs of students and businesses. Labor believe that the government has brought this legislation forward in good faith, and that both the government and the department will use the powers available to make sure that the ombudsman operates effectively. We expect to see the recommendations of the ombudsman respected and heavy punishment for any providers that do not cooperate, because students absolutely must come first. The government is on notice. There are many thousands of students who have been treated wrongly and who have been treated appallingly in recent years, and Labor expect to see results from this ombudsman. Labor have always said that effective implementation will be what makes or breaks the government's VET reforms. The government owes it to students and to all the providers who are working hard and doing the right thing to make the changes it has made work. We cannot afford a repeat of the past when the system fell into crisis under the Liberals' watch. We know that, in 2014, the graduation rate for the 10 largest private providers was under five per cent. That is $900 million in federal money and over $215,000 for every graduate. We know that students were tricked into racking up massive debts for courses with little hope of them leading to a job. We know that 10,000 qualifications were cancelled in Victoria because they were not worth the paper that they were written on. We know that there has been an explosion in short courses and online courses and a decline in quality. It is estimated that up to 40 per cent of VET FEE-HELP loans will never be repaid, and much of this is because of the government's inaction. VET FEE-HELP loans blew out from around $700 million in 2013 to a staggering $2.9 billion in 2015. That was about $700 million in 2013, $1.8 billion in 2014 and $2.9 billion in 2015. We know that our VET system needs so much more than a simple avoidance of crisis. It needs to be built for the future, and TAFE must be the centre of that future strategy. We also know that the first step absolutely has to be cracking down on the rorts, mismanagement and waste of taxpayer dollars in the system. The first step has to be repairing the reputation of the sector. Of course, part of that needs to be providing justice for the students who have paid the largest price as a result of the government's inaction. We know that the government still lacks a clear plan to rebuild TAFE. In fact, in this term, the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, the member for McPherson, questioned whether the national partnership for skills was even needed in the future. She said she was meeting with the states 'to determine whether there are reforms to VET that warrant a new agreement'. Labor knows that vocational education is absolutely critical to our education sector. It is absolutely critical to our economy. We cannot expect Australians to have the skills that they need for the jobs of the future unless we have a strong and well-functioning vocational education sector. It is deeply concerning that the current national partnership, put in place by Labor, expires in the middle of next year. Over $500 million a year in Commonwealth support for TAFE and skills is on the line right now, at this critically important time for the sector, and the assistant minister does not even seem to know whether a new agreement is needed to keep supporting TAFE. On this side we know that we must continue to support TAFE for a strong Australian future. Between 2013 and 2015 the Liberals oversaw a 21 per cent decline in TAFE enrolments and an almost 75 per cent decline in TAFE and VET capital investment. Apprentice numbers are in free fall under the Liberals—down 30 per cent they came to government, or 135,000 fewer apprentices. The rate of apprenticeships in trade occupations is the lowest it has been in a decade, and commencements continue to decline. Labor has been absolutely clear: we back public TAFE. That is why we took a TAFE funding guarantee to the last election. It is why the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech at the Press Club earlier this year, committed to put quality TAFE back at the heart of our VET system. It is where people get the technical and semiprofessional skills they need for growing industry—the skills that are being demanded by industry and that Australia needs to be competitive with other countries. TAFE is absolutely the backbone of our system. Generations of Australians know how important TAFE is for our economy. They know the first class skills and opportunities that going to TAFE can provide. But this Liberal government still does not seem to get it. At a state and federal level the Liberals have an ideological problem with TAFE. Last week I was part of the summit that the Leader of the Opposition held around jobs, skills and training, attended by leaders of our business community. Across the board, even from the private VET providers who were present, there was an absolute consensus that a strong TAFE system must be at the centre of our vocational education and training system and that, as a nation, we must make building and rebuilding TAFE for the future an absolute national priority. But still I stand on the only side of the parliament which is committed to this end. This is a priority for us, and it is something that we will take to the next election. There is another part of this bill which I want to outline briefly. Labor supports updating the funding profile for major Australian Research Council grant programs. We know that societies and economies that invest more in research generally show faster rates of growth in output and development. We know that our researchers deserve the best infrastructure we can afford. Research funded by the Australian Research Council allows Australia's great minds to produce outcomes that will help our country become better equipped to understand the challenges and opportunities of the future. Unfortunately, the Turnbull government has an appalling track record in this area, and the Australian research community is rightly suspicious of it. In the past, the kind of basic administrative change put forward in this bill was delayed by the government's efforts to introduce legislation that would have imposed $100,000 degrees, saddling Australian students with life-long debts. The Abbott-Turnbull government also tried to cut nearly $900 million from science and research in its first horror budget. This included $75 million from the Australian Research Council. For over a decade the coalition has pandered to the antiscience community. From the member for Warringah, the former Prime Minister, labelling climate change as 'crap', to the current Prime Minister's dramatic about-face on supporting action against climate change, the Government has made it clear that it does not value evidence, science or research. We are right to be suspicious of any statements to the contrary. We know that the Abbott government endeavoured to cut over $3 billion from science, research and innovation. In their first budget, they sought to cut almost $900 million. This included significant cuts to major research agencies and research training: $115 million from the CSIRO; $75 million from the Australian Research Council; $27.5 million from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation; $7.8 million from the Australian Institute of Marine Science; $16.1 million from Geoscience Australia; $10 million from the Bureau of Meteorology. Sadly, the list continues: $120 million from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation; and $174 million cut from the Research Training Scheme—a cut of 10 per cent. In conclusion, Labor will support this legislation, because it is Labor who has led this debate. It has been Labor who has stood up for students. It has been Labor who has called on the government to stamp down on the rorts. It is Labor who took to the last election that we would establish a VET ombudsman. It is Labor who moved amendments in this House to do just that. It is Labor who has dragged the government, kicking and screaming, to move this piece of legislation in this parliament to create a VET ombudsman. But I should say that we will go further than just supporting this legislation. We will maintain the need to ensure that this ombudsman works and that it fights for the students who have been victims of this government's mismanagement. We will stand up and ensure that there is a strong vocational education sector into the future and that never again do we see the waste and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars that has been allowed to occur under this government. This legislation will be supported by the opposition, but we also place the government on notice that we will hold them to account. We will stand up and fight for TAFE. We will ensure that there is strong support for building TAFE as the backbone of our vocational education sector and that this piece of legislation is just the beginning of what Labor will drag this government to, kicking and screaming, before we go to the next election and pledge to fix Australia's vocational education sector once and for all. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 75 ADJOURNMENT Western Australia State Election 75 19:30 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth At 6 pm on Saturday, 11 March, as the polls drew to a close throughout Western Australia, something historic was about to occur. One by one, as the scrutineers did their job and the ballots were counted and the results came in from the booths, the result became very clear: an overwhelming and historic victory to Mark McGowan and the Western Australian Labor Party at the Western Australian state election. It was a campaign in which not an inch was given from as far out as 12 months before the date of election. It was in April 2016 that Mark McGowan went to the community with a plan, and that plan was quite simply titled: Plan for jobs. It created a comprehensive regimen of steps that Mark McGowan and the Western Australian Labor Party were prepared to undertake in order to make sure that we never see again the level of unemployment and underemployment that Western Australians had experienced in recent times under Colin Barnett and the state Liberal government. What did that look like? Whilst the manifesto that Mark McGowan presented 12 months out from the election was clear, the answers required lots of hard work. It involved articulating to the community of Western Australia precisely how Mark McGowan and his team, as a credible alternative government, intended to get Western Australia back on track. That started with a very clear vision not to sell off Western Power. Selling off Western Power was very clearly a short-sighted attempt to try to rein in some of the record net debt created under the watch of not only Colin Barnett but the seven treasurers who were asleep at the wheel over the course of the eight years of the Barnett Liberal government. Mark McGowan made it very clear that Western Power was not to be sold on his watch. Mark McGowan and his team also presented a very clear alternative vision for infrastructure, and that alternative vision was Metronet, a public transport system that would revolutionise the way in which Western Australians make their way around our great city. Those billions of dollars in funding committed to Roe 8 and Roe 9—largely seen, for good reason, as a road to nowhere—will instead be put into a state-building infrastructure project that not only will, as I said before, transform the way in which Western Australians get around the city but will create thousands of jobs. Not only do the congratulations go to Mark and his team but also to a new cabinet—sworn in and getting to work from day 1, meeting over the weekends and kicking off with a cabinet meeting first thing Monday morning in which they are all determined to roll up their sleeves and get to work to do what it takes in order to get Western Australians and our great state back on track. Two appointments in particular that I would like to take this opportunity to recognise—in addition to Mark McGowan and Roger Cook, the deputy premier of the state as well as our new minister for health—are Ben Wyatt, a great friend of mine, I am proud to say, and also the state's first Indigenous treasurer, who could not be more ready and more capable of taking the reins of the treasury and doing what it takes to make hard decisions and to get Western Australia back on track again; and also my predecessor in this place, Alannah MacTiernan, again rolling up her sleeves for the great state of Western Australia, now elevated to the ministry, quite rightly so, and getting ready to dominate the state, as you would only expect from Alannah, in relation to the areas of agriculture, the regions and state development. Congratulations to those two and to all of Mark's team. A special congratulations to my state colleagues who have helped paint the federal seat of Perth a sea of red: to John Carey, the new state member for Perth; to Amber Jade Sanderson, the new member for Morley; to Lisa Baker, the member for Maylands; to Dave Kelly; and also a special tribute to Simone Millman, the new member for Mount Lawley. As a special acknowledgement to all of those wonderful candidates who ran but came second—I will not read it today—Theodore Roosevelt's 'The Man in the Arena' quote is for you, and well done. Chisholm Electorate: Harmony Day 76 19:35 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I rise very proudly on this Harmony Day as the representative of Chisholm. Chisholm was created in 1949—fittingly, the same year my father migrated to this country as a 15-year-old boy, fleeing poverty in postwar Greece. He could not speak a word of English. Like many Australians of immigrant heritage, such as my parents, the people of Chisholm are hardworking Australians who work in their communities and their workplaces with optimism and faith whilst maintaining family as their priority. First, I would like to acknowledge the namesake of my electorate, Caroline Chisholm. Caroline Chisholm was an advocate and social worker who supported migrants to this country during the gold rush. She was a strong advocate for immigration and a woman of integrity and compassion to those who travelled across the shores and, in the words of our national anthem, toiled with hearts and hands to become an integral part of what makes up our magnificent Australian story. That is why it is so fitting that Chisholm is the third-most culturally diverse electorate, with over 65 per cent of people having one or both parents born overseas. In any one day in Chisholm many people speak a language other than English, including Chinese, Greek, Hindi, Italian and Korean. On this Harmony Day, I would like to acknowledge all the constituents of Chisholm. They have come from countries such as the United Kingdom, China, India, Greece, Italy, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Hungary, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Mauritius, Samoa, Pakistan and New Zealand—to name a few—and have combined to make Chisholm the third-most culturally diverse electorate in this country. The diversity in the Chisholm electorate is also reflected in its blend of religious faiths and the different languages, food, music and dance—all key elements which define a different culture. Chisholm, which covers 65 square kilometres in Melbourne's east, is truly a wonderful, microexample of this great southern land that is Australia and is a testament to why and how this country is the most successful multicultural nation on this earth—living in harmony. People can enjoy the great Aussie obsession with sport, such as Aussie Rules and cricket; the vibrancy and richness of the Chinese festivals; the smells and delights of so many different Asian cuisines; the colour, vibrancy and warmth of the Indian community; and the life, movement and love of family events of Italian and Greek culture. There are so many events and associations in Chisholm which support a wonderful and harmonious multicultural Australia. They include the festivals and events organised by associations and groups, including the Greek Orthodox community; the Chinese Friendship Association; the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse; the Whitehorse Club, which particularly focuses on and supports the Italian community; and the Telugu Association of Australia—again, to name a few. The most heartwarming events I attended, which, in my view, sum up the very essence of Harmony Day in recent times, were the citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day, one in the morning and one in the evening. In between both ceremonies, I observed the wonderful things all Australians do on this day to celebrate all that is great about Australia, which often includes the elements of food with family and friends. That can be a great Aussie barbecue—from barbecued prawns to a sausage in bread with tomato sauce—a chicken laksa or a spanakopita with neighbours and friends. Sadly, this Australia Day 2017 was only days after the Bourke Street tragedy, where Australians lost their lives as a result of a wicked crime. So, amidst the joy of Australia Day celebrations, I also reflected that it is particularly in times of need and crisis that the essence and good spirit of our country and its people comes to the fore. No matter our differences in opinions, faith, gender, heritage or ethnicity, we express our love, our deep pride and our solidarity in being Australian in a humble, understated way. Our spirit of volunteerism, whether it is in relation to bushfires, helping the vulnerable, the aged and the mentally ill, or helping new migrants to this country settle in: Australians are a respectful, friendly, good people who, every day, by their intuitive actions and gestures, be they small or grand, support their fellow Australians in times of need. This is the core of why Harmony Day should be acknowledged as the day when Australians are second to none—second to no other nation of people—when it comes to living in harmony, underpinned by our fundamental value of mutual respect. Climate Change 76 19:40 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I think it is unfathomable that there is so little discussion in this place these days about climate change, and I think it is unforgivable that the government is showing so little interest in climate change and in dealing with the consequences of climate change. It is not as though there is no evidence about the problem. It is not as though there is no evidence that we are facing a very real and a very dangerous situation. It would be reasonable to say that climate change, perhaps only along with nuclear weapons, is the threat to our existence as we know it on this planet. It is one of two things that can fundamentally change life as we know it. It is one of two things that is created by humanity and one of two things that can be addressed by humanity. When I talk about the evidence, you just have to pick up the state of the environmentreport—at least every five years—which came out quite recently. It makes it clear that Australia remains the largest emitter of carbon per capita of any OECD country. The government can carve it up and spin it any way they want, but that is a fact: we are the largest emitter, per capita, of any country in the OECD. It is also clear from that report that the energy sector emissions are in fact increasing as a proportion of our total emissions. So rather than doing better, when it comes to the production of energy, we are doing worse. It is made clear in this. It confirms that 2015 was the world's hottest year on record. When I talk about evidence, I pick up the Climate Council report, which is looking at the summer just ended in this country. I will give you a few of the findings. In just 90 days over summer, more than 205 environmental records were broken around Australia. The statewide mean temperature in summer was the hottest for New South Wales since records began. Sydney had its hot summer on record, with a mean temperature almost three degrees above average. Brisbane had its hottest summer on record, with its mean temperature at almost 27 degrees Celcius. Canberra had its hottest summer on record in terms of daytime temperatures, recording temperatures of at least 35 degrees Celsius on 18 days. Adelaide experienced its hottest Christmas Day in 70 years. Moree, in New South Wales, experience 54 consecutive days of temperatures of 35 degrees Celsius or above—a record for New South Wales. Perth had its highest summer total rainfall on record of near on 200 millimetres. How much more evidence do we need before we finally do something, and do something decisive, about climate change? What has the government's response been? To support the Adani Carmichael mine, which will be the biggest coal mine in the world, with support of near on $1 billion. The government is pledging its support for more coal-fired power stations at a time when you will not find an energy company in the land that wants to invest in coal-fired power stations. The government is rubbishing South Australia's commendable renewable energy target—a target to be applauded and supported, not a target to be attacked. Then there is this headline announcement about the Snowy scheme, which, in principle, I find admirable and I support. But, when you drill down into the detail, you read reports like, 'They are actually going to pump the water up the hill with energy from coal-fired power stations.' Surely the whole point of pumping water into dams to store as energy is to use energy from renewable energy to do the pumping. The whole point of making that whole system work is that it will use power from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave and any other number of renewable energies to do it right. We have to do something about this. I am a father of two young children. Most of us are fathers of young children or grandfathers of young children. We have to understand that climate change and our response to it is one of the greatest examples of intergenerational injustice that this country has ever seen and probably will ever see. There is a moral obligation to do everything in our power to address this, starting in this place. Put a price on pollution. Roll out renewable energy. Let's have zero net carbon emissions. Let's have 100 per cent dependence on renewable energy. And let's put in place the legislation to make it happen now. Australian Society 77 19:45 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee On a quiet Tuesday evening there is value in talking about first principles. Australia has one of the highest standards of living in the world. We have beautiful sunshine, great rivers and great beaches and our life expectancy rates are amongst the envy of the world. But sometimes we take all this for granted compared to many countries. Our citizens are very blessed. My strong view is that one of the best resources is, of course, our people. The people I meet in the Wimmera Mallee are very straight-talking, no-nonsense kind of people who just want us to get things done. I fear that people are rolling their eyes at our political system at times. I point to the partnership that we have to win trust with those Australian people. When we think about how we conduct ourselves at question time—because, unfortunately, that is the only thing that many Australians see about the political system—we should perhaps look at our behaviour and try to lift it if we possibly can. We should be able to lift it. The National Party in Victoria is now 100 years old. There have been men and women of character, but particularly some real men of character, who have been members of the National Party and have served the community that I am part of. I think of a guy called Hamilton Lamb, who was a prisoner of war. In 1943, I believe he was elected unopposed, even though his whereabouts was unknown—and he did not make it back. I think of Sir Winton Turnbull, a member for Mallee, who was a prisoner of Changi. Yet, when he became a member of parliament in 1946, he was instrumental in working with that government to develop a free trade agreement with Japan—that ability to forgive. So we do but walk in the shadow of some giants. We of course need to build a strong economy. An economy gives us and affords us the ability to build the sort of society that we want. A strong economy must reward people who take a risk. A strong economy must reward people who get out of bed and go to work. Frankly, if our society is structured so that a person who takes a risk and works harder is not rewarded for that, we soon remove the incentive for people to lift their standard of living. The way you make Australia wealthy is to make individual Australians wealthy. It is not about having a good job; it is about having a job and having pride in that work. When I worked in shearing sheds, I saw people who would be very proud that, even through their manual labour, they were able to provide for their family and put a roof over their head. We need to make sure that their dreams and aspirations are attainable. That includes buying a modest house and being able to give their children a better standard of living than what they had. The economy gives us as a government the capacity to build a great society. There is wisdom, I think, on a quiet Tuesday evening in reflecting on what creates a great society. What are the values that I believe support a great society? I think a great society is one that looks after people who cannot look after themselves—people with a disability; our senior Australians. A great society is one that invests in our children, to expand their world view and give them an appetite learn so that they are not just students but they go on to be great citizens. I unfortunately see in my electorate too many children who are going to school without breakfast. That saddens me, and I think that is something that a great society should be able to address. A great society also invests in our region. I see the great opportunity there is for people in my electorate who have agricultural knowledge and are in their senior years to get out of the way of their sons and daughters and be involved in aid programs overseas, because they have skills that they should be able to share. The only thing I think that separates us from being a great society is our level of indifference. I believe we need to temper our individual aspirations with our sense of community and our sense of responsibility and obligations. Then, when you ultimately align the hearts of man to the compassionate heart of God—to have a view to give and to share—we ultimately build a great society. And there is merit in reflecting on some of the core values that we attain and try to achieve in this parliament here on a quiet Tuesday evening. Education Funding 78 19:50 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Tomorrow the Gonski bus will pull up outside this place. The bus has travelled Australia hearing from teachers and students about the marvellous difference that Gonski funding is making in Australian schools. But those opposite know all about Gonski. A week or so before the 2013 election they signed up to it. The member for Sturt, then the coalition's education shadow minister, told parents, 'You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.' That was untrue. Under those opposite, Gonski has been an unfolding tragedy. They are refusing to fund the critical fifth and sixth years of the package and they are vesting $30 billion less in schools than Labor. That is exactly not 'exactly the same amount of funding'. In the old days, the member for Sturt would have been bent over the deputy principal's desk, trousers down, and would have received six of the best for being a naughty boy who tells lies. Perhaps instead we can make him write 100 times on a blackboard, 'I must not tell lies to children.' We can set the blackboard up here in the chamber. It would certainly be more entertaining than the Treasurer's pet rock or coal. But this really is no laughing matter. For the 80,806 school students in my home state of Tasmania, $60 million will be cut over 2018-19 and $9 million of that will be axed from my own electorate of Lyons. The Liberal Hodgman state government has not covered itself in Gonski glory either. It received Gonski funding from the federal government but did not pass the money directly to schools. Instead, it cut its own education funding in 2015 and then used the Gonski money—which should have been invested in extra services and programs—to effectively replace what it had taken out. This meant that schools like Swansea Primary, Evandale Primary, Beaconsfield Primary, St Marys District and Sorell High School all missed out on vital extra funding that is designed to improve outcomes and opportunities. If Gonski funding had been made properly available to Beaconsfield Primary, the school would have been able to implement an extended reading recovery program, specialist numeracy support, more help for kids who are doing it tough emotionally in that community, better ongoing training for staff and greater opportunities for students to socially connect with the wider West Tamar community, through sport, music and cultural and leadership programs. Swansea school would have been able to extend targeted literacy and numeracy support across a greater number of students and provide an enriching and diverse learning program, including music, art, health, PE and languages. It could have reinstated its annual camp for grades 3 to 6. It could improve targeted support for students who require assistance, such as a speech pathologist, school psychologist or social worker. It could apply digital technologies across the school to equip students for future learning. It could reinstate the program to extend gifted and talented students. Sorell School—Australia's oldest school that is still on its original site—could have provided more targeted intervention and support for literacy and numeracy, achieved smaller classes, employed additional assistants, provided ongoing professional learning, and improved the tired school environment to make it more welcoming to students and families. These are just three examples of what schools in my electorate would have been able to do if they had received their full Gonski funding without having to suffer state Liberal government cuts. Instead, it has been business as usual for a state that historically trails on education indices. And it is no coincidence that my state also trails on income indicators. The cynical, short-sighted decision to put its own political interests ahead of the education interests of Tasmanian children represents another low point in what is a very ordinary Hodgman state Liberal government. Members, I urge you to turn up at the Gonski bus tomorrow from 9 am to speak to some of the principals and parents who are taking part. They have travelled thousands of kilometres and spoken to thousands of Australians. You will hear for yourself about the incredible difference Gonski funding can make in Australian schools and the importance of funding it properly so that it can do its job for our children. Surely the least we can do for our kids is provide for them the best education we can afford as a nation, not merely an education that will barely see them get by. McMillan Electorate: Karmai Community Children's Centre, Korumburra 79 19:55 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan The spirit of a country community skyrockets when they are doing something for their children. Representatives from all over Korumburra and district gathered to celebrate the opening of the Karmai Community Children's Centre. This was indeed a long-awaited and thrilling event for all of Korumburra. Having had the honour of turning the sod on 24 November 2015, it was a thrill to be there for the official opening on 10 March 2017. When we turned the original sod the then mayor—a very popular mayor, Councillor Bob Newton—and director of community services, Jan Martin, celebrated the long-awaited start of this project. Jan was a dedicated officer of the shire, and this was a pet project for her. Last week the new mayor, Councillor Ray Argento, along with the president and vice -presidents of the Karmai Community Children's Centre committee, Bronwyn Beach and Rebecca Marriot, excitedly presided over the day. It was an remarkable community event with representations from local schools, the service clubs and the Karingal ladies—who provided the most lusciously delicious lunch as only country women can. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Did you have scones? Mr BROADBENT MT4 We had scones and all! We had the lot. By the way, congratulations to Bev and Max Hall, who celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary that day. And many others from the Korumburra district were there to enjoy the day. It was also important to have present Jan Parry, Pam Ireland and Del Johnson, all members of the committee who were responsible for the original kindergarten in Korumburra. Present in the crowd were two kinder teachers with nearly 80 years of service between them: Lyn Stein, who after 42 years at the Korumburra kindergarten can boast of having taught three generations of young children, and Debbie Arnold, who taught for 35 years at the Loch kindergarten. The total cost of the centre was an incredible $5.345 million. It was under budget, and they were able to access, through the department, further furniture for the building, which really set it off. It really is a magnificent building. It will provide quality accessible child care, kindergarten, maternal child health care and out of school hours care to South Gippsland and will also offer vocational education and training opportunities for childhood educators. The budget included $1.6 million from the feds, $1.6 million from the Victorian government and $2 million from the South Gippsland Shire Council. But, importantly, what do you reckon Korumburra put in themselves? It was $100,000, raised by Karmai Community Children's Centre I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to TS Constructions and in particular Tony O'Connell and Mark Patterson. Construction commenced in December 2015 and was completed in December 2016. These guys do just an amazing job. They are artists in the way they go about it. And the former Leader of the National Party of Victoria, Peter Ryan, put his heart and soul into this project. I know when someone intervenes on behalf of a community, and this guy intervened on behalf of Korumburra. Thanks, Pete. A special thanks must also go to the Rotary Club of Korumburra, who, through the Robyn Holmes Foundation, donated the outside playground equipment to the centre. What is most exciting about this project is that the Karmai Community Children's Centre Inc. has advised me that 21 jobs were created during its construction and there will be 40 ongoing jobs in operating the centre, which is great for Korumburra. Particular congratulations must go to the Karmai Children's Centre Committee, who fought so hard to ensure the construction of this vital community asset. I would like to acknowledge Bronwyn Beach, president; Rebecca Marriot, vice-president; Matthew Hams, treasurer; Jenny Enbom, secretary; Shelley Fixter, South Gippsland Shire; Rachael Currothers; Laura Muranty; Kam Whyte; Louise Cruickshank; Louise Wilson; Pee Wee Lewis and operations manager Sue Richie. When you go to a day like this in a country area and you think about the times when our kindergartens were built—they were tiny; they were effective, but they were tiny—these days this magnificent facility, built in the heart of Korumburra, really is a sight to behold. They have cut it into the side of a hill. They did not know how they were going to do it, but they cut it beautifully into the side of the hill. We had a smoking ceremony at the beginning of the whole process, which would have been unheard of even five or 10 years ago. It was a magnificent event, and as a local member you just feel enriched, you just feel like you are in a place and a time that will not happen again. But this will be ongoing, and it will be for the benefit of the children of Korumburra. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 80 NOTICES

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 83 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Inglewood on Beaufort 83 16:00 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful community organisation that is existing and thriving in the centre of my electorate of Perth, and that is the good people of Inglewood on Beaufort. This community group really has gone from strength to strength, and it is a great and wonderful example of what happens when business operators and residents get together with the common goal of ensuring that their local community indeed thrives from a vibrant and beating community pulse. One need look no further than what occurred on the weekend, with the amazingly organised team of Inglewood on Beaufort getting together to completely reactivate a space which was otherwise the site of a demolished building. It was a construction site that had well and truly fallen into disrepair and, indeed, was starting to attract—and had attracted for some considerable period of time—antisocial behaviour. Through consultations with local council, the crew at Inglewood on Beaufort decided to pitch in with a busy bee, to make sure the area was clear of rubble and landfill and to completely reactivate the space. Not only would that include, in due course, lighting and a mural, by way of activation, but on the weekend all of the gang put their shoulders to the wheel and constructed, from nothing, these wonderful jarrah planter boxes, eight of them in total, that will also double as park benches, to be placed around the space, with lovely plane trees in the middle, creating, almost out of nothing, a wonderful environment that will attract families with kids to play and to just generally have a good time. Not only is this happening on a regular basis, but the troops at Inglewood on Beaufort also, every Monday night, absolutely ensure that the northern end of Beaufort Street comes alive with the Beaufort Street night markets. The night markets attract food trucks, stalls and all sorts of entertainment, and that draws families out in their thousands to enjoy a wonderful stretch of Beaufort Street that comes alive, where families can eat together, play together and thrive and prosper together. A special shout out to the amazing committee who do such wonderful hard work, often without any real form of recognition at all—to the amazing Vince Garreffa, the chair of this incredible group; Matt Seabrook; Tamara Radi; Father Stephen Conway, of St Pat's, of course; Damien Giudici and Emma Oliver, and to all of the others who are doing such great work with Inglewood on Beaufort: more power to your arm. We could all take a leaf out of your book in terms of getting the job done and making sure families have a great time in Inglewood. Well done, Inglewood on Beaufort! Farrer Electorate: Employment 83 16:03 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Today I want to address the issue of jobs and employment in my electorate of Farrer. Right now, the jobs trend in Farrer is generally in positive territory, which I am sure is in part due to the strong agricultural growth we have seen throughout Australia in the last 12 months. Despite this, job figures from the various corners of the electorate fluctuate wildly. Figures from the city of Albury, which has a much larger retail and manufacturing base, show unemployment sitting well above the national average, at over eight per cent. Compare that to figures from the local government area of Carrathool in the new northern part of Farrer—an area much more remote and far more dependent on agriculture to support the region. The last accurate jobs figure listed unemployment at a more modest 2.7 per cent. This provides a backdrop to a jobs forum I staged last week in the nearby city of Griffith, in conjunction with the local chamber of commerce. About 30 local business operators and employers attended to hear just what the jobs market looks like in the Riverina and what they, as employers, can do to grow our region. Can I quickly express my appreciation to Minister Michaelia Cash, and to the Department of Employment for making two officers available to make the long trip inland to talk to the gathering. One of the more disturbing statistics I am hearing about my electorate—and many parts of inland New South Wales, for that matter—is of declining population growth and an ageing demographic. As our older citizens stay in the areas where they grew up, not enough of our young people are remaining to maintain the population that we need to survive and prosper. One of the ways we can rectify this is by helping young people find a job in their home town or region. One of the comments I received last week in Griffith was that businesses and employers often cannot attract suitable jobseekers. The coalition government's new jobactive PaTH program is one of the ways to address this problem. PaTH stands for 'Prepare, Trial, Hire'. Right now, Griffith has some 200 to 300 younger jobseekers in the region looking for work. PaTH is designed to help them become job ready and move into the workforce. Employers tell us, while they are keen to employ young Australians, they are often presented with candidates who are just not equipped with the core skills that are required. Through PaTH providers such as Sureway and CVGT, who attended the Griffith forum, we will be able to deliver intensive training to build the essential skills employers want, including industry-specific skills. But we also have a job to do. We need to ensure that we are actually training young people with the right skills in the area where they live. I have made this commitment to the Griffith community to ensure that together we find ways to do this better, matching young people with the local jobs needed today and in the future. Asylum Seekers 84 16:05 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I understand that today it is Persian New Year. But for many who celebrate this, including many who I represent in Scullin, it comes at a time of deep anxiety, not of celebration. Under this government's fast-track visa process, established through the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014—legislation I opposed, along with my Labor colleagues—there are approximately 24,500 people across Australia who have sought asylum and who have had to wait for years until invited by the department to lodge their claims. Many of the people in this group are being told to lodge their claims for protection within very short timeframes, with very little access to legal support. If these claims are not lodged within 16 days, asylum seekers are being told that they will not only lose any payments they may receive but lose access to financial hardship payments and vital support services. Given cuts to legal support, there are no funded services for many to help them navigate this complex and traumatic process. This poses many significant difficulties. A settlement worker at Whittlesea Community Connections in my electorate told me this is a difficult and complex question to discuss with many asylum seekers suffering from other traumas. After discussing the case and the prospects with one asylum seeker from Iran, she was told, 'I can't bear to talk about the prospect of returning to Iran if I'm not successful. I die just thinking about it.' Of course, this does not just affect asylum seekers from Iran. I have heard about other asylum seekers who have had difficulty completing their forms because they have not had guidance. People who are suffering from PTSD can be very confused about what elements of their stories they have told to whom and for what purpose. I think of the example of the woman in Queensland who forgot to include that she had been raped in her initial application. These are profound failings with a process, and this is not good enough. There is no urgency for these claims to be lodged, although we of course support prompt processing. Many people have been reporting that they have been cut off from social support payments within days of receiving their letters from the department, making it even more difficult for them to access the support that they need to complete these vital applications. In matters that so often are of life and death, matters affecting lives that have been in limbo for years, surely the key question here is to get the decisions right and not cause further trauma to people who have already suffered too much. There are of course big disagreements in this parliament when it comes to how we approach meeting our obligations to those who seek asylum in Australia. These debates will continue. I hope that views will change. But here we have a simpler question, which comes down to this: can we not treat human beings with decency and dignity, and give them a fair chance to exercise their rights? Western Australian State Election 84 16:09 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney At the recent WA state election, there was a change of government. I accept the result of the election, and I accept the change of government. Such are the swings and roundabouts of politics. The Barnett Liberals had 8½ strong years of governing Western Australia and left an impressive legacy of new schools, new hospitals, roads, public transport, the new Perth Stadium under construction, and Elizabeth Quay. Investments have improved the lives of locals and visitors. Re-election was always going to be a difficult ask, remembering that WA has not elected the same party to a third term of government since the 1980s, at a time when terms were three years instead of the fixed four years that they are today. Labor now has a chance to discover the challenges of fair and effective government, and they are very different to the liberties of opposition. I congratulate WA Labor and wish them well. The challenge for Mark McGowan and his team is to take stock of the way the southern suburbs cast their votes at this election. The swings were very strong in some of the seats north of Perth. Electorates and booths around the Roe 8 and Roe 9 projects saw their residents vote differently. Swings south of the city were much more muted, most notably in the seats around Roe 8 and Roe 9 project sites. I do not say this parochially as a southern suburbs federal member. The support for these important projects was clearly demonstrated by the number of people who voted in support of Roe 8 and Roe 9 and in support of hardworking local Liberal candidates—local Liberals like Matt Taylor in Bicton and Rebecca Aubrey in Willagee. In Bicton, Matt Taylor had a higher primary vote at seven of the nine booths and a below-average swing to Labor. In Willagee, again, there was a below-average swing to Labor. Both Matt and Rebecca focused on Roe 8 and Roe 9 in their campaigns because the facts tell us we must build these important projects. Roe 8 and Roe 9 will create work for up to 10,000 people in WA, improve access to Fremantle port, give drivers freeway access east and west across our city, bypass 14 sets of traffic lights on Leach Highway and Stock Road, and enable better and safer cycling and public transport. In Jandakot, at Leeming Primary School, West Leeming Primary School and Banksia Park Primary School—the Jandakot booths around Roe 8 and Roe 9—there were strong results for the local Liberal, Joe Francis, who won these booths convincingly. I congratulate new WA opposition leader, Mike Nahan, in Riverton. On his campaign in support of Roe 8—his first campaign was in 2008—his local community has shown absolute commitment to getting the project built, with a very modest swing at this election in this seat. Mike won every booth. Overall, Labor had below-average swings to them in these seats in the southern suburbs, far short of the northern suburbs experience. Labor needs to consider what this support for Roe 8 and Roe 9 means and what it might mean to lose $1.2 billion in federal funding for this important infrastructure. Labor needs to consider and build Roe 8 and Roe 9. Workplace Relations 85 16:11 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I rise today to speak about a constituent of mine, young Callum. Callum comes to visit me every now and then, and we have our little chats. He is studying international relations and Japanese, and he wants to work in the field, so we have developed a great bond over our love of the field. We talk to each other regularly and I give him advice about his career. Callum is in his early 20s and he works at BigW at the shopping centre where my electorate office is located. He is working to pay his way and support himself through university. He works weekends and nights in order to do that, and for that he earns penalty rates. He misses out on a lot of late nights with his friends because he has to work the next morning. He misses out on watching the footy. He misses out on time with his family. He does all this because he wants to be independent. He wants to be able to see his own way through university, to pay his fees and to not rely on his parents, who cannot afford to pay for him anyway. The government should make it easier for ambitious young people like Callum, who bears all the hallmarks of a future leader. In my time I have mentored many young men and women, particularly young men, and Callum is one of the smartest young men—and one of the most ambitious, I might add—that I have had the pleasure to mentor in my life. But instead of supporting people like Callum—people who are ambitious and have leadership skills and who want to get ahead—we have a Liberal government that is intent on ripping money out of their pockets, as well as out of the pockets of millions of Australians. It is just not right and it is just not fair, particularly for someone like Callum. The weekend means something in Australia. I do not buy this argument that Sunday is like every other day. Anybody who still has a Sunday roast with their family or gets together with their mates and their family over a Sunday barbecue would recognise that the weekend still occupies a special place in our Australian culture. It is when we get to recharge, relax, watch the footy—although, I must admit, I do not watch footy, but I do like a bit of ice hockey. It is when we get to take our kids to do their team sport, go to the beach or spend some time with our loved ones. If you sacrifice your time with your loved ones, then you deserve to be compensated for that. It is not selfish or entitled to suggest that workers deserve to have a life. But it is selfish and entitled for the Canberra elite, who are busy trying to claim as much taxpayer money as possible for personal expenses, to decide that weekends do not matter for people like Callum. In fact, it is a disgrace. Quite frankly, it is time for Malcolm Turnbull and this Liberal government to save our weekend penalty rates. (Time expired) Sunshine Coast 85 16:15 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The experts agree: Queensland's Sunshine Coast is on a roll. With proper management and strong representation, it has one of the brightest futures of any region in the country. Bernard Salt, one of our nation's leading demographers, recently predicted an increase in the Sunshine Coast's population from around 350,000 people today to 550,000 by 2036, based on a continuation of rigorous, transformative economic growth now running at four per cent. Four per cent! That is nation-leading growth. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland has just completed research which predicts this strong growth is set to continue on the back of a pipeline of major projects—projects that the coalition government is backing strongly and that have helped spark a steady rise in business confidence. Let me give you a few examples. Over $1 billion will be spent over the coming years on local stretches of the Bruce Highway, 80 per cent funded by the Commonwealth government. The upgrading of Sunshine Coast Airport to a major international airport will be underway thanks in no small part to the coalition government generously extending a $181 million concessional loan to the local council. The construction of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital, which has also been strongly supported by this government, will transform health care and boost jobs for our rapidly growing population. Add to that the Maroochydore CBD and major housing developments by the likes of Stockland and you see why our region is attracting such optimistic forecasts. The Sunshine Coast Business Council, under the very strong leadership of its chair, Sandy Zubrinich, held its annual strategic directions discussion on 9 March. That discussion strongly reflected a growing sense of optimism based on infrastructure, investment and jobs, all built around a vision of a much expanded demographic of young, upwardly mobile families. This portrait of the strong future of the Sunshine Coast is richly deserved and it is in lockstep with the transformative policies and vision of the Turnbull coalition government. What excites me the most about the economic growth the coast is enjoying is that it comes without compromising our natural advantages. We experience a near-perfect climate. We have a lush, rolling hinterland. We have probably the healthiest lifestyle in Australia, making us the lifestyle capital. I have every confidence that, with the support of the coalition government, this will continue. Early Childhood Education 86 16:18 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Across Australia there are almost two million children who attend child care. The vast majority of these are aged between zero and five and they attend childcare centres before they are old enough to begin school. The first five years of a child's life are the most important, as they lay the foundations for health, safety, development, learning and happiness for the rest of the child's life. Yet early childhood educators are paid one-third less than those teaching and caring for children just a few years older. It is for this reason that on 8 March I was proud to stand alongside early childhood educators from the Swallow Street Child Care Centre in Inala to show my support as part of the Big Steps campaign. I joined the centre director, Kym Cook, Big Steps' equal pay and leave coordinator from United Voice Queensland, Linda Revill, and dozens of other childcare educators, families and supporters as we marched in unison with over 1,000 other educators across the country to demand a better deal. In particular, despite the incredibly important work they do, many early childhood educators are paid as little as $20 per hour—half the national average wage. Making matters worse is that 97 per cent of educators are female, which only further widens the gender pay gap in Australia. Helen Gibbons, the Assistant National Secretary of United Voice, says: Educators are walking off the job on International Women's Day to tell Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull it's time he valued their work by funding equal pay for educators. I am 100 per cent committed to ensuring that we further improve the education and training opportunities for our kids. In particular, it is crucial to make sure that we value early childhood educators as much as we value every child. In my electorate of Oxley, there are 7,000 families whose children are in child care. That is 7,000 families who place their trust in early childhood educators to care for and teach their children, yet educators' pay and wages do not reflect the true value they add to families and society. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with early childhood educators, not only at the Swallow Street Child Care Centre in Inala but right across the south-west of Brisbane in my Oxley electorate and throughout the country. All of our early childhood educators do a fantastic job, and it is time we recognised them and paid them what they deserve. We must make sure that child care is both affordable and accessible for Australian families but also recognise the incredibly important work of our early childhood educators by ensuring they are paid a fair and just wage. It is time for the wages of early childhood educators to reflect the essential role they have in shaping the future, one child at a time. Meningococcal Disease 86 16:21 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise today to again speak about meningococcal disease, a disease that has had a strong effect on my community, particularly in the Riverland. Meningococcus is an acute bacterial infection that can cause death within hours if not recognised and treated in a timely fashion. Given the quick progression of the disease, early action and treatment are vital. Diagnosis can be challenging, however, because the symptoms are so similar to those for influenza. Jazmyn Parkyn was one such case. On the night of 25 August 2015, the usually bright three-year-old began showing flu-like symptoms including a high temperature. As Jazmyn's two older sisters had both recently had the flu, Jazmyn's parents, Sarah and Aaron, were not overly concerned until they noticed a strange rash the next morning across Jazmyn's legs. If it was not for Jazmyn's mother deciding to take her to the doctor, 'just to be sure', and subsequently the doctor recognising the symptoms and sending Jazmyn straight to the hospital, the outcome for Jazmyn may have been very different. By that afternoon, while being monitored in hospital, the rash had spread extensively over little Jazmyn's body. It took less than 24 hours for Jazmyn, a usually happy and healthy three-year-old, to become seriously unwell. Jazmyn was then airlifted to the Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide. Following this distressful event, the Parkyn family, along with other supporters in the community, have become instrumental in raising awareness of the disease across the Riverland, South Australia and the nation more broadly. One such example is an event being held in Renmark on 2 April. The Parkyn family have organised Jazmyn's Fun Run to raise awareness of the disease. The event is a two-, five- or 10-kilometre run along the beautiful River Murray starting at Jarrett Memorial Gardens in Renmark. The Parkyn family are, as you have heard, staunch advocates for making the vaccine more accessible to families—as am I. Indeed, I have spoken in this place on this topic before. I commend their dedication to raising awareness of the disease and their push to deliver vaccines to every Australian family. I hope to be there on 2 April to join in with the Parkyn family, although I do not normally associate running with fun! It might be hard to conceive, but I have even been to the gym and stepped up my game a little. I encourage all those in the Riverland to take a leaf out of my book and come along to see what a fantastic day this will be. Well done to the Parkyn family on organising this event and their campaign to raise awareness around meningococcal disease. Herbert Electorate: Veterans 87 16:24 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I rise in this place today to tell the Turnbull government to back off on any thoughts, actions or processes currently underway to close the Townsville Department of Veterans' Affairs office. Over the 24 last hours, I have been inundated with phone calls, emails and Facebook messages from deeply concerned veterans and their families regarding reports of the Turnbull government's plans to close the DVA office in Townsville. The Turnbull government has been very devious and sneaky in how it has gone about this activity. At the start of last year, there were nine staff working at the Townsville DVA office in the incapacity, rehabilitation and compensation sections. I believe that this government has verbally offered those nine staff either a relocation to Brisbane or a redundancy. All of those staff will relocate or take a redundancy, with the last leaving in April 2017. After April, there will only be the Veterans' Access Network staff, three of them, at the DVA office and two at Lavarack base. But do not worry because the Turnbull government has not forgotten them. It now appears that this government is discussing the relocation of the three VAN staff to the Centrelink office. Do they have any idea of this stress this will add to our veterans, not to mention the stress this will add to an already overcrowded Centrelink office? This government are responsible for cramming the Medicare office into the Centrelink office and now they want to add the DVA. What is next—the Australian tax office? We have all heard the government spruiking their jobs and growth mantra but it is very clear that they do not mean in regional Queensland where I come from. This is a joke. This is evidence of this government's complete and utter disregard for jobs in the regions. The Turnbull government's complete disregard for Townsville veterans is astonishing. This government announced a review into veteran suicide and Townsville is to be a trial site. I welcome this announcement. Sadly, I thought we would see some action on veteran suicide but how wrong was I? Seven months on, the Townsville veterans and their families are still waiting. This government cannot further punish our veterans and their families—too many lives are at risk. Our veterans deserve better and they certainly deserve better than a government that does not appear to care. If this government think that they can deliberately run DVA into the ground and stop access to front-line services for thousands and thousands of Townsville veterans then they have got another thing coming. Whilst I am the member for Herbert, it will not happen. Today I wrote to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable Dan Tehan, demanding clarification on exactly what was to happen: will the staff be relocated; will the office be closed; and, if the office is closing, when? Townsville is the largest garrison city in Australia, and we need to be strengthening our Department of Veterans' Affairs, not ripping it apart. Dunkley Electorate: Fundraising 87 16:27 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley This last weekend was a weekend of community fundraising in Dunkley. The sheer number of events that occurred is one of the many factors that make me very proud to be part of our generous community. Mt Eliza CFA, for example, were out on Saturday, rattling tins to fundraise for the maintenance and purchase of equipment to protect our local community, a new tanker, amongst other things. We are so lucky to have an active Country Fire Authority in our community, with Mount Eliza CFA being a brigade entirely made up of volunteers. On the same weekend, this same brigade of the Mount Eliza CFA saw members Madison and Dan both shave their heads as part of the World's Greatest Shave to raise funds for leukaemia and blood cancer research. Every day, 31 Australians receive the news that no-one ever wants to hear—that they have leukaemia. Leukaemia or blood cancer more broadly is the third most common cause of cancer death in Australia and, while research is progressing, an Australian life is lost to blood cancer every two hours. To mark that day, I also coloured my hair Liberal blue and yellow but managed to wash it out in time for the start of the sitting week yesterday–after three or four attempts. On Saturday evening, I attended a dinner raising funds for Fusion Mornington Peninsula, who bring purpose, love and resilience into the lives of young people at risk. The Feast for Life was held to support this fantastic organisation, which helps to get young people's lives back on track. It was an honour to be a part of their journey. Fusion is based at the old Balcombe Army barracks where my own father did Army training. It is great that this venue is still being put to such good use. The final event I have time to mention is the K163 Kids' Fun Run on Sunday which was jointly run by the Rotary Club of Mount Eliza, Peninsula Health and Mornington Railway and supported by many other local organisations. The funds raised will help purchase state-of-the-art equipment for kids at Frankston Hospital. I congratulate everyone involved with a marathon fundraising effort this last weekend in Dunkley. We have plenty to be proud of as a community. I was also pleased recently to announce $100,000 for the Langwarrin Community Garden at the Langwarrin Community Centre. This is yet another group in our electorate based in Langwarrin, which provides a great community service and fundraising efforts to help the community of Langwarrin and residents in the wider region. Thank you for the opportunity to raise this today. I look forward to raising future Dunkley fundraising events for our wonderful community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 88 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Military Commemorations 88 16:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The Anzac Centenary period, 2014 to 2018, honours the service and sacrifice of our original Anzacs and the generations of Australian service men and women who have defended our values and freedoms in wars, conflicts and peace operations throughout a century of service. 2016 was a very important year of commemoration for Australia, being 100 years since our first AIF commenced operations on the Western Front in the First World War and 50 years after one of our most significant battles in the Vietnam War. Key activities conducted last year included the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Fromelles, on 19 July 2016; the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Pozieres, on 23 July 2016; and the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, on 18 August 2016. On July 19 1916, one of the bloodiest battles in modern warfare unfolded in northern France. By the time Australian troops took their place on the battlefield of northern France in July 1916, the massive Anglo-French offensive against entrenched German forces had begun in earnest. The first day of the Somme offensive, 1 July, is still regarded as the biggest disaster in the history of the British Army, with some 60,000 casualties—a third of whom died. Australian troops in France at the time numbered around 80,000, with a mixture of experienced commanders and soldiers who had cut their teeth at Gallipoli, and untested, raw recruits. It was those untested soldiers of the 5th Australian Division who would see the first major action involving Australians on the Western Front at the Battle of Fromelles. Fromelles, designed as a feint to keep the Germans from moving their reserves from northern Flanders to the Somme, was believed by some to be doomed from the start. The Germans had every advantage. No-man's-land was up to 400 metres wide in places and flat and featureless, presenting German soldiers with unrestricted views of the Australian and British soldiers advancing in broad daylight. Concealed machine gunners, including those in a heavily fortified strong point known as the Sugarloaf, commanded fields of fire over the ground that any attackers had to cross, and in the rear were batteries of well-sited artillery. From high vantage points, German observers had panoramic views over the Allied trenches and rear areas. An Australian general said after the war that they could: … count every sentry in our lines … and could at once, detect any preparation for attack. A more suitable site from which to launch a well-advertised attack could hardly have been found on the Western Front. During what became the most costly 24 hours in Australia's wartime history, Australian troops suffered more than 5,500 casualties in their attack towards Fromelles, including more than 1,900 dead and 470 captured. The British 61st Division suffered more than 1,500 casualties, and the German defenders almost as many. In July last year I attended the 100th anniversary commemorations for the battles of Fromelles and Pozieres in France. I attended the commemorative service and headstone dedication at Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery, followed by the national commemorative service at VC Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial near Fromelles. Then, on 23 July, I attended the national commemorative service at the 1st Australian Division Memorial at Pozieres in France. Over six weeks Australia suffered some 23,000 casualties at Pozieres, including nearly 7,000 dead—close to the total number of casualties at Gallipoli over eight months. Almost 100 kilometres to the south of Fromelles the 1st, 2nd and 4th Australian divisions had made their way through the countryside to the Somme sector, the landscape shifting from pleasant cornfields almost ready for harvest to endless horse lines, batteries of artillery, piled up shells, dumps of every description, debris and unburied dead. Charged with capturing the village of Pozieres, the Australians attacked just after midnight on 22-23 July. The 1st Division took the village and, soon after, encountered fierce counterattacks. A member of the Australian 9th Battalion wrote: The enemy came over the ridge like swarms of ants, rushing from shell hole to shell hole. Our men, full of fight and confidence, lined the parapet and emptied magazine after magazine into them. Some of the boys, anxious to get a shot at the Germans, pulled one another down from the fire step in the midst of the fight. Under this fire and that of our machine guns and the artillery, which tore great gaps in the advancing lines, the enemy attack withered. During a German counterattack on the night of 6-7 August, Lieutenant—later Captain—Albert Jacka, who had been awarded the Victoria Cross in Gallipoli, inspired his men to charge the enemy, who had overrun their positions, and ferocious hand-to-hand fighting ensued. Seriously wounded in the fighting, Jacka was awarded the Military Cross for his gallantry, but many believed he had earned a bar to his VC. Five Australians were awarded the Victoria Cross for actions during the Battle of Pozieres. By the end of July 1916 Australia had taken over the entire front at Pozieres and turned its attention to capturing Mouquet Farm, a strategically important stronghold for the Germans further to the north. Three Australian divisions—the 1st, 2nd and 4th—all took part in the fighting at Pozieres and Mouquet Farm. Thiepval and then Mouquet Farm eventually fell to the Allies and, in early 1917, the German army retreated to the Hindenburg Line. It is estimated that total casualties on both sides during the Somme offensive totalled more than 1.2 million French, German and British Empire soldiers. The Australian government was proud to host a commemoration for the Vietnam War for the Vietnam veteran community in the Great Hall of Parliament House on Wednesday, 17 August 2016. More than 400 veterans attended, and dignitaries included the Governor-General and Lady Cosgrove, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition and the New Zealand Deputy Speaker. At 5.30 am on 18 August the names of the 521 Australians who were killed during the Vietnam War were read from the Vietnam honour roll at the Australian War Memorial. This was followed by a stand-to service at the Stone of Remembrance on the Memorial's parade ground and a breakfast in the park for the Vietnam veterans, which was supported by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the ACT government. A national service was held later that morning at the Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial on Anzac Parade to formally mark Vietnam Veterans Day and the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. The service was attended by the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, more than 400 veterans and many members of the public. As part of the commemorations, aircraft from the Vietnam era, including two USAF B52 bombers, a C130 Caribou, DC3 Cessnas and an Iroquois helicopter flew over Parliament House, then along Anzac Parade and over the Australian War Memorial. Four artillery guns, manned by members from the Australian Army's 103 and 105 batteries, the New Zealand Army's 161 Battery and a United States Army gun crew, fired a salute from Rond Terrace on the banks of Lake Burley Griffin. The day culminated in a commemorative parade and a reception at Gallipoli Barracks in Brisbane for members of the Long Tan Veterans Association and the 6 RAR Association, organised by the Australian Defence Force. The Battle of Long Tan was one of the fiercest battles fought by Australian soldiers in the Vietnam War. It involved 105 Australians and three New Zealanders from D Company, 6 RAR. A total of 17 Australians were killed in action in the battle and 25 were wounded, one of whom later died of his wounds, making it the most costly single engagement of the war. D Company were greatly assisted by ammunition resupply. (Extension of time granted) Earlier the previous day, the Australian operational base at Nui Dat was hit by a surprise 20-minute barrage of Vietcong mortar and recoil rifle fire, which left 24 personnel wounded. The 1st Australia Task Force, comprising two inventory battalions, 5 RAR and 6 RAR, had only arrived in South Vietnam two months prior. B company, from 6 RAR, set out the next morning to locate the enemy's firing position and, at midday on 18 August, D Company relieved B Company and took up the pursuit of the enemy. It was 3.40 in the afternoon when D Company's 11 Platoon clashed briefly with a small group of Vietcong just north of the derelict village of Long Tan. The fact that the enemy wore khaki and used AK-47s, the dress and equipment of the main force Vietcong, and were not merely provincial troops went, initially, unnoticed by 11 Platoon. The D Company commander, Major Harry Smith, said, 'At first the penny didn't drop.' Over the next 30 minutes it became clear that the Australians were facing a much larger force than expected, and 11 Platoon came under devastating small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades from almost all sides. The men were surrounded and pinned down. Within 20 minutes the leading group of Australians had one-third of their men killed or wounded. Torrential monsoon rain broke out and over the next 3½ hours intense fighting ensued, including waves of enemy infantry attacks by a force with a vastly superior numerical advantage. What was thought, at the start of the battle, to be an enemy force of fewer than 150 turned out to be an opposition of more than 2,000 troops. Australian artillery began to fire in support of the pinned-down Australians, adjusting the shellfire with information from the embedded New Zealand forward observation officer. While the bombardment took a heavy toll on the enemy, the besieged D Company was isolated and vulnerable. It was outnumbered almost 10 to one; annihilation seemed inevitable. At around 7 pm that night, Australian armed personnel carriers, containing members of A Company, broke through the enemy line and drove them off. The Australians withdrew into the dark. Two Australians, wounded but alive, were found on the battlefield the following day. The bravery, tenacity and sacrifice of the Australian and New Zealand soldiers at Long Tan has come to symbolise Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. Last year was significant for some of the most significant events of the Second World War. In 2016 we commemorated the 75th Anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Sydney by the German raider Kormoran. We remembered this tragedy for Australia's Navy and we remembered the high price that comes with service and sacrifice. The loss of the Sydney and its 645 crew was a devastating blow to the loved ones of those on board, as it would be decades before the wreck and their last resting place would be found. Last year also marked the 75th anniversary of one of the Australian Defence Force's most famous exploits: the Siege of Tobruk. This eight-month long siege saw allied forces—more than two-thirds of them Australians—hold out against the German Afrika Korps. In Canberra I commemorated and remembered with 25 surviving Rats of Tobruk. It was a privilege and an honour to listen to the stories of the bravery of ordinary Australians in extraordinary circumstances. More than 15,000 Australians fought as part of the allied force defending Tobruk and its harbour. In a related event, we also commemorated the 75th anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Parramatta II, sunk by a torpedo fired by the German submarine U559. One hundred and thirty-eight Australians lost their lives in the wreck; only 24 survived. The Parramatta II has been instrumental in securing safe passage for valuable fuel and food to besieged allied forces in Tobruk. Across the Mediterranean, we also commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Battles of Greece and Crete. These battles, where over 17,000 Australians served, so many Australians only survive due to the assistance of the local population. It has created a firm bond between our countries. Sadly, nearly 600 Australians were killed, almost 750 were wounded and more than 5,100 were taken as prisoners. Tragically, the local population suffered a heavier price with more than half a million Greeks having lost their lives. Seventy-five years on, we commemorated the service and sacrifice of these men and women, Greeks and Australians, at the Hellenic Memorial on Anzac Parade. The year 2016 saw the 25th anniversary of the First Gulf War—a significant commemoration that was acknowledged in parliament. The First Gulf War saw Australia's defence forces engaged in waterlike operations— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Order! The minister's time has expired. Mr TEHAN 210911 If I could have a little bit more leave— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 If no member objects— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I do not think there is any provision in the Federation Chamber, but I move an extension of time. I know it is slightly out of order. Can I move an additional 30 seconds for the minister to close his address? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Regretfully, I cannot accept that motion, but what we can do, if no member objects, is, on indulgence, allow the minister to finish his statement. I thank all members of the chamber. Mr TEHAN 210911 The 25th anniversary of the First Gulf War and also the 50th anniversary of the end of the Indonesian confrontation were also commemorated. I might take another opportunity to just mention those in detail. I thank the House for its indulgence so I was able to update all these incredibly important commemorations to our nation. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The question is that the document be noted. 16:47 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the minister for his comprehensive coverage of a number of significant events. There are many commemorations taking place of significant parts of our military history. It is important that we acknowledge and pay tribute to the brave men and women who have served and sacrificed for our country. As many members may be aware, the centenary of Anzac began in 2014 and encompasses a number of significant anniversaries. These occasions provide us with the opportunity to pause and reflect on the nature of service and the enduring legacy of those who fought and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Of course, in addition to this, there have been many anniversaries and significant moments of conflict have followed. In 2006, we saw a number of significant anniversaries, from the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan to the 100th anniversary of Fromelles and Pozieres. Included with this, as the minister rightly identified, there have been other significant events interspersed with a number of equally important commemorative services. All of these have given us the opportunity to remember those who served and those who were left behind. While each of these battles were separated in time and distance, one of the enduring commentaries that come from Australian sacrifice and service is that the spirit of Anzac shone through on all these occasions. Our soldiers' courage in adversity, enduring mateship and self-sacrifice are qualities for which Australians are known. Given that the minister has provided a comprehensive summary of the commemorative events that took place in 2016, when this motion was first moved, perhaps it is fitting that, at the end of this discussion, I discuss commemorative events which will be coming up in 2017. 2017 has seen and will see a number of significant anniversaries commemorated. In February this year we commemorated the 75th anniversary of the fall of Singapore, and the service and sacrifice of all Australian prisoners of war was recognised. I was honoured to attend the official event in Ballarat on 15 February which commemorated the brave actions of many men and women. The fall of Singapore saw the Japanese forces stream into Singapore by the north-west of the island. The Australian defenders were spread too thinly and were forced back by the invaders. Our troops continued to fight, but, late in the day on 15 February, the British commander surrendered, and 15,000 Australians were taken prisoner. Over World War II, the Japanese took 22,000 Australians as prisoners of war, subjecting them to nightmarish conditions. Eight thousand of those men never came home. The fall of Singapore also had long-lasting repercussions on the international stage, altering our relationship with Britain and aligning us more closely with the US, while, at home, the loss of our men and the treatment of prisoners of war continues to be felt. Its anniversary, 15 February, is an important commemoration which enables us to reflect on the courage displayed by these men, as well as by nurses, and on the cost of war. This commemoration was followed by, on 19 February, the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. This event has long been remembered as the most ferocious enemy attack on Australian soil. Harry Dale, who was on the HMAS Karangi during the first attack, recalled: Where ever you look there are burning or sinking ships, the air is filled with the smell of cordite, gun fire, and exploding bombs. The first raid, undertaken by over 260 enemy aircraft, sank eight ships in the harbour and was followed by land-based bombers targeting the RAAF station. The attack was fast, ferocious and devastating. This event, so close to the fall of Singapore, forever changed our nation, bringing war home in a way that had not happened before. In September this year, we will have the opportunity to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Polygon Wood. This anniversary acknowledges the 5,770 Australians from the Australian Imperial Force's 4th and 5th Divisions who were killed or wounded near Ypres in Belgium. The Battle of Polygon Wood is named after a young forest plantation that lay wrecked along the Allied axis of advance, beginning at 5.50 am on 26 September 1917. Despite several German counterattacks, the Australian infantry consolidated their position with the support of heavy defensive artillery barges. This battle was the first major offensive for the 5th Division since Fromelles and the first time in World War I that the two Australian divisions fought side by side. It was declared a great success for the Australian Imperial Force and is the reason the 5th Division picked the Butte at Polygon Wood for their memorial on the Western Front. October then marks the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Beersheba, as part of the third Battle of Gaza. On the night of 30 October, British infantry and ANZACs and the British mounted troops marched through the dark towards Beersheba. At dawn, the British 53rd, 60th and 74th divisions, supported by artillery bombardment, attacked a five-kilometre-long entrenchment position. The battle continued through the day, and the men of the ANZAC Mounted Division made slow progress. It was not until 3 pm when the ANZACs were close enough to seize the hill. With time running out, the 4th Light Horse Brigade were ordered to make a mounted attack towards the town. Commencing at dusk, members of the brigade stormed through Turkish defences and seized the strategic town of Beersheba. This enabled the British imperial force to break the Ottoman line near Gaza and advance into Palestine. While the 4th and 12th Light Horse only saw 31 killed and 36 wounded, they captured over 700 men. The fall of Beersheba swayed the battle against the Turks in Palestine and changed the history of the Middle East war. These are only a few of the important battles which will be commemorated this year, as we approach the end of the centenary next year. In addition, this year also marks a number of other important anniversaries. June sees the 75th anniversary of Bomber Command operations, August has the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Milne Bay, in September it will be the 70th anniversary of Australian peacekeepers and peacemakers, October has the 75th anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein and the culmination of the North African campaign, and November sees the 75th anniversary of Kokoda and the beachheads. These, of course, are important battles which saw significant acts of bravery and gallantry and displayed the spirit of our Anzacs. The spirit which was forged on the fields of Gallipoli has been seen again and again. It was seen on the battlefields of Singapore and carried through to the Battle of Long Tan. This is the spirit which our current serving ADF members carry with them, and through our current serving ADF members the legacy of our serving men and women of the past lives on. Lest we forget. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 92 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Environment and Energy 92 Report 92 16:57 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I begin by thanking the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy for undertaking this inquiry into flying fox management in the eastern states. In particular, I thank the chair, the member for Mallee, and the deputy chair, the member for Shortland, and indeed the minister, who was supportive of me in my quest to have this inquiry undertaken. I also thank all those witnesses, including expert witnesses, that gave their time to present to the committee. I sought this inquiry because I have communities in my electorate—and I am sure other members of the House have shared these experiences—literally under siege. People have to put with terrible smells and terrible noise. People cannot hang clothes on the clothes line and no longer have family and friends visit because there is nowhere to park the car, and the car, of course, is under threat from the droppings of the flying foxes. We had a situation in Cessnock where people were starting to take the law into their own hands. The situation was at one point so bad that they were trying to burn down the habitat of the flying foxes. We had firemen come to the scene to extinguish that fire, and they themselves were concerned, like local residents, about their own personal health and wellbeing. It is not just Cessnock. In Singleton we had a terrible problem in a place called Burdekin Park, the park in which the cenotaph stands. We just had a very solemn and important debate about our various operations in the military sphere. Burdekin Park was the place where we used to hold solemn services like Anzac Day services but have been unable to do so for some six years now. Such was the extent to which the flying foxes had taken over Burdekin Park. In Blackalls Park on the western side of Lake Macquarie, we had up to 100,000 flying foxes living right in amongst houses. During the last election campaign, I travelled to the seat of Paterson with the now member, Meryl Swanson, to talk with the local community about the situation in Raymond Terrace. The problem, of course, is finding a solution. The starting point is to acknowledge that the numbers of the various subspecies of flying fox, including the grey-headed flying fox, are in decline and that they do play a very important role in our ecology, pollinating much of the native flora that is so important to our environment. On the other side of the equation, as I have said, they are causing terrible, horrible situations in local communities. I did hope that the parliamentary inquiry, with expert witnesses, might throw up some solutions and answers to the difficult questions—answers that neither I, local communities, state governments nor local governments have been able to find. I did not go into this inquiry with high expectations, because I knew how difficult a question it was, but I did hope that something, a solution, that no-one had thought of before might come out of the inquiry. That, sadly, was not the case. First of all, I should say the inquiry confirmed everything that I have said—that is, that the numbers are in decline, that they are a critical species to the environment and that they are a terrible scourge on our local communities. All of those points were absolutely confirmed, but magic answers were not found. However, some helpful recommendations have been made, including a certainty in funding for research and data. You cannot fix a problem if you do not understand the problem, and research and ongoing data is critical to understanding this problem. Second, there is a recommendation there to deal with the complexities of the overlapping responsibilities of Commonwealth and state governments. It is one of the great wonders of our Federation. We see this not just on this issue but on just about every issue we tackle in this place: the complex situation where you have a dual responsibility across state and Commonwealth jurisdictions. The committee has made a recommendation about a establishing a COAG group that would work to try to at least minimise those complexities, to lower the bar, and to make it easier for both local and state governments to deal with these issues. There is also a recommendation about helping local councils deal with the problem. Councils are always the first port of call for members of the local community when they are facing such a significant problem, but the fact is the councils have neither the resources nor the tools to adequately respond to this community problem. They need help, and I am pleased that the committee recognised that and have made at least some recommendations about giving those councils the tools they require to act on behalf of the community. Fourth—and these are not exhaustive. I will not have the time to go through all the recommendations, but the fourth key point was a recommendation on greater community education about flying foxes and the role they play in our ecology in our environment. The reality— Mr Christensen interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I hear the member for Dawson, I am sure, out of the greatest respect, challenging the idea that the flying foxes play an important role in the ecology and in the environment. I would appeal to the member, on what I thought was going to be very much a bipartisan debate, to reflect on that interjection before he speaks—if he is speaking on this matter. I know he still wants to have a debate about climate change, but there are some things that just fall in the category of fact. It is a fact that the flying foxes do play an important role pollinating so much of the native flora in this country, which, in turn, plays a significant role in various food chains. This is incontestable, Member for Dawson. Please do not make this problem any harder by challenging that. If you want to get the shotgun out and shoot them all, get up and say so, but there will not be too any experts around the country, member for Dawson, who will back you up on that. When I was trying to help my local community, Mr Deputy Speaker, there were times when I felt like getting the shotgun out; I can tell you. I have talked about my concern about communities taking the law into their own hands, and I was actually fearful that one day someone would decide to take up arms. The extension of my fear was that there would be someone taking up arms at one end of the habitat and someone taking up arms at the other end of the habitat. This is where we have a responsible role to play—I say to the member for Dawson—in making sure that we maintain civil order and let the authorities, as best they can, deal with these issues. I welcome the recommendations but also make the point that, while my expectations were not high, I am disappointed that the committee was unable to find a way of making more substantial recommendations. As meritorious as the recommendations are, for my people living in Singleton, Cessnock and Blackalls Park next season, probably next spring, these recommendations will make no difference whatsoever. These recommendations, particularly the recommendation that seeks to deal with the complexities of Commonwealth and state jurisdiction, might help over a period of time but they are not going to provide any immediate relief. Members of this place and members in state parliaments need to ready themselves for these events occurring on a regular basis, the potential for civil disobedience, and a point where, as legislators, we may need a more aggressive approach. Of course, displacement is part of that. We saw evidence that displacement is rarely successful over the medium to long term, so it may be that we will be revisiting this question, and we will need to work with other levels of government to find something more substantial to deal with what is a very serious problem for local communities. 17:07 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I am very pleased to rise to speak on the report Living with fruit bats: inquiry into flying-fox management in the eastern states. This report of the inquiry into flying fox management in the eastern states holds a special place in my heart because it is the first inquiry process I have been through from start to finish as a new MP. The topic arose as a consequence of some of the practical difficulties—well described by the previous speaker, the member for Hunter—in the balancing act between the liveability in some of our suburbs and the importance of proper species protection. In the inquiry we heard from people who are, naturally, concerned to ensure the ongoing strength and viability of flying fox populations. We also heard from local councils who have been struggling to contain the impacts on residents when flying fox communities move into areas in great numbers, making people's homes virtually uninhabitable. It was a topic that grabbed me from the start given that, since childhood, I have had an interest in and love of Australia's natural environment, and given my inner-city electorate, where three of Australia's four species of flying fox can be found. My experience in this parliamentary process has really reinforced my faith in the ability of parliamentary committees to hear different points of view, consider the evidence and balance competing interests in a transparent and mostly bipartisan way. We had all the stakeholders and experts around a big table here in this parliament last year, and we facilitated a conversation that drew out some of the stories, some of the opportunities and some of the challenges that arise when we live with flying foxes. In an age when some say that parliamentary democracy is ill-suited to meeting the demands of a population increasingly looking for quick fixes and instant gratification, more people should be aware of the good work done by our parliamentary committees, often in a bipartisan way. The four recommendations that were made by the committee are targeted, appropriate and meaningful, but I take the point made by the member for Hunter that there were no huge breakthroughs in terms of managing these issues. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth play a leadership role to help councils and local residents to more easily find the right advice and information right from the start, to help with these issues when they arise. Many of the problems that did arise in the stories we heard from councils and residents struggling to find the right advice were from misinformation that was misdirecting residents to take various actions, and misdirecting councils sometimes as well into making unrealistic commitments to their residents. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth play a coordinating role when it comes to tracking flying fox numbers, management actions and research. The committee also recommended that we continue our existing funding, as well as better fund research and conservation efforts, so that we better understand flying fox populations, which are notoriously difficult to assess, given they are flying mammals who can travel individually sometimes up to thousands of kilometres in just a number of days. The committee also recommended that the department create a tool for assisting councils to make better decisions around action and referral, as well a suite of education resources to be made available to the Australian community. Some important observations can be made on the way through. Firstly, flying foxes are an important part of our ecosystem. Without the pollination and seed distribution actions of flying foxes many of our species of gum trees and other native flora would die out. Secondly, when Australians think we do not have migratory megafauna to manage, like other continents such as Africa and North America, maybe we need to rethink some of our approaches to regional habitat management. Thirdly, whilst some flying foxes, admittedly, may seem at first blush to have faces that only a mother could love, if you look again more carefully maybe, just maybe, you will be persuaded to shift your opinion. On a serious point, though, while some of the world's largest, most identifiable and possibly fluffiest creatures seem to get all of the attention and the funding when it comes to species conservation, I have always been a big believer since my early days as a kid—when I was passionate about native fish species, such as the threatened honey blue-eye and the purple spotted gudgeon—that the dullest and the ugliest of our creatures, sometimes both great and small, deserve our care and attention just as much. Australia is our sanctuary—an economic sanctuary, an environmental sanctuary and a sanctuary affording us safety from many of the ills and the miseries in the wider world. We should take very seriously the responsibility that comes with having the custodianship of both a country and a continent. This inquiry was important work. I am proud of this report. I am proud of this parliament and of our liberal democracy. I commend this report to the House. I commend the recommendations of the inquiry to the minister, the department and their counterparts in the state and territory governments. 17:12 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy This report, Living with fruit bats: Inquiry into flying-fox management in the eastern states, is a most extraordinary document, and that was a most extraordinary speech by the previous speaker. It scares the hell out of me to listen to someone like that. I represent an electorate. My main office is in a place called Innisfail. In Innisfail on the weekend a human being was ripped to pieces. His arms were torn off. His legs were torn off. This is how a crocodile kills you. It is the most dreadful way to die. You are normally still alive, and then he hides you somewhere where he can feed on you later on. A human being suffered this on the weekend. But the sort of mentality that was exemplified by the previous speaker—possibly all the speakers, I do not know—puts animals above human beings. I was at university until they found out I was there and booted me out. I did a unit called psychology, and in that unit there was a definition of psychosis—I would use the term 'madness' but other people would use the term 'psychosis'. The definition was 'a person who had no feelings for his fellow human beings'. This gentlemen that stood up before in this place was really concerned about flying foxes. We were left with the distinct impression that he was really concerned about flying foxes. A resident of his electorate was attacked by two flying foxes. Her arms and parts of her body were torn and shredded. She could not escape from them. They just kept coming at her. In Hendra, a suburb of Brisbane, not far away from where this woman was attacked, there is a virus which is called Hendra virus because that is where it was found. Four of the six people that have contracted Hendra virus have died. It has a death rate of 60 per cent. This woman said, 'You know, if I'd been attacked by a human being, the human being would have been put in jail for seven years.' That is the normal incarceration rate when you physically attack someone seriously and violently like that. But, because it is a flying fox, nothing is done to it at all. There is nothing at all that is done to it. I am a person that takes a great and keen interest in nature. I love nature. I live on a little paradise of 10 acres, where we have nearly 1,000 native trees surrounding us and some 32 species of birds that we can see almost every week from the back landing of our house. If you know nature and you understand nature, then you know that there is a balance. That balance has been there for 40,000 years, since human beings first came to this continent. That balance meant that the number of flying foxes was very, very restrained. They had a very limited food source because the vegetation was not very great in North Queensland. Contrary to popular opinion, they do not actually live in the rainforest very much at all; they live outside of the rainforest. There are some species—very small, minor numbers—that do. Flying foxes, of course, provided food for the First Australians. There are those in this place who seem to be fairly ignorant of every aspect of nature—and of various other things as well, like the economy. For those of us that do take an interest in these things, you would know that a boomerang is a weapon uniquely used to attack flying foxes. It is not a weapon that will pick up a bird, which flies very swiftly, but it will pick up a flying fox, which flies very slowly. It can pick it up in the trees. Track two or three of them to a tree full of flying foxes and you will get one or two, that is for certain. There was no doubt that they were a small but significant proportion of the diet of the people that lived here for 40,000 years. Most of the people that live here now have only been here for 150 years. Almost the entire population came out in the gold rushes, so there was no-one really living here, until 150 years ago, that was European. That a person could stand up in this place and advocate for the protection of flying foxes—are these people not aware of the 60 Minutes program where that little boy died in the most agonising pain conceivable by human beings? For those—and there would be many of us—that read and love the Wilbur Smith novels, the main event of his first novel was the death of the hero's best friend from rabies. Lyssavirus is just a form of rabies. It is the worst possible way to die. He, in fact, shot his friend rather than see him die in the way that he was dying. This little boy died, and it was filmed on 60 Minutes, and yet there has not been one speech in this place saying, 'Get out there with a shotgun and get rid of the damn things!' They are a filthy menace. They have a DNA very similar to human beings, and that means that they carry the diseases that will attack human beings. Let me name them: lyssavirus, which no-one has survived in Australia. That little boy died from it, off the member for Dawson's area—and I am sure he will feel as passionately about it as I do. They carry Hendra virus, which has killed four out of the six people that have contracted it. Let me take you to the coalface. Let me rub the faces of some of the stupid people that are elected to represent the people of Australia in this place in the gutter of their own creation. I speak with passion because I feel passionate about it. In this case, two horses contracted the disease. I rode one of those horses—I ride one of the most beautiful horses at the front of the Ingham procession at the annual Australian Italian Festival. I will not name the family, because they have already been to hell and back. When they walked down the street, everyone left the street. They would not be served in shops. It was just like they had leprosy. Everyone knew them—they were a very prominent family—and for two or three months of their lives and for a very long time afterwards, people would not associate with them or have anything to do with them whatsoever. There was a huge bat colony on the edge of their property outside of Ingham, and they were not allowed to remove them or even move them on. And when we attempted to move them on, there was the environment department, who are a bunch of people that blood-suck off the people of Australia—they produce nothing; they do not even produce any flow of information that would be of use to anyone. They are absorbing thousands of millions of dollars of government money and delivering absolutely nothing back to us. I speak with great sensitivity on the issue because I represent the jungles of Australia—almost all of Australia's jungles are in the Kennedy electorate, with a little tiny bit in the electorate of the member for Dawson, who is suffering from an inferiority complex here—in New South Wales, where they have very prominent cultivation that they make a lot of money out of, at Nimbin and those places! But I represent the vast bulk of Australia's jungles. I also represent, along with the member for Dawson, almost all of the populated area of the Great Barrier Reef. We deserve, and should get, a flow of information. I will get to the sort of information we get. The great authorities from the university in Townsville told us that the dugong were vanishing, that they were an endangered species, and they quoted the figures of where the dugong numbers had dropped clean in half. Then there was a report, in this case done by the Institute of Marine Science—and there is a body that does earn its money; it gives us a flow of information that has an understanding of the real world in which we live—that said, 'Yes, the numbers have dropped clean in half in the bottom half of the Barrier Reef, and they doubled in the northern half of the Barrier Reef.' We simply want to get rid of the bats—we do not want to study them and we do not want to spend a fortune studying them. We want to get rid of them, and it is very simple: you put a very loud noise under all the trees, and they go away. I would prefer to get them to catch lead poisoning, but anyway. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 That was a mesmerising speech, I must say. I could listen for some time longer but, unfortunately, it is 10 minutes apiece. I call the honourable member for Capricornia. 17:23 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I would like to respond to the recommendations proposed following the inquiry into flying fox management in the eastern states and, in particular, how this affects residents in my electorate of Capricornia. We are all aware of the challenge of balancing environmental protections of native species with community safety; however, it seems that, once again, we are putting bats before people and not addressing the concerns of regional communities. The recommendations need to consider the costs laid onto regional communities and the burden the protections place on those living amongst large colonies of flying foxes. I support ongoing funding, but this needs to be balanced with research into improved dispersal methods while ensuring the state governments take action. Most importantly, the state government needs to work more collaboratively with local councils with a clearer pathway for flying fox relocation. To date, the cost of dispersal is being borne by local governments in Queensland and, in some cases, community members have to fork out for testing costs themselves. This is not acceptable and may also lead to communities taking matters into their own hands to the detriment of flying fox communities. This is not a good outcome for anyone. In Queensland, council has as-of-right permission from the state government to take certain non-lethal action to manage and potentially disperse flying fox roosts in urban settings within Queensland. While these as-of-right permissions exist, it is not simple or cost-effective for councils to use these powers. The powers give councils the ability to remove trees and undertake habitat modification. But, as in Eungella and Walkerston, this does not have long-term results. Detailed and prolonged campaigns of dispersal activities are expensive. Councils need support to assess the best way forward, as outlined in recommendation 3, but also need financial assistance to implement management plans. A collaborative and collective approach is the best way to achieve this, but the state government buck-passing must stop. I wish to raise this specific issue troubling the residents of Eungella in the north of my electorate of Capricornia. This is a perfect example of the real-life challenges facing regional communities with flying fox problems. Last week I witnessed firsthand a large colony of flying foxes roosting in the national park directly adjacent to the school, and when I say 'adjacent', I mean directly along the fence line with overgrown trees in the schoolyard. The bats are stripping trees in the national park. They are destroying local fruit trees and vegetation. I have never seen anything like it. They are crawling over each other in droves. The council understands the residents' concerns and is working towards trying to develop appropriate actions to assist. Why should the financial and resource burden be passed to local communities and councils? As the committee report highlights, the nesting sites of flying foxes are a wider issue. Dispersal from higher density areas usually means relocation to less populated areas—that is, those in rural areas. Yet the costs are borne completely by the receiving council, and there are too many limitations on making the best decisions based on the needs of local residents. But let's return to Eungella for a moment to highlight their inefficiency of dealing with this problem. Parents have raised concerns and the school as attempting to work with the Department of Education and the Department of National Parks. For months the education department said it was a national parks issue, and national parks were only concerned with their side of the fence. After a lot of buck-passing, national parks have agreed to cut back the trees to the park side of the fence. I should not have to remind anyone that bats fly. They are flying over the school and they are defecating on the school roof. The remote school relies on tank water, and that water comes from the roof. The taste permeates through the water. Parents are now refusing to let their kids drink the water and will have to pay from their own pockets to get the water tested. Then there is Walkerston. A very narrow bridge and pedestrian walkway connects the western side of town with the school. In regional areas kids actually still walk to school but, to get to school, they have to walk directly underneath a massive colony of flying foxes dropping faeces and urine directly onto students. Parents, businesses and concerned residents have written to the council and raised the issue time and time again, but no action is taken because the bats are more protected than the kids. We need to make the solution practical and ensure that the state government stops passing the buck on this issue. It is not just the kids; B-Double trucks loaded with fuel cross the same bridge. It is only a matter of time before a severe incident occurs when the bats take flight. The stench is disgusting, and people have stopped coming into town to shop because of it. Another safety issue created a hazard zone on the Bruce Highway near Marlborough. Here the flying fox colony would drop out of the trees to begin flight, directly into the path of heavy vehicles using the road. They would hit windscreens, causing crashes and near crashes. In this case the bats were relocated, but not after significant impacts and lobbying from local residents. But let's go back to Eungella for a moment. The issue at the Eungella State School is recurring and ongoing. Yes, the flying fox numbers change and, yes, the colony numbers fluctuate but they continue to return to the same spot at the fence line of the school, which happens to border a national park. In this instance, the region is not impeded by urban sprawl. While the residents of Eungella would love to see new development in their town, the population is actually declining. Also in this instance there is an abundance of national park space with similar habitation that could be used for dispersal. Correspondence early last year to the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection highlights the state government evading responsibility. The state minister admitted to being aware that the colony has existed in this location for 10 years. He also acknowledged that, throughout this time, the flying foxes have continued to spread into the Eungella school, but the poor parents trying to ensure the children have safe drinking water are passed from one department to the other and between local and state government. Nobody wants to take ownership and no-one wants to help. It is not their problem, not their land or not a cost they can wear. Again, it is the people of remote and regional areas who seem to be wearing the actual and intangible costs of urban sprawl from major cities. Regional councils and residents cannot and should not be expected to foot the hefty bill for the development of dispersible management plans. So it appears that bats have more protection rights for their offspring than parents do. I am extremely worried that we will not learn our lesson on this until a child gets sick from an infection or a bite. I support the recommendation that the Department of the Environment and Energy develop, in consultation with relevant state and local governments, a tool that assists councils to make decisions on action, referral and education in the most appropriate way relevant to the flying fox impacts and their jurisdiction. However, it is imperative that we also provide councils with the final tools and support to manage flying fox colonies and common sense action for communities. I also want to mention a vet who passed away in 2016 around the Yeppoon-Rockhampton area, Alister Rodgers. He died of the Hendra virus. He was a vet who was tending to horses where the water had been infected. It was a tragedy for the community. He was a vet out there doing his job and he was killed by these dirty bats. I realise they have a place in the whole ecology of nature, but something has to be done about it before more people suffer illness or die. 17:32 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I rise today to thank the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy, but, as the member for Hunter said, I do not think the recommendations have gone anywhere near far enough. We need action and action now. Right across the eastern states and especially within Flynn, flying foxes are arriving and nesting in rural and regional communities. I do not know why they have to settle in towns. There seems to be some attraction to the bats who settle in towns. There are so many trees between Emerald, Rockhampton and Mackay, but they still do not want to go there; they will go to where the towns are settled. They come in groups. First a scout will come and then two scouts. The next day there will be 10 and the next day there will be 110 or 1,000. They come in huge numbers and they are a real concern to the communities. In places like Moura, they have come to rest in the trees above the kindergarten. Last weekend I came through Duaringa and they were over the park—millions of them. It is an absolute plague. There is a colony in Cabra, outside Rockhampton. Gayndah has been fighting the flying fox plague for the last five years. They were all along the Burnett River. I visited a lady who had a lovely home. Her house was between the river and a big fig tree. The bats got into the fig tree. They were actually flying through the windows of her kitchen to windows on the other side of the house. She had to knock down the beautiful old fig tree that had been there for probably 100 years. Wowan has still got a problem around the preschool and Calliope has them in the caravan park. They are setting up around houses, over water intake valves and in kindergartens. This is a problem that we must address and it cannot wait another 10 years to do that. There is the grey headed bat, the red headed bat, the speckle headed bat and there is the black headed bat. They all seem to be having babies and when they are having babies you cannot move them according to the laws of the environmental departments. It seems to me that they are continually having babies bats and once that happens, of course, you cannot move them. This is the problem, so what is the solution? Some people come up with their own solutions, like having a carbide light. Has anyone ever smelt carbide? In a flammable situation it really stinks. You can make all sorts of noise; you could put Joe Cocker's band underneath the trees and after the third night they would probably move. You can start a chainsaw up and leave it under the tree; that works. If you put a helicopter over the top of them that would move them. It nearly brings the helicopter down though, so that's not a good solution if you are in the helicopter! Another good way of moving them is to use a wood sizer that sizes down timber; that really screams. A unique way of getting bats out of the trees is if you can find a bunch of meat ants and you put the meat ants up the tree. That also moves them and is nature working. Bright lights are another way of moving them. Of course, smoke from burning horse dung or cow dung in a tin under the tree can move them. The Deputy Speaker might even suggest putting flamethrowers around the nest, and that would also move them on, I imagine. You could probably burn the bodies at the same time. That would be a good way of getting rid of them. Hendra virus, lyssavirus and rabies are carried by these bats. They can be transmitted to humans and, of course, to horses. Lyssavirus was identified in 1996 and found in all kinds of flying foxes and the fruit bats. The viruses can cause serious illness, convulsions and death. There have been four people killed by lyssavirus. Since November 1996 three people have died as a result of this infection. Hendra virus is slightly different and it can be contracted through horses. Vic Rail was a famous horse trainer who trained a horse called Vo Rogue, which was a real front-running horse. It won the Turnbull Stakes and Australian cups. That is how good it was. It was a Queensland favourite. Vic contracted the Hendra virus. People in Hendra in Brisbane do not like calling it the Hendra virus because they think there is something wrong with their suburb, but it is where Vic had his stables. That is why they call it the Hendra virus. Vic fought a brave fight but in the end he succumbed and he died, unfortunately. Ben Cunneen, a 33-year-old vet, also died after treating a horse in the Cleveland area of Brisbane. A lady who was with Ben at the time survived but was very ill. Alister Rodgers, who was mentioned by the previous speaker, the member for Capricornia, was in the Rockhampton area where bats had defecated into the feed bins of the horses. The horses ate the feed out of the feed bins and the then got sick, so the vet was called. Unfortunately, the vet was Alister Rodgers, and he died shortly after. So these things cannot be taken seriously enough. People are worried about having bats roosting in their gardens, defecating on their roofs and generally causing issues around public places. I had an unfortunate incident with a fruit bat myself a few years ago. I came home late one night, at about 10 o'clock, got out of the car and disturbed a bat that was in a palm tree outside the garage. He flew out of the tree and—bang!—hit me in the face. I did not know what was it was; I thought Muhammad Ali had hit me. But when he started to climb up my face I knew I had a bat. I threw him on the ground—I thought I had killed him but I had not—and then, as there was blood running down my face, I went straight to the hospital. The nursing staff did not know what to do, so they cleaned me up and sent me home. The next morning I was on my way to work and I got a ring from the Brisbane hospital saying, 'Mr O'Dowd, you have been hit by a bat.' I said yes. They said: 'We don't want you to move. We want you to go straight to the Gladstone hospital again.' With that, they sent the rabies needle up on the first plane available. Man, I had never had so much pain. I thought I was in pain the night before, but when they started jabbing me with needles I really did have pain. It was a very sobering incident, so I will never forget the fruit bat for that. Fortunately, he did not carry the disease, so I was lucky in that way. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 I thank the member. For the record, I used to live in Darwin for a couple of years. My wife and I used a basketball to clear the mango tree of flying foxes and it was very effective—a small tip. Mr Christensen 230485 Not to make light of it, but we now know why the member for Flynn is so rabid on getting funding for roads in his electorate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 I give the call to the member for Dawson. 17:41 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Seriously, this issue is one which has plagued communities throughout North Queensland. I have been involved with many cases to do with flying foxes dating back to the times when I was a local government councillor in Mackay city council. It was only very shortly into that stint as a councillor that I was asked by the department of the environment to come along to a meeting with a group that had a very long acronym, as these groups have. It was the NEFFCRWG, I remember, which stood for the 'North Eton flying fox colony relocation working group'. They immediately tried to handball the issue onto the council, unfortunately successfully. It was left to us to come up with a way that we could relocate these flying foxes from the township of North Eton. The flying foxes had perched themselves in the mango trees that were right beside the local bowls club, which was almost like the centre of this town; it was the community hall for this little town. They made a mess, they defecated everywhere, and people could not use that facility because of it. Every little thing that we tried to do and every little thing that the residents tried to do would be frustrated by these department of environment officials, who just seemed to be saying, 'No, the bats have to be protected at all costs.' The things that the member for Flynn talked about before, whether it was smoking them out, playing loud music or some other activity, were not allowed because it was upsetting the flying foxes. It was almost that we were fighting this bureaucracy in state government that were saying: 'No way can you do anything. You've got to work out a way that these creatures will naturally relocate.' I can remember one environmental official telling me that what council needed to do was to gradually build up a little oasis where there were fruit trees and all these other things that the flying foxes would naturally drift over to of their own accord. I said: 'Are we going to send them letters to tell them that we have a new residence for them? How are they going to know this?' This is how ridiculous this comes down to. I laughed before at something the member for Hunter said, because it showed the same sort of attitude that we were getting from the environment department officials: these creatures play this important part in the local ecosphere, so we cannot upset them. I have to tell you: there are that many flying foxes where I come from that it is the people who should be protected, not the flying foxes. All of the efforts to try and make them go away somewhere else failed because of bureaucracy. What happened in this instance was the one local greenie in that town went on holidays for a week, and the boys came out with shotguns, and they took care of the problem themselves. They turned law-abiding citizens into criminals. They were that frustrated that nothing could be done that they felt that, as soon as the one person in the community that had a concern for the flying foxes turned away, they would go and deal with it themselves, and boy did they deal with it. There were dead flying foxes everywhere. The same thing is going to happen in so many other locations. The member for Capricornia talked about Eungella, which is right on my doorstep in my electorate. I have been up there with her. I have seen it—these disgusting, foul creatures urinating all over the school rainwater tank, which is what the kids got their water from. They cannot use that now. They cannot even go out onto their school oval, as it is that overpopulated with these bats. I go to the member for Kennedy—you want to talk about the impact that these bats have—and that young boy, Lincoln Boucher, that he was talking about. I think he was eight years old. He and his parents, Colin Boucher and Michelle Flynn, came from the Whitsundays. Their young boy, a fair few years ago—I think it was back in 2013—was bitten and scratched by one of these bats. He was not tormenting it. He was not doing anything. He was just walking down the road and a bat happened to attack him, and he died. He died of lyssavirus. He died and it sent shockwaves throughout the community that this could happen, because these flying foxes are everywhere. In 2015 a bloke who happened to be jogging down the road was attacked by a bat in Mackay, in the northern beaches. It was only because of the heightened awareness that resulted from the death of that young fellow that this guy had all the injections and everything to stop him from catching whatever this flying fox might have imparted. We have got to this ridiculous stage where the flying fox seems to have more rights than the human beings that are in that area and are under attack, literally, from being bitten and scratched. They are under attack from the smell, the defecation and the urination—all that goes on from these vile creatures. I have to say, enough is enough. We need to empower communities and individual people to be able to deal with relocating these creatures, or else they are just going to come out and start shooting them when the law turns away and when there is no-one there looking. It will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals unless we can find a way forward. I think that a lot of it is going to have to fall upon the federal environment minister, and the department here, making certain recommendations around what can be done in terms of relocating these creatures, because they are a so-called protected species. Again, I say: come up my way. There are so many of them. You hear them every night. You will see them in just about every tree. I come from a little town called Te Kowai just outside of Mackay. You walk outside and you can hear them. It is like this cacophony of flying foxes. They are everywhere. So they might be an endangered species in terms of their spread across all of Australia, but not in north Queensland. Debate adjourned. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH 99 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 99 17:49 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page It is great to stand here and speak on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's address to open the new parliament after the last election. I will start by saying it is always a privilege for any person in these chambers to represent their community. I certainly feel that way, and every day I have gratitude for the fact that my community gave me the honour of representing us down in this place. I would certainly say that I—like many other people—regard myself, very much, first and foremost, as a representative of my community and a representative of my community's values and beliefs, and, very much secondly, a member of a political party. That is how I treat my position and will always do so. After the 2013 election, I gave a bird's-eye tour of the electorate of Page for people who were not familiar with the geography of it. I took us on a full bird's-eye view, flying from north to south and east to west. I will not do that today but I thought it was a very picturesque and very colourful tour. Again, there have been some changes to the boundaries between those two elections, and I would certainly like to acknowledge that the northern part of my electorate does touch on the Queensland border. I did say, in my first address to this place, that if you were on the Queensland-New South Wales border and were flying south over Page, that that would be the right way to be flying. My Queensland friends did not seem to agree with that. The community of Woodenbong is one of the first communities you would come to. I was there last week. Wonderful cattle grazing country there, Deputy Speaker Buchholz. Have you ever been up there? I encourage you to come. It is a beautiful part of the country. If you are to fly south from Woodenbong, you would come to places like Kyogle—a beautiful community. If you veered west there, you would be flying towards Lismore. Lismore is probably the critical mass of the region. It has the local base hospital, a lot of education facilities and is one of the biggest places in the area. With the redistribution, I was fortunate enough to take in some of the northern villages around Lismore that were not previously in Page like Nimbin. You would have heard of Nimbin, Deputy Speaker. It has been a forerunner in many things like permaculture. It was obviously the home of the Aquarius Festival back in the early seventies. I go out there, and it is always an interesting time when I am in Nimbin—a very colourful community. In the coastal east, I used to represent Ballina. I am very disappointed that Ballina got taken out of the electorate. I now come into the coast just south of Ballina. If you go down the coast, you take in places like Evans Head. The further south you go you run into the wonderful mighty Clarence River. Yamba and Iluca are on the mouth of the Clarence river. The boundary used to stop there. I now have the great fortune of continuing south and taking the northern beaches of Coffs Harbour and places like Woolgoolga, Corindi, Red Rock, Sandy Beach and right down to Sapphire Beach as the most southern place. That is certainly a beautiful part of the world. There is not only wonderful industry and great tourism industry in that part of the world but also a thriving blueberry industry. Around the Coffs region was historically a banana growing area. It has a wonderful representation of the Sikh community. The Sikhs settled in that part of the world many decades ago and there is a very healthy and vibrant Sikh community, which adds a lot to the community down there. They are very active now in the blueberry industry. A lot of them have switched from bananas. That is a new area, but also all the communities in between. The whole of the Clarence Valley Council area is within Page and, obviously, the major centre of Grafton. Centres like Maclean as well have come into the electorate. Mr O'Dowd 139441 Tell them about your two cows. Mr HOGAN 218019 I am glad the member for Flynn, who lives near Rockhampton, is here because I am getting to Casino. The Clarence Valley is a wonderful part of the world as well. As I go back further north, we get to the Richmond Valley and come to the beef capital of this country, Casino. The member for Flynn is very jealous of Casino. He is very jealous of Casino for a number of reasons. He is very jealous of the premier cattle in the country we produce. He is very jealous of our meatworks—a wonderful meatworks—which employs over 1,000 people, so that is not to be sneezed at. It is the biggest private employer in our region. He is going to be very jealous of our saleyards too, because one of the projects that I have committed to under one of the Stronger Regions Fund rounds was a redevelopment of the saleyards, the livestock exchange in Casino. A $3½ million dollar investment from the federal government has been matched by the council. That is going to be a wonderful, pre-eminent livestock exchange within the country. The member has really interrupted me, and it has distracted me, so, while I have gone to that, let us go with the others. There are some other things that we, as a federal government, are looking to deliver for the community in the electorate in that same round of the Stronger Regions Fund. At Ballina there is the marine rescue tower. It has already open, though not officially. The old tower was falling down. The new one is wonderful for the fishing and tourism elements of Ballina. That has been constructed. In Lismore, we are also building the new Lismore Quadrangle, which is going to include a new art gallery. Again, all of these are about job creation and extra commerce. This is going to bring a whole new type of tourist and visitor to the town. That was another commitment we made through the Stronger Regions Fund. Up around Kyogle, at Woodenbong, there is a beautiful dam called Toonumbar Dam. If you come up I will show you where it is, Deputy Speaker. We gave $1 million to reseal the road out there. It is a very popular tourist destination. Then, going back down to the Clarence, which I was talking about earlier, the Harwood sugar mill is a very important employer in the region, and the sugar industry is very important to the lower Clarence. We also gave a commitment there to redevelop and help their logistics. While I am on that, let us talk about some of the other exciting projects that are going to be happening in my electorate over the next two or three years. First and foremost is one of the biggest regional infrastructure projects in the country, and that is the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. A lot of the remaining sector is south of Ballina, to Woolgoolga. It is about 165 kilometres, and for a lot of that the dual duplication is still to happen. We do the dual duplication for a number of reasons. The first and foremost reason is the decrease in fatalities. The fatalities on the Pacific Highway are now actually at a multidecade low. When you consider the increased traffic that is on that road, that is a wonderful achievement. The achievement has happened because of the dual duplication, and fatalities will fall even further as the section between Woolgoolga and Ballina is finished. There are some amazing engineering feats as part of this upgrade, including massive rivers to cross, and wetlands and soggy or very soft soils to navigate. At Harwood, which I mentioned earlier—where the sugar mill is—the bridge at the Clarence River is going to look a bit like the gateway bridge. I am sure you have seen that, Deputy Speaker. It is almost a $250 million investment to get over the Clarence River. This is a big engineering feat. At its peak it will probably be employing around 3½ thousand people in that region. That is direct jobs, so when you add in indirect jobs we are talking 6,000 to 7,000 jobs being directly or indirectly created because of that piece of infrastructure. It is going to be wonderful. It is wonderful while it is being built, because of the economic boosts that it brings to our region, and, obviously, post-completion it is going to be great for the economic viability of our region. Transport is going to be much easier, especially for tourism, for example. When the dual duplication got as far south as near Byron Bay, suddenly the tourism influx to our region from Queensland and the Gold Coast exponentiated because people could drive there much more easily. It is going to open up the whole area not just for tourism but for transport and a whole lot of different industries, and there will be a whole lot of benefits from that. It is a very exciting time. Obviously, like the of rest of the country, I know the NBN is rolling out in 2020. Most of Page will be connected by around this time next year. Wireless has already arrived, which has been a boon to the little villages, but the major centres will be getting fibre-to-the-node in the next 12 to 18 months, which is very exciting. But there is more to come. With the investments that we make in our region, we are always looking for things that can create jobs and commerce and make our towns more vibrant. There were some very exciting investments that we announced during the campaign and that we will be delivering over the next number of years. There is one at Maclean. Maclean is the Scottish capital of Australia. All the Stobie poles—no, I should not call them 'Stobie poles'; I am giving away my heritage—all the telegraph poles have Scottish tartans on them from the families that settled around the region. It really is a beautiful, picturesque town on the Clarence River, and we are going to give nearly $2 million for the riverside precinct upgrade. That is about turning the town around to face the river again—there are going to be promenades, boardwalks and things where boats can pull in as well, to open that up. It will really help the tourism potential and growth of Maclean and, indeed, the lower Clarence. The old Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club is not really up to scratch, so we are going to build a new one, to be built where the marine rescue tower is at Woolgoolga; they will have a new site there. We all know the great work that the Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club does, and it is going to be great to deliver on that. Casino had an old drill hall that was moved there many, many decades ago, and a lot of people who had been preparing to go to war or who were with the Army Reserve or had anything to do with the defence forces had a very emotional attachment to the Casino drill hall. A couple of years ago the defence department decided that the hall was surplus to requirements as it was not being used anymore, and they decided to sell it. Members of the community came to see me and said they thought it was a very important historical and cultural part of the town, and they asked me if they could get the Defence Force not to sell it and to keep it in community hands. It was great to work with the then Minister for Defence and the local council on that. It was a great day when we transferred the ownership of that real estate and that hall to council at a very good price a number of years ago, and now a committee and a group have been formed and we are going to turn the drill hall into a military museum. I also gave some money to redevelop some of the grounds around that with an amphitheatre, and there are some very exciting things happening in what is now going to be a very well-used public space. There are lots more, and I will not go into them all, but they include upgrades to tennis courts at Wooli. Rushforth Park in Grafton is going to get a bit of an upgrade, as is the Woodburn-Evans Head Golf Club. These are very exciting times for Woodburn and, indeed, Broadwater and Wardell and all those places along the current route of the Pacific Highway, because they are beautiful villages on the Richmond River, but they have the Pacific Highway literally teeming straight through the middle of them. With the upgrade, the highway will not be going through these villages and will be a little bit behind them, so these places will become destination points for tourism. The visitors to these places will be different visitors, but they will still come because of the absolutely picturesque places that these villages are. We also gave some money to the Richmond Valley Council to do some pontoons and stuff at Woodburn. Kyogle has an aquatic centre with a great swimming pool set up, and we have given them some money to upgrade that. There was also a great tragedy in our community around 10 years ago—in fact, it was 10 years ago late last year—when four young men from our community were all killed in one car crash. They were all in the same car, and all were basically from the Lismore region. Our community has been grieving over that issue and is still grieving, so the 10th anniversary last year was very sad for a lot of the people involved. I do not think there was anyone in the region who did not know the boys or know someone who knew those boys or who was associated with those boys very closely. The family and a group have been trying to develop what is called Southern Cross LADS, a driver training facility just out of Lismore. Some of the rules in New South Wales have actually changed because of that accident. The number of people that learner drivers or P-platers can have in their car after a certain hour at night changed because of this accident, and the number of hours that you have to drive as a P-plater to qualify was increased because of the work done by this group and because of that accident. It was also great to give them some money last year to help with developing the Southern Cross LADS driver training facility that will happen as well. There will be some money for the Coutts Crossing Cougars Football Club as well, and the Wollongbar multisports facility is going to get $500,000. This is a magnificent sporting development that is happening. We have a new deputy speaker here—if you have not been to the region, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you will have to come over. Wollongbar-Alstonville Plateau—just inland from Ballina, which is a little bit south of Byron Bay—is a plateau that is very rich in alluvial soil and has wonderful panoramic views. They are building a new sporting facility there that is going to be a regional hub. It was great to commit some money there to build a new clubhouse. There is also the Big River Sailing Club on the Clarence, as well as the Yamba marine rescue. The last one I would just like to mention is the Oakes Oval redevelopment in Lismore. The Oakes Oval is the premier sporting facility in Lismore. It hosts soccer and cricket. Rugby is played on it, as well as a little bit of rugby league. It is going to be redeveloped so that it can cater for AFL as well, with a bit of an oval extension. There is also going to be a great upgrade of the grandstand area, the facilities and the change-room facilities to make it even more of a premier sporting facility than it already is. Again, the focus of all this is to create more commerce and more economic activity so that our regions thrive and can offer more facilities and experiences for the people who come here. Lastly, I would like to say a couple of things. I would really like to again acknowledge and thank the community who were so generous as to give me the privilege to be their representative again in this parliament. As I said, every day I am grateful for that. It is a great thing for a community to give someone. As I said, I am a community representative first and a political party member second. I would also like to thank the team. To do this, obviously you need a lot of support around you, and I had a number of people. I would just like to name a few of them: Albert Enzerick, Andrew Gordon, Peter Carlill, Col Humphries, Deb Newton and Fiona Leviny, who, in their own areas, were leaders for me; they did a lot of work to put a lot of the logistics together. Over in Casino there were people like Stan Gricks, Martin Moloney, David Shay, Judy Humphries, and Fran White, and Col Humphries as well did some magnificent and really hard work for me; he put in a lot of hours. I thank them. In Grafton, Denise and Cec Hyde were fantastic, and I thank them very much. But there were really far too many to name. I would also, obviously, like to acknowledge and thank my office staff: Peter, and Sheree, Jason and Mark, who did a lot of work as well. Lastly, whenever you do a role like this and you are a community representative, obviously your family are involved. As someone mentioned, in this role, you are the volunteer and your family are the conscripts. I think, in some ways, that is very true—especially in a regional place. We are very public figures in our regional communities when we play these roles. I know that is so with my own family: my wife, Karen, and my children Bridget, Sean and Rosie. I am very proud of my children. I love my wife very much. Everything we do, we try to do together. We do it as a team. We try to be very supportive of everything that we do, in whatever field it may be. Again, an election campaign is certainly a very time-consuming and a very focused thing that we do. I would like to finish this by saying that I love them very much and I am very thankful for their support. They have encouraged me. My wife, Karen, has encouraged me, and my children have been very supportive, and we have taken this journey together. I have had a number of careers. I have been a school teacher. I have been a bond trader; I traded a multi-billion-dollar portfolio. I have been an investment officer of a super fund. I have done a number of things; some of them, dare I say, paid a lot more than this role, and some of them would appear a little bit, you know, whatever. But I can honestly say that I have never had such a sense of giving and of appreciation for what I do, because, in this role, we have the great gift, because of people that we know or people that we associate with, that we can help people. One of the great joys that I have had is to be able to help people—not so much necessarily in all the things that I just read out there, but to help them with issues that to them are really important; issues which, in the big scheme of things, may not be significant, but which, to them, are very, very important and which it is very important to them to have help to resolve. I have had the benefit of being able to help people in some of these things, and this role has enabled me to do that, and I am very thankful. 18:09 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta My community of Parramatta and the surrounding areas is undergoing great change. If you read the newspapers in the Sydney-wide press, or you talk to people who do not live in the area, they will talk to you about the extraordinary change in Parramatta. It is almost like picking up Chatswood, which is glass high-rises, and dumping it on Parramatta—and what a good thing that is. Well, so they say. Who wouldn't say it is a good thing? When you approach Parramatta you see cranes in the sky; you see high-rises just growing into the air—incredible activity in the Parramatta area. But, when you live there and you talk to local people, there is a sense of unease that is growing. In many ways it feels like a lack of power to affect what is happening in our community, an inability to voice their concerns, a lack of transparency. Part of that draws from the fact that we are one of the areas that has had our councils abolished. There are two new councils: one is Parramatta and the other one is Cumberland. At the moment, we have no democratically elected representatives, and I would say quite openly that there are some things that are happening in both areas that simply would not have happened if we still have elected councils. When you talk to people you get this sense of frustration at a lack of consultation, a sense of a lack of power to influence decisions that are being made and a sense that the decisions are being made elsewhere by people who actually do not know who we are. Not all of the decisions makes sense. Even people that are really quite pro-growth and want to see Parramatta move ahead incredibly quickly still have a sense of unease about how these decisions are being made. I want to use the time that I have today to talk about my community and exactly who we are. We are a community with an extraordinary sense of place. You do not say you live in Sydney, if you live in Parramatta or its surroundings; you say you live in Parramatta. You only have to live there a couple of months to get a sense that you are in a place that is very special. It gets under your skin really quickly, and it is hard to know why that is. It is worth noting that it was the gathering place for the Indigenous tribes right up to the Hawkesbury, right up to the Blue Mountains—they all came to Parramatta for their meetings. They also sensed that it was a special place. It is an extraordinary place in many ways. Whether it is Toongabbie, Dundas, Harris Park or Mays Hill or Granville, it is a place of great diversity and great history. Paul Keating once described a politician—I will not say who—as 'all tip and no berg'. Those of us who know Parramatta really well know that, while we have tip, that is nothing compared to the size and scale and capacity that sits slightly out of view. There is a level of energy that is in the community, and you have to know the community really well to see it. I am going to talk bit about that. For a start we have an extraordinary collection of assets. We have more heritage assets than The Rocks. There is the first female convict factory, designed by Francis Greenway, and the Roman Catholic orphanage, where the children of the first convicts were kept, that later became the mechanical institute for girls and then the Parramatta Girls Home. With the convict factory, there is a continuous history of women's imprisonment from modern settlement right up to the last decade. All that you learned in primary school happened in Parramatta, from the Rum Corps to Macquarie. It was all there. We had Pemulwuy, one of the great Indigenous warriors, who rampaged through Merrylands so effectively that people thought he could not be killed. We had Samuel Marsden visit with his 18 Maori chiefs and stroll through the streets of Parramatta town. They left their 18 children in the colony as a symbol of good faith. They all died of smallpox and are buried on the riverbank in Parramatta. We have Elizabeth Macarthur farm. We had the Battle of Vinegar Hill, where the Irish were going to attack the soldiers but accidently got drunk and blew it—as they do. We have the girls orphanage on the banks of the Parramatta River. It is an extraordinary collection of heritage assets, and you only have to dig at tiny bit on any new development and you will find Indigenous artefacts that date back tens of thousands of years. Parramatta River is the principal tributary of Sydney Harbour. You can get on a boat in Sydney Harbour and you can go all the way up the Parramatta River to the Parramatta ferry. You cannot get the extra couple of kilometres anymore because of weirs on the confluence of Darling Mills Creek and Toongabbie Creek, where the river begins. But that is the spot where Governor Phillip landed and walked down the banks of the Parramatta River—and the Phillip diaries are actually a record of his walk. Then he got to The Crescent, where the Indigenous people had their principal meeting place, and picked that as the site for Government House, which is still there today, in the oldest gazetted national park in the world, known as Parramatta Park. It is an extraordinary place. We have amazing green space in Parramatta Park, which I just mentioned, but also Lake Parramatta, which was the colony's first dam and provided the water supply for the colony. If you start walking from there up Darling Mills Creek, you can walk all the way to the Hawkesbury in not that long a time. You can do it in less than a day. So we have these incredible natural and heritage assets in our region. There are 30 creeks that flow through the region, and, while in the early days we built our cities with our backs to them, they are still essentially there. We have some fantastic strip shopping centres. If you want butchers and greengrocers, you cannot beat Merrylands, Guildford and Harris Park. Some of those little strip shopping centres have five or six butchers and three or four fruit shops, and you can get food from all around the world right there. We potentially have, if someone chooses to take it up, the best foodie train around. You would get off at Auburn for the Turkish and Middle Eastern food, then at Granville for Lebanese and Nepalese food and then at Harris Park for food from all the regions of India—there are Gujurati and Telugu restaurants. You used to have to go all the way to Pendle Hill for a Telugu chilli bhaji, but now you can get them in Telugu restaurants in Harris Park. You would go to Merrylands for Afghani food, to Guildford for African and to Cabramatta for Vietnamese. You would be out of my electorate by then, but the food that is available along that train line is just waiting for someone to package it and turn it into a viable business model that generates business in those areas. Western Sydney is actually one of Australia's biggest food producers. You would not know it unless you looked for it, but we have yoghurt makers and a lot of halal food producers. We also have people who make idli batter and dosa batter for the local communities. It is wide open for export—there is incredible food capacity in Western Sydney waiting to be expanded. We speak every language. We have a knowledge of the world in us that is quite extraordinary. If you want to build a business that targets Asia or the Middle East or Africa, we have highly skilled, highly qualified people who are bilingual and trilingual—and, in some cases, speak six languages. We have people who have concepts in their minds that they can express in one language and not others because they have this capacity to see the world from a range of perspectives. We are seeing the research now that diversity increases profit—well, we have it. We really do have it all. We also have some incredibly high tech companies in some of our warehouse areas. We have Thales, one of the best companies in Australia for innovation, just up the road, but there are a whole stack of others, too, that sit in some of our warehouse districts. If you did not know it was there, you would miss the company that does—or used to do—the Toyota bumper bar on its CAD/CAM. We have really quite great companies and an incredible workforce that, in many cases, has to leave Parramatta and go into the city to work. We have the Western Sydney University, with all of its cultural studies and its amazing collection of professors and academic staff. If you are looking for people who really explore cultural diversity, they are there. If you are looking for people who understand innovation in the modern context, they are there. So we have this amazing capacity within our community, which I fear we may lose if the planning of this rapid change in Parramatta is not very carefully done—and I fear that it is not being carefully done. One of the issues about Parramatta which is perhaps most frustrating for us all is that, perhaps because we do not all work and live in the same suburb anymore, it can be very difficult for us to see each other. Many of us get on trains in the morning and are whisked off to far-flung places, so you do not necessarily get to see the great wealth that is there. I am very lucky; I do see it because I get invited, but many of us do not. There is, in many ways, a lack of fertile ground for really good ideas to fall on. When I meet an extraordinary young entrepreneur, one of the most important things I quite often do is just introduce them to others, because they cannot see each other in this community that we have. There is the sense that, while the capacity is there, we have a long way to go to actually harness it in the way we need to. One of the things that we are seeing about the development that is of big concern to me in terms of that capacity is the gradual rezoning of some of the areas that contain the older warehouse-style buildings where local businesses actually grow. Great cities of the world are putting aside areas that cannot be residential, areas where the old warehouses are, because they are the places where new technology companies and local businesses grow and first appear. In Parramatta we are seeing those old areas being demolished, quite often for residential development. We are losing areas where people work and, instead, we are seeing high-rise residential go in. They are actually job losing, except for retail jobs, which quite often are casual and less skilled. We are losing skilled and semi-skilled jobs and we are getting, in many cases, a lower number of retail jobs, and if we do not start preserving the kinds of buildings and the kind of accommodation that new and young and innovative businesses can afford to rent we will quite quickly lose our capacity to grow our local businesses. It is great when big business moves in. It is terrific. We have had Deloitte move in. PwC is moving in. We have fantastic big companies buying some of the commercial properties in Parramatta so those big companies can come in. That is fantastic, but for our long-term prosperity we also need to grow our own local businesses using the extraordinary diversity and strength that we have. Major redevelopments in the current Granville industrial precinct will see essentially all of that go and become residential. The Camellia precinct, which is where the Shell refinery was, but which has also had some other very large businesses, is going residential as well. The heritage precinct in North Parramatta, which contains over 70 heritage buildings, is now segmented for sale for residential development. There is a concern that, while high-rise residential is a good short-term bang, it alone will not lead Parramatta to grow into a great city in the way that it could. Great cities are places where you live, not just where you sleep, and we are not just losing the areas where local businesses can grow and develop, we are also losing other things as well, such as our riverbank and our amenities. We are a river city. Traditionally, river cities start fairly low on the riverbanks and then go up so that the community can actually enjoy the amenity of the riverbank. If you go into the Parramatta council's chambers now and look at the big buildings that are planned, we have some very high buildings on the riverbank. We have one that is over 60 storeys. It is just topping out now. On the riverbank, you can go to 60 storeys, but we have had commercial premises in the heart of the CBD, just three or four blocks away in the city, that have been restricted to 20 storeys. In the city you cannot go high, but on the riverbank, which should belong to us all, we are seeing quite high developments, which I doubt anybody thinks is a good idea. We always assumed that our access to the riverbanks was permanent. We are finding further down the river that we are getting eight-storey buildings almost like a wall on either side of the river, so our amenity is disappearing. We always expected the heritage precinct, which I mentioned before, which is now being carved up for sale, would be a major community asset. Parts of it are being preserved for later sale when the government decides what to do with those heritage buildings. However, for many of us it has always been the case that you decide what to do with the heritage buildings first—you make it work for the community, and then you decide what you do around it. For us, it is backwards to say: we are going to go residential first and we will make a decision on its use later. We have an Olympic-standard swimming pool in the heart of the CBD of Parramatta until 31 March. Then the state government is going to demolish it to build the biggest stadium. It is currently on park trust land. It was built by the people of Parramatta back in the fifties. It is a war memorial pool. It has one of two Olympic diving towers in Sydney. It has a water polo pool. It has 10 lanes so that if you want to conduct a swimming carnival you can compete over eight lanes and warm up over two. Just a few years ago, the Parramatta council spent over $7 million refurbishing it because they assumed it would continue to be there. It is a great city asset. The state government decided to abolish it. Again, we have no elected council to oppose that. There is no commitment to rebuilding it. It is one of at least three pools in the region that are now under threat. It teaches 1,300 people to swim. On a hot day there are 1,500 people that go there. There are all sorts of reasons why you would not do this. The community does not want it, they did not consult on it and yet they are doing it, at a time when the community has no power. I have been swimming in that pool since it had cold outdoor showers in winter—as many have—and I will go for my last swim there on 31 March. I will see a great community asset taken from us by a government that did not ask, did not consult and does not care what we think. We have a new light rail project coming in, and none of us are going to complain about the fact that we are getting a new light rail project. Some of us would complain that it rips up a heavy rail line that could potentially go through to Epping. It essentially wipes out that option. By ripping up that heavy line to Carlingford and going light rail from Carlingford, the option of us actually having a link through to the major employment hubs at Macquarie Park, Macquarie University and Epping—the opportunity for people in Parramatta and people in those regions to commute backwards and forwards between the two employment hubs—will go. We will end up with light rail that, rather than going down to Clyde so that people in Carlingford can get a faster train to the city, will go all the way into Parramatta and stop two blocks from Parramatta station. It is slower. There are some really good things about the light rail, but one would have to question a state government that rips up the opportunity for heavy rail between major employment hubs and instead builds a light rail into the CBD for a suburb that is a few kilometres from the CBD. We question that. It was not what the local community wanted. The local community wanted light rail to Castle Hill. They wanted light rail cross-city—not into the city but across the western suburbs so that people could get to other sections, so that you could get to Bankstown, so that people in Bankstown could get to Parramatta, so that people in Epping could get to Parramatta, so that people in the suburbs surrounding Parramatta could get to the work hubs of Macquarie Park, in that quite dense area up there, and up to Norwest, also a major employment centre. Instead, we have a light rail that we are told is the first part of a bigger project which will eventually link through to Strathfield, running parallel to the current heavy rail. It seems very much that this is a light rail project that serves a new area of development but does not do a great deal for the people who are already struggling with a lack of public transport options. It does not do a great deal at all. We are also concerned about the increasing loss of our local services in the community. We lost the Police Citizens Youth Club a few months ago. The Salvation Army sold its premises a few months ago. When your state body has offered $30 million-plus for your city site, it is very hard for you to say no. While we are the second CBD in Sydney, we would say we are quite a separate CBD. We are in one of the biggest economies in Australia and we have the second-highest number of homeless people of any area in Australia every night. We are starting to lose the services that we need in a CBD like ours to serve the most vulnerable. We are very worried that, as those land prices go up, we will lose more and more of those services. We are very lucky that Parramatta Mission are staying put. They have made plans to stay exactly where they are. They are a major feeder of and service for the homeless. We fear that we will lose many others. In summary, I hope I have outlined what an extraordinary community we are and how we need far more input into the decisions that are being made at the moment. Without a locally elected council, at a time when two councils have administrators and there is no democratic process at all, the state government is making decisions that I firmly believe they would not be able to make if our councils were in fear of their positions—and they would be. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 106 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Turnbull Government 106 18:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My grievance tonight is about a government that has no clear plan to uplift the nation, a government that has no vision and a government that has no sense of purpose. It wasted its time in opposition and came to government without an agenda, except to oppose Labor. Tony Abbott had a plan to get into government, but no plan to govern. Malcolm Turnbull had a plan to get rid of Tony Abbott, but also no plan to govern. That is why the government is so consumed by internal rivalry. The internals are driving the agenda, not the welfare or needs of the nation. That is why the Turnbull government is acting like an opposition in exile sitting on the government benches. Everything is about ideology; nothing is about real people and what the challenges are for them in their everyday lives and how we position ourselves for the future. Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull are locked in a downward spiral, and they are taking the government down with them. Just how bereft their agenda is was epitomised by what happened today. Of all days to propose a weakening of racial discrimination laws, to do it on Harmony Day is rubbing salt into the wounds of those Australians who feel passionately about the need for us to be a harmonious society in which everyone is respected for who they are, regardless of their origins. The government has failed to explain exactly what it is that they want people to be able to say that they are not allowed to say right now. The fact that they are proposing this on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—on a day when our schools in all of our electorates are having young kids wear orange shirts and orange ribbons to school to recognise harmony in our multicultural nation—is, I believe, an absolute tragedy. It also flies in the face of the Prime Minister's very clear promise made on 28 October last year, when he assured Australians that he had no plans to change section 18C, because the government 'did not take an 18C amendment proposal to the election'. The rhetoric about freedom of speech stands in stark contrast to the way that they have acted with regard to marriage equality. That is why 20 of the country's leading business leaders, including the heads of Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, last week took the decision to publicly urge the government to swiftly resolve the marriage equality debate by doing its job of having a vote in parliament. I accept that the coalition had a promise to have a plebiscite. They tried to get that through the parliament. They fulfilled their promise to the electorate. They now have a situation where, clearly, a plebiscite is not going to be agreed to by this or, I suspect, any future parliament. So why not get on with the reform? This is a distraction to other issues that impact on all Australians, particularly the running of our economy. How ironic was it that those people, including the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, were out there leading the charge against business leaders—including the head of Qantas, Alan Joyce, who was singled out on this issue—in spite of the fact that they talk about freedom of speech in other issues. The government will defend people's rights to say abusive things on the basis of race but wants to slap a gag on businesspeople who are wanting them to get on with the business of governing. This comes at a time when companies have a direct interest in representing the interests of their workforce, many of whom are directly impacted by this. An industry like the tourism sector, including Qantas, would benefit greatly from marriage equality as it would produce economic activity and help create jobs. While the government is wasting their time on 18C and their internal brawls, we have a real problem with the economy. We have seen the deficit increase by more than eight times. We now have a $100 billion increase in net debt, equivalent to $4,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Unemployment is now higher than it was during the global financial crisis and underemployment is at a record 1.1 million. The economy is growing below trend and, to cap it all off, wages have not just flatlined; they are actually going backwards for the first time in a long while in real terms, prompting the Reserve Bank of Australia to say this today in the commentary that they make after their board meeting. They said: ... growth in labour incomes had been unusually weak. ... if it were to persist, would have implications for consumption growth and the risks posed by the level of household debt. That is the Reserve Bank of Australia warning this government, and what is the response? We have a cut to penalty rates and a government refusing to support Labor's position of not supporting that cut going forward for some 700,000 working Australians, some of the poorest people in our community—people who rely on penalty rates to put food on the table, to pay school fees, to pay their mortgage. They do not work on Sundays and do irregular hours for fun; they do it because they have to and they rely upon that. For the first time we have an industrial tribunal in this country not making trade-offs but just a straight wage cut and a cut to living standards. But it is consistent, of course, with the other cuts that we have seen that are taking money out of the economy from the people at the bottom end, therefore undermining Australia as an inclusive society. There were cuts to the age pension of 330,000 elderly Australians from 1 January this year, cuts to family tax benefits; cuts to single parent families; cuts to young people between the ages of 22 and 24 by pushing them onto a lower youth allowance; cuts to funding for schools, TAFEs and universities; and cuts to Medicare, our universal health system, by freezing the GP rebate. Many more people have to foot the bill for their health care. None of this has anything to do with strong economic growth. This is about a government that is talking about giving a tax cut to the big end of town of $50 billion at the same time as these massive cuts are coming in. At the same time, when it comes to my area of infrastructure, there is a failure to invest. If we are going to have inclusive growth and growth in jobs, we need to invest in infrastructure and we need to invest in people, and this government is doing neither. Australia needs a government with a vision for dealing with the real issues that concern people's daily lives: jobs, infrastructure, living standards, education, health care and the environment. Above all, we also need a government that is prepared to appeal to people's better angels rather than create division in society, and that is what the change to 18C that has been proposed by the government today does. That is why it is so disappointing. This government wants to be in government and Malcolm Turnbull wants to be in The Lodge simply to stop those on my side of the House in the Labor Party from governing. It is occupation rather than doing anything with the job. I want to be in government because I understand that sitting around a cabinet table you can make real decisions that benefit the people that I seek to represent and that benefit our nation. At the moment, this government is so divided it simply is doing neither. (Time expired) Banks Electorate 107 18:40 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to highlight a number of important organisations that are doing great work in my community of Banks. On 4 March I attended the Way In Network's 25th anniversary charity ball in Sydney. It was very pleasing to be able to represent the Prime Minister at this important event, which was attended by over 400 people and raised more than $90,000 for the Australian Gynaecological Cancer Foundation. The Way In Network has been around for a quarter of a century now and in that time has raised more than $3 million for a range of charitable causes. In 2008 the Way In Network raised $340,000 towards victims of the Sichuan earthquake and over $160,000 towards bushfire relief programs. I would like to thank the President of the Way In Network, Elsa Shum, for inviting me to celebrate with the organisation on the night and for all the effort that she puts in. There were many previous presidents there on the evening, including Helen Sham-ho, who was instrumental in establishing the Way In Network some 25 years ago. It is a terrific organisation that does a lot of very good work in the community in Sydney. Last week I attended the Lugarno Progress Association's annual president's dinner down at Lugarno Seafood Restaurant, one of the finest establishments anywhere in my electorate. The Lugarno Progress Association has been in existence for almost 100 years and is one of the longest running groups of its kind anywhere in Sydney. As the name suggests, the Lugarno Progress Association is focused on the development and the success of Lugarno and its community. It was great to chat with LPA President Ken Mason on the night and to see him perform in his band with his son, which was entertaining, and to talk about the different projects the LPA has on the go at the moment. One of the big proposed projects is to build a pavilion to enable musical performances to take place at Evatt Park. By coincidence, I had been at Evatt Park two days earlier with the Prime Minister, where we announced the No Jab, No Play policy. Then, a couple of nights later, we were talking at the LPA about the importance of getting this music facility in place at Evatt Park. Back in October the LPA held the Music in the Park event, also at Evatt Park, coordinated with Lugarno Lions club and the Georges River Lioness Club. The LPA does a lot of other great work. They first alerted me to an old, disused walking track that was in some disrepair in Lugarno, which we were able to fix up through the operation of the Green Army. The track is now open between Murdock Crescent and Evatt Park. That is very much down to the strong advocacy of the Lugarno Progress Association. To Ken Mason, to previous president Joan Curtis and to everyone else who was there on the night, thank you so much for everything you do for Lugarno. Last week I attended the Panania senior citizens group, which meets at the hall in central Panania. It was good to chat with the ladies about a range of issues. One of the big issues in Panania at present is Canterbury Bankstown council's proposal for a very excessive high-rise development in that suburb. Whilst most people in Panania accept the need for some development, the proposal of the council is excessive, and we discussed that at some length at the meeting. We also talked about scams, which unfortunately are still being perpetrated by telephone. A number of members of the group had recently received very worrying phone calls that sought to defraud people of their personal details, and we discussed measures to help address that problem. Thanks to Win Burns, who coordinates the event, for inviting me along. It was nice to visit, and I look forward to doing so again in the near future. Last year three schools in my electorate came together and organised the inaugural Trilogy Schools Mega Fete, held at Playford Park in Padstow. The trilogy schools—Caroline Chisholm School at Padstow, Broderick Gillawarna School at Revesby and George Bass School—all cater for kids with special needs in the Bankstown community. The parents got together last year and said, 'Let's put on a big fete for the enjoyment of the kids and to raise some money for our schools.' Several thousand dollars were raised—it was a really big event—and this was the first time that it had been held. The event is coming up again on 2 April, also at Playford Park at Padstow, and I would encourage anyone in our community who is around on 2 April to get down to Playford Park and enjoy this fair. It not only will be a great fun day but also will be raising money for some of the most important schools in our community. I want to thank Kirrily Hoscher, Glen Waud, Angela Gatt and Pauline Headman, who all played a big role in setting up this event in the first place, making it a success in its first year, and who are now doing so much work to make it come together in its second year. It is going to be a great day on 2 April, and I encourage everyone to get along there. On 6 March I visited St Joseph's Catholic Primary School in Riverwood. A number of the kids had recently been involved in a range of interschool sporting competitions in the area and had been selected because of their particular prowess in swimming, soccer, netball or touch football. It was really nice to be able to present awards to the kids who had represented their school so well. I have visited St Joseph's at Riverwood many times, and it is always great to touch base with the community there. There is a very active parent community. It is notable that the school assemblies each morning are always very well attended by the parents, which demonstrates the very close nature of this school. Thanks to the principal, Kim McCue, who does an outstanding job. This is a school with a very good reputation in our community, and that does not happen by accident. I look forward to visiting St Joseph's again in the near future. Chinese Australian Social Services, or CASS, is one of the most important organisations in the Sydney Chinese Australian community. On 13 March CASS held an aged-care expo in Hurstville. The event was a very useful way of bringing together different providers of aged-care services, particularly for people who speak either Mandarin or Cantonese. One of the realities of our aged-care system at the moment is that there are not enough aged-care services in languages other than English. CASS recently set up an aged-care facility in Campsie, which has been extremely successful—I understand that it is at capacity—and is currently looking at developing various other facilities. Other providers of services in the community were also there on the day. St George Community Transport, who do a great job, were there, as were a number of other aged-care providers. To have all of them in the one place at one expo was a very good idea, and CASS is to be commended for it. I thank the founding chairman, Henry Pan, for everything he does, and I thank Tony Pang, the executive director, and all the other members of the executive and staff of CASS for their great efforts. Riverwood Community Centre has a new CEO, Barry Higgins. Barry has replaced Pauline Gallagher, who was in the role for well over 30 years and who did a terrific job at the Riverwood Community Centre. Barry has now stepped into that role. I would certainly like to welcome him to that role at this very important institution in my electorate. Riverwood Community Centre runs a range of childcare services, youth programs, aged care, disability support and a Men's Shed program. It has a very wideranging role in the Riverwood community. Barry has really hit the ground running with a lot of great ideas and great energy and experience that he brings from previous employment. I wish him every success as the new CEO of Riverwood Community Centre. Workplace Relations 109 18:50 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise in this grievance debate to talk about a very important issue. It is the Department of Human Services' current bargaining with the CPSU on behalf of the many thousands of people that work in the Department of Human Services. This issue is crucially important to those thousands of workers, and they are all around Australia. This issue affects not only every single one of those workers but also the thousands upon thousands of Australians who rely on them to provide essential support and services. This grievance is a very important issue because it goes to the heart of the narrative that is building very rapidly around this government, a government that does not seem to care about not only the workers within the Department of Human Services but the many thousands of people that rely on Human Services for some very basic survival issues in their lives. I am speaking today about the ongoing industrial dispute between the Department of Human Services and its staff members. Staff at DHS have been waiting for over three years for the department and the government to come to the table with an acceptable enterprise bargaining agreement. In the three years since the negotiations began, there has been no offer that addresses the years-long wage freeze employees have been subjected to and no offer that truly acknowledges that these workers have a right to access stable and secure employment. This situation is about so much more than just pay. Although the government's current proposed pay arrangements would not allow ordinary workers to keep up with the cost of living, their conditions and a decent standard of living for those who work hard to take care of others is what is really at stake here. The proposed EBA would give employees no access to fixed regular hours, leaving rostering decisions to be made ad hoc by management. Under these conditions, parents, for example, would face an ongoing struggle to arrive at and leave work early in order to pick up children from school because they would be in different DHS centres from day to day. There is also a strong trend towards a casualisation of the DHS workforce in the government's proposals, which strips casual and part-time workers of access to benefits and seeks to make it easier to keep workers on short-term contracts. How is it that, when 36 million calls go unanswered, the government's answer was to have 70 per cent of the new staff in the last financial year hired as casuals? Over 70 per cent of the Department of Human Services' workers are women, with over 30 per cent of the workers part time. Many of these women work in caring roles and many of them are carers at home, too. Many of them are parents and have young children. All of them are being disproportionately affected by the current proposal for their pay and conditions. We know that the work of women is often undervalued and underpaid. This can only be seen as a further attack on the working women who dedicate themselves to caring for others both at work and at home. The so-called Minister for Women here in the federal parliament refuses to even consider domestic violence leave for people who work in the Department of Human Services. An example of the lack of regard for the work of women has been made clear in this process. The department has rejected the request of the Community and Public Sector Union, as I said, to allow DHS employees to access domestic violence leave as part of the new agreement. The management of the department are unable or unwilling to protect the most vulnerable of their own employees with rights. Instead, they want to have the discretion to say who gets assistance and who does not. Surely the government should seek to lead by example. What kind of example are they setting on the most serious of issues? This, combined with the proposed cuts to rights of part-time, casual and rostered workers means that some women have already reported that they have to leave their jobs with the Department of Human Services due to a lack of flexible working arrangements. There have been two ballots of the workforce at DHS to vote on an EBA proposal since this process began, each with an almost 80 per cent participation rate of staff. In the first, 83 per cent of staff voted to reject the offer. After lengthy negotiations by the CPSU, minor concessions were granted. Again, 79 per cent of workers rejected this offer. The last proposal from the management did not address many of the concerns raised by the workforce, and as with the two previous offers it was rejected by 74 per cent of the staff who voted. In fact, at this stage, compensation for the lengthy pay freeze the workers at DHS have experienced is likely a necessary precondition for moving forward. Offers of such compensation have not been forthcoming. This raises the question of the utility of this continued process at all. It is clear that the latest proposed EBA continues to ignore the needs of the DHS workforce. It does not offer pay which keeps up with the cost of living and removes flexibility from conditions and entitlements in ways which inordinately impact women. The department and government need to acknowledge that their current tactics are not working and see new solutions for people who work within the DHS. The DHS is already failing to meet its obligations to the community. We know this because of the issues we have spoken at length about in this place over the last few weeks. We have heard stories from Centrelink customers and what is happening to vulnerable Disability Support Pension recipients with unnecessary reviews, and Medicare is unable to process customers' claims in a timely manner. These issues are not the fault of the hardworking employees of DHS, and I underscore that. Increased pressure on this workforce through cuts to conditions and entitlements can only serve to make it more difficult for these people to do their jobs, leading to worse outcomes for all those who rely on these essential services. This of course is all taking place at the same time that Sunday penalty rates are under attack by a government and Prime Minister who just do not get the issue. They do not understand or do not care about the issues around penalty rates. These are real wages. These are not add-ons for families. Of course, potentially this cut in take-home pay affects women the most, whether they are young women saving for uni, women supporting their families or women in the workforce. It will affect women most egregiously. Regarding the view that you can work extra hours to make up for the shortfall in your take-home pay, to put it quite simply: that is not the solution or the answer when you strip somebody of their take-home pay. We can see there are common themes here: DHS workers waiting for over three years to get a wage increase, fighting three years to maintain a standard of living, fighting for three years to maintain conditions, and women trying to keep a sensible work-life balance, while workers in some of the lowest paid industries have their Sunday penalty rates reduced, meaning a cut in real wages. When is the government going to stop their war on workers? When is the Minister for Human Services going to step up and support the workers inside the Department of Human Services? And when is the government going to understand that workers have had enough? Understand that Australians will not tolerate unfairness. Understand that Australians understand when a government is attacking the most vulnerable and taking away from those who can least afford it. We see this in the penalty rate cuts and we see this in the egregious components of the omnibus bill that I understand will go to the other place tomorrow. We are talking about denying young people access to Centrelink payments for over five weeks. What are they expected to live on? We are seeing cuts to the age pension and we are seeing absolute havoc been created for the people who rely, from time to time, on Centrelink, which is of course part of the DHS. I reiterate that the negotiation between the DHS, the government and, of course, the CPSU has been going on for three years. There have been ballots, there have been clear indications given by DHS staff on what the issues are, and there is the inability of the government to understand what it means to say to your workforce, 'No, you can't have domestic violence leave and, by the way, we're casualising most of the workforce. And, no, you will not be able to be in one work centre for any permanent time. We will tell you from day to day and from week to week where you're going to work. I'm sorry if that affects your child-care arrangements.' How can a woman who lives in Parramatta and has her children in child care in Parramatta be told that she is working in Penrith next week and arrange to have the children dropped off and picked up? It is absolutely impossible. It is incomprehensible that people who are under so much pressure and do such important work as Department of Human Services staff are being treated so disgustingly by this government. Calare Electorate: Community Groups 110 19:00 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Tonight I bring to the attention of the House the work of our wonderful community groups, who play a vital role in keeping our rural and regional communities strong. As a local member, I have had the privilege of visiting many of these groups in the electorate of Calare, and tonight I am paying particular tribute to those in the wonderful Wellington district, an area you yourself have represented, Deputy Speaker Coulton. Community radio stations around New South Wales do valuable work, particularly in regional areas, which have fewer broadcasting options for listeners. Binjang Community Radio provides a local broadcasting service for the Wellington area, featuring local news and interviews and sports information, and giving the opportunity for Wellington-based organisations to deliver information about their activities. The radio station was formed at a public meeting sponsored by Wellington Development Incorporated at the Wellington Rotary Club in May 2008. Binjang Community Radio is overseen by a management committee which also helps to ensure the smooth operation of the station. The committee consists of the President and Chairman, Mark Griggs; the Deputy Chairman, Jayson O'Brien; the Treasurer, Anne Jones; the Secretary, Marcus Hanney; Programming and Online Content is Wes Taylor; Membership and Community Activities is Beryl-Anne Altopher; Presenter and Studio Coordination is Cathy Donnelly; Training and Presenter Recruitment is Michael White; and of course the irrepressible Station Manager is Tony Graham, who does a wonderful job. Whilst the day-to-day running of the station is managed by Tony, the presenters are all volunteers with a broad range of backgrounds. Some are new to radio and some have prior experience. The presenting team at Binjang consists of many people. Cathy Donnelly drives the latest mix of music with a spice of community information about events and offerings during the weekend. Jayson O'Brien, the veteran music entertainer, sets the country music scene alight with his take on the superstars of country every Monday and Wednesday from 9 am; he is also known around Wellington as the 'Irish cowboy'. Farren Hotham, a media superstar for 37 years, was the former editor of the Wellington Times and, whilst he has now moved on to new business prospects, he comes back to Binjang from time to time. Indeed, I recently saw Farren at the Wellington Boot, where he interviewed me about the day's racing and what was happening in the Wellington community. He is also known as 'Wellington's best friend'. If heavy metal is more your style, Chris Lucas's Super Rock program is the one for you. Helen O'Brien is on air every Tuesday presenting community news. She also produces the stock report with Geoff and Ross Plasto, and can be heard frequently anchoring community service announcements. Good on you, Helen. Wes Taylor is referred to as the 'pride of Yeoval', and you can hear him on air every Thursday morning. His popular specialised show, Discography,is also on air from midday every Sunday. Thomas Broome takes over the airwaves with his mix of music and local information. He has obtained early entry into Arts/Media at Macquarie University, beginning in 2018. Congratulations, Tom. Rick Bremner anchors Tuesday mornings as Radio Rick, delving into the origins and journeys of music, with interesting information about professional music artists. Mumbil resident Dale Elliott broadcasts on Thursday afternoons and Saturday mornings with a mix of your favourite memories and musical hits. You can catch Daniel Rutter's program from time to time, where he produces a program with a unique and interesting musical flavour. Molong resident Jeff McEachen presents his Blues with a Feeling show Monday nights from 7 to 9 pm. Mark Griggs brings his journalism background to most outdoor broadcasts as well as to the Monday to Friday breakfast slot. Phil Denniston presents Modern Country on Wednesday nights from 6 to 8 pm, and Jack Broome presents the afternoon shows when his school commitments permit. Beryl-Anne Altopher presents the More Great Music, Your Music program every Wednesday from 4 until 6 pm, and Dr Mike Augee can be heard regularly on the incisive report segment interviewing local characters about all sorts of subjects, including life stories, upcoming events, history and everything in between. Matt Barry can be heard most days on various productions promoting Binjang 91.5. Geoff Plasto also produces the stock report and Ross Plasto presents the stock report when Geoff is away. In New South Wales alone there are over 200 Red Cross groups and the Wellington branch is one of them. It was established on 19 August 1914, making it 103 years old. In 2016 the branch raised more than $16,000 for important community projects and causes. There are a range of good works that they do. They do charity golf days and stalls at local market days. They have created a recipe book and have raised money for a number of important appeals, including Red Cross Calling, the Big Cake Bake, the Red Cross Christmas appeal and disaster relief appeals. There are currently 50 active members of the Wellington Red Cross branch. I need to make special mention of the president, Beverley Hutchinson, and the treasurer, Carol Taylor. I also make mention of Margaret Macarthur and June Hutchison, who assisted emergency crews during the Sir Ivan bushfire east of Dunedoo—which you would be well aware of, Deputy Speaker Coulton. They volunteered in the evacuation centre at Mudgee and at the recovery centre at Coolah. Congratulations to you both. I would also like to mention Kerry Taylor, Jenny Bremner, Annie A'Beckett, Vicki Babicci and Chick Jones. There are many more members who I cannot name tonight because time does not permit, but I congratulate and thank the Wellington branch of Red Cross for their important community work. It was great to catch up with them at the Wellington Boot just a few days ago. The PCYC was founded in 1937 and has more than 60 clubs and centres across New South Wales. The Wellington PCYC is one of its smallest clubs but boasts more than 500 members. The club has a long and proud history, and there is an open day on 1 April 2017. The centre runs a number of programs in the community, including outreach and school holiday programs, as well as recreational activities such as gymnastics, boxing, archery, soccer, futsal and martial arts. I would like to take this opportunity to make mention of those involved with the Wellington PCYC, including regional general manager of the western area, Nathan Brennan; the club manager, Matthew Devenish; the youth case manager, Senior Constable Leigh Davy; the gymnastics instructor, Katherine Bell; the program coordinator, Wendy Ambachtsheer; and the Bluestar participants, Hayden Mills, Daniel Knibbs and Sarah Samut-Hayter. The Bluestar program creates leaders of the future by providing practical, real-life skills that they can apply to work, family and the community. As part of the Bluestar program, recipients contribute two hours per week for 10 weeks as a volunteer at the PCYC. The PCYC is heavily involved in the Wellington community, and I was able to see this in action when I visited their booth at the Wellington Boot. I will certainly be heading to Wellington to attend their open day, which is coming up very soon. The Wellington Rotary Club was established in 1937 and will also this year celebrate 80 years. It has 28 active members, with one honorary member, Gary Conn. That is the highest accolade that a member can receive. The club is actively involved in the Wellington community and only last week donated $5,000 to the Sir Ivan bushfire appeal, which went towards fencing material. Although none of the members were directly affected, many friends of the club's members were. That is the spirit that you get in country New South Wales, where all of the surrounding districts to those that are struck by tragedy and natural disaster pull together to get their neighbours through. The club also donated $500 to firefighters battling the Wuuluman bushfire, and that went towards food and drinks. I would like to mention these members: President Ruston Smith—Ruston is an old friend—Secretary Vivienne Wellington, Treasurer Peter Knowles and committee members Greg Wykes, David Ryan, Grant Masters, Deborah Wells, Warwick Brebner and Tony Inder. I would like to congratulate all of those members for the great work that they do. Another organisation doing wonderful work is the Wellington Show Society. I make particular mention of President Rob Dimmick, Vice-President Danielle Anderson, Secretary Jan Wightley, Treasurer Alan Hutchinson, Showgirl Coordinator Bev Hutchinson, and Junior Involvement Coordinator Kellie Rich. I would also like to make mention of the outgoing 2016 showgirl, Jane Brien. The Wellington Showground at the moment looks an absolute picture. Another community group that is doing wonderful work is the CWA. The Wellington branch was formed in November 1923. It has got 16 active members and two life members. The committee consists of President Pat Bell, Secretary Pip Smith—another old friend of mine, well known in the Wellington community—and Treasurer Catherine Smith. I also would like to mention one of the Wellington branch members, Helen Norris, who has been a member of the CWA for 50 years. She joined half a century ago simply because, she said, her mother told to. It has made a big contribution to her life and she has made a great contribution to Wellington. These are just a handful of the community groups doing wonderful work in the electorate and it is an honour to pay tribute to them tonight. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I think the member for Calare, and I also thank him for the trip down memory lane and mentioning all those wonderful people that I have worked with for so long. Corio Electorate: G21 Delegation 112 19:10 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Tomorrow night I will be welcoming to this parliament the G21 delegation from Geelong. The G21 is a group which brings together five regional councils around Geelong, including the City of Greater Geelong, the Golden Plains Shire, the Surf Coast Shire, the Colac Otway Shire and the Borough of Queenscliffe. The G21 also involves business and community organisations. Together they speak with a single voice to state and federal governments and, indeed, to the world. I remember helping organise one of the first delegations from Geelong to this parliament more than a decade ago. It was a challenging period for Geelong. Ford had just decided to stop manufacturing engines in Geelong, which put a lot of local jobs at risk and put the local economy at risk. The G21 and the Committee for Geelong, another organisation which provides wonderful advocacy for the people of our region, helped secure the Geelong Investment and Innovation Fund from the then Howard government, which later—under the subsequent, post-2007 Labor government, a government in which I served—was ultimately used to help keep Ford manufacturing in Geelong, at least for a period. The GIIF, as we referred to it, was the first of many wins. I worked closely with our city's advocacy groups throughout Labor's time in government, and I have worked with them through the period that I have been in opposition. The results of that advocacy and the support from those representing the people of Geelong—the civic leadership of Geelong—can be felt in the Geelong economy today. Together we argued for and won over $3 billion for the Regional Rail Link; $37 million for Deakin University's carbon fibre research centre, which has one of the most advanced carbon fibre research furnaces in the world; and $29½ million for the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, to help create jobs and support the local economy after Ford ultimately made its decision to close its operations in Geelong in 2012. Together we argued for and delivered the northern community hub and won funding for the Geelong bypass. Recently there have been some in our community who have questioned whether Geelong's advocacy groups, the Committee for Geelong and the G21, still have the cut-through to keep those wins coming. I can happily confirm that the advocacy that I have seen coming from these groups, here in parliament, has been absolutely first-class. Their pamphlets and their communication products have been clear and professional and the way that they have pitched the requests that they have been making has been clear and credible. They have been grounded and practical. It is true that wins for our community have been thin on the ground over the last few years under this coalition government. This is ultimately a government which does not care about our city in the way that Labor did. It was this government that let the GRIIF run out, which pulled the rug from beneath the feet of workers in our city, who were doing what they could in the face of the closure of Ford and Alcoa. This coalition government makes the delegations that are coming from our civic leadership and the advocacy that they provide all the more important. If we want to get this neglectful government's ear, we need to focus on how we can grow jobs in our city; and, if we want to grow jobs in our city, we need to focus on those things that will grow real jobs in our economy. We need to climb the technological ladder, and that means we need to focus on science. It is particularly pertinent that I raise the question of science in connection with the local economy in Geelong and in connection with our national economy today because, as I speak right now, the Science meets Parliament annual dinner is on. Scientists from around Australia will be meeting parliamentarians throughout the day tomorrow. As one of the co-convenors of Parliamentary Friends of Science, I know how important science is in terms of infusing it and technology throughout our economy. It is a piece of economic reform that is as necessary to our future as any. Investing in science, and the next generation of products and jobs that flow from it, will determine whether Australians enjoy today's standard of living and meaningful work in the decades to come. That truth for this country as a whole is true for each of our communities as well, including Geelong. Geelong has a head start growing these science jobs. More than any other regional city, we have institutions and the skilled workforce whose research will ultimately deliver the next generation of products and, therefore, jobs our economy needs to succeed in the coming decades. These include institutions such as the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases—again, a Labor win—which brings together researchers from a range of disciplines to tackle emerging diseases that pose a threat to human and animal health. The former Labor government established the funding for this centre and its supporting jobs and research to this day. The centre was very much an achievement of the advocacy groups of Geelong—the City of Greater Geelong, the G21, the Committee for Geelong. They came up with the idea and advocated for the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, which is doing great work. The CSIRO's Australian Animal Health Laboratory is protecting our multibillion-dollar livestock and aquaculture industries with a high-containment facility for research into the most dangerous infectious agents in the world. This is the leading research facility of its kind in the world, dealing with the most dangerous infectious agents. Carbon Nexus, the result of $100 million Labor government investment, is a world-leading carbon fibre facility. It is already spinning off companies like Carbon Revolution and Quickstep Technologies. They are next-generation manufactures providing real jobs for the Geelong and national economies. And, of course, we have Deakin University, which has a leadership that knows the best way to help an economy hurt by job losses today is to provide the skills and research to grow the industries, companies and jobs of the future. Science works best in a rich ecosystem, where new ideas come together to grow more. Geelong has exactly that ecosystem, and we need to make sure we are focused on giving it what it needs to grow. We need to make sure we are taking advantage of the skills we have to be a part of Australia's defence industry, for example. We need to be front and centre, developing the products that keep our country safe and exporting them to the world. Recently, with the Avalon International Airshow, the people of Geelong have seen the breadth of opportunity that the defence industry and the high-tech industry bring to our community. Marand, who will design and make equipment to keep our fleet of F-35s in the air, is a Geelong company showing that we have the skills to be part of the long chain of high-end skills and jobs that make Australia's defence industry so dynamic. Geelong has a lot to offer. The people who spend their time representing our city—the civic leadership of our city—know that. They know that results are more important than flashiness, that attention seeking is not the same as effective action and that practical projects that lead to real jobs are more important than vanity projects. Tomorrow, as I said, I will be welcoming a number of civic leaders on the G21 delegation from Geelong to this parliament. They include Bill Mithen and Elaine Carbines, the chair and CEO of G21 respectively; Peter Dorling, an administrator of the City of Greater Geelong; councillors Brian McKiterick, Des Phelan, Chris Potter, Susan Salter, Keith Baillie, Sue Wilkinson and Lenny Jenner, who are from a number of the other G21 councils; and Kelvin Spiller, who is the CEO of the City of Greater Geelong. They all represent councils within the G21 region and are representing the region as a whole with a single voice in Canberra over the next couple of days. Also coming is Patti Manolis, from the Geelong Regional Libraries. The Geelong regional library building is now an iconic structure in Geelong. It was funded by the former Labor government and is very much the outcome of Patti's inspirational advocacy around the importance of libraries within our community. It is fantastic that she will be here in this parliament tomorrow. The delegation includes Jason Trethowan, from headspace, who has over a number of years represented the Geelong GPs association, and Bernadette Uzelac, from the Geelong Chamber of Commerce, which represents the businesses of Geelong and which plays a critical role in advocating on behalf of our region. Every single one of these people is determined to make sure the federal government hears our city's voice loud and clear. Theirs is a herculean effort. They conduct themselves with the highest degree of professionalism and skill and with a passion for their city and a sincerity in the way in which they bring the case to this parliament. They deserve nothing but our acknowledgement and our thanks. Broadband 114 19:20 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore In contributing to this grievance debate, I wish to raise the importance of delivering more timely access to high-speed broadband internet services in developing the digital economy for our community. A number of constituents have contacted me in recent months to express their concern at the lack of access to internet services at an adequate bandwidth and speed in certain locations. Currently, a number of homes located in the older, more established suburbs within my electorate of Moore, including Craigie, Duncraig, Edgewater, Joondalup, Padbury, Marmion, Kingsley and Woodvale, have inadequate access to broadband internet services. Members of the community have informed me that they require sufficient bandwidth for running their businesses, for completing their education and for home entertainment. The timely provision of this essential telecommunications infrastructure will help develop and build the digital economy by connecting people in residential and business settings with access to information, services and networks on a global scale. There exists an urgent and compelling need to upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure by implementing the National Broadband Network in a more timely manner. The federal government must ensure that the Moore electorate is serviced as a matter of priority. This represents one of the key local priorities that I am pursuing to transform economic development, employment and lifestyles in our area. Operational responsibility for the rollout rests with the contractor, NBN Co. NBN Co is building and operating the network on a commercial basis at arm's length from the government, in line with the statement of expectations. Decisions regarding the timing of the rollout to specific locations are operational matters for NBN Co so it is able to meet its target of connecting all Australian homes and businesses to high-speed broadband by 2020. The coalition's approach to NBN will see the nationwide rollout completed six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under Labor. The government is prioritising the completion of the network across the nation by 2020. When I was first elected, in September 2013, there were a grand total of just four premises in my electorate with NBN services available. Since then, whilst progress has been slower than we would have liked, as of 3 March 2017 there are now 5,637 homes and business premises with NBN services available. To date, approximately 1,846 premises have signed up for an active connection to the NBN. In order to emphasise the urgency of the implementation, I have organised multiple meetings and received briefings from representatives of NBN Co, which is the contractor responsible for the operational aspects of the rollout. I have also made representations to the Minister for Communications advocating for the more timely delivery of NBN services so that all of my constituents will soon be able to access NBN services. I am pleased to announce that construction of the NBN network in a number of affected suburbs, including Edgewater, will commence around the second half of this year. Overall, switch-on dates for the majority of the electorate are scheduled to occur by mid- to late 2018. When complete, it is estimated that approximately 54,700 homes and business premises in Moore will have NBN access. Investment by government in opening up the information superhighway will connect the community at a number of levels. For instance, it will provide global access to the vast knowledge base contained in the Joondalup Learning Precinct, which includes Edith Cowan University, the West Coast Institute of TAFE and the police academy. Similarly, the Joondalup Health Campus will also be able to utilise the high bandwidth to facilitate telemedicine, specialist medical imaging and robotic medical procedures and to promote interactive experiential learning in conjunction with remote universities. The communications network will extend further to link local industry and commerce in the Joondalup CBD and the Winton Road business park with global markets and supply chains via ebusiness and ecommerce. Nationwide, in terms of the digital transformation agenda, as of February this year more than 1.9 million homes and businesses have an active connection to the National Broadband Network, with more than four million premises across our nation able to connect to a service. In fact, according to research by Deloitte Access Economics, it is estimated that the value of Australia's digital economy generated $79 billion in the past financial year, representing 5.1 per cent of national gross domestic product. The future of our local economy depends on investment in innovative new businesses assisting in the transition from mining to services, exports and information technology. As our local economy transitions from the mining construction phase, there is a need to diversify and promote employment growth in other sectors such as information and communications technology. A number of leading software development companies are located in Joondalup, including SEQTA which specialises in award-winning educational software. The NBN is essential to facilitate the development of companies operating in this sector. The City of Joondalup was the first local government in Western Australia to launch a digital city strategy, which advocates for an expansion in technological infrastructure, platforms and content. It aims to create an educational city and attract new businesses in innovative sectors. The new digital economy will be the driver of innovation and growth for knowledge based activity, incorporating new ways and opportunities to access knowledge, information and services, and creating opportunities through teleconferencing, telecommuting, computer aided design and manufacturing and exciting new business models. The digital strategy is heavily dependent on NBN communications and broadband infrastructure to support the growth of knowledge sector jobs, digital technologies, teleworking and emerging co-working hubs. Located in the Joondalup Learning Precinct, the sixty27 co-working space, which derives its name from Joondalup's 6027 postcode, provides collaborative opportunities between local entrepreneurs, businesses and researchers to drive local innovation. The precinct encompasses the latest in technological development, including cybersecurity, health research, engineering, digital technologies, three-dimensional animation, augmented reality and 3D printing. The Joondalup knowledge based precinct provides the opportunity to enhance productivity and international competitiveness through targeted research and collaboration with industry leading to the commercialisation of Australian inventions and innovation. This visionary, strong focus on innovation is designed to enhance business competitiveness and growth and directly complements the aims and objectives of the federal government's Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda. The government is committed to investing in Australia's critical research infrastructure, with reforms to research funding to promote a more collaborative approach between researchers and businesses and to achieve commercialisation of intellectual property. The federal government must ensure that the Moore electorate is serviced as a matter of priority. Investment by government in telecommunications infrastructure through the National Broadband Network rollout over the next two years will help build the digital economy by opening up the information superhighway, connecting people with access to information, services and networks on a global scale. The timely implementation of the National Broadband Network is critical. This represents one of the key local priorities that will transform both economic development and lifestyles in our area. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The time for 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. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 116 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Disability Services (Question No. 636) 116 636 Dr Freelander 265979 asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 30 November 2016: (1) Why are many applicants for the disability pension, including children, who should indisputably qualify, being required to provide detailed specialist reports within a very short period of time and at considerable expense which they cannot afford. (2) Why do the administrative requirements (a) subject some applicants to an unreasonable level of psychological distress, and (b) unduly burden medical professionals. (3) What steps will he take to remedy or improve the situation. Mr Tudge M2Y The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Disability Support Pension (DSP) medical eligibility is not diagnosis-based, but is based on the level of impairment caused by a condition or disability. The same condition or disability will not always result in the same level of impairment for different individuals. The Department of Human Services (the Department) needs current information about the diagnosis, treatment, symptoms, functional impact and prognosis of each medical condition advised by the claimant. Examples of the types of medical evidence that can be provided include: medical history reports/print outs; specialist medical reports, including the outcome of specialist referrals by the claimant's treating doctor; allied health professional reports, such as physiotherapy or audiology reports; psychologist reports, including IQ testing reports; medical imaging reports; compensation and rehabilitation reports; physical examination reports; and hospital/outpatient records or discharge summaries including operations the claimant has had. For example, a person with an intellectual disability who has attended a special school can provide a report from the school detailing an existing psychologist assessment of their intellectual function. This is sufficient information for the Department to grant the person's claim for DSP. If more information is required, the Department can arrange for further professional opinion and, in certain cases, a specialist assessment, at no cost to the claimant. (2) Administrative arrangements include a number of safeguards to assist DSP claimants who may be vulnerable. People claiming DSP have always been required to provide medical evidence from medical practitioners to support their claim. Medical practitioners no longer need to complete a specific form, but can provide claimants with copies of existing medical evidence. (3) The Department continually reviews processes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of services. Youth Allowance, Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation (Question No. 674) 116 674 Ms McGowan 123674 asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 6 February 2017: (1) In respect of Youth Allowance applications (a) what are the steps taken to assess an application, (b) are there key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with each step in the process, and if so, (i) what are they, and (ii) are they being met, (c) what percentage of applications take longer than (i) 2 months, (ii) 3 months, (iii) 4 months, and (iv) 5 months, to process, (d) what is the main cause of delay in processing applications, (2) How many students who apply for Youth Allowance (a) are found eligible, (b) drop out of the process before it is finished, and (c) are trying to establish independent status to enable them to live away from home.(3) With a new student cohort applying for Youth Allowance, and delays in processing occurring each year, (a) what changes have been made to improve the process (b) are students encouraged to apply before they finish school. (4) What was the average staffing level employed by his department to assess the youth allowance programme, in (i) 2013-14, (ii) 2014-15, (iii) 2015-16, and (iv) 2016-17. (5) What is the role of the Department of Human Services Agents located in regional centres and under what circumstances is it necessary for an applicant to travel to a Centrelink office because the matter cannot be managed by a Department of Human Services Agent. (6) In respect of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation (WPIT) programme (a) when is the programme scheduled for completion and is it on track to meet this schedule, (b) was a regional Australia impact assessment completed for the WPIT programme, (c) do the document receipt numbers that clients receive under the current process correlate with a tracking system that allows the document to be located, (d) will this be a feature of the new ITC system, and (e) will the WPIT programme address the issue of documents going missing and applicants being required to resubmit them. (7) Has the planning and design work for the WPIT programme (a) included consultation with clients of the Department of Human Services to ensure the system addresses concerns with assessment delays, MyGov access problems, and loss of documentation, and (b) considered the unique circumstances facing rural and regional Australians who cannot easily visit a Department of Human Services office in person to resolve issues. Mr Tudge M2Y The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) a) Eligibility for Youth Allowance (student) is assessed based on information provided by the claimant. The assessment process1 consists of the following steps: o Conduct pre-assessment checks to ensure all required information has been provided (including the request of any additional information) o Identify the most appropriate student payment, for example Austudy or ABSTUDY o Assess if the claimant is qualified for a student payment o Assess the need to apply any waiting periods o Check eligibility for any supplementary payments o Determine the student's reporting requirements, for example income o Finalise the claim and notify the applicant of the outcome. b) There are no key performance indicators for each individual step in the process. c) d) Delays in processing claims are due, in the main, to applicants failing to supply documents. Up until September 2016, applicants were able to submit a claim without providing all the required supporting information such as parental income or proof of identity. This meant the Department of Human Services (the department) could not finalise the claim until all the information was provided. This process has now been revised and from October 2016, all supporting documentation is required to be provided before the claim can be submitted. These changes to process are providing greater certainty for applicants and improving processing times. For further details about the pre-claim lodgement process refer to response 3(a). (2) a) 129,946 welfare recipients were granted a Youth Allowance (student) payment for 2015–16. b) 28,673 applicants applied for Youth Allowance (student) payment and either withdrew or did not proceed with the application for 2015–16. c) 13,193 people claimed independent Youth Allowance (student) in 2015–16. (3) a) In September 2016, the department introduced a new pre-claim lodgement process whereby Austudy and Youth Allowance (students) and Apprentices are required to provide all required supporting documentation for their claim prior to being able to submit a claim for payment. Required information includes Proof of Identity and parental income. The only exceptions to the above rule are vulnerable people who are deemed 'at risk'. This group may include, but is not limited to, a young person who is homeless or unable to live at home. The department will allow these people to lodge a claim prior to providing all their documentation. b) Each year the department develops a communication strategy to support school leavers through the student peak period. For last year's school leavers a number of proactive news articles were developed as an entry point to help people decide on their next steps. A new webpage was also developed to provide information about pathways for school leavers including payment options. Additionally, information on claiming Youth Allowance is available on the Human Services website and is routinely shared on social media. (4) i) 2013-14 – 217 FTE ii) 2014-15 – 233 FTE iii) 2015-16 – 399 FTE iv) 2016-17 year to date – approximately 500 FTE (5) Access Points provide free self-help facilities where people can conduct their business with the department. People can access the department's services from one of over 230 Access Points and 350 Agents in rural, regional and remote Australia. At the Agent, a person can: Get assistance to setup and access digital services Make enquiries and get assistance, guidance or a referral Use internet enabled computers and printers Get information products, forms and brochures Call the department using the telephone provided Use the phone claiming service Access reply paid envelopes Use fax and photocopy facilities Have confirmation of identity documents copied and verified Fax claim forms and documents. A business, company, local council, community group or trading entity may be able to join the DHS network and deliver the services of an Agent or Access Point. The department will advertise these opportunities in the local media within a community when they become available. Staff at Agents and Access Points are not departmental staff and cannot: make any payments or decisions about payments review, assess or vary payments issue Electronic Benefit Transfers and cards. In these situations, people may be required to travel to a Centrelink service centre. (6) a) The Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation (WPIT) programme is a seven year business transformation programme, which commenced in 2015 and is expected to be completed in 2022. The programme is on track to meet this schedule. b) A Regional Impact Statement has not been required at this stage of the programme. c) In most cases, a receipt number is generated automatically at the commencement of the interaction when the welfare recipient's record is accessed. However, for online services including Interactive Voice Response (IVR), the receipt number is generated at the end of the service. This receipt number is then able to be validated by a service officer at subsequent contacts to view the welfare recipient's interaction. d) & (e) The WPIT programme will not only replace the department's current legacy system with a new ICT solution, it will simplify the way it works across face-to-face, phone and digital servicing by providing a seamless cross-channel experience. The design of the new ICT solution is underway and will consider current processes and examine innovative ways of managing recipients' documents, including drawing on near to real-time data from the department and trusted third parties to pre-populate forms and reduce the amount of documentation required from recipients. (7) a) The department's vision is excellence in the provision of service to every Australian. To this end the department continues to innovate and refine its delivery to meet the new and evolving needs of welfare recipients. The department considers myGov to be a critical enabler of service delivery, including for rural and regional Australians. The department undertakes citizen based reviews on our online and mobile channels, including input from those in regional and rural locations. b) The WPIT programme planning and design have explored the complexities and challenges that welfare recipients face, including rural and regional Australians. WPIT will enable individuals to access the department and its services through their preferred device (for example, via smartphone, tablet, laptop or computer), with an integrated digital experience. Self-service options such as IVR and virtual assistance will also be available to support individuals to finalise their business without having to visit a Department of Human Services office. Face-to-face and telephony servicing will continue to be available with a focus on providing support for individuals with more complex needs; when they experience a crisis, when they are unable to access a service digitally or when their familiarity with digital platforms is low. In these situations, the department will provide support via digital, telephony and face-to-face channels to guide them through the digital experience. There will continue to be a strong focus on digital education to build digital literacy and to encourage individuals to self-manage. In this transformation, WPIT will not only modernise the way welfare payments are delivered, it will deliver an improved experience for individuals, including rural and regional Australians. This approach is in line with e-Government and the National Digital Economy Strategy. 1 The process does not include Australian Apprentices Centrelink (Question No. 681) 119 681 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 15 February 2017: In respect of his invitation in Question Time on 8 February 2017 to raise individual Centrelink cases and issues with him, will he (a) note that I wrote to him on 7 October 2016 in relation to serious issues raised by one of my constituents, Mrs Johnson, and the disability support pension reviews of her sons, and important systemic problems arising, (b) note that I received an acknowledgment from his department on 28 October 2016 which said 'a more detailed response will be forthcoming', (c) note that I wrote to him on 20 January 2017 asking when he proposed to reply to my correspondence dated 7 October 2016, (d) explain why it is taking him so long to reply to my letter of 7 October 2016, (e) advise if and when he proposes to answer my letter of 7 October 2016, and (f) consider resigning if not prepared to answer my correspondence, and give someone else a go. Answer Mr Tudge M2Y The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The letter referred to in Mr Hill's question has been answered.