2017-03-29 45 1 2 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1 BILLS Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 1

Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016

Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

Assent 1 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 1 Report from Federation Chamber 1 Third Reading 1 09:32 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017 1

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017

Report from Federation Chamber 1 Third Reading 1 09:33 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Gorton’s private Members’ business notice relating to the disallowance of sections 11(3)(a) and (c) of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016, made under section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, and presented to the House on 7 February 2017, being called on immediately. I have moved this motion because yet again the Labor side are dancing to the tune of the CFMEU when it comes to building and construction here in Australia. I do not intend to delay the House for long on this matter, as I understand that the opposition will agree to the suspension of standing orders, and the member for Fisher will speak on behalf of the government on this disallowance motion, but the reality is that this week the member for Gorton came into the House and put on the Notice Paper a motion to disallow the Building Code under the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a Building Code that will help restore the rule of law on Australian construction sites. Yesterday, coincidentally, the CFMEU began a robocall campaign around Australia—particularly in the member for Indi's electorate—urging people to vote for the member for Gorton's disallowance motion. What a coincidence! So, yet again, as if we needed any more evidence, the Labor Party is dancing to the tune of the CFMEU. You would think that they would be sick of it by now. We have given them every opportunity to decouple themselves from the union movement: we have introduced the Registered Organisations Commission and we have introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission—we are restoring the rule of law on building and construction sites around Australia. You would think the Labor Party would be sick of the CFMEU pulling their chain and making them jump to the tune that they are playing, but they are not—they never tire of attaching themselves to one of the most corrupt and evil unions in Australia's history. We know why—it is because the CFMEU, just in the last 12 months, gave the Labor Party $1.3 million to campaign against the Turnbull government. That is on top of the $10 million the CFMEU has given the Labor Party over the last 10 or 15 years. We have even more evidence from Dean Mighell. Dean Mighell was the former long-term secretary of the ETU in Victoria—quite a famous unionist in Victoria. He said in an email that was provided to the royal commission: Given that the Federal ALP is desperate for funds, surely we can say that we will help them if and only if, they abolish the ABCC. I can tell you for a fact that unions are donating to federal Labor for outcomes, not promises. Yet again, this week we are seeing those outcomes being delivered by the Labor Party to the CFMEU. Thank goodness that they are not in government, because last time they were in government they abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission; they turned back the clock; they brought the CFMEU into the cabinet room and sat them down at the table to help them make decisions; and, when asked about what unions were engaging in this process of donating to the ALP—for outcomes, not promises—Dean Mighell told the royal commission, 'I believe that the CFMEU and some of the other building industry unions were again seeking the abolition of the ABCC as a policy outcome.' I feel sorry for the member for Gorton. He is basically a decent man. He is not a bad billiard player, but I pity him because he is the poor unfortunate on the Labor Party front bench who is given the job of coming in here and meekly trying to abolish the Building Code, meekly doing the bidding of the CFMEU. He knows how bad that union is. We could give you chapter and verse on how bad the CFMEU is as a union. In the Heydon royal commission—do not take my word for it—the royal commissioner, Justice Heydon, said: The conduct that has emerged discloses systemic corruption and unlawful conduct, including corrupt payments, physical and verbal violence, threats, intimidation, abuse of right of entry permits, secondary boycotts, breaches of fiduciary duty and contempt of court. That is what Justice Heydon said about the CFMEU. Yet again we have the Labor Party in here today dancing to the tune of the CFMEU and trying to abolish the Building Code under the ABCC. We will not let them do so. We will call on that debate this morning from the suspension of standing orders. We will defeat that disallowance motion, and the Building Code and the ABCC can get on with their excellent work of restoring the rule of law, increasing productivity in the construction industry, saving consumers money, saving young house buyers money that they would otherwise have to pay because of the inflated prices, one of the reasons for which, of course, is the way industrial relations have been run in this country because of the CFMEU over far too long. We will stand in the way of the CFMEU and we will stand in the way of the Labor Party in their attempts to support the CFMEU. We will stand up for the workers. We will stand up for house buyers and consumers and for productivity in this country. 09:39 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Thank heaven the Leader of the House used the time there as a limit rather than a target and did not try to go for any longer than he did. What we have in front of us is not the motion for the purposes that the Leader of the House said, as though he is bravely bringing on a disallowance motion. If he does not move to bring it on, it takes effect anyway. That is how standing orders work. If he had not come in here to bravely bring it on and force the debate, it would have been carried. That is what would have happened. So for all the nonsense that we just heard from the Leader of the House, what we have in front of us is a very routine procedure that needs to occur every time someone moves a disallowance motion. The motivation for the Leader of the House there, as though this is some brave act by the Liberal Party and the government—it is not. It is procedurally required unless they want the disallowance motion from the member for Gorton to take effect automatically. In terms of the quotations we heard: if they want to come up with a union official to get stuck into the Labor Party, as though there is some revelation in this person's words, do not pick someone we expelled from the Labor Party. The words from Dean Mighell are not exactly going to be given on behalf of the party that he was expelled from. It is just extraordinary. If the government is serious that they want to bravely bring on for debate issues where the Labor Party and the union movement are closely aligned, then once we have dealt with the disallowance I would urge the Leader of the House to bring on the Leader of the Opposition's penalty rates bill. If they actually have a view that they are willing to take on any debate that is happening in the community, then straight after this one bring the penalty rates bill on for debate, because that is one that does not take effect automatically if it is not brought on. If there is any of the courage of the convictions that the Leader of the House just claimed to have, then immediately after this debate there is a piece of legislation on the books that should be brought on for debate and vote. But he wants to shield his backbench from having to formally vote in favour of the pay cut for 700,000 workers across Australia. If the Leader of the House believes any of the words he articulated a moment ago, that will be the next item of business. Mr Pyne 9V5 Is that it? Mr BURKE DYW We agree with the motion! There is a limit to how angry we can be on a motion that we are supportive of. 09:42 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to support the Leader of the House on this motion, because this is another demonstration of the way in which the modern Labor Party has been completely captured by the union movement. There is no worse union in this country than the CFMEU. The Australian public understand this. I was reminded of that in a book that I read recently—a couple of years ago now. The book was called I heard you paint houses. Essentially, it was a detailed how-to guide, which the CFMEU is now referring to as some sort of reference document. It detailed the activities of the Teamsters in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI We can come to Jimmy Hoffa. There are many people within the CFMEU that fit that Jimmy Hoffa bill. This is the reality. Somehow the modern Labor Party, under this Leader of the Opposition, have allowed themselves to be compromised to the point where they are allowing the modern-day Teamsters to pull the strings on a daily basis. This is unacceptable. I feel for the member for Indi, because in her electorate yesterday there was a robocall scare campaign which the CFMEU masters during the last election—during periods in government and opposition the CFMEU has mastered the intimidation and scare campaign. It shows, as the Leader of the House points out, that the two organisations, the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU, have once again acted in close concert, in this case to intimidate, or to attempt to intimidate, the member for Indi. I know the member for Indi, and I know that she is not going to be intimidated by this process. The same tactics have been demonstrated in South Australia, where the union movement has attempted to vilify Senator Xenophon. Senator Xenophon has not fallen for these tactics either, and the message to the Australian public is that they should not fall for the Labor Party's and union's tactics, because, as we know, the CFMEU fully owns and operates this Labor Party and in particular this Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, as he demonstrated, during his time as a union leader presided over deal after deal after deal. In some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars was paid by the employer or the employer group to the union, to the AWU. Lo and behold, the union agreement—the EBA—is struck shortly thereafter, which takes penalty rates away from those workers, and the workers do not even know about the special payment that was made during the period of negotiation from the employer to the AWU. Now, this was not just a one-off occasion. This was a course of conduct presided over by the Leader of the Opposition in his capacity as secretary of the AWU. If you want to have a look at the activities that are going on within the union movement otherwise, we know that within the CFMEU, across the union movement otherwise, as was detailed in the royal commission presided over by Justice Heydon, dozens and dozens of union leaders across the country have been charged with criminal offences. They are defended on a daily basis by the Labor Party, and it is outrageous. But you have to again ask yourself the question: why would this be so? Why would this Leader of the Opposition allow himself to be held to ransom by these union leaders? Well, when you look around, it is impossible—and this is why there should be a suspension of standing orders— The SPEAKER 10000 The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Surely not on relevance? Mr Burke DYW On the point of order, given that we are dealing with a— The SPEAKER 10000 I would like to know what the point of order is, actually. Mr Burke DYW It is on being relevant to the motion before the chair. The moment I rose, the first words that were relevant to the motion were said. And I would simply encourage the House: we are about to have a debate, and everybody agrees that we should have the debate. Everybody is in support of the motion before the chair right now, and the minister will be able to deliver that exact speech in a few moments time. He can start from the beginning again if he feels he needs to. But in terms of relevance to what is in front of us right now, none of the speech, other than the final four words when I stood up, have been relevant. The SPEAKER 10000 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Just before I call the minister: the Manager of Opposition Business makes a very fair technical point, but if he would like me to adopt his suggestion to the conduct of all suspension motions— Mr Burke DYW Just ones on notice. The SPEAKER 10000 I would just make the point that, whether it is on notice or not, members speaking are supposed to confine themselves to the reason that standing orders should be suspended. And there are lots of examples where these are moved where both speakers do go a bit broader, and that has been the practice, and it has certainly been the practice over the last couple of years. But I will say to the minister to confine himself, in the final minutes of his contribution, to why standing orders should be suspended. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I think, if I might say so myself, it has been a compelling case for suspension of standing orders, and it is obvious I think to all within the chamber that we must deal with this matter. We must deal with this matter because it is an issue of urgency—the fact that the Labor Party has been captured wholly and solely by the union movement. I mean, we must deal with this in this chamber, and we must support the motion of the Leader of the House. We must. The reality is that the Labor Party do not like this exposure. That is their problem. The problem is that they do not like a spotlight being shone on the way this relationship has developed to an unhealthy position. And the reality is that the CFMEU—all of these union engagements are not in the best interests of this nation. They are not, on any test, in the best interests of this nation. The Labor Party wants to talk about penalty rates. Let's talk about penalty rates. Let's talk about these issues—where the Leader of the Opposition was involved in ripping off hundreds of thousands of workers. That is the reality. That is his history. That is something he needs to stand up and defend. The reality is that hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid to the union movement, who have been involved in criminal activities. When you look at these people around here sitting on these benches within the Australian Labor Party at the moment, there are no teachers, there are no butchers, there are no people from backgrounds— Opposition members interjecting— Ms Ryan 249224 There's a teacher over here! Mr DUTTON 00AKI These are all union leaders. You cannot become a member of parliament in the modern Labor Party unless you have been a secretary or you have occupied a high office within the union movement. They will all protest; of course they will, because they do not want this racket exposed. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Members on my left! Mr DUTTON 00AKI But the fact is that they are dealing with the modern-day Teamsters. This is why there should be a suspension of standing orders. This is why we need to deal with this issue—because it needs to be dealt with. And we need to expose this hypocrisy to the Australian public, and we will, because this Leader of the Opposition has done or has sanctioned deals that have been done by unions—for example, with fast food outlets. Those young workers, working on a Sunday, have been paid less under the union agreement than what the 18-year-old at the mum-and-dad fish and chip shop in the adjoining tenancy is being paid. That is the reality. That is the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party. They do not want people to hear this story, but the reality is that that is exactly what is happening. Why would they do that? In the case of the brother and sister who are going off to the local shopping centre to work, with the brother going into McDonald's for a much lesser rate on a Sunday than his sister going into the fish and chip shop owned by the mum and dad, why would Labor have sanctioned a deal where the McDonald's worker is paid less than the fish and chip shop worker? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 I will just ask the minister to resume his seat for a second. Members on both sides can cease interjecting. Whilst I allowed the Manager of Opposition Business to be very broad—he brought up the subject of penalty rates, but he did so in the context of whether a motion should be brought on or not—I do say to the minister that, as much as I do give latitude, he is moving now way beyond why standing orders should be suspended for the purpose that the Leader of the House has put. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The Leader of the House does not need to speak to me; he might want to speak to the minister. But in the last few seconds, I just ask the minister to confine himself. Mr DUTTON 00AKI This protection racket that is run by the union movement and the Labor Party does need to be dealt with in this House. It will be dealt with, and we intend to expose the hypocrisy of this Leader of the Opposition who is wholly owned by the union movement of this country. Question agreed to. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 5 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 5 Motion for Disallowance 5 09:52 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I move: That sections 11(3)(a) and (c) of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016, made under section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 on 2 December 2016 and presented to the House on 7 February 2017, be disallowed. After 20 minutes of us furiously agreeing to bring this matter on, the reason I tabled this motion in this place was to ensure that we can constrain some of the worst aspects of the building code that was supported by the government. It is clear that Labor did not support the bill that was enacted by the parliament and we did not support it for good reason. We had concerns about civil rights; we had concerns about safety issues; we did not agree with the proposition that productivity would improve—in fact, we think it will decline as a result of the reinstitution of the ABCC; and we had problems with the bill. But this is not about the bill. Whether I like it or not, the fact is that the parliament enacted that bill and, whilst we stand by our position, this motion is about dealing with the code. The secondary arguments we made were just as important insofar as the effects of this code. The problem with this code is that it sets up a set of laws for employers and workers in the building industry that does not exist in any other industry. In fact, it goes broader than the building industry because the reach of the code and the reach of the bill have gone beyond the building industry itself. What that really means is that the code, as it stands, denies employers to put in agreements ratios of apprentices to workers. This is the only industry in which that is denied. This code denies the right to limit or constrain in any way temporary work visas for work in workplaces in the building industry. It is the only industry that is not in a position to negotiate enterprise agreements with provisions that regulate the workplace in such a way as to, for example, limit the use of 457 visas or limit the use of holiday-maker visas and student visas—which are becoming increasingly prevalent in the building industry at the expense of unemployed tradespeople and labourers who live in this country and need work. There are other concerns we have with the code, but we have chosen to focus on these two matters. We believe that two sections of the code which are particularly egregious because they undermine Australian apprenticeships and Australian jobs. They are sections 11(3)(a) and 11(3) (c), as I indicated. Section 11(3)(a) prohibits enterprise agreements from having clauses to prescribe the number of employees or subcontractors that may be employed or engaged on a particular site, in a particular work area or at a particular time. Section11(3)(c) precisely prohibits enterprise agreements from having clauses that require or result in discrimination between classes of employees because of the basis on which they are lawfully entitled to work in Australia. Labor warned that passing the ABCC legislation and the code would prevent enterprise agreements from containing clauses which mandate a ratio of apprentices to tradespeople and which require consultation on the use of temporary overseas workers. If only members of parliament who like to talk big about protecting Australian jobs in their electorates voted to protect Australian jobs in the parliament. I call upon government members to consider this: the bill will not be changed, and that is a shame, but that is not what is before us. The code itself can be limited to ensure that employers, unions and workers are able to have provisions in place so that we put workers in this country first—we put Australian workers first. We have very high numbers of unemployed Australians in the building industry who cannot find consistent work or enough work and in some cases they cannot find any work. Government members have an opportunity in supporting this motion for disallowance to limit the effects of the code so that, if an employer chooses to say that he wants to limit the use of 457 visas, he can do so by having an enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission. If unions on behalf of workers want to negotiate with employers to do just that, they can do so. It is quite extraordinary that the government has set up a code that does not allow for the ratio of apprentices to be set inside an enterprise agreement and yet in every other industry it can happen. Labor's warnings have proven to be well founded. The ABCC has issued a list of clauses from enterprise agreements that have been submitted for assessment to the ABCC. An advice about whether the clauses meet the requirements of section 11 of the building code 2016 or whether they are non-compliant. The following clause in the existing agreement has been deemed by the ABCC to be non-compliant with section 11(3)(a). This is a provision that, up until the code took effect, was allowable at workplaces in the building industry across Australia, and it says: Apprentices are the future of our industry, and the parties reaffirm our commitment to the training of apprentices. Further, they shall make every endeavour to make full-time apprenticeships available with the company. The employer will employ at least one apprentice for every eight tradespeople employed. This was a provision of an existing agreement that was entered into in good faith between employers, their workers and the unions, and that will no longer be allowed as a result of this code. In fact, that is no longer allowed as a result of this code. But, if we support the motion before us, we can ensure that that type of revision, either in the existing or a future agreement, can be enforceable and can be agreed to by employers, workers and unions. The following clause in an existing agreement has been deemed by the ABCC to be non-compliant with section 11(3)(c): 2.1 The Employer endorses the following principles: 2.2 Temporary foreign workers are intended to supplement the Australian workforce, and will only be recruited and employed where there are insufficient Australian workers available to do the work, including through training. 2.3 Workers who are Australian residents will have preference in … training opportunities relative to temporary foreign workers, to the maximum extent permitted by law. 2.4 While it may be agreed that recruitment of temporary foreign labour is necessary— from time to time— the intention is that reliance on temporary foreign labour will be reduced over time during the life of the Agreement. That clause was allowable until this code took effect. The clause was regulating the workplace and really allowing the employer to say, 'We want to put Australian workers first in order to ensure that the growing number of unemployed building workers in this country get the first opportunity; we do not want a situation where the first port of call for an employer is to employ people on temporary work visas'—not only those on 457s where there is at least some limitation because of labour market testing, and I might add that that is a test that the now government and then opposition totally opposed, but also regulating what are at least 500,000 temporary work visas that are covered under two visa categories: the holiday-maker visa and the student visa. The 500,000 workers in this country on temporary work visas are here for legitimate purposes in many respects, but the idea that those visa holders will get opportunities before unemployed Australian workers is unfair. That is why the employers in this industry, as in other industries, have reached agreement with their workforce to say, 'We value your work, we are concerned about unemployed residents in this country and we're going to give you preference.' As a result of the code the preference is no longer happening, but if you support this motion that will allow employers to negotiate ratios of apprentices, like they do in every other industry, you will enable the regulation of the use of temporary workers to ensure that workplaces can look to local employment—look local first—before having to look overseas. It is important to remember that all of those companies who negotiated with unions and their workforce in good faith and entered into legal enterprise agreements over the last three years acted prudently and reasonably. It would be wrong if companies who have enterprise agreements with clauses like the two the ABCC have ruled to be non-compliant—clauses which are about supporting Australian jobs—are banned from undertaking Commonwealth construction work. The government has sought to say they have concerns about the use of temporary work visas in this country. In fact, during question time and on other occasions the minister now at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, has said he has concerns. He can reflect the sincerity of those concerns by voting on this matter and supporting Labor. If he genuinely has concerns—indeed, if the government has genuine concerns—about the way in which we give preference to local workers before having to use overseas workers then he would support this proposition. In fact, to vote down this amendment to the code will mean that you do not support the right of not only unions and workers but also employers wanting to regulate their workplace to give preference to Australian workers. If you vote down this restriction on the code, it is signalling to not only the 750,000 unemployed Australians across all industries but also the 1.1 million underemployed Australians is that you are not concerned for them and you do not want employers in industries to be able to sit down with their workforce and restrict the use of temporary workers in this country by negotiation. This is an untenable position. You cannot on one hand say that you have concern about the use of temporary workers in this country and yet vote against Labor's proposition today. You cannot argue you have concern for the lack of apprentices and the lack of opportunity for young people to get a trade in this country when we have seen a cut of 133,000 apprentices since this government was elected. You cannot say that you are concerned about the difficulties young people are having in acquiring the skills that they need in the fastest changing labour market in human history if you are not going to support the right of employers in this industry, or for that matter any industry, to sit down with their workforce and say: 'We're happy to give a ratio of apprentices to trades people. We want to do that.' It is not outlawing the ability just for unions to negotiate this—it is not even allowing employers to do it. Say, for example, an employer chose to have an agreement without unions. That is not my preferred option, but an employer is not even allowed to enshrine their position in a registered instrument to say they want the number of apprentices to be set as a ratio to tradespeople. Clearly that is not acceptable—the government's absolute enmity towards unions has blinded their commonsense. In their attempt to destroy the capacity of unions to bargain they have thrown under the bus apprentices and permanent workers who deserve to get opportunities before temporary workers in this country. That is what has happened. We are not trying to have a further debate or go back to a debate on the issues that go to the bill. Even though we have strong reservations about the bill, we have lost that battle, at least at this point, but we still hold the same position. What we have instead chosen to do today is, rather than have the whole debate about that matter, confine this debate to two issues: the opportunity for young people to get apprenticeships in the building industry and the need for there to be an opportunity for all workers in this country before temporary work visas are used and for employers in this industry to be allowed to regulate that. I think that is reasonable. I find it very difficult to understand, given the rhetoric of the government—in particular, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection—why the government cannot support this proposition. They like to talk about conspiracy theories to do with unions and the like—but, in the end, this comes down to whether you support apprentices and whether you support permanent workers in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion for disallowance seconded? 10:07 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I second the motion. This is a chance for the government to acknowledge they have made a mistake with the code. This disallowance motion will help the government live up to their rhetoric of supporting Australian jobs and supporting the growth of good, secure, well-paying jobs in this country. Labor stood firmly against the Liberal government's anti-worker ABCC legislation and the accompanying Building Code. This particular focus of the government and these new rules that they have brought in—or old rules that they have brought back—are part of a draconian regime that says that any company that wishes to express interest in tendering for Commonwealth building work must comply with the Building Code. It should also be noted that this will apply in August, so we are talking a couple of months away. Two sections of the code go after and attack Australian jobs. They undermine Australian apprentices; they undermine Australian jobs. These are sections 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(c). They are the two parts that we seek in this place to disallow today. Section 11(3)(a) prohibits enterprise agreements from having clauses which: (a) prescribe the number of employees or subcontractors that may be employed or engaged on a particular site, in a particular work area, or at a particular time … So this is what is happening right now. This is a clause under which employees and employers sit down and agree how many subcontractors may or may not work on a site. This government wants to stop that conversation from happening. It wants to stop that from being in an agreement. Section 11(3)(c) prohibits an agreement having ratios or clauses around apprenticeships and clauses about employees based upon when they are lawfully entitled to work in Australia. So, where we have agreements that talk about apprenticeships, limiting the use of 457 visas or limiting the use of subcontractors and therefore prioritising local Australians being directly employed for these jobs, this government now says, 'If that is in an agreement, that company can now not tender for federal government work.' This particular part of the code, like the whole code, must apply by August—meaning, as we have seen in media reports, about 3,000 agreements need to be renegotiated by August if those companies want to tender for Commonwealth work. There are not enough days left to be able to do that and for the Fair Work Commission to be able to consider them. Even if the employees and employers could reach an agreement, there are not enough days between now and August for the Fair Work Commission to consider all of those agreements—3,000 of them. So the government have brought forward this code knowing full well it is impractical and impossible for that to occur. Let's just talk about why. Why is it that the government are so fixated on these particular parts of the code? Why will they not stand with Labor? As the previous member has said, they are blinded by their pure hatred of unions. In their pure hatred of unions, they will actually damage things and will slow things down. They will create chaos in the construction industry. We heard during the suspension motion the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection say that there are currently dozens of union officials that are facing charges for criminal offences. That is wrong. In this country if you enter a workplace as a union official and you have not given notification it is not a criminal offence. If two union officials have a cup of tea, it is not a criminal offence. Equally, it is not a criminal offence if an employer knowingly breaches occupational health and safety and it leads to a death in a workplace. In this country, industrial manslaughter is not a criminal offence. If there are employers in this country who knowingly ignore health and safety laws and that leads to the death of a worker, that is not a criminal offence. So let's be very careful with the language that we use in this place. It is not a criminal offence in this country for a union official to enter a workplace. If you want to talk about scare campaigns, the government like to pretend this. They beat up on the unions. They beat up on the workers in the construction industry. Now they are beating up on the employers in that industry who have sat down and bargained in good faith an agreement that talks about Australian jobs. You would think that the government would welcome this. We are trying to correct a mistake that they have made. If they wanted to be true to their rhetoric and to stand up for Australian jobs, they would support this disallowance motion. We do have a problem with temporary work visas in the construction industry. We do have a problem with international students and backpackers working in the construction industry. There has been a misuse of 457 visas in the construction industry. This government's own report by the Fair Work Ombudsman has told us that and exposed that one in five people here working on a 457 visa have been found to be underpaid or not employed in the job they were engaged for in the first place. This was under this government's watch. You would think that they would join with Labor and disallow these things that are in the code that will make it harder for workers and employers to restrict the use of labour hire of temporary workers here in this country, including backpackers in the construction industry. When you talk to a labourer or a construction worker, they are baffled by how we let backpackers work in the construction industry. How can they have the skills and the Australian standards to work in the construction industry? We know the tragic consequences of it. In Perth last year, there was the tragic death of a woman who fell. She was here as a backpacker. She fell down a lift shaft and was killed. In the very same city, Perth, a year before we also lost two Irish backpackers. They were supposed to be on the trip of a lifetime in this country. They were working on a construction site and were killed. It is not fair that we allow them to work in these workplaces. That is why we have seen employers and employees sit down with the union and negotiate agreements to say, 'We take responsibility for who works in our workplaces. We will ensure that it is locals for local jobs first.' Why would a government not want to support Australian kids getting apprenticeships? It is as simple as that. Why would a government disallow apprenticeship ratios in collective agreements for employers and employees that are saying, 'We take responsibility for the next generation of tradespeople and we will mandate ratios for how many young people we will have on a site'? They are employers that are saying, 'We acknowledge there is an extra cost to investing in the next generation, but we will do it.' They are companies that will stand with the CFMEU and the workers and say, 'Together, we will invest in the next generation.' Why would a government want to stop that? When we have a youth unemployment crisis in this country and a loss of apprentices because we are seeing a downturn in the manufacturing industry, why would a government not support Australian kids getting apprenticeships in our construction industry? This government is so out of touch with what is happening in Australian workplaces and the construction industry. It should support Labor's proposal to disallow these parts of the code so we can put Australian jobs and Australians first, and so we can put our young people first to make sure that they get apprenticeships so that they, too, can have careers in construction. We should put unemployed local tradespeople first so that they can get work, because we have a downturn in our economy. We should encourage, support and champion businesses that sit down with unions and negotiate these kinds of clauses in their agreements. They are showing the leadership that this government is failing to show. Instead of championing that, this government says, 'We want to make it illegal for you to do that.' It is putting a handbrake on our ability to employ locals and our ability to train the next generation. This government needs to support this if it is genuine about construction jobs. It also needs to support this to save itself. 10:18 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The member for Gorton has moved to disallow the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016. The member for Gorton's private member's business motion is yet another example of Labor's rank hypocrisy and its outright subservience to the CFMEU. It is absolutely undeniable that the Labor Party and, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition, are owned lock, stock and barrel by the CFMEU. My sources in the building and construction industry inform me that the CFMEU are white-hot angry with the opposition leader and the Labor Party for their failure to stop the reintroduction of the ABCC and the building code, because they know that the implementation of these measures has resulted in a severe disruption of their illegal and corrupt conduct. I am one of the few people in this place who understands the building and construction industry. I have worked in the industry as a carpenter, a builder, a mediator, an adjudicator and a barrister in construction law. I have given 30 years of my working life to the industry. It has been good to me and my family, as it has been good to many families around this country. But I have seen firsthand the best and the worst that the industry can bring. I have personally been subjected to threats and intimidation by the loyal thugs of the then Builders Labourers Federation. The Builders Labourers Federation was the precursor to the CFMEU. That group of lawless individuals was so bad that Prime Minister Hawke deregistered it. The CFMEU entered into the equation, and they have not changed their tune—not one iota. On the other side of the House, who has actually worked in the building industry? I do not mean working as a shop steward, union delegate or organiser. On the other side of the House, who has swung a hammer, dug trenches or built things in the building industry? I would suggest that not one person has worked on the tools. Those opposite do not care about the workers—the mums and dads—who struggle every day to make a living in the nation's third-largest employment sector. Those opposite are interested in trying to appease their union masters that have donated $10 million in recent years to the ALP election coffers. To all the mums and dads out there working on every building site, I am talking to you right now. Believe it or not, there are mums and dads out there listening right now. An honourable member: They are turning it off. Mr WALLACE 265967 No, they are not turning it off; they are listening, and I am talking to them right now. I am suggesting to you that the CFMEU has no interest whatsoever in your welfare or your work conditions. All they want is your union membership. All they want is your money and the power that enables them to wield over their political arm, the Australian Labor Party. The member for Calwell's private member's business motion, which seeks to disallow the building code, should be seen for what it is—a clumsy attempt made by both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gorton to try and re-enliven the protection racket that has been waged by the CFMEU, underwritten and supported by the Labor Party federally and throughout the country, particularly in my home state of Queensland. You see, the Labor Party have to be seen to be trying to prevent the reintroduction of the rule of law on Australian building sites, but we on this side of House will not stand for that. We will fight tooth and nail against any suggestion whatsoever to try and reintroduce the lawlessness that has sat in the industry since the ABCC was last abolished. I want to take this opportunity to give the House a little bit of a history lesson here. The ABCC was established by Prime Minister Howard in 2005 but, unfortunately, it was abolished by the Leader of the Opposition in 2012 at the behest—no, at the demand—of the CFMEU. During the seven years in which the ABCC operated, productivity in the construction industry increased by 20 per cent. Since its abolition, it has flat lined. Since the ABCC was abolished, the rate of disputes in the sector increased by 43 per cent, even while in other industries the rate of industrial disputes declined by 32 per cent. Prior to the ABCC, industrial disputes in the construction industry were at five times the all-industry average, but the other side say: 'Nothing to see here. It has got nothing to do with the ABCC.' During the ABCC's operation, disputes fell to double the average. Since its abolition in 2012, disputes have again risen to around five times the average. The building code works in tandem with the restored ABCC to fix a major problem in our third-largest industry, the building industry. The CFMEU is notorious for bullying, intimidation and lawlessness in the industry. What some people do not understand—clearly those opposite do not understand—is that the high rate of industrial disputation adds cost to the cost of public infrastructure and private infrastructure. The building of schools, bridges, roads, hospitals all significantly increased. There is some talk about these increases being 30 per cent, but I believe, and my own evidence has shown me, that that figure is a gross underestimate. My figures demonstrate that the cost of lawlessness in the building and construction industry adds costs somewhere between 60 per cent and 100 per cent, particularly of public infrastructure. I can see some there shaking their heads on the other side. They do not want to believe it. Open your eyes, do some investigations yourselves and see what the CFMEU are doing to this country; they are destroying this country because the increased costs— Mr Hammond 80109 We are not all Satan. Mr WALLACE 265967 You are absolutely right; you are not, and that is a very good point. There are very good people in the union movement, and Australia needs a union movement. We on this side do not hate unions. What we hate is union thuggery and union lawlessness. That is what we hate and that is what we will stand up against. We on this side of the House recognise that unions play an important part in this country and we will stand up for them. But we cannot stand and we will not stand for union lawlessness. Our building code means that if you want to tender for Commonwealth funded work, small businesses must now get a fair go. Those opposite talk about section 11A of the building code but those opposite clearly have not read the note that immediately precedes section 11A. For those interested, which should be the other side, section 11(3)(A) says: Note: this does not prevent the inclusion of clauses in an enterprise agreement that encourage the employment of apprentices. You left that off, didn't you? It is ridiculous. Section 457 visas— (Time expired) 10:28 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the motion be put. Question agreed to. 10:32 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to. The House divided. [10:32] (The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith) 68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 74 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 11 BILLS Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 11

Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:39 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 contains a range of measures to reduce red tape applying to the broadcasting and telecommunications sector whilst continuing to maintain important consumer safeguards. The bill also simplifies regulations by removing redundant or otherwise unnecessary provisions. I now turn to provide more detail on the amendments in the bill. Industry based numbering management The first set of amendments concerns industry based numbering management. The Telecommunications Act 1997 currently requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, to make a plan for the numbering of carriage services in Australia and the use of numbers in connection with the supply of services to the public. The numbering plan must specify the numbers for use and may set out rules for the allocation of numbers to carriage service providers, the transfer of numbers between carriage service providers, and the surrender of numbers by carriage service providers. This bill will amend the Telecommunications Act to enable the minister to appoint a 'numbering scheme manager' to manage numbering resources on behalf of the Commonwealth under a self-managed industry scheme. An industry managed numbering scheme has the potential to deliver faster implementation of new numbering ranges, lower charges and more efficient allocation processes. The scheme will need to achieve key principles specified in the legislation, including an adequate and appropriate supply of numbers, protection of the interests of consumers, the promotion of effective competition, support for the emergency call service and the ongoing collection of numbering charges. Any industry scheme would only commence if and when the minister was satisfied that the scheme met these and other relevant principles and would be fully funded by industry. As an important safeguard, the appointment of the numbering scheme manager could be revoked by the minister if the numbering scheme manager was not managing the numbering scheme in accordance with the principles, or if the minister was satisfied that the revocation was in the best interests of the telecommunications industry, users of telecommunications services, the general community or national security. As ACMA will continue to remain responsible for the collection of numbering charges, the bill will include a provision requiring a numbering scheme manager to provide information requested by ACMA in relation to calculating and collecting numbering charges. This would be at no cost to ACMA. Licensee reporting and notification arrangements The bill also contains provisions in relation to licensee reporting and notification arrangements. The bill will streamline account keeping and licence fee administration arrangements under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992for commercial broadcasters and datacasters. First, the bill will remove the requirement that licensees audit certain financial information that they are required to provide to ACMA. Instead, the bill will enable the ACMA to request the audit of financial documents on a case-by-case basis, as it considers necessary. The bill also widens the classes of officeholders who can make a statutory declaration about the gross earnings of certain commercial broadcasting and datacasting licensees. The eligible classes will be extended from the CEO or company secretary to include directors, as well as people authorised by the CEO or company secretary that have knowledge of the financial affairs of the licensee company. The bill will also allow ACMA to waive small licence fee underpayments where, in ACMA's opinion, it would not be efficient to recover the amount unpaid. The bill will also remove the obligation on incoming controllers of regulated media assets to notify ACMA of changes in the control of a licence or publication. This is because the Broadcasting Services Act already requires licensees, publishers and controllers of regulated media assets to notify ACMA of such changes. Single classification scheme for television program s The bill also deals with a single classification scheme for television programs. It will repeal the present requirement under the Broadcasting Services Act for licensees to use the film classification scheme in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 when broadcasting films. This will enable licensees to use the code based television classification guidelines that apply to other television programs. This change will deliver a single classification scheme for all television programs, including films. ACMA handling of broadcasting complaints The bill also deals with ACMA's handling of broadcasting complaints. It will repeal part 11 of the Broadcasting Services Act, which sets out a framework for making and investigating complaints about licensed and national broadcasters, including complaints relating to compliance with broadcasting codes of practice. Part 11 is redundant, given that complaints currently investigated under part 11 can also be investigated under ACMA's broader investigation powers in part 13 of the Broadcasting Services Act. Accordingly, the bill will make consequential amendments to part 13 to make it clear that people may complain to ACMA about broadcasting or datacasting services, and ACMA may investigate the complaint at its discretion. In recognition of the co-regulatory approach to broadcasting services, the amendments make clear that ACMA may, for example, choose to investigate a complaint where the complainant is dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response to his or her complaint, or where the broadcaster fails to respond to a complaint in a manner consistent with the requirements of the relevant industry code of practice. Tariff filing The bill also deals with tariff filing. It will repeal tariff filing arrangements applying to the telecommunications industry under divisions 4 and 5 of part XIB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Division 4 enables the ACCC to collect certain tariff information from carriers and carriage-service providers that have a substantial degree of market power. Division 5 sets out a tariff filing regime that applies specifically to Telstra. These provisions are no longer necessary, and they impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on industry. In addition, there is considerable pricing information available in the public domain. Industry monitoring and reporting The bill contains provisions dealing with industry monitoring and reporting. Specifically, it will reform the statutory information collection and reporting functions of ACMA and the ACCC. Section 105 of the Telecommunications Act requires ACMA to monitor and report to the minister each financial year on significant matters related to the performance of carriers and carriage-service providers. ACMA obtains information from industry in preparing the report. The bill will provide more flexibility for ACMA to decide which matters to monitor and report on. ACMA will only be required to report on the operation of part 14 of the Telecommunications Act, regarding national interest matters, and the data retention requirements under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The minister will retain the power to direct ACMA to report on specified matters. The bill will also remove the requirement for ACMA to provide the report to the minister and for the minister to table the report in parliament. Instead, the bill will require ACMA to prepare and publish the report on its website within six months of the end of the financial year. This change will enable ACMA to provide information to the public in a more timely manner and reduce administrative costs. Section 151CM of the Competition and Consumer Act requires the ACCC to monitor and report to the minister annually on charges paid by consumers for listed carriage services, ancillary goods or services, and Telstra price-control arrangements. The bill will provide more flexibility to the ACCC by allowing it to decide which charges to monitor and report on, having regard to the most commonly used consumer services supplied using a telecommunications network. The bill will also remove the requirement for the ACCC to provide the report to the minister and for the minister to table it in parliament, along with a similar requirement under section 151CL for the ACCC's report on competitive safeguards in the telecommunications industry. To enable the more timely provision of information to the public, the bill will require the ACCC to publish the reports on its website within six months of the end of the financial year. In addition, the bill will require the ACCC to review its record-keeping rules at least every five years, having regard to whether the information is publicly available, to whether consumer demand for the goods or services to which the information relates has changed and to the usefulness of the information to consumers, the minister and parliament. ACMA consultation on s ubmarine protection cable zones The bill also deals with consultation by ACMA on submarine protection cable zones. The bill will remove the requirement under the Telecommunications Act for ACMA to consult with an advisory committee before declaring a submarine protection cable zone. This requirement is not needed as ACMA consults with the secretary of the department of the environment and the public in all instances. NBN Co statements that it is not installing fibre in new developments The bill deals with statements by NBN Co that it is not installing fibre in new developments. It will remove the ability of NBN Co under the Telecommunications Act to issue and keep a register of statements that it will not be installing fibre in a new real estate development, which in turn removes the obligation on a developer to install fibre-ready pit and pipe. The current provisions require NBN Co, as an industry participant, to make decisions of a regulatory nature. This is not appropriate. The minister will continue to have the power to exempt developments from the pit-and-pipe rules if required. NBN Co disposal of surplus assets The bill also deals with the disposal by NBN Co of surplus assets. It amends the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011to provide that NBN Co may dispose of surplus non-communications goods. The changes will allow NBN Co to sell surplus asserts, such as office equipment and vehicles, even where it does not supply services to the buyer of the asset. This will provide NBN Co with greater flexibility to manage its assets in an efficient and financially effective manner. The government remains committed to ensuring that our regulation is fit for purpose in the light of changing technology and consumer expectations, and to removing outdated regulation which represents an unnecessary drag on the economy. This bill makes a useful contribution in this regard. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 13

Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

First Reading 13 Second Reading 14 10:52 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 will make some small but significant changes to Defence's practice and operations. Some stem from recommendations to government and some deliver on election commitments. These are covered in the four schedules to this bill. The first Schedule amends the Defence Act 1903 to apply common sense to Defence prohibited substance testing. It will enable a policy framework to broaden and expand the conditions under which a prohibited substance positive test result must be disregarded, including in circumstances relating to appropriate usage of over the counter medication or substances administered or dispensed by authorised persons. Under the current arrangements, a positive test result may be disallowed under the direction or recommendation of a legally qualified medical practitioner. The bill will allow a positive test to be disregarded under certain circumstances specified in the relevant Defence Instruction issued by the Secretary and Chief of the Defence Force jointly under Section 11 of the Defence Act 1903. This broadening of the circumstances is necessary to ensure that over the counter medication and other legitimate circumstances can be considered where a positive test result is returned. For example, it will mean that Defence will be able to ignore instances where a positive test result has been caused by a dose of generic cold and flu medication rather than something more significant. The bill will also simplify the termination provisions to align with the new Defence Regulation 2016 which prescribes procedural fairness, notice to show cause and warning provisions in relation to adverse administrative decisions. Schedule 2 amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to put in place greater protections for Reserve members. This is a Coalition election commitment and I am happy to be bringing these measures forward in this bill. The Defence Reserve Service Protection Act provides for the protection of Reserve members in their employment and education, to facilitate their return to civilian life after rendering defence service, and for related purposes. It sets out entitlements and prohibitions that apply in relation to people who at any time serve as members of the Reserves. The act mitigates some of the employment and financial disadvantages Reserve members may face when rendering defence service and facilitates their availability to undertake defence service, and will enhance Defence capability. It is the view of the government that no one should be disadvantaged by choosing to wear a reserve uniform. A review of the act in 2008 (the Protection Review) concluded that, overall, the act was working well and achieving its objectives. However, the Protection Review recommended a number of enhancements to the act. The amendments in Schedule 2 implement many of these recommendations. In particular the bill will address the application of the employment, partnership and education protections in Parts 5, 6 and 7 of the act to extend to all types of Reserve service. Previously, voluntary continuous full time service (which is the type of Reserve service that is typically used when a Reserve member deploys on operations) was only protected if the CDF (or delegate) had requested the member to undertake the service on that basis. This requirement resulted in confusion for Reservists and their employers as to whether the protections applied in any given case. This will no longer be an issue, as all defence service will be protected from now on. The bill will also extend the application of the financial liability and bankruptcy protections in Parts 8 and 9 of the act to continuous full time service that is operational service. Previously, the service was only protected if it was continuous full time service following a call-out under the Defence Act 1903. A civil penalty regime is also established to supplement the criminal offence provisions throughout the act, including provisions dealing with discrimination in employment and education. The provisions in Part 4 of the act dealing with discrimination are enhanced to improve the clarity and consistency of these provisions, and to deal with harassment of Reserve members because of their defence service. The employment protections in Part 5 of the act are clarified, by stating when the protected period begins and ends, and by replacing the concept of suspending an employment contract with an entitlement to be absent from employment while absent on defence service. The education protections in Part 7 of the act are amended to provide a general obligation on education institutions to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate a member's defence service. Schedule 3 will implement a recommendation of the 2015 First Principles Review of Defence. It will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (ISA), the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 in order to transfer the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) to the Australia Geospatial Organisation (AGO). In conjunction, the Australian Hydrographic Office (AHO) will be transferred out of the RAN and into AGO. This recommendation will be met in order to have all geospatial related information functions consolidated within the AGO. The transfer of these functions is expected to realise synergies in the exploitation of imagery and other data to produce intelligence and non-intelligence geospatial related information in support of Australia's defence interests and other national objectives. The amendments to the ISA will permit AGO to provide its non-intelligence products and related assistance to an expanded range of entities in accordance with Australia's legal obligations and national interests. Among other things, this will ensure that AGO can, through the AHO, continue to effectively and efficiently deliver high quality hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic services to the maritime community. The minor consequential amendments to the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 are needed to ensure that the terminology used in those acts aligns with new Defence organisational arrangements following transfer of those functions. Schedule 4 will amend the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Cover Act 2015 to align a small number of provisions in this new superannuation act with other military superannuation schemes and provide clarity in definitions. The bill will ensure that members who resign from the ADF and later find that they could have been medically discharged will be able to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) to have their mode of discharge circumstances reassessed. The bill will also create a more contemporary definition to allow a child of a deceased member or invalid to become eligible at a later date, where the child currently is found ineligible at the time of the member's or invalid's death. An example of how this could occur would be where a child of the member or invalid is over 18 and ceases full-time study to become the carer or to undertake a gap year prior to the member or invalid's death, subsequently resuming full-time study after the member or invalid's death while still under the age of 25. The bill will also remove the requirement for a child of a deceased member to be "wholly or substantially dependent" on the member or an eligible spouse. The amendment ensures that all eligible children of a deceased member are recognised regardless of where they reside and does not unintentionally exclude children who would otherwise be found eligible if there was no eligible spouse. CSC will determine who to pay a proportion of the total pension where there are multiple spouses and eligible children. As mentioned, this bill moves to make some small but significant changes to Defence legislation. They will be significant to the operations of Defence, providing streamlining to practices and common sense to regulation. They will be significant to the members of the Defence Reserves, who will receive greater protection. They will be significant to family members of the ADF who will now benefit from the changes to superannuation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017 15

Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 15 Second Reading 16 11:03 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Proactive industries are the future of Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry—industries that see an opportunity to promote their product, grow their business and become more profitable. This bill will help a range of rural industry sectors to make it happen. In the late 1980s, industry and government established the Rural Research and Development Corporations under the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989. Since then, the R&D corporations have helped to keep rural industries productive and profitable by conducting research, development and extension which is practical and relevant to each industry sector. Industry and government both invest in R&D corporations. Industry invests through levies on production and the Australian government invests by matching industry's R&D levy expenditure. According to ABARES estimates, for every dollar invested in broadacre agricultural R&D farmers generate a $12 return within 10 years. Strong agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are good for all Australians. ABARES forecasts our farm exports to be around $47.7 billion in 2016-17 and $48.7 billion the next year. There are 15 rural R&D corporations, of which 14 can carry out marketing activities. Only 10 do, however, and they provide a valuable service to their industry sectors. Marketing has helped to build our pork, wool and red meat industries, to name just a few, and expanded Australian access to international markets. Four statutory R&D corporations are still governed by the 1989 legislation—the fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industries R&D corporations. Unlike most R&D corporations, they must have a statutory levy attached to the corporation in order to undertake marketing. This change was made in 2013 following wide consultation which led to the passage of the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Act 2013. The process to impose a statutory levy is often time consuming and its collection can be expensive. The Fisheries R&D Corporation and its industry bodies say that smaller industries cannot afford the cost of establishing and collecting a statutory levy. This bill provides that the fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industries R&D corporations will be able to carry out marketing activities using voluntary contributions—for example a gift, grant or bequest. This will add to their existing ability to conduct marketing with statutory levy funds. The R&D corporation will have to report on the marketing activities it carries out each financial year in its annual report. The bill will expand the definition of 'marketing activities' to include matters incidental to marketing. This will allow R&D corporations to scope, plan and coordinate marketing activities without having to use funds provided to them for R&D purposes. The expanded definition mirrors the definition of R&D activities to make it easier to apply and understand. The affected R&D corporations support the provisions in this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 16 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 16 Report 16 11:07 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's third report for 2017 on referrals made by December 2016. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's third report for 2017 on the two proposals referred in December 2016. The first proposal is base building works and a tenancy fit-out for the International Energy Agency at the Australian Chancery in Paris, France. This project proposes to conduct a fit-out at the Chancery to secure a 12-year lease with the International Energy Agency. It has a clear commercial justification. The project cost is estimated to be around $27.73 million, which includes a 20 per cent French value-added tax. The second proposal is for a fit-out of new leased premises for the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Human Services in Geelong, Victoria. NDIA currently leases office space in six locations around Geelong for its national office and is seeking to consolidate this into a single location. The consolidation will improve its ability to roll out the NDIS through the creation of operational efficiencies. The Department of Human Services is also seeking to consolidate its Geelong presence through this proposal. It currently leases spaces for its Geelong Smart Centre in two locations. This proposal would allow them to save more than $3 million in lease costs over 10 years. The project cost estimate is $27 million excluding GST. Anywhere where the Public Works Committee can save money when we assess applications, we will endeavour to do so. I compliment the bipartisanship of the way in which the Public Works Committee works. There are incredibly diverse skill sets on that committee. I thank those who make a valued contribution to that committee from the other place, in addition to the outstanding work that the secretariat does in providing a balanced, well-measured, concise brief for members of the committee. I acknowledge their work and I acknowledge the committee members' work. There is still a lot of work to be done in that space. I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead for us. I commend this report the House. BILLS 17 BILLS Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017 17

Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017

Second Reading 17 11:10 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes In the small time left to me, I would like to conclude that this bill remedies a terrible Gillard government bill passed back in 2009. The bill was an oversight that has seen tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars of goods lawfully owned by small business being transferred to the financiers, the big banks and the insolvency companies. It was a terrible piece of legislation. It was an oversight. I acknowledge that the coalition did the wrong thing in opposition in supporting it. We should have picked this up in opposition back in 2009. We also need to act on the Romalpa clause. That is another area that we need to fix up. It has been done, and allows property from small businesses to be transferred to the large end of town. I hope that the member from Moreton in his contribution acknowledges the great mistakes that were made and the tens of millions of dollars that have been lost by the small business community because of this poor piece of Gillard government legislation. 11:12 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton The Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017 seeks to amend the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, a piece of legislation that the coalition voted for. I cannot see any members from the 2009 parliament from the coalition that voted for this in the chamber at the moment. But certainly nearly the entire frontbench of the coalition voted for this piece of legislation. The member for Hughes is clearly seriously confused, because that 2009 PPS act was introduced by Labor, proudly, by the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland. It created a single national online register of security interests in personal property within Australia. I could almost take a personal explanation later in the day, because I need to correct the member for Hughes, who is seriously flawed. Firstly, he referred to my speech of Wednesday, 16 September 2009—my wife's birthday, incidentally—so I went back to my speech. The member for Hughes said that I supported the legislation because it made more work for articled clerks. He totally misread my speech. I clearly said that we were clearing up the process—we were removing work from articled clerks. I referred to my time as articled clerk running around to those 70 different registers. The more legal work you do, the more people will pay. We turned 70 security registers into one. It was a great piece of legislation. It reduced red tape. It was a good thing to do. That is why the coalition supported it. That is why any sensible person would support it. I looked at some other things that the member for Hughes said. I quote from Hansard: With this legislation we are changing the minimum duration for which leases apply down from two years to one year. It was previously two years; it is now one year. Member for Hughes, that is not what the legislation does. You need to talk to your Attorney-General. You need to actually read the legislation. This bill actually amends the Personal Property Securities Act to extend the minimum duration of a PPS lease from more than one year to more than two years. You have totally misrepresented what your government's legislation does. You need to make a personal explanation after question time, member for Hughes, so that you can actually point out what your legislation does. It was quite bizarre—what he was on—when the member for Hughes was speaking last night. I thought he was going to come in this morning and set the record straight. But no, he has chosen not to. And I would point out to the member for Hughes, going on about why this legislation has not been changed, that he is in his fourth year of government—the fourth year of government, member for Hughes. You are a member of the coalition government. If anything is going to be done, surely you are the ones who can do it. So, I bring you back to my great pride in Labor's Personal Property Securities Act, because when it was introduced it was described as important microeconomic reform. I actually referred to it, in my speech, as basically stealing jobs from articled clerks. And I know that anyone who has been an articled clerk would have done a lot of that work in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties and noughties. But now that work does not exist, because we got rid of the red tape. Prior to the Personal Property Securities Act, a purchaser of property could be misled by an apparent owner that clear title was held by them. There was no independent way to determine whether anyone else held an interest in the property that was contrary to the interest being offered. The PPS regime allows a party to secure its interest in a property and to provide anyone who searches the register with knowledge of that security interest. Any interest in personal property can now be perfected by registering on the PPS register—effectively the Torrens title of non-land-based property, I guess. The second reading speech by the then Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, described the regime as replacing: … the existing complex, inconsistent and ad hoc web of common law and legislation, involving over 70 Commonwealth, state and territory acts. It will implement a single national law, creating a uniform and functional approach to personal property securities. How could someone who is supposed to be a champion of small business not praise bringing 70 bits of red tape down to one? I mean, it is bizarre. I really am starting to wonder whether the Liberal Party has totally disconnected from those Liberal Party values Menzies used to trumpet. I am seeing so much erratic behaviour. Maybe it is from being too close to the Nationals. Maybe that is what it is. The Nationals are leading them astray, maybe. But the Senate committee: I call on all those present to try to set them straight— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Hughes on a point of order? Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Under '66A Interventions', I would ask the member for Moreton whether he would accept a question. Mr PERRETT HVP No. Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Oh, come on. Mr PERRETT HVP You had your chance to correct the record. You chose not to do it. You have misled the people who listened to your speech. Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! Member for Hughes, the member for Moreton has the call, and he will be heard in silence. Mr PERRETT HVP The Senate committee report on the bill in 2008 noted that the Attorney-General's Department described the objectives of the then bill as the four Cs: the regime that would be created would deliver more certain, consistent, less complex and cheaper arrangements in relation to personal property securities. And when you talk to lawyers today you see that. You see it time after time. Prior to the 2009 act, consumers and businesses had to negotiate their way through a minefield of unnecessary red tape. Some security interests had to be registered in more than one jurisdiction and on more than one register to be fully effective. There were both electronic registers and paper based registers and in some cases, some jurisdictions, there were no registers at all. This resulted not only in confusion but in unnecessary costs for everyone involved—more work for lawyers, more costs for consumers. The reforms were described as 'the most substantial reform in a decade'. The is what the member for Hughes is asking the Labor Party to apologise for and I guess he is also asking everyone who was in parliament in 2009 and is currently here who voted for this legislation. It is bizarre. I am hoping that the Prime Minister will try to rein him in. Let's look at what the Consumer Action Law Centre said. They supported the idea of 'national personal property security laws and a register that makes that work more efficiently and laws that again create certainty and efficiency in that system'. But let's hear from some other 'crazy, left-wing' organisation—like the Australian Bankers' Association! What did they say? They said that they are 'very supportive of the two-pronged PPS reform proposals—register and substantive law reform'. I know they might have Anna Bligh working for them at the moment, but they are not a left-wing organisation—and I should stress, member for Hughes, that I was being ironic when I said that. The reforms, while they made day-to-day transactions simpler and less expensive, required a complete mind shift for lawyers and articled clerks, which was the point I was making in my speech in 2009. The common law and equitable principles previously underpinning the law of personal property securities were all but abandoned for the far less complex PPS regime. The concepts of a floating charge and crystallisation of a floating charge are now replaced with the straightforward rules provided by the PPS Act. That was certainly a relief to a lot of young law students, I am sure—turning 70 into one—and, as I said, maybe even articled clerks. It was the newly minted law graduate who often had the task of going from building to building with various forms to register personal property securities on the 70 different registers that existed throughout Australia. The object of that legislation, brought in by the Labor government, by Robert McClelland—this monumental reform—was to make life easier for lawyers but also to make doing business much more streamlined and less expensive. The Labor Party put the consumer first. That object has been achieved. That is why the Prime Minister voted for it. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister, in the Senate, voted for it. That is why every sensible Liberal Party person who believes in small business voted for it. Yet we have the member for Hughes calling for them to apologise—unbelievable. The World Bank gives a rating to countries on the ease of doing business in that country. In 2013 Australia jumped from 10th place from a previous 15th place in these rankings. The introduction of the 2009 PPS Act is credited as being instrumental in improving that rating. How are they going under the coalition government? How are we going in terms of ease of doing business at the moment, in the last four years of this shambolic government that we have here. The World Bank publication that lists the rankings particularly commented on the PPS reform, saying: In Australia the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 and associated regulations came into effect, and a single, national online register began operating. The web-based registry allows creditors to conduct searches and register security interests in personal properties at any time. In the World Bank's assessment of which country has the most legal rights for borrowers and lenders, Australia had the highest ranking attainable in 2013. The PPS Act, when it was introduced in 2009, revolutionised the way business was conducted in Australia. Everyone from small businesses, large supply companies, finance companies, banks and ordinary Australians benefited from the protections the regime offered. Labor is proud of these reforms; Labor will not be apologising for doing the right thing by small business and big business. The PPS reforms were real regulatory reform that cut red tape, lowered costs for businesses and improved productivity. That term 'red tape' is one I have heard a lot in the 44th Parliament and 45th Parliament—not so much in the 45th but certainly the 44th Parliament. I remember the Liberal government's obsession with red tape repeal. Let's be fair dinkum, it amounted to attacking a couple of commas and a few brackets. It is what every sensible government does, but it was the great visionary achievement of the Abbott-Turnbull conglomeration—celebrate red tape repeal day. I remember it because it was like an obsession. You are lucky, the class of 2016, you did not have to hear some of the speeches about 'We attacked some commas', 'We took it to those semicolons'. It was like being in the trenches in World War I. It was unbelievable that they could focus so much on it, and I am really not kidding. In fact, I have to this day the current governments Cutting Red Tape web page, which is subheaded 'The Australian Government's online resource for regulation reform'. I printed it off yesterday, and it gives these tips: The Australian Government's Guide to Regulation has been written to help change the way policy makers think about regulation and to inform the consultation and policy making processes. Families, businesses and community organisations pay the price for poor regulation and the purpose of this Guide is to help make better regulation, not more regulation. Strangely, this Prime Minister is not having his red tape celebration days. He is leaving the commas alone or maybe he is just doing what governments do—he is doing that part of the job rather than having champagne and confetti every time he attacks a semicolon. But we do have this government website telling us how great the government is for doing its job. We did have those four repeal days—spring and autumn repeal days in 2014 and 2015. We normally started with the Omnibus Repeal Day Bill. Sadly and unbelievably, not all of the bills were actually passed on the celebrated repeal date. For example, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (Repeal) Bill 2014—and I am sure the member for Fenner would know this—did not pass. Most of the bills were to abolish bodies that were actually defunct, to consolidate previous bodies and repeal spent and redundant provisions and acts and, of course, to eliminate those pesky commas and unruly full stops. It was a jihad on grammar—a grammar jihad. Thankfully, the current Prime Minister wanted to distinguish himself from that great visionary, the member for Warringah, and so he decided that we would not have these repeal days. Instead, he has focused on those great challenges, like responding to dangerous climate change—no, I am just kidding, Deputy Speaker—he is instead defending people's right to be bigots or he is focusing on the idea of using coal to pump water up a hill. He is doing some great stuff. He is definitely a man of vision— Mr McCormack 219646 It is more than I can say about you. Mr PERRETT HVP This bill before the chamber, which the member for Hughes was attacking, is actually a sensible response to issues that were raised by a number of submissions to the Whittaker review and by a number of recent Supreme Court decisions concerning problems with the operation of the PPS act in relation to PPS leases. The bill extends the minimum term of a PPS lease from one year to more than two years—I do hope that the member for Hughes notes that. Any PPS leases which run for more than two years will be 'a security interest' that should be registered on the PPS register. It is a sensible tweak to the legislation that addresses concerns about the burden on small business, particularly in the hire and rental industry, where short-term lease arrangements or indefinite-term leases are commonplace. Labor is very happy to support this bill, which will help small businesses. 11:27 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the honourable members for their contributions to be Personal Properties Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017. The Personal Properties Securities Act 2009 is an important reform which established a single national set of rules for secured credit using personal property. The framework provides greater clarity for both lenders and consumers than ever before, and, since its introduction, Australian businesses are now more readily able to use their assets as security for obtaining cost-effective secured finance. It is clear, though, after a period of time that there are compelling reasons to make adjustments to the act. The regulatory impact the act has had on short-term equipment hire businesses is one such case. Businesses with high volumes of short but indefinite term leases have had difficulties adapting to the framework and have struggled to meet the administrative burden. And this government is all about lifting administrative burden and cutting through red tape. The consequences for small and medium enterprise hire operators in some circumstances can be quite severe. Extending the minimum duration of a lease before it becomes a PPS lease will lift the burden the act is having on the hire and rental industry. Leases with an indefinite term will only require registration once they have exceeded two years in length, and fixed-term leases will only require registration if they are for a term of more than two years. The changes to the PPS lease time frame in this bill are aimed at ensuring that the short-term hire and rental sector remains a strong contributor to the Australian economy without disrupting the effectiveness of the operation of the rest of this important national framework. Deputy Speaker, I would like to respond to the member for Isaacs' comments on the Whittaker review. The government is considering the total of the 394 recommendations from the report of the review of the Personal Property Securities Act. The report is comprehensive; it provides recommendations on technical and complex aspects of the legislation which are interlinked and must be progressed as a complete package. The bill deals with an urgent matter of reform which can be dealt with now, independently of other issues addressed in the report. This bill provides relief to the hire and rental industry without disrupting the proper operation of the rest of this important national framework. The government, through the Attorney-General's Department, is working closely with the Australian Financial Security Authority to develop a response to the report which will benefit businesses and consumers to the maximum potential. In conclusion, a range of industry representatives have been consulted on these measures in order to preserve the balance between competing interests of all stakeholders who deal with the act on a day-to-day basis. With the assistance of industry and the support for the bill provided by state and territory governments, these measures will succeed in providing short-term hire businesses with appropriate relief. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 20 11:30 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017 20

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 20 11:31 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I am tabling this further supplementary explanatory memorandum for clarity and transparency. I believe it will assist all members and senators to have a consolidated version of the explanatory memorandum to understand the changes that both houses of the parliament have made to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill. A further explanatory memorandum is not required when a bill returns from the second to the first house after amendment. However, I would like the intent of both the government and the opposition amendments, which were agreed to by the Senate on Monday evening, to be reflected in a consolidated explanatory memorandum. 11:32 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I welcome the explanatory memorandum, which does clarify amendments made by the Senate. I would like to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his cooperation with this. As I have discussed previously, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill was looked at forensically. In particular, the bill went to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Through the process some concerns were raised, and these concerns continued to be raised during the discussion of this bill. One particular concern was the removal of human decision-making for those veterans who had a negative claim. Of course we do want to see digitalisation and computer-aided benefits flow to veterans, but there was some concern about those who did not benefit from this process. Consequently, Labor did move an amendment in the Senate to the legislation which would ensure that any claim made by a veteran that was rejected by a computer decision-making process would be automatically sent to a delegate for review. Labor believes that by doing this not only is there still benefit in a more timely claims process but also any claims which are not initially accepted in the computer system can be reviewed. For example, should a veteran make six claims and five of those claims are accepted and one is rejected, the rejected claim would be sent to a delegate for a review, with the other five being accepted by the computer decision-making process. The additional explanatory memorandum that the minister has tabled makes this very clear, and I would like to thank him again for ensuring that we have a clear process going forward so that we can get the benefits of computer decision-making but do not have the concerns that have come to light in other departments, including the robo-debt debacle, as it is now commonly called. We do not have those concerns for veterans, and I think this is a good amendment and a good explanatory memorandum. Of course, there is another amendment that the government moved during the Senate process which removed the public disclosure of personal information. We had been working with the government on the rules to ensure that veterans were safeguarded, but, in light of the community concern and confusion there had been around this, we certainly welcome the government's amendments that withdrew that element from the bill. We are pleased with the outcome of this bill and pleased that the process for the automated computer decision-making process is very clear. I will note that the department does not quite have the computer systems to deliver this yet, but I am sure the minister is working on getting the money for that. But the legislation is very clear about the process and about how this will not only benefit veterans but also protect veterans in ensuring that no mistakes or problems with an automated system do not get picked up by a human person. I commend the explanatory memorandum and the amendments in this bill to the House. 11:36 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the shadow minister for her cooperation and bipartisan support for this bill. Question agreed to. Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 22

Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 22 11:36 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I am speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill will hurt Australian families. It will cut the household budget of 1.5 million Australian families. Every single member of the Liberal and National parties are about to vote for this cut to Australian families. It will do so by freezing the family tax benefit part A and part B for two years. So every single recipient of family tax benefit part A and part B—that is, 1.5 million Australian families—will be left worse off. $1.4 billion will be taken out of the pockets of Australian families by this government. That is what this bill does. Around 600,000 of these families receive the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A. That means that their household income is less than $52,000 a year. So these are low-income families. I will give some particular examples of what this will mean for families. A family with a family income of $60,000 with two primary-school-age children will be around $440 worse off in 2018-19. A single-parent family on $50,000 with two high school children will be around $540 worse off. That is what this bill is doing to these families. A single-income couple or a single-parent family with three children under 12 will be around $605 worse off in 2018-19. So every single member of the Liberal and National parties needs to be honest with their constituents that this is the cut that they are imposing on all of the families in their electorates that are on family tax benefit part A and part B. These cuts were actually first proposed in the 2014 budget. That is right—the horror 2014 budget, the budget when Joe Hockey decided that he would try to divide Australians between 'lifters' and 'leaners'. Labor opposed to these cuts when they were first proposed in the 2014 budget, and the Liberals withdrew them from the parliament and took them out of the budget at the end of 2015. This really goes to show that you cannot trust this government. They say they are not continuing with the cuts and then, out of the blue—literally, in this case—they put them into the Senate, push them through the Senate and now today they are going to try to push them through the House. Labor will oppose these cuts to the family tax benefit again today, just as we did in 2014 and just as we did in the Senate last week. These cuts are unfair. They are unfair because they will hurt vulnerable families right across Australia. They will make life harder for low-income families that are already struggling to keep their heads above water. We believe that these cuts are particularly unfair because they come at a time of worsening inequality in this country. Inequality is at a 75-year high in Australia. I think Australian families are very well aware that wages growth is at record lows, underemployment is at record highs, penalty rates are under threat and Australians are increasingly being forced into insecure and casual work that does not provide an adequate income. That means that more Australians are reliant on family assistance. As recent research from the Australia Institute shows, cuts to Sunday penalty rates for low-paid workers could blow a $650 million hole in the federal government's budget bottom line. This is because so many Australians are facing a pay cut from the penalty rates decision, resulting in less tax revenue for the government. Of course, there will also be greater demand for social security payments such as family support as people lose income. So there could not be a worse time to cut family tax benefits for low-income families. We have a situation under this Turnbull government where the poorest families in this country are being told to accept a cut to their standard of living. At exactly the same time, we have this Liberal government wanting to give the biggest companies in the country a $50 billion tax cut. That is how much this government's company tax cut will cost the Commonwealth budget—$50 billion. In literally the same week that this government are trying to pass this legislation to cut family tax benefits from some of the poorest families in Australia, they are also trying to pass legislation to cut company tax for the biggest and wealthiest companies in the country. That is the context in which we are having this debate today. On 1 July, the government also intend to abolish the deficit levy, which will mean a tax cut for millionaires of $16,400 a year or $315 a week. What the Turnbull government could have done if they had kept the deficit levy is raise three times as much money from a third as many families rather than have this cut to family tax benefits. If the government had kept the deficit levy, they would have raised $4.4 billion compared to the $1.4 billion worth of cuts that low-income families will suffer as a result of this bill. If the deficit levy was necessary in 2014 when the deficit was $11 billion it is more than necessary now that this government has done the most extreme thing, which is see the deficit go up to $37 billion. It has gone up to $37 billion from $11 billion in just over three years of this Liberal government. As I said, all of this is happening at a time of worsening inequality. The latest economic data shows a massive 20 per cent surge in company profits while wages for workers have fallen by 0.5 per cent. What we see from this government and all of the Liberals and Nationals who are going to vote for this is that they are prioritising tax cuts for millionaires over support for low-income families. They are prioritising company profits over the household incomes of ordinary Australian families. These cuts to families by the Liberals are not an isolated incident. The Liberals really do have form when it comes to cuts to families. If we look further into the 2014 budget, the Liberals actually tried to cut $8½ billion, and those opposite who were there in 2014 voted for all of those cuts. They wanted to take $8½ billion out of the pockets of families—cuts that would have left an average family on $60,000 around $6,000 a year worse off; cuts that would have seen families lose family tax benefit part B when their youngest child turned six. Given that this cut in the bill before us today was in the 2014 budget, who is to say that the other cuts from the 2014 budget will not also be brought back from the dead, just like this freeze to family tax benefit payment rates has come back today? You would have to say that the Liberals simply cannot be trusted when it comes to support for families. They cannot be trusted not to bring back these harsh cuts from the 2014 budget. In the 2015 budget, the Liberals tried to cut $4½ billion from family tax benefits. In that same budget, they proposed to crack down on what they called double dipping of paid parental leave. That was another billion dollars they wanted to take out of the pockets of new mothers. The current Treasurer even called new mums 'rorters' for accessing both employer and government paid parental leave schemes. Just last week, this Treasurer recommitted the Liberals to zombie measures contained in the old omnibus bill, which included: cuts to paid parental leave that would have seen 70,000 new mothers lose money; scrapping the energy supplement to pensioners; the five-week wait for Newstart that would have hurt young jobseekers; cutting the pension to pensioners after they spend more than six weeks overseas; and scrapping the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment. We know the Treasurer wants to double down and keep all of those cuts. It really does demonstrate that you can be in no doubt that the government have not learnt one thing from the reaction of the Australian people to the very harsh and cruel cuts in the 2014 budget. They still do not get fairness. They still want to rewrite the social contract in Australia and, it seems, they want to refashion our country into the image of America, where the market is king and an underclass of working people work in jobs that do not pay a living wage. This bill was rushed through the Senate last Wednesday. It was introduced into the Senate with just 10 minutes notice. The opposition had not seen the bill and we know, of course, that the government is going to try to ram this through the House today. It has been an extraordinarily chaotic process that has, of course, prevented any serious consideration or scrutiny of the cuts contained in this bill. I am particularly disappointed that the Senate crossbench decided to rubberstamp these cuts. It did so without any scrutiny. The house of review certainly did not do its job. If it did, it would have realised that these cuts will hurt low-income Australian families. The government likes to say that the cuts contained in this bill are going to be used to pay for the childcare changes. I am very pleased that the member for Adelaide is in the chamber with me today, as she has done so much to draw attention to these issues and to the failings in the government's childcare changes. All along, Labor have said that the government's linking of cuts to family payments and the changes to child care was an artificial link. All along, we have said that it was robbing Peter to pay Paul—taking from one family to pay for another. All along, we have said—and particularly, the member for Adelaide has said—that the proposed childcare reforms were flawed. We were not the only ones to say that. Jo Briskey from The Parenthood said: Thousands of families had to see their family tax benefit payments frozen and thousands of vulnerable kids had to have their access to early learning cut in half, just to see cheaper child care for other families. The government decided to reject expert advice to preserve access to a minimum of two days' care and early education for vulnerable Australian families, and particularly the children in those families. The Turnbull government has jeopardised vulnerable children's access to early education. That is what the vote on child care has done. It has done so to the point where experts in the sector actually called for the childcare bill to be blocked in its entirety if this problem was not fixed. Early Childhood Australia put out a statement last week calling on the Senate to reject the childcare changes because they were unfair to vulnerable children. That really is quite extraordinary. It does underline that the government's cuts to family payments and the childcare changes will not lead to good policy outcomes for many vulnerable Australian families and their children. I also want to address the claim by the Minister for Social Services that the cuts in this bill are the same as the changes to family tax benefits made by the previous Labor government. You will not be surprised to know that the Minister for Social Services was not telling the truth and was not accurate in his claims. In question time last week, the minister actually read from a press release from myself and the member for Lilley from 2009. Not surprisingly for this minister, he cherrypicked a few quotes from the media release. Of course, that is something that he does regularly to mislead people. But the minister failed to mention that the media release did not say anything about freezing family tax benefit payment rates. On the contrary, it said: Labor was implementing a family tax benefit part B primary earner income threshold, remaining at $150,000; the income threshold for receiving dependency tax offsets would remain at $150,000; the baby bonus eligibility threshold would remain at $75,000 family income; and the high-income free area of family tax benefit part A would remain constant. It was nothing to do with what this bill is about, nothing to do with the freezing of family tax benefit rates, which is what this government is on about. While I am talking about this minister and his record, the Minister for Social Services was the Treasurer in Western Australia. If ever there was a demonstration of economic mismanagement, his record is it. This is the minister who, as Treasurer of WA during the height of one the greatest resources booms this country has ever seen, actually managed to increase the state debt and the state deficit. The state of Western Australia is now expected to see net debt reach $41.5 billion by 2019-20. They have a deficit in WA of $3.3 billion. That is the Minister for Social Services' legacy to the people of Western Australia—record levels of debt and huge deficits. The voters of Western Australia did not just reject the Barnett Liberal government at the recent WA election; they also rejected the incompetence of the Minister for Social Services during his time as Treasurer of Western Australia. As Fairfax journalist Peter Martin noted in a recent article, the Minister for Social Services: …promised spending growth of 7.9 per cent in 2011-12, and achieved 10.2 per cent. And he borrowed more, boosting state government debt from $13.4 billion to $18.2 billion in two years. So this minister has absolutely no credibility when it comes to fiscal management. He fundamentally mismanaged the West Australian economy during his time as Treasurer and we will certainly not be letting him forget it. This legislation also contains some other measures that I want to touch on. The bill will freeze for three years the income free areas for all working age and student payments. What that means is that, for three years, the income test applying to payments for single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the cost of living. This measure would prevent those income free areas for allowances and student payments from keeping pace with the costs of living. We all know that Newstart is already too low. This bill will make life harder for people on Newstart who have a small amount of work. It will affect 264,500 Australians on the lowest incomes. The thresholds being frozen are already incredibly low. Just to give the House an example: for people on parenting payment, the threshold after which their payment is reduced is $188 per fortnight. I think everyone would agree this is not a high threshold. And there appears to be no policy rationale for this change. For Newstart, the change will mean the threshold will be frozen at $104 before their payment begins to be cut. These thresholds, as a result of this bill, will be frozen for three years. It will impose a further disincentive for people to get more work if their income free areas are frozen at such low thresholds. We on this side do not support this measure. If this bill passes the House today it will see an extension of the one-week waiting period that currently applies to recipients of Newstart and sickness allowance. That will see the one-week ordinary wait period apply to both Youth Allowance—jobseeker—and parenting payment. The government also wants to make it harder for people who are already in a difficult financial situation to access the financial hardship exemption, by requiring that they also be experiencing a personal financial crisis. This is just another demonstration of who of this Prime Minister really is. He is going to put more and more pressure on those who are doing it the hardest. I also want to speak briefly about the proposal to automate the process by which the Department of Human Services collects income stream information. This will mean that from 1 January 2018, a six-monthly electronic data collection process will be introduced for income stream information from financial service providers. We do think that having a more regular and efficient means of collecting income stream information will improve the accuracy and timing of the data being collected. So Labor will support this measure as it underpins a more systematic, efficient and accurate reporting system. However, if the government does not pull that measure out, we will not be supporting this bill. We on this side do not support the proposition that you need to cut family tax benefits to pay for child care changes. And we certainly do not support the proposition that anyone should agree to take food off the tables of Australian households to give big business a $50 billion tax cut. We do not think that vulnerable families should be made more than $400 a year worse off, especially at a time of increasing inequality in Australia. It is bad public policy. It will make struggling families carry the burden of budget cuts. We on this side of the House will stand up for families. We will oppose this bill. To that end, I move: That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "The House: (1)   declines to give the bill a second reading because it includes cuts to Family Tax Benefit that will leave 1.5 million families worse off, freezes income free areas for 264,500 recipients of income support and student payments, and forces young people and single parents to wait one week to access income support; and (2)   calls on the government to drop their unfair cuts to families and vulnerable Australians on very low incomes. 11:59 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Neumann HVO I second the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga 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 the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 11:59 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It is really interesting. Last week in this chamber, we saw a plethora of government members speaking on their enterprise tax plan that will give $50 billion of tax cuts to the biggest corporate entities in the country, including $7.4 billion to the biggest banks. They were proud of their legislation, without any analysis, details or research to counter the fact that it would not make an appreciable difference to employment. Over a long period of time—10 years—it will make a 0.1 per cent improvement in employment. The Gonski funding and needs based funding alone would bring in three times that amount of improvement in terms of employment and growth in the country. Today I look at this legislation which was rushed through the Senate without the opposition having the opportunity to look at it and without any parliamentary committee being able to examine it. Sadly, many of the crossbench are supporting it. How proud would the coalition members be to speak on this particular legislation today? They were very proud about the fact that they would give $50 billion worth of tax cuts to the big end of town. Look at the list of those persons who are going to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. They include the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister; me as the shadow minister for immigration and border protection; the member for Lyons; the member for Lalor; the member for Oxley; the member for Lindsay; the member for Bendigo; and many more Labor MPs. I was thinking about just how proud the coalition members would be to cut social service payments, including family tax benefit payments, for 1.5 million Australian families and to rip $1.4 billion out of their household incomes. But not one of them is speaking on it—not one. I got up and spoke after the member for Jagajaga. Another one of my Labor colleagues will speak after me. And on and on it will go. Not one member of the coalition backbench—certainly no holder of a marginal seat—is proud to come into this place and speak on this particular bill. They do not have anyone speaking on it. Look at their benches over there. No-one is going to get up and proudly support this particular legislation. They will not. Do you know why? It is because they know the adverse impact it will have on their constituents, with the most vulnerable Australian families being adversely impacted. The government have their priorities all wrong. They give $50 billion of tax cuts to big corporate Australia, but they will not defend 700,000 Australians who will get $77 a week less as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision that was handed down recently, they will not support Labor's proposed legislation to protect the living standards of those workers, and they will rip away the deficit levy, giving millionaires more than $16,000 a year in tax cuts. Allegedly, that deficit levy was introduced to address the issue of debt and the deficit, but the government have tripled the deficit and added more than $100 billion of debt to the bottom line. They are the biggest-taxing government in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. When they were opposition, they said they would bring in a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter. They have tripled the deficit and added more than $100 billion of debt. This legislation shows just how out of touch their priorities are. The issue of weakening protection against racist hate speech seems to have really vexed them and caused them to be distracted for such a long time. Their priorities have drifted. They seem to be divided and dysfunctional. Certainly, that is why the Australian public is disillusioned with them; the polls clearly show that. This bill is an attack on the most vulnerable Australians. It had its origin in their much-vaunted 2014 budget. That is the budget that was handed down by the then member for North Sydney and lauded for a day or so until the Leader of the Opposition said that Labor would fight tooth and nail against the cuts to family payments, the cuts to family tax benefits. This is not responsible fiscal budget repair—not at all. This government's approach seems to be targeting vulnerable Australians. It is almost as if the Prime Minister is held hostage to the far right of the Liberal Party. Now he is trying to undo them. The bill introduces four key measures: a freeze in indexation for working-age and student payments, the introduction of waiting periods for parenting payment and youth allowance applicants, the freezing of indexation for family tax benefits and the automation of income-stream review processes. While we support efforts to improve income-reporting systems, there are things in this particular legislation that are chilling attacks on the basic social contract upon which this country is built. The first measure proposed in this legislation is in relation to indexation. It is an egregious attack on some of the lowest-earning Australians. The bill would freeze for three years the income-free threshold for payments including Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payments and carers payments, leaving the income test for single parents, jobseekers and students trailing behind the cost of living. They are going to be worse off; 204,000 of the lowest-income earning Australians will be worse off. These are payments that enable some of the neediest and the most hard done by people in our country to get through the week financially—to feed and clothe their family, to make sure that they do not become homeless and to live a decent life. For many of my constituents in the electorate of Blair in southeast Queensland, these payments make it possible for their families to keep a roof over their kids' heads and to put food on the table when they fall on hard times. For others, the payments provide support for those who provide constant, around-the-clock care and support for family members in need. The government feel that they can target these Australians. It is appalling; it is simply appalling. The thresholds that will be frozen by this bill are already dangerously low. For people receiving Newstart, the threshold is currently about $104 per fortnight. For single parents wanting to access the parenting payment, the threshold is a little better—$188.60. What possible sense is there in making this less? Do the government understand at all what these people are going through? According to the government, the answer to that question is definitely no. They have no idea what is happening in the lives of these people. The introduction of further waiting times for income support is yet another assault on vulnerable Australians. This bill would see the recipients of parenting payment and youth allowance forced to wait seven days before they can receive their payment. To be eligible for youth allowance, you must not be undertaking full-time study and not be an apprentice. The unemployment rate in this country is higher than it was during the global financial crisis. It is 5.9 per cent. Nearly 1.1 million Australians say that they would like more work. They are underemployed. We have well over 700,000 Australians who are unemployed and not able to find work. We know from reported figures that there are 6,400 fewer jobs while as many as 33,000 part-time employees lost their jobs in the same period, in the last month. But, instead of taking concrete action to protect these jobs and build apprenticeships, the government have ripped nearly $2 billion out of jobs and training. We have 135,000 fewer apprenticeships in this country than when the government came to power four years ago. If the government were bothering to listen to those in need, they would not bring in this legislation today. Most people I know do not look for a handout; they look for a way to get through the week, trying to do everything they can to pull themselves up and get a better life for themselves and their family. The government are making it harder for them to get a job and harder for them to make ends meet. We know this is only the start of what they want. We know that if they had their druthers, if they really did what they wanted to do, the $8.5 billion in cuts in the 2014 budget would have passed. But for the opposition of Labor they would have passed. We have consistently protected those people and stood up for them. The Prime Minister is not listening and nor did his predecessor, and that is why they turfed him out. This Prime Minister had a near-death political experience at the last federal election, getting by with virtually a goal, in AFL terms, or a field goal in rugby league terms, in the last minute to win the election. This bill should not be here. This bill will have an adverse impact on his political fortunes. Those opposite will wear this because, at every debate that Labor members have at the next election, I guarantee we will raise this particular legislation. We will raise the fact that this is what they are doing to families. Tens of thousands of them in my electorate, in Ipswich and Somerset in south-east Queensland, will be adversely impacted by what this government is doing. What possible reason has the Prime Minister for this particular legislation? What possible priority does he have? He is not content with attacking jobseekers and single parents. This bill hurts families. This is a family tax benefit cut. It is a piece of fiscal repair so unpopular that those opposite cannot even bring themselves to speak on it in this chamber. It is beyond belief that this is the sort of legislation that the government think is a priority. From 1 July 2017, indexation for the rates of family tax benefit parts A and B will be frozen for two years. That means that for two years the payments that those families receive and rely on will be out of step with the cost of living, cutting $1.4 billion straight out of the budgets of Australian families. We have a situation where 1.5 million Australians will be adversely impacted by this legislation. The changes in this particular aspect will hit every family receiving family tax benefit, leaving over half a million low-income families worse off. Six hundred thousand families are already receiving the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A, meaning that their household income is less than $52,000 a year. It is difficult to understand why the government would do this—the impact on low-wage households; the cut to family incomes making it harder to make ends meet. A family earning $60,000 with two children in primary school will be $440 worse off by 2018. A single parent on $50,000 with two high school students will be $540 worse off by 2018. A single-income family on $60,000 with three children under the age of 12 will be $600 worse off by 2018. It is just inexcusable that the government would do this. The government do not have their priorities straight. They claim from time to time that the cuts are necessary to pay for their childcare reforms. How can you get a situation where you spend $1.6 billion and leave one in three families worse off with your childcare reforms? At times they claim that these cuts are necessary to fund the NDIS. It is simply astonishing that they would do that. It is shameful and disgraceful that they would hold that position. The cuts are not necessary to fund the NDIS. They were not necessary in relation to the childcare reforms. Every year I relaunch the Blair Disability Links directory, which provides families living with disability and their carers information about the different local organisations and services. Every year I do that. At my most recent launch, we saw 50 organisations from Ipswich and Somerset take the opportunity to gather together to highlight the work that is being done. The priority for the government should be looking after the vulnerable Australians. The priority for the government should be looking after children who need a lift up and a chance to get a good education. The priority for the government should be to focus on the people they talked about and those who attend the Blair Disability Links expo every year. That should be their priority. If they want to talk about priorities, the government should look at privatisation in terms of restoring the funding that they are cutting for community legal centres. I just met with representatives from the Australian Services Union in a parliamentary briefing in relation to the cuts that the government are undertaking in terms of community legal centre funding and cuts they are undertaking in mental health funding and gaps. We know that the Personal Helpers and Mentors and Partners in Recovery funding is being rolled into the NDIS, and some of those services are delivered by Aftercare, through headspace, in my electorate, in Ipswich. If the government want to talk about priorities, do not prioritise this sort of legislation; prioritise funding for the NDIS, prioritise funding for PhaMs, prioritise funding for Partners in Recovery and prioritise funding for community legal centres. Make sure these things need to be funded and make sure those are your priorities. Do not prioritise funding for the big end of town and do not prioritise tax cuts for millionaires; prioritise funding for families, children and those living with disability and their carers. That is where the government's priorities should be, not this sort of legislation. I urge them to withdraw it. Go back to the drawing board. Stop being divided and start being committed to the unity of the Australian public and the Australian social compact. 12:15 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons A freeze on family payments is a cut to family payments; those opposite can play as many word games as they like. Are rents and mortgages going to freeze for two years? Are supermarkets going to freeze the price of groceries? Are power companies, water utilities, councils and private health insurers going to freeze their bills for two years? This two-year freeze on family payments is a cut and it is one that Australian families cannot afford—and that is assuming this remains a two-year freeze. We have all seen how this government likes to extend what are supposed to be short-term freezes. A Medicare rebate freeze introduced by Labor shortly before the 2013 election and meant to last less than a year remains in place after five years of coalition government. It is little wonder that I have zero confidence that this supposed two-year freeze will fare any better. Once the indexation of family payments is frozen, what guarantee does this government offer that the freeze will be lifted? What assurances on anything could this government give that could ever be believed? This is a government that is sneaky, untruthful and uncaring. This is a government that takes money from families, pensioners, students and workers, lecturing them about the need to rein in the budget deficit and the duty not to saddle future generations with debt, but, in the next breath, gives massive tax cuts to millionaires and a $50 billion handout to corporations and banks. As well as freezing family payments for two years, the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 extends waiting periods. The impacts of this bill affect 1½ million Australian families. Many of them live in Tasmania. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the constituents of my electorate cannot afford yet another cost-of-living wallop from this government. In my electorate of Lyons, 9,200 families receive family tax benefit A. Such households earn less than $52,000 a year. These are people already doing it tough. In Lyons, 6,967 families receive family tax benefit B to help make ends meet. Families with two primary-school-aged children in Tasmania are looking down the barrel of being $440 a year worse off. Those opposite may scoff and say, 'That's just a coffee or two a week,' but these are people who already struggle to meet their bills. Taking $8.50 a week from families who already scrape 20 cent pieces together for bread and milk is a real impact. We must never forget that these measures are not new. They have been dragged off the shelf, and the cobwebs and dust have been blown off the cover. The cover would have had on it the words: '2014 budget submission: Treasurer Joe Hockey.' That is right—this is a submission from one of the worst budgets ever to be presented to this House, a budget so awful that it ended the parliamentary career of the former member for North Sydney and led to the downfall of the member for Warringah. It comes from a budget that brought us the infamy of 'lifters and leaners' and the image of the former Treasurer and the Minister for Finance puffing away on cigars in the parliamentary courtyard, content at a job well done. These measures were born of a budget extraordinary for its meanness and its calumny of the Australian people. One would have thought this government would have preferred to never again be reminded of that budget of horrors, but the Liberals never let a bad idea die. They just put it on the shelf, where it waits to be reanimated. And it is the member for Pearce, the Minister for Social Services, who gets to play Dr Frankenstein. He has brought out the jumper cables and he has zapped Joe's zombie back to life. Like any good zombie, this one is going to be let loose to shuffle about in the community, wreaking havoc and leaving tears and tragedy in its wake. There has been no consultation on this measure—neither of key stakeholders nor of the families who will be personally affected. These measures are striking in their meanness. At their heart, they make ordinary families pay the price of meeting the government's objectives to balance the budget and rein in debt, but the same government is removing its deficit levy on millionaires and still intends to hand $50 billion to corporations and banks. Families get a cut in income; corporations get a cut in tax. It does not make sense. Family tax benefits are in place for a reason: they stop families falling below the poverty line. This bill also attacks students, amongst others. Students are generally thought of as a political free kick, but students in high school and at university are our sons and daughters. They are our grandsons and granddaughters and they deserve support. Many of them already do it tough. Many of them live at home. My own daughter is a university student, and she lives at home. She has the privilege of living at home and of having most of her expenses met by her mother and me. But there are a number of university students who do it very tough in the community. They need to pay rent and petrol, afford a car and buy their own textbooks. These are the people who will be hurt by these measures. They are already doing it very tough, and this just makes life tougher for them. Students and others will see their income-free areas frozen for three years. This means that single parents, jobseekers and students will not be able to keep pace with the cost of living. This is particularly problematic when you consider that most income-support payments are already below the poverty line, so these cuts will push people who are already doing it tough to live in even harsher conditions. Practically speaking, these cuts will mean people on Newstart allowance will only be able to work three hours on the minimum wage before they are over their threshold and their payments are impacted. These moves do not encourage people to get work and stay in work; they punish them. This is a disincentive to getting out there and making a go of it. These measures kick the people earning the least in our nation. We are a wealthy nation, one that can and should look after everyone. Freezing indexation is a cut—a plain, ugly cut. It is a cut when the people relying on these payments cannot afford it. It is an unfair cut at a time when inequality in this country is at its worst for decades. There has never been a time in living memory when income inequality in this country has been worse. There is an old saying: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and unfortunately that is true in Australia at the moment. It is this parliament's job to rein in that inequality, not make it worse. This is a cut when wages growth is at record lows. Wages are stagnating. It is a cut when weekend penalty rates are under threat. This parliament has been debating for more than two weeks the penalty rate cuts that are coming into place for low-income workers, people who depend on penalty rates, on Sunday rates, for their income, people who face a $77 a week loss from their pay. It is a cut when workers are being pushed back into part time and casual work, when they are losing the security of full-time permanence. They lack security. They lack the ability to plan financially for the long term. This is a cut when company profits are surging 20 per cent, while wages for workers fell by half a per cent. I am pleased that company profits are doing well. When companies do well, workers do well. I am happy to admit that. I myself am formerly a small businessman. But there comes a time when we have to look at where the profit share is going. When companies are making these huge profits, where is the community dividend? If wages are flat and if the poorest people in this nation cannot afford to make ends meet then you have to ask: where are those corporate profits going? How are they helping the community? These are cuts that the other side seem not to realise will hurt small business. They will bring in less tax revenue. When we cut the pay of so many people and so many families the downsides are immeasurable. The Liberals prioritise company profits over everyday Australians. In my first speech in this place I said that we live in a society, not an economy. The economy exists to serve us. We do not exist to serve the economy. That is so true in these words today. Labor is not okay with these cuts. We oppose them. Attacks on families are not on. Families are the backbone of the Australian community. Those on the other side just do not seem to understand fairness or the concept of a hand-up rather than a handout. Just this week in Tasmania we heard about pensioners doing it really tough, running out of money and eating poorly to get by. I am holding up the feature page from the Sunday Tasmanian. It reads: 'Thousands endure a life of struggle.' A thousand Tasmanian pensioners told their story to the newspaper about how hard life is on the age pension: a pensioner couple buying an '$8 pack of supermarket sausages' and dividing them up into three portions to last three nights. We are a wealthy nation. We can do better by people who live so hard. These are the people who built this great nation with their hard work, their sweat and their tears, but now they cannot even afford fresh food and vegetables. It is shameful. This bill also seeks to automate processes. If the coalition had agreed to excise that element from this bill we would support it. But seeing that they have insisted it be part of the entire bill we have no choice but to oppose the bill as a whole. The bill also extends waiting periods for Newstart and sickness allowance by another week before payments begin. Sickness allowance! The government is making people wait longer to get sickness allowance! This government is all about kicking people when they are down. It is a low act. Anyone who gets sick or loses their job is waiting longer to access even the small payments that help them get by. It is shameful. Labor will not support this bill. It is not fair that those who are doing it the toughest are forced to do it even tougher. Struggling families should not have to carry the budget burden those opposite are creating. Australian families should not bear the burden of repairing a budget when this government is prepared to give $50 billion over the next 10 years to corporations and banks. We can do better as a nation. 12:27 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to join my colleagues today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and the amendments put forward by the member for Jagajaga. The government believes the only way to improve the budget is to go after the vulnerable, and we are here again talking about another piece of legislation that is highlighting their attack on students, their attack on pensioners and, in general, their attack on people receiving any payment from Centrelink. They refuse to lower the deeming rates for our pensioners, they refuse to adequately fund our schools and they will not do a thing about the glacial rollout of the NBN. Yet, here we are again talking about changes to social services and, again, an attack on the most vulnerable in our communities. We saw their desire to drain middle and working class Australians manifested in their manufactured debt recovery debacle. We have seen that and we have talked about it in here time and time again, and we still have a government refusing to stop and change that system to make it less onerous on people in our community, and more fair. I understand and appreciate that this government is constantly having to split up their regressive policy ideas so that it might be difficult for people to keep up if they do not particularly pay close attention to politics. So let me tell you this: this speech is going to be the same speech I have been giving in this place since 2014, since the diabolical budget we woke up to in 2014, where this government's priorities were laid clearly on the table. They want to shower largess on the big end of town while chasing people down rabbit holes and putting their hands in their pockets to scrounge and take from the most vulnerable in our community. Since 2014 Labor has stood up for the people of Australia whom this government thinks it can bully and devalue. Since that 2014 budget, even with a new Prime Minister, this government still has not managed to get itself a set of priorities that are acceptable to the broader Australian public, that are acceptable to all of us here who come to represent our electorates. The same priorities are here, the same division is here and this legislation demonstrates that just one more time. This legislation has in it a freeze on key payments. This is the new strategy of the government—what I call the 'kick them while they're down' strategy. This means that there will be welfare payments that will see freezes. That means that the amount of money given to recipients of Newstart, youth allowance, the parenting payment and the carer payment will remain at their current rates for three years, irrespective of how much the cost of living increases in that time. We have a government that want to come in here in question time, where they know that perhaps they will get on the TV at night, and talk about electricity price hikes, but while the televisions are not focused on us they want to cut the lowest incomes in our community. The rhetoric is about, 'We want to save you from price hikes,' but through the back door they want to put a freeze on the most vulnerable, who will therefore not be able to afford to pay their electricity bills. If you already struggling to make it on one of these payments, things will get a lot worse if this government gets its way. In fact it is expected that this particular change will make 204,000 Australians worse off. I know that the majority of those opposite like to get on their feet and demonise those in our communities that need support, those who have fallen on hard times or who lack the networks or the training and require a hand up, those—like people in my electorate—who are lurching from one casual or part-time job to another, those people who need support in between positions, those families who are reliant on a pay packet from week to week and have no certainty about what next week's pay packet might look like, those families who are not sure that the casual hours that they got this week will be available next week and those who find themselves perhaps running a small business with an ABN and are reliant on the weekly receipts of the work that is going on in our community. Any slowdown in housing in my community has ramifications throughout the community in terms of people's weekly incomes, and a lot of those families and a lot of those working young people who are reliant on work in those industries might wake up one day and realise that they need to visit Centrelink. Let me get rid of this notion that people wake up around Australia going: 'You beauty, I'm going to go to Centrelink today. I'm gonna give up work and I'm just gonna retire permanently because there's a safety net in this country that means I can do that.' Those opposite seem to be stuck in a picture of 1970, where dole bludgers were on the front page of every newspaper. Life is not like that for an ordinary Australian. Life is not like that in my community. People who get up in the morning and realise they have to go Centrelink, because there is not going to be a pay packet next week, go there with dread in their hearts. As someone who worked in schools, I have to tell you how difficult it is to get the young people in my electorate to even say they will go to Centrelink. They are proud people. They want work. They want full-time work. There are 1.8 million people in this country who are underemployed or unemployed. Those are the ones who are walking through the doors of Centrelink. Those are the ones who are requesting assistance to get them through the hard times—not necessarily permanently; perhaps just for a month—and this bill that this government wants to get through this parliament is going to make those things more difficult. I want to burst that bubble. They believe that there are somehow lazy people that they have demonised into people who want to sit back at the beach and have Centrelink look after them. In my electorate it is a very different story to that, and I would suggest that across Australia it is too. We have had mutual obligation in this country for a long time. Those who are fortunate enough never to have to interact with Centrelink may not understand what mutual obligation is, but everybody who has ever been through those doors understands what it means. No-one thinks they are going onto a Centrelink payment permanently in this country, and people who are there are not there because they are lazy. I will take, for instance, Peter Grant, a man in my electorate who was once fit and gainfully employed. He worked full time in a job that paid up to $2,000 a week. He had a good job. He would regularly ride and he would regularly run. He was a leader in the community, involved in sporting groups and someone who really was enjoying life living in the electorate. His life fell apart when he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis three years ago. The life of this man, who takes more medication each day than I can fit in my medicine cabinet and is in permanent pain, fell apart with that diagnosis. His life fell apart with that pain. He is being denied the disability support pension and is being forced to live on Newstart, because somebody in this world thinks he, a man whose pain is preventing full-time work, is being lazy. This bill will also go to ordinary waiting periods at Centrelink. Currently, recipients of Newstart or sickness allowance must wait seven days before they can receive a payment. One could argue that is fair or unfair; I would suggest it is unfair. This measure will extend this waiting period to recipients of parenting payment and youth allowance for a person who is not undertaking full-time study and is not a new apprentice. This is a Grinch measure. This is kicking them while they are down. On their worst day, when they have to go to Centrelink, they are going to walk through the doors and be told, 'That's all well and good, but you'll have to wait another week.' This schedule also provides that the current exemption available on the basis of severe financial hardship will apply only if a person has experienced a personal financial crisis. Why are they at Centrelink if they are not in a personal financial crisis? For goodness sake, wake up. This is not something people do for fun. They do it so they can pay the rent. They do it to avoid eviction. They do it so they can meet a mortgage payment. They do it so that they can pay the school fees. They do it so they can go to the doctor. They are not walking into Centrelink until they have a personal financial crisis. Who goes there unless that is the circumstance? And what will happen now? They will walk into Centrelink and be told, 'It's really sad that you lost your job last week' or 'that the factory closed down'. Perhaps they had worked in the car industry. It is really sad that 4,000 car industry workers in my electorate are facing a jobless future. They will walk into Centrelink and be told, 'Perhaps you'll have to wait a week.' So they will go down the road to one of our community organisations, possibly to seek support, perhaps for a relief package. The community organisations in my electorate are down to one relief package per family per year under this government. The cuts across the sector have been absolutely drastic. They have got their hands tied behind their backs and are trying to deal with preventative measures to keep people in their homes or in their rental properties. That situation is being exacerbated now. They will have people who are already in personal financial crisis walking through the door and seeking advice on how they might prove that to Centrelink, and seeking assistance for the week in which they have to wait until there will be support from Centrelink. These are families. These are people with children. I heard a story in the electorate quite recently—it is actually a good-news story—about a family that had gone through some really hard times in previous years. A mother and her children found themselves sleeping in a car. They have turned the corner, and mum has found employment and they are now in a rental situation. It highlights for me how quickly people can slip—it is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff. If you are reliant on casual employment, this is a cliff when the bad news comes. If you are working for a company that employs a small number of people, you have no recourse in terms of unfair dismissal; there are redundancies happening. Young people show up for work one day and then are told, 'Work has slowed down, guys—sorry, we are going to have to put you off.' Do they ring Fair Work to find out what they are entitled to? These young people have to negotiate with their employers to see if they can get their two weeks that might be owed for leave plus the two weeks for redundancy. Do they have to do all of this by themselves? They are not doing that. They are saying, 'Thanks, boss, for the time you employed me' and walking out the door and then facing the hard decision to go to Centrelink, to be told, 'You'll have to wait a week.' The rent is not going to be paid and the bills are not going to be paid. They are going to be back on mum and dad's doorstep. That is the reality here. To put this waiting period in place seems absolutely insane to me. What is the cost of this in our communities? What is going to be the cost to mental health? What is going to be the cost on the ground in communities like mine compared to the savings that this government thinks it might make? The other big thing in this bill is the indexation freeze on parts A and B of the family tax benefit for two years from 1 July 2017. Currently the payments are indexed annually, on 1 July, by the consumer price index. This means that the payments families receive will not keep pace with the cost of living for two years. Let us not misunderstand this. This is a government that thinks that people should lose possibly $77 a week in their penalty rates and that people who are reliant on the family tax benefit can no longer have that indexed to CPI. In Lalor, this is a big issue because it affects many families of the 1.5 million families across the country who are reliant on family tax benefit parts A and B, or part thereof. Almost 600,000 of these families are on the maximum rate of family tax benefit A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 per year. In certain sections of the electorate of Lalor the average income is $52,000 per year, so you can imagine the number of people in Lalor who are reliant on the family tax benefit—and now they are going to face a freeze. The impact on families and significant. A family on $60,000 with two primary school age children will be around $440 worse off in 2018-19. I will finish on this point, because I know it is ringing in the ears of the people in my electorate—that is, while a family on $60,000 with two children is going to lose $440 from this government, millionaires are going to get $16,400 on the same day in tax relief, and big business is still lining up for its $50 billion tax cuts. The priorities of the government are absolutely absurd. They cannot manage getting legislation through the parliament, because they are deaf to the notion that they need to address the issue of fairness. The Prime Minister promised when he took the leadership that he would see things through a lens fairness. He has failed to do so. Being on our feet again today discussing this proves that just one more time. 12:42 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It should not be any surprise that we are standing here yet again defending the most vulnerable citizens of Australia from yet another attack by this government. It is a relentless attack, and we will continue to stand up for families and individuals who are the victims of it. The Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is cutting $1.4 billion from Australian families. Those opposite are not willing to back down on their tax cut for big business, but they are willing to pull the rug from under a whole bunch of people who are just trying to get on with living with some dignity. So let us look at the individual parts of this bill that we are opposed to. Firstly, there is the freezing of indexation on payments. This bill freezes for three years the income-free areas for all working-age and student payments. So, for the next three years, the income test for single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the cost of living. Admittedly, wages growth is the slowest on record. That will help keep CPI down on one level. But the problem is that the ABS says that hourly rates of pay excluding bonuses grew by 0.48 per cent for the quarter in seasonally adjusted terms, leaving the annual rate at 1.87 per cent. The year-on-year increase was still the lowest level on record. So people are getting the lowest wages on record. And, at times, you would think that freezing something, putting it on hold, slowing down an increase might be a sensible approach. But why would you do it to the people who are already under pressure, with the lowest possible incomes? Let us talk about Newstart recipients. There are 1.8 million people looking for work. When you have businesses like KPMG and the Business Council of Australia calling for an increase in the amount of money jobseekers have to survive on while they are looking for work, you know you have a real issue. Right now I am not sure if most people even know how much people looking for work are allowed to earn before their payment begins to be cut: it is $102 per fortnight—$51 a week—that they are able to earn to supplement Newstart. I have people young, old and in-between coming into talk to me about their desire to work and about the efforts they go to to try and get work. They are demoralised. For young people, their families are feeling desperate. These are often families where they have not known unemployment, so these are issues where you just wonder: why do we have to make things harder; how much harder do we seriously want to make it for students; and how much harder do we want to make it for parents? For parenting payments, the threshold after which the payment is reduced is $188 per fortnight. This is already a really low threshold: it is $94 a week. The same freeze applies to carer payments—and this is one that is particularly concerning for many carers in my electorate of Macquarie. People on carer allowance have often given up full-time work in order to care for a parent, partner or child. They can find themselves in a precarious financial situation not completely of their making. It is something they have chosen to do but sometimes with a sense of financial misgiving, because something unexpected has happened—illness or disability of a loved one. If they can manage to do a few hours of work a week and earn a bit of extra income, they tell me it is not just about the financial benefit; it is about the opportunity to have a change of environment and interact with other people outside their immediate family. You cannot underestimate the mental health benefits and social connectivity that those few hours offer; however, this freeze is yet another blow for people trying to maintain their work connections, which can be so important for them, if their circumstances change and they are in a position to re-enter the workforce in a full-time capacity. The freeze also applies to single parents—yep, there is a group you really want to make life harder for. Not only are many single parents already juggling study with young families so that when they can return to the workforce they have the necessary qualifications but now we want to make it harder for them to earn a bit of extra money to be able to pay for soccer boots, enrolling in netball or that school excursion. Quite frankly, that aspect of the bill is just plain dumb. But then we have got the stretched-out waiting periods. The decision to extend waiting periods before being eligible for youth allowance and parenting payments is another part of the bill that we oppose. It is just another example of this Prime Minister's inability to comprehend what it is like to struggle to make ends meet. Currently, if you receive Newstart or sickness allowance, you have to wait seven days before receiving payment. Goodness knows how you are supposed to buy food or pay your rent in that time. By the time people have accepted that perhaps they are not going to get a job any time soon—or actually they are really sick and will not be able to get back to work—they have generally exhausted all the savings and goodwill of friends and family that have kept them going. We were able to beat the plan to extend the Newstart wait to five weeks, but the leopards opposite do not change their spots. Extending the one-week measure to parenting payments and youth allowance recipients is equally hard to understand. Anyone who has been through the application process for youth allowance already knows that it takes forever to finally be granted eligibility. To be considered independent for youth allowance, you have already funded yourself through work for 18 months so, if you have had a gap year, you are starting uni without any government support—you are often relocating cities, you are paying for transport to and from uni and you are buying text books—and now they want people to just hold on another week. The only possible explanation I can find for this is that it is desperation by the government to find some savings. They are penny-pinching and aiming it at the socially disadvantaged and politically defenceless. I think Ross Gittins said it well when he wrote that it showed 'the government is near the bottom of the barrel in the quality of budget savings it's prepared to make'—not the savings it could make but the savings it is prepared to make. I can see why he concludes that 'this government is near to being morally, politically and economically bankrupt'. I now turn to the family tax benefit, which will freeze indexation of the rates of family tax benefit parts A and B for two years from 1 July. Right now, the payments are indexed—that is pretty logical; these are benefits that families rely on to cover the costs of raising a family, and the cost of living goes up every year. This means now that the payments families receive just will not keep pace with the cost of living for the next two years. The first cut happens in just three months time for that financial year. It will not be the last though: the second cut will kick in in July next year, and the effects will be felt at the end of that financial year. Let's think about the impact of these cuts on families: a family on $60,000 a year with two primary school-aged children will be around $440 worse off in the second year of this cut; a single parent on $50,000 with three children under 12 will be $600 worse off in 2018-19; and a single parent with two high school children will be around $540 worse off in the same year. As always with this government, it is not necessarily a huge amount of money for those opposite, but for the families whose children just do not seem to stop growing—and they do not seem to stop eating for that matter—it is a real hit to a tight, if not already stretched, budget. The families who will have to cope with these cuts are not an abstract concept in my electorate. There are 8,500 families who receive family tax benefit part A. There are 6,500 Macquarie families on family tax benefit part B, all of whom will lose assistance. They are in Bligh Park, Wilberforce and Bowen Mountain; they are in Mount Riverview, Hazelbrook and Katoomba, and everywhere in-between. Peggy from Lawson wrote to me recently to explain just how important the family tax benefit payment is to her family. Peggy uses the money to pay for her car registration, because it is very hard to save up week to week for such a large expense. She says that to have the payment reduced or taken away would be disastrous for her family. A freeze has the same impact as a cut. It will reduce her ability to be able to cover a significant annual bill. As Peggy says, the end-of-year return is more use to her than an extra $20 per fortnight, as in the scheme of things that would mean very little to her lifestyle. But the consequences of taking away that end-of-financial-year payment will pervade her entire year, and she worries that it may leave her without a car in the very near future. So that is the human impact—and I have to tell you: you do not want to be a mum in the mountains unable to access a car. If we had a city public transport system, you might think it was a reasonable decision to make, but once you take away a vehicle from a family in the Blue Mountains you are isolating somebody. That is why we oppose this undermining of the family tax benefit. These families are part of the 1.5 million families who will be worse off under these changes. More than one-third of them are on the maximum rate of family tax benefit A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 a year. I recall the government tried to do this in the 2014 budget, but after fierce opposition from us it was dropped from the budget in the mid-year forecast in 2015. Who knows what else from that horrific budget they are planning to bring back in a month's time? You have to wonder how many of these families will also be hit by the cut to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates, which would be another blow to their budgets. We think that all of the measures I have spoken about should be removed from this bill. It has fascinated me to see the way this government has sought to fund its child-care package, especially one that leaves one-third of children and their families worse off and that has been at the expense of other families, playing one family off against another—in some cases, playing one child off against another. This is the priority of this government: hit families and the lowest income people. But it is not just this bill. It is also the cuts to community legal centres. It is the $30 billion cut to education and the failure to fund the full Gonski so that we have needs-based funding that is fair for every single child. It is the ongoing decision to freeze the Medicare rebate to GPs. When will that be lifted? Until it is, there is no security for people that a visit to the GP is within their budget. It is also the failure to fund housing and homelessness services. It is the failure to adequately support the community sector, which is under more and more pressure. These are the sort of decisions, when you use a freeze as a way to patch up a budget—a budget I should point out, where the deficit is three times greater than what they started with, blowing out of the water the self-proclaimed myth that those opposite are good economic managers—where the impacts are long-lasting. I want to finish with one measure in the bill that we have agreed to support—that is, the automation of income stream information. The aim of this measure is to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the social security system. I see this as a way of avoiding the awful robo-debt letters that people have received, demanding money that may or may not have been overpaid several years ago. The more quickly a discrepancy can be picked up, the smaller the error will be and the easier it will be for welfare recipients to correct the situation. They are more likely to still have payslips and receipts, so it will be a far less painful process. Clearly the current system of income data collecting has failed many honest Australians who reported their income correctly—only to have a computer say 'no'. It must be backed by human beings, who have a key role in the process of ensuring that what we have seen in the robo-debt debacle is not repeated. I would like to speak about one of my constituents, a retired academic Annabelle Solomon from Winmalee, who was diagnosed with melanoma last year. In the midst of intense therapy for her cancer, she received a letter from Centrelink asking her to confirm her income from 2014-15. She was a casual lecturer at the Western Sydney University at the time, some weeks working many hours and other weeks very few. She was also at retirement age and entitled to a part pension. Every fortnight she reported her income and received some payment, depending upon her earnings, but she was told that she had a debt worth thousands of dollars. Annabelle fought this. She came to me; she went to the media. As a result of all of those efforts, Centrelink realised that they had made a mistake. In fact, recently, again while midway through treatment, she was given the news that there is no debt at all. Annabelle says that the whole process was dehumanising. I hope those opposite are proud of what they have done to someone undergoing cancer treatment—a completely unnecessary thing to have occurred. Let's hope that this legislation prevents that. There are people in my electorate like Annabelle who will never forget the treatment that they have received. 12:57 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise with my colleagues on this side of the House to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It is not my intention to go into detail about our concerns about aspects of this bill; I think they have been very well articulated already by members on this side of the House. I will, however, touch on a number of the measures within the bill, in particular the measure that the member for Macquarie just spoke about—that is, the automation of the income stream. I also do want to make some broader comments and some observations in relation to what this bill represents and the overall narrative that is developing about the government. It seems to me that what we are discussing today—and the speech by the member for Jagajaga from this side of the House articulated this—is the desperate attempt by this government to try and reclaim some of what was in the 2014 budget measures. I think the member for Macquarie's quoting of Ross Gittins shows very clearly that the overall narrative that is emerging—and I have been around parliaments for a very long time—is of a government that does not care about people who are vulnerable; it does not care about people who are poor or people who are sick. This bill demonstrates very strongly what the government is saying to many thousands of parents and to over 1½ million families in Australia. All of those families live in the electorates of everyone that is represented in this chamber, and that point should be noted very much. You only have to look at the tax cuts that will be provided to the people of wealth in this nation on 1 July and the refusal of the government yesterday in question time to directly answer whether or not those tax cuts would be held back. The other thing of course—this has been well articulated by previous speakers—is that not just this bill but a number of bills being brought forward by the government over the course of this week have had no speakers or very few speakers from the government. This includes the bill in relation to rural students accessing earlier payments from Centrelink, which was a positive story for the government. It just astounds me that there is not even an effort from the government—I hope the media is taking note of this—to provide speakers on its own legislation. I have never seen, in 14 years of experience in parliaments both in New South Wales and in this one, a government too lazy and not organised enough to provide speakers for its own legislation even when the legislation is noncontroversial and has bipartisan support from this side of the house. It is astounding—and, as I said, I hope the media is taking notice of this—that a government does not even provide speakers on its own piece of legislation when that legislation has bipartisan support. It suggests to me a laziness, it suggests to me an attitude of not caring and it also suggests to me that ministers who are responsible for those pieces of legislation have not had their staff organise a speakers list for the legislation. It is something that I have never seen before. If you look at what was going on in the Senate yesterday and today, at the attacks this government is making on people who believe in decency and who believe in a community that does not lend itself to racial discrimination and at the idiotic attacks on 18 C and the lack of a logical approach to that piece of legislation, you start to get a sense of what this government does or does not stand for. The absurdity of attacking poor and working families is something that this side of the house will never, ever agree to. That is why Labor will oppose this bill in its current form. We have said very clearly to the government that, if they separate the measures around automation of income stream from the bill, we will support that aspect of the bill. But I suspect that the government, with its lack of finesse, its laziness and its lack of capacity to organise its legislative program, will not agree to that particular measure, even though it makes absolute sense and, as the member for Macquarie said, would avoid to a very large measure the debacle we have seen with the robo-debt recovery. It just says to me, once again, a lack of finesse and laziness that this government displays in terms of its legislative framework. I have no doubt that this is yet another measure, like the robo-debt recovery measure, about a money grab. These measures—this bill and others—will do nothing to invest in more jobs in Australia; create more training programs; lift people up who deserve that lift up into employment and into being able to maintain some sort of decency in their homes, be that registering a car, making sure their kids are well dressed to go to school or putting food on the table. It is as we have seen with this government's rush to attack penalty rates on Sundays. All of those things add up to a narrative. That narrative is not being misunderstood by the Australian community and that narrative is clearly increasingly not being misunderstood by the Australian media. It is about being mean, penny-pinching and prepared to kick those who can least afford it to grab money to fill a budget black hole. That is not the way to run a government and that is not the way to have good and fair governance for all communities and for all citizens in Australia. It is attacking the most poor and ripping away from the most vulnerable to try and fix up a budget problem when it is obvious how that budget problem, in part, could be fixed. Labor has said time and time again in this chamber, 'Do not give a $50 billion tax cut to the rich, do not attack things like family tax benefit and do not attack and take money—in fact, it is almost like stealing—through something like the robo-debt recovery scheme, where many people have paid back debt that is non-existent out of fear and out of giving up trying to deal with Centrelink.' These cuts, as I said, will leave at least 1½ million families worse off in electorates like Barton that I represent and those you represent. It astounds me that there is not one person from the government who will stick their head up about the things that are affecting people in their electorates. We know they are affecting people in their electorates. Elements of many of the electorates that are represented by those opposite, from both the Liberal Party and the National Party but particularly the National Party, are very poor and have experienced entrenched disadvantage over a very long period of time. If the measures that I have outlined were about creating employment, improving the system, refining the processes of Centrelink and putting more resources into Centrelink, you could understand the silence from the other side. But, when none of those things are evident in the legislation we are dealing with today or in other pieces of legislation, you have to wonder why there is such a silence. It is obvious that this government and this Prime Minister stand for nothing anymore, because, if this government and this Prime Minister stood for something, we would not be debating the harsh measures in these pieces of legislation, which are simply a money grab. They are not about good policy or good governance and they are certainly not about the people they will directly hurt. This bill will hurt families and those studying for three years. These measures will affect 204,000 Australians on the lowest income. For three years, the income of single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the cost of living. This is just another form of attack from this government on hardworking families and those trying to improve their lives. As with other speakers, I am so disgusted with the cynical idea that, if you attack people who need Centrelink assistance, who rely on welfare and who are doing it hard, people will not care. The cynical politics says that you can go ahead with your attacks. That is wrong—people do care. As I have said in this chamber before, the one thing that Australia stands for is fairness, and people can see just how unfair the decisions of this government have been over a very long time. This bill also introduces a one-week waiting period before people can access parenting payments or youth allowance. Once again, this is not common sense; it is simply about saving money. There is no rationale for this other than just as another attack on people who may be facing some difficult financial situations. The only explanation can be that, as I said, it is an attack on everyday Australians. I have articulated, as did the member for Macquarie, the measures around the automation of the income stream and how we will support that if it is separated from the rest of the bill. Clearly, because there are no speakers from the government in this debate, that is not going to happen—and I recognise the story about Annabel that the member for Macquarie spoke of. I also have been privy to many of the submissions that are coming into the Senate inquiry on the robo-debt issue, and I can say that even the department's own submission demonstrates, writ large, just how many mistakes have been made in that process. In fact, the department is saying, 'Well, it's not so bad because not as many mistakes have been made in assessing the family tax benefit.' Isn't that an indication of just how bad the situation must be? Labor stands for fairness, Labor stands for equity and Labor stands for supporting those who can least afford the sorts of attacks and cuts in this legislation and other pieces of legislation that this government has introduced. We will not support the ongoing attacks on Australian families. I finish by saying this. It seems to me that, when you reduce yourself as a government with these sorts of attacks without any positivity or any indication that these measures will be beneficial to anyone, while stubbornly refusing to rule out tax breaks for the most wealthy and those who can most afford it when you are attacking the people who can least afford it, that indicates a government in decline. That indicates a government that smells. It smells of unfairness, it smells of defeat, it smells of disorganisation and it smells of chaos, and the time will come when people will reach that conclusion. (Time expired) 13:12 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I follow on from my colleague the member for Barton and acknowledge her contribution to this chamber and her advocacy for the disadvantaged in her community and across the country for the last couple of decades. I am really proud that Labor speakers are defending the most vulnerable in our community—because this piece of paper in front of me, the speakers list, says it all. It says there is a complete blank page from the government. This is a government that apparently says these reforms are necessary; this is a government that says the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is critical; but not one speaker—and I will go further than the member for Barton—has the guts to get up and defend the government's decision. Not one. Last week, we heard them all, one after the other, squawking away about critical issues, apparently, such as enabling more racial hate speech, but not one speaker has the guts to come into this place and defend or justify the impact of their decisions on the thousands of people in my electorate and over one million families across Australia. I say that not only is it shameful; it is gutless. It is a government that will not look people in the eye and explain exactly what it is going to do, so the member for Barton is exactly right to highlight the arrogance of those opposite. This government is known for its incompetence on a whole lot of things, whether it be the Centrelink robo-debt disaster or whether it be the ABS failure—on it goes. But it is now getting a name for itself in the community as an arrogant government that is completely out of touch. I am sick and tired of the language that this government uses about 'lifters' and 'leaners' and 'double dippers' and 'rorters'—fingering everyone else, blaming everyone else, but not taking responsibility for its actions. It seems that those opposite think this is a good idea, that they think ripping up the safety net and support for working families in my electorate and in other electorates across Queensland is a good idea. I note that none of the marginal seat members from Queensland are walking in here to defend these measures. Where are the member for Petrie, the member for Flynn, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Dawson? None of them have the guts to walk into this chamber and explain to their communities or to the broader national community why they think it is acceptable to rip up the social safety net. But we are not surprised, because this is a pattern writ large by this government. The priority of this government—as we see week, in week out—is looking after the top end while the bottom end has to pay for it. Time and time again we see that—lining the pockets of the large corporations, the big banks et cetera with a large tax cut of $47 billion but at the same time hitting Australian families, pensioners, jobseekers and people living with a disability to pay for this voodoo economics, this trickle-down economics. Let us look at this bill. This bill will cut $1.4 billion from Australian families. It is crystal clear that this Prime Minister, shackled to the extreme right of his own party, thinks it is okay to cut family support and to cut the payments that people rely on. Labor speakers have talked about case studies demonstrating what these sorts of payments mean to people, but the government thinks it is okay to cut these payments and look after the large multinational companies and banks. Those are the government's priorities; we know that and the Australian community are seeing that day in, day out. We know the genesis of this policy framework: it came out of the horrific 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget. I note that the former Treasurer was back in Australia yesterday, in this building. Who can forget those images of the then Treasurer and the finance minister on budget night chomping down on their cigars, having a big laugh, cranking the music up, 'The best night of my life,' dancing in the office and then the Treasurer, minutes later, walking into this place and telling the rest of Australia, 'Look, sorry about that; I know we didn't mention it during the federal election campaign, I know we didn't mention it before the election, but, by the way, you are all going to pay for it, and you are going to pay for it through the nose.' We saw how that all unfolded and, as a result, we saw the disastrous reforms that they attempted to introduce. We then saw a leadership regime change within the Liberal Party because of that disaster, and now we see the government again go back to form—nothing has changed; there is no new sense of leadership and no new sense of responsible government. The government is trying to ram through these measures. It is still the bedrock of this government's policy framework to rip out support and the safety net for those who need it the most. If I am wrong, if I am not speaking the truth, then one member of the government should get up and say so. One member should have the guts—the minister, or the assistant minister at the table, if he feels inclined. The member for Hughes is in the chamber; he always has something to squawk about. He is always on his feet ripping out the salary of low-income workers or defending the extreme right-wing racial hate speeches from his own party. He is always up for that challenge, yet he is eerily silent today on this important matter. It is not a minor matter; it is not a tinkering of legislation—it is a major sledgehammer for the thousands of families who call my electorate home. Let us be clear about what this bill intends to do: it will freeze for three years the income-free areas for all working-age and student payments on support programs such as Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment and carers payments. And all of this when inequality is at a 70-year high—2½ million Australians live below the poverty line and hundreds of thousands of Australians are unemployed. These new measures would affect 204,000 Australians living on the lowest incomes. I want to underscore that: the lowest incomes. I did a mobile office in my electorate on Saturday, and a young mum came to see me and said she wanted to ask me some questions about what was going on in politics in Australia. I said, 'Absolutely, let's have a chat.' She wanted some straightforward answers from her representative about why the parliament and why this government focuses on one thing—how to make more wealthy people more wealthy and how to look after big corporations and the top end of town. She just wanted a simple answer, and she wanted a government that would focus on her needs—on what her family needs. I have to be honest, she admitted to me that she did not vote for me. She told me, 'I believed the lie'—her words—'about what the Prime Minister said about jobs and growth.' There are no jobs for her and her family, and she does not see any economic growth happening for her community. I can be pretty sure she is not going to waste her vote on this government again. I know that is just one person, but one person makes a difference. All the stories I have heard from families, young people, pensioners and the people who rely on government support show that this government is only interested in one thing: ripping apart the social safety net. We know that, at the same time, they want to make it harder for people who are in difficult financial situations. We heard this week that members of parliament have been lobbied by the community sector. The people who provide financial support, community support and outreach programs, community legal centres, support for domestic violence services—all of those homeless and at-risk services that operate in my community and some of the disadvantaged areas across Australia are facing a cut from this government. A billion dollars ripped out of the community sector; 30 per cent cut to legal aid; all of this happening while at the same time this government thinks it is okay to impact Australia's social safety net by $1.4 billion. When will this government start listening? The real kicker in this bill is the 1½ million Australians who will suffer at the hands of this government under their proposed plan to freeze the indexation of family tax benefits. That is 1½ million Australian families who are part of this government's relentless plan. They want them to do the heavy lifting for them, for their trickle-down economics, at the same time handing over that big tax cut to big business. These are the payments to low- and middle-income families to help them cover the costs of getting their kids to school, of paying family bills and helping them to get ahead. We have seen this attempt by the government to cut family tax benefits, which affects 14,330 families in my local area who receive Family Tax Benefit Part A, many of whom will be worse off as a result of this latest cut, in addition to 11,477 families who will lose $354 as a result of the abolition of the Family Tax Benefit Part B end-of-year supplement. This means that, as a result of this bill, payments to families will not keep up with the cost of living. When you go out and about in the community and talk to families, people are doing it tough. Despite all the nonsense and slogans we hear from this government, the feeling on the ground, the actual feeling of what is happening in the community, is that people are struggling. This government does not say, 'How can we help you?'—it says, 'How can we hurt you?' Of the 1½ million families that I just mentioned, 600,000 will be directly affected by the cuts to Family Tax Benefit Part A, and these are families whose income is less than $52,000 per year. I will say that again: families who are on less than $52,000 a year are going to take a hit. The impact on families, as we have heard from Labor speaker after Labor speaker, is that a family on $60,000 with two primary-school-age children will be around $440 worse off, a single parent on $50,000 with two high-school children will be around $540 worse off in 2018-19, and a single-income couple on $60,000 with three children under 12 will be $600 worse off in 2018-19. That is money taken out of the pockets of hard-working Australian families. This government's priority is not to look after them, but to look after big banks and multinational companies. That is their priority. Everyone knows that. The Australian community is seeing that time and time again. The truth is that the focus and vision of this government for Australia's future is about destroying the social contract for this country. We have seen that over and over again. This is even before we get to the appalling situation where this government thinks it is acceptable that penalty rates should be cut—that the 10,000-odd people in my electorate who rely on penalty rates, who get up early and go to work, sacrificing time away from their families on Sundays, should get a pay cut. I do not support that, and mainstream Australia does not support that. Time and time again we are seeing the extreme right wing hijacking this government. Once upon a time we kind of understood what the Prime Minister stood for. Now he only stands for what will keep him in office. Listening to the right-wing zealots in his own party, whether it be about supporting more racial hate speech or now, in today's debate, which those opposite are refusing to engage in, either arrogantly or ashamedly not wanting to engage in this debate today, or too afraid to acknowledge that they are impacting the family budgets of 1½ million Australians. I will say it again: Labor will fight these changes every step of the way. Labor will always stand up for fairness and Labor will always stand up for the family who needs it most. Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, will continue to lead this fight. Every single Labor member of this House and the other place will fight right to the end, because Australian families deserve a fair go. They simply are not getting it under the Turnbull government. 13:27 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I rise to speak in opposition to this bill and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. What we can say with certainty about the effect of this bill is that it will increase poverty in Australia. It will make income inequality greater. It will leave poorer people worse off. That is guaranteed by the parliament passing this bill. It simply represents the twisted priorities and how out of touch this Abbott-Turnbull government is when it comes to protecting the interests of vulnerable Australians and at the same time giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest and largest corporations in this country. Despite unprecedented levels of income inequality in our nation, the rising cost of living and more Australians unemployed and underemployed, this government continues to pursue tax cuts for massive global corporations, while at the same time putting their hands into the pockets of some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of our community. These past few weeks have solidified this government as the true enemy of the Australian worker. Their support for a reduction in penalty rates for some of the lowest-paid casual workers in this country truly represents what they are all about. This particular bill is a further attack on the interests and incomes of low-income Australians. This bill is another slap in the face to hundreds of thousands of Australians who are just trying to make ends meet and trying to survive from week to week. But this government does not get it. They do not understand how much some Australians, particularly those on less than $50,000 year, struggle from week to week. That is why Labor cannot support this bill. 13:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Kingsford Smith will be given an opportunity at that time to complete his contribution. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 38 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Marist College Kogarah, Sydney Technical College 38 13:30 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton On Friday 24 March, Marist College Kogarah's school community, along with distinguished guests, gathered to celebrate the blessing and opening of the new Creative Arts and Learning Centre in my electorate of Barton. I was honoured to be invited by John Riordan, principal of the college, and to meet the school's community, including the school captain, Leo Micalizzi, and the school chaplain, the Most Reverend Terrence Brady. And on International Women's Day I attended the inaugural celebration of this important day at Sydney Technical College, an all-boys college at the invitation of the principal, Jacqueline Lyons, and the students, led by the school captain, Pakajan Narendiran. Two important guests at the function were the St George Girls High School captain, Una Altarac, and the vice-captain, Genia Furlong. It was an honour to hear from student representatives Jarrod Athanassiou and James and Mouhtadi Sjarief of the students' support for and understanding of the importance of International Women's Day. These two all-boys schools in the electorate of Barton are exemplary. The young gentlemen who attend these schools are a credit to everyone living in Barton. I was very proud to attend both events. I wish Marist College Kogarah and Sydney Technical College well into the future, and I promise I will visit them again as soon as I possibly can. Barker Electorate: Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby 39 13:31 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Last week I spoke about the numerous shows, field days and farm fairs that occur across Barker at this time. Indeed, my office has termed this time of the year 'show season'. I mentioned in my speech last week that I had put my hand up to take part in the Header Demolition Derby in Keith's Diesel and Dirt Derby. I rise today to update the House on this event—because, quite frankly, I am proud that I survived! The opportunity for competitors to smash their headers into one another was given an extra sweetener this year with their local federal member participating—and what a target I presented, driving a huge combine harvester emblazoned with my electoral corflute. I was pretty hard to miss—and they did not miss! Having a background in livestock farming I cannot say I was all that confident driving the harvester, but I am pleased to tell the House that I came out in better shape than did the header, which is now sitting in the back of a shed ready for some much-needed repairs—and I will undertake those repairs so that I can enter the event next year and hopefully do a little better. But all jokes aside, shows such as the Keith Diesel and Dirt Derby are important in strengthening community spirit. More than 10,000 people attended the event. There was a fantastic atmosphere, and it gave me a great opportunity to ensure that I am listening to the people of that community on the matters that concern them. I commend Glen Simpson and the Keith Show Society for putting on such a great event. Asylum Seekers 39 13:33 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison The government is sending out thousands of letters to asylum seekers living in the community, giving them just weeks to lodge their claims or risk being denied the right to asylum here. This is disgusting, because asylum seekers may not be able to renew their visas or will be cut off from critical payments unless they can lodge their applications within clearly unattainable time frames. Make no mistake: the government is setting asylum seekers up to fail, despite the life-changing implications of their not getting it right. We are talking here of people with little English who are being faced with forms of over 100 pages in which any misstep could end their opportunity of permanent residence in Australia. Moreover, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has told community legal services that extensions to these time frames will not be accepted, which tosses aside a longstanding agreement with lawyers working in the sector. No wonder legal services are bracing for an expected 300 per cent increase in demand for their help. They are already seeing people who have been cut off from support payments within days of receiving one of these letters. This shameful victimisation of vulnerable people must stop. Only a government devoid of humanity would treat human beings in this way. Grey Electorate: Laura Folk Fair 39 13:34 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey This weekend will see the 37th staging of the Laura Folk Fair. Tucked away in the shade of majestic red gums on the banks of the Rocky River, the country town of Laura in the Southern Flinders Ranges is the boyhood home of celebrated Aussie poet CJ Dennis. This beautiful country town is known for producing delicious Golden North ice-cream—which is now being enjoyed in China, I might say—and for its tree-lined main street, which houses soap and gift shops, antique shops, book shops and even a cobbler. But one of Laura's most celebrated accomplishments is the annual Folk Fair, which will take place this weekend, 1 and 2 April. The annual fair is quite simply the toast of the town and creates an atmosphere of celebration, music, art, fine food, crafts and fun. The fair reflects the fabric of the rich agricultural community that is Laura and its strong artistic culture. It features entertainment from literary events, an art exhibition, a fabulous bush dance and more than 100 stalls. CJ Dennis, who is immortalised in the main street in a larger-than-life copper sculpture, would be proud of his town—and so am I. I plan to attend the fair this weekend, enjoy an iconic giant twin—that is the ice-cream—and soak up the music, entertainment and fun of the fair. Congratulations must go to Folk Fair chair, Sue Scarman, and her hardworking committee for organising this great event. Backpacker Tax 39 13:36 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon The negative impacts of the government's dithering on the backpacker tax are coming to fruition in Tasmania. Sassafras orchardist John Brown said today in my local newspaper that he expects to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fruit because of the dire shortage of backpacker labour. He is 60 pickers short and clearly states that this is as a result of the coalition's disastrous and bungled backpacker tax. Apple growers were told by backpackers last season that they would not be coming back to Australia to pick apples this season because of the government's then-proposed backpacker tax rate of 32½ per cent. Apple and Pear Australia warned in August last year that the dithering of the government on the backpacker tax was going to hurt the industry, and here is the proof. And what happened to the $10 million advertising campaign whipped up by the government to attract backpackers to come and work here? Clearly that was a waste of money. Had the government not gagged the debate on the bill last year, they would have heard my calls for this money to be used to focus on backpacker jobs in Tasmania, WA and the Northern Territory. The government needs to tell the industry what it is doing to ensure Tasmania's apple crop will be picked in time and how it will fix the damage caused by its bungling of the backpacker tax. Fadden Electorate: School Fete 40 13:37 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden May I firstly welcome what appears to be officers from Australia and the region from one of our national security colleges here. I think I spy Colonel Justin Rookey. He and I joined together 25 or 26 years ago. Oh, the stories, Colonel, we could tell. But from the sublime to the local: I am so proud of what our local schools are doing, especially Pacific Pines State High School under the great leadership of principal Mark Peggrem. They have just hosted their first fete, which was a Pacific Pines Fiesta and which I opened. We had a few dramas with the sound and so we opened it with the DJ on top of the hill. It was a cracker of an event. The Kokoda teams raised over $500 and Relay for Life, $130. Nearly $2000 was raised for a new school bus. The industrial technology design department secured a private contract to make 300 customised cheese boards, one of which I have and make great use of. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you like, I will get one for you as well—I am getting a nod from the member in the chair. They will be running the fete again next year. I will be very proud to be involved and to be its major sponsor next year. Pacific Pines State High School does a great job; it is well led. I was privileged to speak at their leadership ceremony to induct their new leaders. There is much our community can be proud of with this school and what it is doing. Defence and Strategic Studies Course 40 13:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I too would like to talk about these amazing ladies and gentlemen in the gallery behind me from the Defence and Strategic Studies Course The course is a year-long postgraduate education program with a strong practitioner focus that provides senior military and civilian officials with the knowledge, awareness and skills to operate at the highest levels of leadership, command, policy formulation and management. They have come to see how this place operates. They come from a range of workplaces—Army, Navy, Air Force, Attorney-General's Department, Defence civilians. There are 48 of them in total; 27 Australians and 21 from other countries all around the world. They are the best of the best; they are the best of their countries; and, from an Australian perspective, they are the future of our Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence and the Attorney-General's Department. We have a former commander of Australian submarines, a former commander of the Special Air Services Regiment, a former Australian Defence Attache to Indonesia. We have Indonesian Army officers, a Tongan naval officer, the next chief of staff to the Timor-Leste Defence Force, a former commander of Taskforce Taji in Iraq, Afghanistan veterans, including those who have felt the grief of losing soldiers under their command. They are the best of the best. I commend them to the House. Neurological Disease Awareness 40 13:40 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Recently in parliament we held a neurological event to raise awareness of the difficulties faced by people with Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis. We hosted Alzheimers Australia, Brain Injury Australia, the Huntington's Association, the Muscular Dystrophy Foundation and groups associated with hereditary neurodegenerative conditions. Since 2013 I have been the chair of the Friends of Parkinson's Disease, and I was honoured to have been part of this event, later introducing Gary and Jayne Latham, Monica Hall and Bettina Clayton-Greene and her daughter Jamielle to the Prime Minister. At that meeting they talked to him about the difficulties they face, particularly as the rate of degeneration for their illness is not always recognised in the implementation of the NDIS. They also spoke about research initiatives, which are being funded by the coalition government, and about the neurological interventions, such as the deep-brain intervention, that can be used to reduce tremors but only for some sufferers of Parkinson's Disease. Steve Sant, the chair of Parkinson's Australia, spoke of the need for neurological nurses. As we already know in Gilmore, they make an amazing difference to the quality of life for those suffering from these illnesses. Thursday, 11 April 2017 is World Parkinson's Day. The theme for 2017 is Pause for Parkinson's as part of the Shake It Up Australia's campaign. In Gilmore we will host a lunch for our local Parkinson's Support group. My friend and colleague Senator John Williams, better known as 'Wacka', has recently been diagnosed. I am sure he will approach this with the same tenacity and courage as he does with in this place—(Time expired) Endometriosis 41 13:42 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Yesterday I spoke in the House about endometriosis and how one in 10 women suffer from it—one in 10 women in our community every day are suffering from this insidious disease. The response to my speech has been overwhelming, I can assure you. I have received 31,000 views and 550 shares of that speech; and it has gone right around Australia and throughout the world—hello, Brazil. I would like to share some of the stories that I got from that video. Clare wrote: Endometriosis is evil. No more should it be a silent, unknown women's condition. It is a disease that slowly destroys your body, your social life, relationships, dreams of becoming a mother, careers/work, financial stability, self-esteem, sex life, ability to function normally, ability to parent fully and your mental state. Women spoke of the need to break down the taboo on the issue—to have the conversation and to raise awareness about this insidious disease. From the response I got yesterday it seems that no-one is talking about this. We have to end the silence on endometriosis. One in 10 women in our community is suffering from this every day. I encourage my colleagues in the chamber to get out there, raise awareness about this insidious disease and its symptoms and have the conversation with your community and please end the silence about endometriosis. Forde Electorate: Rainbow Child Foundation 41 13:44 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I would like to take this opportunity to give a great being shout out to Waterford West teen Jazinda Barnes, who is heading to London and Paris this month to compete in the Face of the Globe Pageant. Face of the Globe is an international beauty pageant held in aid of the Rainbow Child Foundation. Jazinda is one of a small group of girls chosen to represent Australia after receiving a placing in the National Face of the Globe competition here. As part of Jazinda's pageant duties, she is raising funds to support the Rainbow Child Foundation. This is a not-for-profit organisation and global charity that helps children and families around the world through sanitation and immunisation programs, education and support of orphanages, as well as providing support and care for terminally ill children. With Jazinda's passion for the Logan community and work with sporting groups and Access Community Services, I have no doubt she will be a strong contender for Face of the Globe. In my electorate of Forde, we have so many young people like Jazinda who are working to make the world a better place every day. I am very proud to be able to share this good news story with the House. I wish her best of luck and commend her for her efforts to fundraise for and highlight the work of the Rainbow Child Foundation. Werriwa Electorate: Liverpool Women's Resources Centre 41 13:45 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The Liverpool Women's Resource Centre is an invaluable group for women and families in my electorate, providing support services such as counselling referrals both in person and over the telephone, as well as group programs that fight isolation and bring women of all backgrounds together with art or other shared interests, allowing them a valuable outlet with free child-minding. The centre has been in operation since 1984 and continues to provide essential assistance to disadvantaged women across the southwest. The centre's success is the result of the efforts of its hard-working team. I particularly want to note the efforts of manager Nikki and community development officer Rosheen, as well as the dedicated volunteers and board members, including Linda, Anna and Susan. I was fortunate enough to speak at the centre's International Women's Day event this year. There were many inspirational local women in attendance, including an impressive group from the Ashcroft, Hoxton Park and Miller Technology high schools. It was a privilege to share the stage with such strong advocates in our community, like Aunty Del Leslie who received the inaugural Kate Nicholas community service award, and young women like the inspiring Thea. The importance of the work of this centre and the community who keep it running cannot be overstated. I commend their continuing efforts to the House. Bonner Electorate: Radio 4EB 41 13:47 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Today I would like to speak about a longstanding community radio station that provides a vital service to my electorate and to the wider Brisbane region. Radio 4EB is the only multicultural radio station in Brisbane, with about 55 languages, broadcasting 24/7. It has been a valuable voice for Brisbane's ethnic community since 1979. The station receives federal funding for the purchase and maintenance of equipment and wages for a handful of office staff. As 4EB is a not-for-profit, it depends on donations to help cover costs to stay on the air. All of its broadcasters work as volunteers and each language group must find their own ways to support their activities. I have been proud to support 4EB's past fundraising efforts. I was glad to hear that last year's radiothon was a great success. More recently, I was pleased to donate a very special raffle prize for the Vietnamese language group's third annual fundraising evening last Saturday. The group was a founding member of 4EB, and it is a testament to their good work that they are still going strong almost four decades later. At their fundraiser, the group auctioned a bottle of wine signed by the Prime Minister. After fierce bidding, it went for a record $1,100. As their convenor, Viet, told me later, the 200 or so guests were big fans of the Prime Minister and his support for community groups. The group raised over $6,000 in total—an all-time record. Congratulations, and I wish them and all the other groups at 4EB many more successes on and off the air. WestConnex 42 13:48 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I am rising to speak about a critical local issue in my electorate, and that is the mismanagement by the New South Wales state government of the WestConnex project. Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money from the state and federal governments is going into creating an enormous traffic jam in the suburbs of Alexandria, Erskineville, St Peters, Green Square and Kensington. All through the inner city, thousands of extra cars are being disgorged from this project into already crowded streets. Daily car usage is set to multiply exponentially from just a few thousand cars on some of our busiest roads to in excess of 50,000 cars. Streets including McEvoy Street, Euston Road, Sydney Park Road, Gardeners Road, Anzac Parade, South Dowling Street, Moore Park Road and Botany Road are already very congested—particularly on the weekends as people are taking their children to sport, I have noticed recently. This project will disgorge thousands of extra cars onto those already congested roads. In fact, residents have been told that Euston Road will become a seven-lane road. It will go from four lanes to seven lanes as little as 1.8 metres from their front doors. It is inconceivable that as a community we will spend billions of dollars to bring traffic congestion to already congested suburbs. There are about 42,000 residents in the affected area at the moment. An extra 31,000 will go in in extra years, and what they can expect is an almighty traffic jam! Burnett, Mr Raymond William 42 13:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher It is with much regret that I inform the House of the passing of one of Australia's cherished World War II veterans—my constituent Raymond William Burnett. Born on 24 December 1916, Ray enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force on 20 August 1942. Among his postings during the war, he served as an Airfield Defence Guard protecting RAAF aircraft in Darwin. Ray was deployed to Darwin and PNG with No. 54 Squadron, No. 1 Fighter Wing in the direct defence of his country. Ray achieved the rank of Leading Aircraftman. In recognition of his service, Ray was awarded the Pacific Star, the Australian Defence Medal, the War Medal and the Returned from Active Service Badge. Last December I had the privilege of meeting Ray at his 100th birthday celebrations at the Glass House Country RSL. That was a great opportunity to reflect upon the impact of Ray's many years of service to his country and to his community. Ray sadly passed away last week, on 21 March 2017, and his funeral is set to take place today. My thoughts are with his family and friends at this difficult time. This country is indebted to Ray and all who have served in our armed forces for their selfless contribution. Ray, I know you can hear me. I thank you for your service, this parliament thanks you for your service and this country thanks you for your service. Education, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 42 13:51 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to express my dismay at the absolute lack of understanding of those opposite about what is important to Australians. I do this in the frame of seeing a local paper where the member for Chisholm is in the headline saying that there is no need for Gonski—no need for Gonski! I wonder what the good people of Chisholm, who I know value the transformative nature of education, make of that. I wonder, too, what the people of Chisholm, like the people in Lalor, make of the pursuit of this change to 18C that this government is running down the track to drive home that will hurt kids in every school in this country. In classes and playgrounds across the country, there are children now engaged in a conversation about 18C that they did not to need to be engaged in. There are young people going home tonight and saying, 'I got in trouble today, Dad, because I called someone a terrible racist name.' And Dad will say: 'That's okay, mate. You're free to be a bigot in this country. You can say whatever you like in this country to any child.' This pursuit of change is stirring up concern in electorates and schools across this country. I say to the government: leave alone what is not broken. Leave our wonderful multicultural country alone. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I remind the member for Goldstein that he is out of his seat and he is close to disorderly. Energy 43 13:53 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to commend the recent action by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to direct the ACCC to review retail electricity prices. This is the first inquiry that the ACCC has undertaken into this, and it will be very welcome news for the hardworking families across my electorate on the Central Coast. In fact, just over a week ago, I held a community forum at Umina Beach and received dozens of community surveys back from local residents. Again and again, these surveys showed what local residents tell me every single day—that the pressure from the rising cost of living is one of the top priorities we need to tackle to help make life easier for people on the Central Coast. These families will be pleased to know the consumer watchdog will investigate this issue thoroughly and will file an interim report within six months and then in detail by the middle of next year. We know that electricity prices for households have doubled during the six years of the Labor government. Prices came down somewhat with the scrapping of the carbon tax, but recent upward pressure needs to be addressed in a way that protects families and businesses. That is why we are taking action in other areas, too, like delivering the Snowy Mountains scheme 2.0 to increase its generation capacity by 50 per cent, adding 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy, enough to power 500,000 homes. The gas industry has also committed to cheaper, more reliable energy for households. Ensuring the lights stay on and prices are affordable is central to this government's approach to energy policy. (Time expired) Racial Discrimination Act 1975 43 13:55 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs This government is acting with total arrogance when it comes to the people who are most impacted by its ridiculous campaign against section 18C. This morning Labor hosted in Parliament House close to 100 representatives of multicultural communities from around Australia. They told us that there is real anxiety and fear in their communities about an increase in racial abuse thanks to this government. We heard from Senator Patrick Dodson, who spoke passionately about the cost of hurtful speech. 'Words matter,' he said. The people who were in that room this morning know about racial abuse because they have experienced it themselves. Has the Prime Minister even bothered to speak to these people, the casualties in his battle against so-called free speech? Has he even bothered to contact the Jewish community in his own electorate of Wentworth? I would guess not, because I know what they would tell him. They do not support this crazy, ideological vendetta of the right-wing of the Liberal Party. The trouble with this Prime Minister is that he has a total lack of initiative on most things except the wrong things. It boggles the mind that he has chosen the last sitting week before the budget to alienate multicultural communities and the moderates in his own party. Wake up, Prime Minister! Drop your changes to section 18C. Do not weaken Australia's protections against racist hate speech which have served our country very well for more than 20 years. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 43 13:56 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor On 15 March I was part of an important conversation on domestic and family violence in the southern forest region of my electorate. Domestic violence touches more lives than we will ever know. So much of it happens behind closed doors that accurate statistics are near impossible to collect. I thank Sandy Venter, Chair of DOVES—Domestic Violence Education and Support—for inviting me to discuss local domestic and family violence support services and ways of addressing critical gaps in service provision in this region. At this forum, women and men spoke frankly about their own personal journeys or professional experiences on the front line in the battle against this disease creeping insidiously through all levels of society. I commend the agencies working in crisis accommodation, counselling and family services. Every day they support victims and their families through the immediate trauma, guiding them through recovery, restoring dignity and confidence, and rebuilding damaged family relationships. I was pleased to reaffirm the federal government's role in committing $100 million to the women's safety package and an additional $100 million for initiatives under the third action plan. This plan focuses on: immediate interventions to keep women and families safe; enhanced services to fight domestic violence and support those affected; technologies to keep victims safe and to monitor perpetrators Australia-wide; and educating that violence is always unacceptable. Together, we can all work towards making our communities safe from family and domestic violence in the future. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 44 13:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The Senate is debating whether Australians should agree with Senator Brandis's claim that there is a right to be a bigot. Weakening the Racial Discrimination Act is an attack on modern multicultural Australia. Racism is not 'just words'. People who are insulted, offended, and humiliated by racist hate speech know that racism cuts much deeper than that. I understand that members will come to this parliament with a genuine commitment to freedom of speech. I will never understand how anyone decides the person who most needs their help is the racist bigot who they believe should be allowed to say more. And be in no doubt: the government want them to say more. If the government claim this is about freedom of speech then it must mean more will be said. The law they are changing is the law which protects people from racist insults, offence and humiliation when they are at the shops, at a sporting event or on public transport. What is it they want people to be allowed to say? The government refuse to answer this question because the answer is a form of racist hate speech. People expect this from One Nation; they expected better from the Turnbull government. I encourage everyone who believes in respect, in multicultural Australia and in maintaining the protections of the Racial Discrimination Act to make their voices heard. Talk on community radio, publish in community newspapers, post on social media and join us on Friday afternoon in Lakemba for the Walk for Respect to celebrate modern multicultural Australia. Education 44 13:59 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack In the time available to me, I just want to give a big shout-out to this government's announcement of an independent review into regional, rural and remote education. I encourage all families, teachers, students and anyone who has an interest in this particular matter to, please, contribute to this very important inquiry to ensure that kids in the bush have the same opportunities as their city cousins. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 44 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister said he was delivering the economic growth that Australians deserve. Does big business deserve a $50 billion handout? Do millionaires deserve a $16,000 tax cut? Do nearly 700,000 Australians deserve a pay cut? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Nothing is more phoney than this Leader of the Opposition. This so-called champion of the workers! Oh, yes, we have seen him snuggling up to big business. And it is not just socialising with big business; it is doing real business with big business—taking money from big business. Let's have a look at the record of the Australian Workers' Union. Let's look at the things they did not tell their members. And do not turn away, Leader of the Opposition. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! Mr TURNBULL 885 Do not you turn away from your members. You would not face up to your members. What a coward. He was not prepared to tell his members in 2007 that he was taking a $32,000 political donation from Unibilt—a company with which the AWU was negotiating an EBA. Not only did he not tell his members but he did not tell the Australian Electoral Commission. It took a royal commission and eight years to find out about that. What we have seen, again and again, is members sold out. What about the workers at Cleanevent? Mr Hammond interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth! Mr TURNBULL 885 He talks about looking after the workers—some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia: cleaners. They could have been getting $50 an hour, but they got $18 an hour, thanks to that hero's advocacy. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney! Mr TURNBULL 885 What a champion! But the main thing is: the union got paid money; the union got money and one false invoice after another. Let's look at a few of them. What about this—what about ACI Operations? It paid the AWU in Victoria half a million dollars while workers were being laid off at their Spotswood glass plant. What was that money for? Well, we never would have found out that it had even been paid had it not been for the royal commission. This former union boss wants to run the country like the way he ran the AWU—he wants to run the country like he ran a union. That money was taken and was never disclosed. It took the royal commission to find out. And what did the union invoice it as? Paid education leave. What was it used for? To pay off a loan for the union. It was used for the union's own purposes. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy! Mr TURNBULL 885 In terms of what Australians deserve, they do not deserve to have their country run by this union boss. That is what they definitely do not deserve because he will sell them out like he sold out his members again and again. Economy 45 14:04 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's policies are helping to grow the economy, generate jobs and increase wages? Are there any threats to the government's approach, including in my electorate of Bonner? Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bonner will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have said countless times that I am really going to crack down on interjections, particularly when the question is being asked. The member for Sydney is warned. The member for Bonner will ask the question again. Mr VASTA E0D My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's policies are helping to grow the economy, generate jobs and increase wages? Are there any threats to the government's approach, including in my electorate of Bonner? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The government is backing the businesses that employ nearly 90 per cent of all Australians. We know that Australian businesses need the encouragement to invest more and employ more. And that is why we are backing in our business tax cuts. We know they will deliver the growth and the jobs in the honourable member's electorate and in every member's electorate. That is the big difference: we are backing jobs; we are backing workers. The Leader of the Opposition is opposing business and selling workers out, just as he did when he was representing them. We are talking one deal after another—one dodgy deal after another. He likes to talk about penalty rates. Ms Husar interjecting— Ms Keay interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lindsay is warned, as is the member for Braddon. Mr TURNBULL 885 He sold workers' penalty rates out again and again—remarkably, again and again in circumstances where the union was paid money by the employer concerned. We have talked about Cleanevent and Chiquita Mushrooms. But, right across the board, let's look at the agreements that the Labor Party want to defend. They believe it is just that a worker at KFC on Sunday gets paid $21 an hour, but, at the award, gets paid $29. That is the deal they did. Again and again, he claims to be in favour of renewables. What has he done? He has sold out Australians in terms of energy security. What are we doing? We are ensuring that we have Snowy Hydro 2.0, the plan that will provide the greatest storage and backup ever developed in our nation that will make renewables reliable. What about the importance of gas supply? We have seen to date the results of our work. We called the gas producers in. We told them that they had to deliver for Australian businesses and families. We got a commitment, a guarantee of gas for peaking power being made available. Today you have seen Origin commit to providing the gas that is needed to get the Pelican Point generator going again, the one that was not working when South Australia had its blackout event. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Energy and the Environment is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 We are delivering. We are delivering on renewables, we are delivering on energy, we are delivering on jobs and we are defending Australian working men and women by ensuring that businesses that employ them and will employ them have the incentive to invest. Labor says it is in favour of workers and sells them out. It says it is in favour of renewable energy and does not do anything to support it. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The prime Minister's time has concluded. The member for Gorton. Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 Are you hungover? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton will resume his seat. I am going to the next question. The member for Tangney has the call. Economy 46 14:08 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's success in delivering on the commitments it outlined in last year's budget. Is he aware of any alternative plans that would threaten the successful transition of Australia's economy? 14:09 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Tangney for his question. He knows, because he was elected on the basis of our national economic plan for jobs and growth that were set out in last year's budget, that our economy, the Australian economy is one of the fastest growing advanced economies in the world today. We have the second-highest GDP per capita of any country in the G20, second only to the United States. Our national economic plan made the decision and made the calls which address the challenges of ensuring that we are improving the wage performance of Australians—lifting their wages, supporting wages growth, increasing investment and securing jobs for hardworking Australians. This is across a raft of areas. The National Innovation and Science Agenda has delivered new tax incentives for start-up businesses. It has delivered new funding to support the CSIRO to work with companies to take innovations and research into the marketplace. The biomedical translation fund is doing the same thing to commercialise medical research. We are ramping up the 20-year defence industry plan that is creating new businesses and new jobs right across the defence industry supply chain right across the nation, in stark contrast to the Labor Party that never even built a bath tub boat let alone engage in the important issue of developing our defence industries, particularly our naval shipbuilding plan. Our $50 billion infrastructure plan is being rolled out across the country including the Monash Freeway in Melbourne, the WestConnex in Sydney, the Bruce Highway in Queensland, the Northern Connector in Adelaide, the Forrestfield-Airport Link in Perth and the Midfield Highway in Tasmania. Our export trade deals are another critical part of the national economic plan with China, with Japan and with South Korea and they are ensuring new jobs and new markets, particularly in our agricultural sector, which saw one of the most amazing periods of growth in the December quarter of last year and is lifting living standards in rural and regional Australia. During Premier Li's visit, we announced better outcomes for Australian beef and exports to China, which backed up the arrangements we were able to achieve with Indonesia just weeks before. And we are changing our tax system to boost new investment that creates and supports jobs, that increases real wages starting with tax cuts and incentives for small and medium-sized businesses. And we are delivering on budget repair. Almost $25 billion in budget improvement measures have been delivered since the last election, since the last budget, which are getting on with the job of budget repair. These achievements of implementing the national economic plan for jobs and growth was what was at the heart of last year's budget and will be at the heart of this year's budget. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 46 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have present here in the chamber this afternoon a delegation from the Parliament of Singapore led by Madam Speaker Yacob. On behalf of the House, we extend to you a very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 46 14:12 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, does big business deserve a $50 billion handout? Do millionaires deserve a $16,000 tax cut? And how on earth, when wages growth is at record lows, does the Prime Minister believe nearly 700,000 Australians deserve a pay cut? Mr Joyce interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. 14:13 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Do Australian workers deserve to be told the truth by their unions? Do they deserve to be told that there was a $300,000 payment made by Thiess John Holland to the AWU in Victoria? Ms Claydon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Newcastle is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 Did they deserve to be told that? We think they did but they did not and we are going to have to change the law to make sure they are. The honourable member likes to talk about how proud he is, as does the member for Isaacs, about the Leader of the Opposition's leadership of the Australian Workers Union—one secret payment after another, one long list of looking after big business. Did big business deserve to be given a special deal on an EBA in return for a large cash payment not disclosed? We do not think so. Clearly honourable members opposite did. They did. That is why they did not tell anyone about it. Let's look at what the AWU said the money was for. The AWU claimed that $300,000 was for 'back strain research'. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 Picking up that much money can put your back out! He turns his back on us. We do not need any research into— Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 He turns away! If ever there was a shiver waiting for a spine to run up, it is his. He does not have the courage to face this parliament, to face the Australian people, any more than he had the courage to tell his members the truth. That is the question. He has all the opportunities of the House to tell us what that $300,000 was really for. Was it forum tickets, conference sponsorships or training? None of those benefits—if you can call them that—were ever provided, any more than the money paid by ACI was used for paid education leave. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr Porter interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting. The member for Gorton, on a point of order. He will state the point of order. Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 Certainly, Mr Speaker. It is on relevance. I asked whether, in fact, the Prime Minister believes that the 700,000 Australians deserve a cut to their penalty rates. Prime Minister, you have not made any mention— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The member for Gorton certainly did ask that, but he asked other things as well, including what big business deserved or did not deserve. I am listening very carefully to the Prime Minister. Mr Snowdon interjecting— Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lingiari will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Chifley is warned! If the member for Lingiari does not move immediately, I will take further action. Mr TURNBULL 885 Do Australian workers deserve to be represented by unions that tell them the truth? We say they do. Those opposite say they do not. Just like they opposed childcare reforms and just like they are opposing one million families being better off, they are opposing workers being told the truth. Oh, yes. All of this hypocrisy, this covering up of one secret payment after another and one worker after another being sold down the river by money paid to unions—we are going to shine the light on that. We are going to ban those secret payments. You can vote against it if you wish. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Watts interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Gellibrand will leave under standing order 94(a). DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 47 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Peter Slipper, former Speaker and former member for Fisher; and a former member for Lowe, Mary Easson. It has been brought to my attention we also have present the Hon. Brian Howe, former Deputy Prime Minister and member for Batten. Welcome back. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 48 14:18 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. You recently said: 'Keeping Australians safe is our highest priority. It's the first duty of my government and, indeed, every government.' Prime Minister, we know that burning more coal will make global warming worse. Scientists tell us that it may mean fewer cyclones, but they will be more intense when they hit. But on the very day that Queenslanders were preparing— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Melbourne is entitled to ask his question. The member for Melbourne will begin his question again. Mr BANDT M3C My question is to the Prime Minister. You recently said: 'Keeping Australians safe is our highest priority. It's the first duty of my government and, indeed, every government.' We know that burning more coal will make global warming worse. Scientists tell us it may mean fewer cyclones, but they will be more intense when they hit. But on the very day Queenslanders were preparing for Cyclone Debbie, your resources minister dropped a front-page story spruiking a new coal-fired power station in that very state, and you backed him. Given the destruction that cyclones wreak upon our country, why do you push policies like burning more coal, which will make cyclones more intense? Doesn't your duty to keep Australians safe include doing everything you can to stop cyclones becoming more violent? Mr Pitt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hinkler will leave under standing order 94(a). 14:19 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Tropical Cyclone Debbie made landfall as a category 4 cyclone around midday yesterday, with destructive winds of up to 270 kilometres an hour. Right now, 1,200 men and women of the Australian Defence Force and thousands of other emergency workers are there, cleaning up the wreckage left by the cyclone, ensuring that the energy, the electricity, to 63,000 homes is restored and ensuring that Australians are safe and that they recover from this cyclone. Every other member of this House is committed to supporting those people of North Queensland, and the honourable member wants to take this occasion to make his own political point. Mr Speaker, that question was contemptible. Now is the time to pull together, as we all have—state and federal, opposition and government—and stand behind the people of North Queensland, putting the men and women of the ADF, the volunteers and the emergency workers first to keep them safe. That is our commitment. Government members: Hear, hear! Energy 48 14:21 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the threat that increasing energy prices pose to agricultural producers such as the Costa Group? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any other policies to ease the cost of production for business and the cost of living for families? 14:21 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. What is happening to power prices is also incredibly important, especially to the people around Shepparton. It is important to them because the gross value of agricultural production around Shepparton in 2012-13 was $1.5 billion. By 2014-15 it was $2 billion—up by 33 per cent. In the same period of time, the Victorian gross value of ag increased by 13 per cent. It goes to show you that we are turning around agricultural production, not just in our nation but in particular areas. I know that the member is very interested in horticulture. At the Global Food Forum yesterday, Brad Banducci said: ... given the cost increases that are coming through— this is with regard to power— we are ... trying to outrun a bear ... but I’m not sure we can ... ... we will have to in some way, very cautiously and carefully ... pass those through ... to our customers ... So the increase in power prices, by reason of ridiculous policies such as seen in South Australia—and now they are trying to be replicated in Victoria—is going to be paid for by people at the checkout, by working men and women at the checkout, by working men and women trying to pay for their groceries. At the same forum, Harry Debney, the CEO of the Costa Group, Australia's largest grower, packer and marketer of premium quality fresh fruit and vegetable, employing over 6,000 Australians across more than 40 farming wholesale distribution operations, said that electricity cost is one of their biggest issues. Costa produces 20 per cent of Australia's mushrooms and they have just spent $2 million at a plant at Mernda to put in five backup generators. Private enterprise is having to do the job in Victoria of what they believe the government's job should have been, which is to keep reliable and affordable power going through. Even today we had one of our leading energy producers, ERM, in my office saying that, if the Victorians think they are going to fix it by gas, at $10 a gigajoule the gas power price would be $100 a kilowatt-hour. He said that at that price you should look at small modular nuclear reactors because they would probably be cheaper than the solution that is being suggested. Now we have the Labor Party in Victoria, with Hazelwood going offline, Yallourn about to go offline and Loy Yang B under threat, and what is the Labor Party doing? What are they doing beyond mimicking the problems of South Australia? What is happening to the Labor Party that once represented labourers? It is very well for the member for Gorton, and he is right to represent hairdressers and beauticians, but he had better find out that most of them are small business people worried about power prices. After hairdressers and beauticians, you had better start looking after blue-collar workers, They are whom you used to look after. That used to be your constituency. They used to be the people you cared about. What happens to these blue-collar workers? What about the member for McEwen when he asked the Prime Minister about who is actually doing the hard work, talking about the ones farming our produce. There are the 700 Costa employees— (Time expired) Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned! I say to the member for McEwen, I think the Leader of the Opposition is seeking the call. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Workplace Relations 49 14:25 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today Labor is making a submission calling for a fair and responsible increase to the minimum wage. Can the Prime Minister advise whether the government has made a submission calling for a fair and responsible increase to the minimum wage? And, by the way, Prime Minister, do you even know what the minimum wage is? 14:25 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth It is $672.70 a week, as the honourable member would be well aware. The government's position on the minimum wage hearing is the same as governments have been taking for years: to make an informative submission that enables the independent umpire, which the honourable member used to back in again and again but does not any more, to make an independent decision. The truth of the matter is this: you cannot find one line of consistency in the Leader of the Opposition's career other than rank cynicism and self-interest. He complains about the hardships of Australian families, and what does he do about it? Nothing. Does he support the childcare reforms? No, he opposes them. He complains about companies avoiding tax. What does he do when the multinational tax avoidance bill is in the House? He votes against it. For years, he used to say that company tax cuts were needed to promote investment, productivity and jobs. I can understand why he turns away from that, because it is hard to face up to hypocrisy at this level. Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. That was in this House in 2011, the Leader of the Opposition. That proposition is not one limited to a point in time. That is a general proposition which every economist has agreed to and every government has agreed to for years and years, Labor and Liberal. The member for Lilley used to say this. He made that point as well. The member for McMahon wrote a book about it. The Leader of the Opposition, again and again, said the best way to support business and support workers was to cut company tax, and now it is one of the great crimes of the 21st century. The hypocrisy knows no bounds. He talks about families; he opposes our childcare reforms, which will make families better off. He talks about penalty rates and yet he has sold out one worker after another on penalty rates, again and again. He talks about leading the country like a union leader. What is that going to involve? Payments received and not disclosed? Hundreds of thousands of dollars from one company after another was paid to the Australian Workers Union at the same time as they sold their members down the river. That is the style of the Labor leader today. It is a big threat to all Australians. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lyons is now also warned. The member for Grey has the call. Energy 50 14:28 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why unreliable and expensive electricity is a success to job-creating industries in South Australia, like the southern bluefin tuna industry, which employs over 600 people in my electorate of Grey? How is the government acting to ensure that businesses are not jeopardised by unreliable and expensive power? Is the minister aware of any other approaches? 14:29 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Grey for his question. Nothing proves Labor's one-eyed obsession with closing down coal-fired power stations and taking away baseload power more than the South Australian government's decision to close down the northern power station at Port Augusta. Today, this letter has emerged from Alinta, written by Alinta, to the South Australian government, demonstrating that Alinta would have kept open the Northern Power Station for $25 million—$25 million which the South Australian government has wasted on many other projects over the years. For $25 million the South Australian government could have kept baseload power in South Australia. We could have avoided the year of blackouts that we have had—the businesses that have seen their produce destroyed, the insurance claims that need to be made after every blackout, the damage to our economy in South Australia, the highest electricity prices and the most unreliable energy in the country. The South Australian government jumped up and down about Arrium when Arrium was in danger, and we acted to fix it. They jumped up and down about Nyrstar a few years ago at Port Pirie. The Northern Power Station needed $25 million to supply baseload power to South Australia and Labor said: 'No, we'd rather close down your power station. We'd rather rely on unreliable power in renewable energy,' which was found, yet again, by another AEMO report yesterday to have been the reason for the blackouts that have been occurring in South Australia. The damage has been done by making our power supply so unreliable. The Premier of South Australia chose, instead of using $25 million to protect families, households and businesses, to conduct an experiment—an experiment he described himself as an experiment—and the damage has been real and lasting. With southern bluefin tuna, for example, which South Australia is the centre of with $118 million of exports a year, Australian tuna fishers had planned to expand their operations in Port Lincoln. Hagen Stehr had planned to build a new export factory facility for southern bluefin tuna for specialised frozen tuna in Japan and China. He says—not us: 'I will not build facilities because of the unreliable generation of power and the price of electricity, making it impossible to achieve financial return,' costing South Australia valuable export dollars and jobs for the future. That is the future under the Leader of the Opposition's policies for renewable energy targets. What has happened in South Australia he wants to take national. He must be stopped, and this government will stop him. Prime Minister 50 14:32 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was party to a secret payment to settle litigation which alleged he personally breached corporations law in the collapse of AIH—a devastating collapse which saw thousands of Australians left with worthless insurance policies? Is this another example, just like penalty rates, where the Prime Minister believes— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. Mr Sukkar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Deakin is warned. I am going to need to hear the question again to judge whether it is in order. Mr DREYFUS HWG My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was party to a secret payment— Mr Fletcher L6B Too gutless to go outside the parliament, aren't you! The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will leave under 94(a). The member for Bradfield then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will ask his question again. Just before you do, I will make it very clear: I am not going to keep repeating myself. All interjections are disorderly, but, when I have made it clear to the House that I am seeking to hear the question again because I have been prevented due to interjections, anyone who interjects is in very grave danger. Mr DREYFUS HWG My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was party to a secret payment to settle litigation which alleged he personally breached corporations law in the collapse of AIH—a devastating collapse which saw thousands of Australians left with worthless insurance policies? Is this another example, just like penalty rates, where the Prime Minister believes it is one rule for him and his big business friends and another for workers? The SPEAKER 00APG Having had the opportunity to now listen to the question, I say to the member for Isaacs that a large part of that question relates to a time prior to the Prime Minister assuming office and, indeed, prior to him becoming a member of parliament. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If members want to interject on me, I will just move on and we will not have the question at all. The rules for questions and answers are very different, and members know that—particularly former ministers who are now shadow ministers. Only the first part of that question is in order. 14:35 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The government's policy is that trade unions who take secret payments— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members will cease holding up props. The member for Hindmarsh is warned. The members who have been warned will now leave under 94(a), and they include the member for Lindsay. If there are any others, you are lucky. But, at the rate you are behaving, I will get you soon. The member for Lindsay then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 Trade unions claim to be representing their workers. They are fiduciaries; they are in a positon of trust. We say, and the law will say, that they cannot take payments from the people with whom they are negotiating on behalf of their members. And that is the point. It is about accountability; it is about honesty; it is about integrity. The fact that the member for Isaacs stoops so low shows what a raw nerve we have hit. The one thing the Leader of the Opposition will not do is say what the half-a-million dollars was really for—what the $300,000 was really for or what the $32,000 was really for. He can set everybody's mind at rest: if he is so proud of this record let him tell the truth. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:37 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have present today a delegation from the New Zealand Justice and Electoral Committee, led by Ms Sarah Dowie, the member for Invercargill. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you and to your delegation. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 51 14:37 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the cost South Australians are faced with in order to stabilise the state's energy system, and the role the federal government continues to play in securing our energy future? Minister, are you aware of any alternative approaches? 14:38 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Barker for his question and I acknowledge his deep concern for the rising electricity prices across the state, like for the family-owned, fourth-generation South Australian business JT Johnson & Sons, which produces hay pallets for domestic use and for export. It has seen its energy bill go up by nearly $1 million. That is why we on this side of the House are focused on important reforms to rein in retail costs, to rein in network costs, to invest record amounts in battery storage, and also to get more gas into the market. Just today, with Ministers Sinodinos and Canavan, we were able to get a commitment from the pipeline operators that they would work with the gas suppliers to ensure that they would meet any shortfall for gas in the domestic market in the years ahead. Just today, Jay Weatherill, the Premier of South Australia, has been revealed as having no clothes, because just two weeks ago, when he was announcing his $550 million apology note to the people of South Australia, he was asked five times whether it would be cheaper to keep the Northern Power Station open. He said that keeping the Northern Power Station open would not provide him with the services that South Australia needs. But today we have found out that it will. It would be cheaper—22 times cheaper—than his $550 million apology note to the people of South Australia. We have also found out today, with the announcement by ENGIE that it has secured the gas contracts, that the Prime Minister's efforts in getting the gas suppliers to put more gas into the domestic market are working. I spoke to the CEO of ENGIE and he was very grateful for the government's efforts. Now we are seeing ENGIE bring on the Pelican Point mothballed plant. It will ensure that a second layer of paint is now on Labor's white elephant in South Australia, which is a new government funded gas-fired power station. We know that the Premier of South Australia has undertaken a big experiment. We know that he was in denial. We know that he blamed the market operator, that he blamed the weather, that he blamed the federal government, that he blamed the lack of a carbon tax for the blackouts that have occurred across his state. But, now, the people of South Australia know the real cost of his failures and of his big experiment. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition wants to take this 50 per cent RET national, which means increased prices for households and businesses, like JT Johnson & Sons, and a much less stable energy network, which Australia cannot afford. Prime Minister 52 14:41 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs (—) (): My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Should government policy on secret payments be extended to him? Peter and his wife were forced to live in a shed for over two years after their builder went broke and their HIH building insurance became worthless. The Prime Minister continued to live in his mansion while they had to live in a shed. Don't Peter and thousands of other victims deserve to know what role the Prime Minister played in ruining their lives? Isn't their story still continuing with his cuts to workers and families, while sending cash to big business and millionaires? (Time expired) Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I will not give the Prime Minister the call just yet. Members on my right will not interject. The member for Corangamite is now warned! Again, the member for Isaacs well knows, because of my previous rulings and earlier rulings that he has been listening to, that matters prior to a member becoming a member of parliament or indeed becoming a minister cannot be canvassed in question time and are out of order. The first part of that question refers to the Prime Minister's previous answer, but, from what I could hear—there were some interjections near the end and I was hoping to hear the member for Isaacs in the final few seconds—the only part that was in order was in reference to the Prime Minister's previous answer. The rest of the question was out of order. I will again say that the Prime Minister needs only to refer to the section relating to his previous answer, and I am cautioning the member for Isaacs along the lines of my ruling the other day with respect to the member for McMahon, with the bulk of the question being out of order, and if I consider it to be deliberately so I will not be allowing any part of the question. But on this occasion I will allow the first part of the question. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:43 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I wonder if the member for Isaacs could remind us whether he actually lives in his own electorate. Has he moved in. Oh, yes—another champion of the people. That is what we get from the member for Isaacs. Let's be quite clear about this. This Queen's Counsel often has the opportunity to explore his own electorate, but he certainly does not live there. He observes it objectively from a great distance, with an imperial equanimity given to someone who has no connection with the men and women and families he represents. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lilley is warned. The member for Wills will leave under 94(a). The member for Wills then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 What we see now is the desperation the Labor Party has sunk to, because all the Leader of the Opposition has to do is tell us what that money was really for. What was that money really for? He talks about secret payments. I have made no payments, secret or otherwise—none. The fact of the matter is if the honourable member is suggesting that no litigation can ever be settled on confidential terms, they can move a private member's bill. They would do a bit of damage to the honourable member's own profession. It would never happen. I am sure the member for Isaacs has never been involved in a settlement like that—no, I suspect not; I suspect that is right. He has to keep those fees coming; he would not want to settle. The honourable member's pathetic attempt to amplify the politics-of-envy campaign by the Leader of the Opposition is as disingenuous as anything we have seen from the opposition benches. We are defending workers; you are selling them out. We did not sell out their penalty rates; Labor did. We did not take half a million dollars from an employer; that was the union the honourable member was leader of—taking money to sell members out and not telling them the truth about the money they are taking from the employers they are doing those dirty deals with. That is the difference: we want to see the light, we want to see the truth and we want to see the unions to own up to their members. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth and the member for Burt are warned. Skilled Migration Program 53 14:46 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I have a sensible question for the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on actions the government is taking to ensure our skilled migration program does not disadvantage Australian workers? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach that jeopardises the job opportunities for hardworking Australians? 14:47 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for Canning very much for his question. It is a fact that this government has been about putting Australians first when it comes to putting people into jobs. That is the claim of this government not only in our words but in our deeds and actions. We have worked to tidy up the 457 program, which was exploited by the Labor Party when they were in government, exploited by the Labor Party that took the opportunity to bring foreign workers into this country and put them in places otherwise occupied by Australian workers. There has been a lot of hypocrisy from this Leader of the Opposition on display in question time today, but the hypocrisy demonstrated by this Leader of the Opposition has been on display for many, many years. In question time today there is a contest of character going on, and this Leader of the Opposition fails it at every turn. They have sought today to besmirch the reputation of the Prime Minister of this country, a man who started with nothing, worked hard, employed Australians and created businesses. They want to contrast him to this Leader of the Opposition, who has run around for years conjuring up dodgy deals not in the interests of union workers but solely in the interests of union bosses. He used the 457 program— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. The member for Perth has been warned; he can leave under 94(a). The member for Perth then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI We saw the hypocrisy of this Leader of the Opposition when he was secretary of the AWU, where he presided over deals where hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid to his union to the benefit of the union bosses, without telling workers about it. At the same time, he was negotiating away the conditions of those workers. This is the Leader of the Opposition: he wants to pretend one thing in this place, he wants the Australian people to believe one thing, but the reality is the opposite. This Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated in his current position and throughout his working life that he will take advantage of any situation to the benefit of unions, and that is why the CFMEU and others completely own and operate this Labor Party. They have contributed $10 million to this Labor Party over recent years, and it is why this Leader of the Opposition is in here, day in, day out, prosecuting the cause of union bosses. I see the former Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe up in the gallery today. He was part of a government that actually represented workers. He was part of a government that had members of parliament in the Labor Party who had had real jobs. The reality is, when you look at these union bosses, when you look at them starting from their leader down, they have not represented the interests of workers. They have not stood up for workers; they continue on each and every occasion to stand up for the union bosses ahead of the interests of the union workers, and this Leader of the Opposition stands condemned. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I again caution members on both sides, and I refer them to the statement I made a few weeks into this parliament: if the level of discourse continues in such a poor fashion I will continue to eject people under 94(a). But I am making it very clear, as a reminder, that I also said I reserve the right to take more severe action and to do so without warning. If anyone who has been warned does not understand that and if those who have regularly been ejected do not understand it, they will understand it shortly. Prime Minister 53 14:51 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Should the government's policy on secret payments be extended to situations where there are secret payments to settle litigation which alleged breaches of the Corporations Law, such as occurred in the collapse of HIH? Is this another example, just like penalty rates, where the Prime Minister believes it is one rule for him and his big business friends and another for workers? 14:51 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I dealt with that in my previous answer, but is the honourable member seriously saying that litigation should not be settled? Is that what he would like? Is that, perhaps, the brief-less barrister's dream—a litigation without end? Is he saying that litigation should not be settled or that no litigation can be settled unless the terms are disclosed? If that is his proposal, then he should raise it and he can move a private member's bill. It is not one that would be welcomed by his profession or, indeed, by anybody else. Workplace Relations 54 14:52 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the Minister outline to the House why corrupting benefits, as described by the Heydon royal commission, should be outlawed? Are there any alternative approaches? 14:52 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Menzies for his question. Of course corrupting benefits should be banned in this country. The Heydon royal commission recommended that corrupting benefits should be removed from the system. This government is taking action to ban corrupting benefit payments and make it a criminal activity. Let's put this in some context for the member for Menzies and for the rest of the House. The really hideous example of what went on at the AWU under this bloke over here, under this Leader of the Opposition, is that of the Cleanevent workers. We call them 'the Cleanevent workers', but let's look at what these people do. These are amongst the lowest-paid workers in the country, doing one of the toughest jobs. These are the people that turn up after an event—at the bachelor and spinster balls in South Australia, or the race days—and clean out the vomit from the portaloos, empty the toilets, take away the empty beer cans and the plastic mugs and try and put the place back into shape again. They are the lowest-paid workers in the community doing one of the toughest jobs. This bloke sold them down the river. These were the people who got paid 176 per cent less under the EBA that this man signed than they would have if they had had the award. And he has the hide to come into this chamber and lecture us about integrity and honesty and looking after the workers. Do you know what the AWU got in return? They got a $75,000 cash payment, and they got lists—really important lists—so that the Leader of the Opposition could expand his power in the ALP in Victoria, so he could use those lists to pretend they were members of the union, to sign them up to the AWU. Nobody was told about this practice, but it was a practice that expanded his percentage on the floor of the state conference in the Victorian ALP. It was a power he used to try and wipe out people in this place, like the former member for Maribyrnong, Bob Sercombe, who was a very decent fellow. He was wiped out of here. The member for Corio tried it on as well, and they tried to get rid of Simon Crean, if you remember, for those of us who were in the House then, but he fought them of. He fought off the branch stackers and the faction led by this Leader of the Opposition, who had used the Cleanevent workers to gain power, to gain cash for his union. That is the practice that we want to stamp out, and he has the hide to send this pathetic attack dog into the House to attack the Prime Minister. Donations to Political Parties 54 14:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. In previous answers the Prime Minister has referred to cutting the pay of Australian workers and secret donations. Will the Prime Minister also cut off the trail of secret donations by introducing legislation to require transparency for payments made to the following organisations: the Menzies 200 Club; Liberal Properties; Fafold; The Cormack Foundation; the Greenfields Foundation; Free Enterprise Foundation; Team 200 Club; Foundation 51; Ripon 250 Club; Enterprise West; the Geelong 500 Club? Or, again, is it a different rule if it is a Liberal Party organisation? 14:56 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I did not catch the names of all of those entities. Most of the ones I heard are associated entities. For example, I am sure that the Free Enterprise Foundation, which the honourable member mentioned, is an associated entity, the donations to which are disclosed on the Australian Electoral Commission website. I think the honourable member will find that entities that are associated with political parties disclose under the Electoral Act. But I am happy to refer his inquiry to the Special Minister of State and I will take a note of the list of the entities provided. The government is fully supportive of complete transparency in relation to these matters. I think the honourable member will find that those entities that he mentioned, certainly the Free Enterprise Foundation, are associated entities and the donations are disclosed in accordance with the law. Trade 55 14:57 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the house on how the government's trade policies are supporting the jobs of hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to trade that could jeopardise Australian jobs? 14:58 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I am very pleased to have a point of contrast between this side of the House, asking about issues that matter to real Australians, and that side of the House asking the grubby questions that we have seen. What this side of the House knows, what actually matters to hardworking Australians, is about opportunities to create jobs, to generate economic growth and to ensure that Australians know that they will have a brighter future tomorrow. This coalition government is delivering them that future. We are doing that in the trade portfolio. We are doing so through the trifecta of trade agreements that we put in place with the North Asia powerhouse economies, China, Korea and Japan. We have delivered in terms of the updated Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, as well as the fact that we played a leading role in pushing for early ratification of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. We are also continuing to build on the existing agreements that Australia has put in place. In fact, if you look at the last seven days, it has been this coalition government that is making a difference for hardworking Australians by strengthening the relationship that we have with China and building on the success that we have with the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In fact, during Premier Li's visit last week, we announced an agreement, delivered by the coalition, to unlock a number of trade restrictions for Aussie meat exporters to China. An additional 36 Australian chilled meat processing facilities will now have access to one of the world's largest economies. This means more Aussie jobs, more job security and more exports for all Australians. That is what Australians are concerned about. That is what they are focused on, not the kind of drivel we have seen today from the opposition. Thanks to the hard work of this coalition, we continue to be the first and only country to have access for chilled beef into China. The most recent changes are estimated to be worth some $400 million per year for Australia's meat industry—our farmers and meat processors. And frankly, what better contrast could there be: between the coalition's track record of delivery when it comes to China and the track record of this failed Labor Party when they were last in government? Look at their track record when it came to beef. Look at the knee jerk reaction we saw from the previous, Labor, government when it came to Indonesia, when, overnight, they ruined our relationship with Indonesia by turning off live cattle exports. And let us never forget that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement—which underpins the livelihoods of thousands of Australians, which is driving export growth, which is making sure that the Australian economy is even stronger—an agreement delivered by the coalition, was described by the Leader of the Opposition as a 'dud deal'. That is how they described the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It is not a dud. The only dud is the Leader of the Opposition. Workplace Relations 55 15:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked three times to rule out pay cuts for AFP officers, including his own protection detail. Given that the Prime Minister failed to categorically rule out these pay cuts three times yesterday, I ask again: will the Prime Minister rule out pay cuts for AFP officers for working late nights and weekends? 15:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth As the honourable member knows, the enterprise agreement between the AFP and the government is being negotiated at an agency level, as it always has been—in other words, between the commissioner and the members. Those negotiations are ongoing, and of course it will require a vote of the members to be concluded. That is the first point. The second point is the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition, seeking now to protect or defend the Australian Federal Police. In government they cut the funding for our security services again and again. Remarkably, after 50,000 unlawful arrivals came on 800 boats, the Labor Party cut millions of dollars out of the customs service. They cut our abilities to defend our borders, just as their policies made our borders less secure. Again and again, Labor has failed to step up to keep Australia safe. They failed to invest in the equipment, in the ships that our defence forces need—not one naval vessel commissioned from one Australian yard in six years. And in terms of the AFP in particular, it is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition claims to be speaking for the AFP today but only earlier today his shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, was accusing the AFP of acting improperly— Mr Dreyfus HWG That's false! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs. Mr TURNBULL 885 and acting under political direction, when he knows as well as we all do that the AFP act utterly independently—rigorously independently—of government. They always have done and always will. That is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party for you. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney has already been warned copious times. She will leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney then left the chamber. Budget 56 15:03 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House how the budget is driving investment and supporting wages for hardworking Australians, including family businesses like Aquatique, which has three stores and employs young people? Will the Treasurer outline any obstructions to this approach? 15:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She rightly talks about Aquatique in her electorate, which is a business that has a turnover of between $2 million and $10 million. There are some 100,000 businesses like this around the country, and they employ 2.2 million Australians. The government's Enterprise Tax plan starts with those businesses by changing the definition of a small business from a business with a turnover of $2 million to a business with a turnover of $10 million. So, not only do they get a tax cut this year—right now, this fiscal year—but they also get access to the instant asset write-off, which is an initiative of this government; they get access to pool depreciation provisions; and they get the tax monkey off their back, as small and medium-size businesses. The member for Gilmore came into this place this week and voted for that tax cut for those businesses. But the member for Hindmarsh came into this chamber and voted against the tax cut for businesses like Precise engineering and manufacturing in Adelaide. That is a company that has a turnover of $2.9 million and just 20 staff. That is a company that went through the hardest part of the transition in the car manufacturing industry, and it is surviving and is now growing. But the member for Hindmarsh came in here and said: 'No way. You should be paying higher taxes and you shouldn't be investing in your business and supporting better wages for your employees and more investment and more jobs.' The member for Bass also came in here. He has in his electorate Australian Honey Products. That is a company that has a turnover of $2½ million and 20 staff, and 60 per cent of their product is exported to Asian markets. That is a company that is a true Tasmanian success story. But the member for Bass thinks small businesses like Australian Honey Products should be paying higher taxes and should not have the opportunity to invest more, to grow their business, to take advantage of the trade export deals that this government is delivering and the Labor Party opposed, particularly when it comes to China. Our Enterprise Tax Plan is about ensuring that small and medium-size businesses in particular are able to get ahead. And we know who agreed with us on that. The Leader of the Opposition said that you cannot have someone in a job unless business is making a profit. He said, 'I don't have an us-and-them view about business.' That is what he said. He said that if a business is not making a profit then people cannot be assured of a job. Well, the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that this side of the House comes into the parliament and votes for what they believe in. We come in here because we know that if you want to drive jobs, if you want to lift incomes, if you want to support wages then you have to back the jobs and growth plan of the coalition government that was outlined in this budget past and will be in the next one.— (Time expired) Workplace Relations 56 15:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday and today the Prime Minister has failed four times to rule out pay cuts for AFP officers, including his own protection detail, by claiming that negotiations were occurring at arm's length from government. But the previous Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, was willing to step in to resolve the pay increase problems with the Australian Defence Forces. Why is this Prime Minister unwilling to step up and take the same action as the former Prime Minister to look after AFP officers, who also keep Australian safe? 15:07 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The AFP are very lucky they do not have Leader of the Opposition representing them because we know what he does—in return for $75,000 from Clean Event to the AWU they ended up getting $18 an hour when it should have been $50. That was a great outcome, a great case of negotiation. Let us be quite clear: throughout my life I have represented many people; I have represented people with lots of money and people with no money; I have represented the battlers and I have represented the big end of town. But the one thing I have always done is I have always done the best for them. Now I am representing every Australian and I am doing the best for them now— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance—the question goes directly to the pay and conditions of the people on the Prime Minister's own protection detail, and he should be relevant at some point in the answer to them. The SPEAKER 00APG Manager of Opposition Business, I have heard your point of order. I listened very carefully to the question and I have a summary of it here. The Prime Minister is relating his material to the substance of the question. I am listening to him very carefully—he is relevant so far. I call the Prime Minister. Mr TURNBULL 885 When you take the lives and destinies of other people in your hands and when you represent them, you owe it to them to do your best, you owe it to them to tell them the truth and that is what I have done right through my life. But not the Leader of the Opposition—he has hidden one payment after another, one cash payment from an employer after another. He would not even tell his members the truth about a political donation. That is what we are talking about here: we are talking about character, conviction and commitment. The Leader of the Opposition lacks them all. He would not stand up for anybody, apart from himself. I have built businesses, I have employed workers, I have striven to employ more Australians in more jobs in more businesses and now, as Prime Minister, I and all of my government stand up for Australians, defending their jobs, securing their future. What does the Leader of the Opposition do? He sells them out, just like he sold out the members of the AWU—just like he would sell out Australia if he got to run it like union. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right. 15:10 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 57 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Interference with Parliament 57 15:11 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The question to you arises from a privileges report which was brought down in the Senate yesterday and which dealt with the raids with respect to the NBN that occurred during the election campaign on members' offices. While that report covers some of the ground that our own Standing Committee on Privileges and Members' Interests had also covered, it also dealt with whether or not there had been an improper interference with the parliament itself. It states in paragraph 3.37 that it had: … the effect of interfering with the duties of a senator, and with the functions of the parliament more broadly, by undermining the operation of the national guideline and diminishing the protection that should be available to parliamentary material Mr Speaker, while I appreciate that the report has only very recently been made available, I would ask you to reflect and report back to the House in the light of those issues that do have a bearing on the operation of this House and on what assurances might be sought from the Prime Minister, the government or government agencies to ensure that an improper interference with the parliament is not repeated. The SPEAKER 00APG Can I firstly thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his question and for drawing these matters to my attention. As he is aware, I have addressed this matter from the perspective of the member in this House earlier on in this parliament and he rightly points out that we established a process to deal with it. On the additional matters he has raised with me, I can assure him I will give very serious but also speedy consideration, and I will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 57 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 57 15:13 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The budgetary and economic failures of this Government. 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— 15:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon This is the last sitting week before the fourth budget of the Abbott-Turnbull government. The Australian people have every cause to be concerned about this fourth budget of the Abbott-Turnbull government because this government has form. This government has delivered to the Australian people economic management for which there has been a real price for the families of millions of Australians and for our country. In fact, we are still paying the price for the 2014 budget as we prepare for the 2017 budget. Just this week, as we speak, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are trying to get through some of the harsh cuts from the 2014 budget in their omnibus savings bill. The fact of the matter is that this government is projecting a surplus based almost entirely on those harsh cuts from the 2014 budget, which have not passed and will not pass this parliament. The dysfunction and the wrong priorities of this government mean that our economy has had a very real price to pay. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister gave a very revealing quote about how he sees the economy and how he sees the Australian people. He said: Every day the government is delivering the economic growth that Australians deserve. Either the Prime Minister is not across what is happening or he has a very different opinion about what Australians deserve than this side of the House does, because the fact of the matter is our economy is growing below trend. Unemployment has increased and underemployment is at record highs, with 1.1 million Australians wanting more work but unable to find it. There are fewer full-time jobs than there were a year ago and wages growth is at record lows. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the entire government think that the answer to record low wages growth is to cut wages further. It is telling us that the one thing that unites this government—the one thing that the Turnbull people, the Abbott people, the Dutton people and the Bishop people all agree on—is that people who work on Sundays should be paid less. I would mention the Morrison people, but there is only one of those left! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite, on a point of order. Ms Henderson ZN4 Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the member needs to refer to members by their proper titles. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite is correct. I have made this point many times. I did not hear the member for McMillan because I was in consultation with the Manager of Opposition Business on a serious matter, but he will refer to members by their correct titles. I refer him to the fact that I have sat people down who were deliberately flouting that ruling. Mr BOWEN DZS Thank you, Mr Speaker. The current Prime Minister knifed the member for Warringah because, he said, we were not getting the economic leadership that Australia needed. What we have is a continual failure of economic leadership from this Prime Minister and his Treasurer. This will be the current Treasurer's second budget. The last one had a one-point plan for jobs and growth, and we saw last week the spectacle of us asking the current Treasurer whether the centrepiece of the 2016 budget would even be in the 2017 budget. We asked 12 times, and we did not get an answer about this one-point plan for jobs and growth. It was embarrassing. Then we had the Prime Minister leaving the Treasurer hanging out to dry all week and then briefing the papers that it would be in the budget. It just goes to show why the Prime Minister is out there saying he is going to take over the economic management and the salesmanship from his Treasurer. We should not be surprised because—there have been so many of these promises it is sometimes easy to miss one—this is what the Treasurer has done over the course of the last 18 months: he promised an increase in the GST and then retreated from it in that famous 46-minute waffle at the National Press Club; he promised big, swingeing personal income tax cuts and he told us how passionate he was about personal income tax cuts, and what has followed has been very little indeed; he went with his Prime Minister on a 48-hour frolic through the fields of state income taxes and withdrew all funding from public schools in Australia; he talked about the excesses of negative gearing before being rolled by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in cabinet; and he has loved to criticise tax increases and tax changes proposed by us, that is until he adopts them. He criticises them right up until the day that he adopts them. This Treasurer, even today, was talking about how we should not have more tax rises. He said that he opposed Labor's proposed increase in the tobacco excise and he railed against changes to superannuation tax, and then he got up and announced those very things in his last budget. Goodness knows what he is going to announce in this budget! Of course, this is the Treasurer who personally came up with the masterstroke of linking his unfair, unsustainable cuts not only to the National Disability Insurance Scheme but also to his childcare package. That was his baby all the way through. Of course, the Treasurer has his one-point plan. He says that that is his answer for increasing growth and jobs. That is his one-point plan. Of course the fine print, which he does not like talking about, tells us that this will deliver one per cent growth in the economy in 20 years time. In terms of wages, he was saying yesterday not to worry about the penalty rate cuts because the corporate tax cut is going to increase wages, apparently. What do the government's documents tell us? They tell us that it will increase wages—by $2 a day in 20 years time. There has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian! They will cut your penalty rates and give you $2 a day back in 20 years time! That is the great plan for the future that this government delivers us. What an exciting proposition for the Australian people—a big wage cut now, big business gets a big tax cut and you get your penalty rates cut! We saw yesterday the big four banks' economists talking about the corporate tax cut. To be clear, these are the banks who get the tax cut. These are supporters of the tax cut. The opening paragraph of the story said: Chief economists at Australia’s biggest banks have questioned the overall benefit to the economy provided by a cut to the corporate tax rate, at a time when the country’s biggest companies sit on record high levels of cash and continue to spend billions buying their own shares. These are the people who support the tax cut. These are the ones who get the tax cut, and you cannot even convince them that it is good for the economy. No wonder the Prime Minister wants to take over economic salesmanship from the Treasurer. We are seeing Peter Costello and Paul Keating say that this is the wrong plan for Australia. Anything that can unite those two must be a very bad idea, especially if they agree that this is a wrong plan for Australia! Of course, the most important thing is that this $50 billion just cannot be afforded at this time because of the deficits and the debt blowouts which this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and their two predecessors have presided over. This government's budget disaster has seen the 2016-17 budget deficit go from $11 billion—forecast by them—to $37 billion. Of course, we have seen net debt forecasts increase by $100 billion. This is a Prime Minister who said that net debt at $188 billion was a colossal figure. I wonder what it is under his watch. How would he describe it under his watch when he said previously that such a figure was 'colossal'? This really leads us back, again, to a Treasurer who is constantly out of his depth and is not up to running a G20 economy. This Treasurer is at war with his Prime Minister and at war with his Minister for Finance. Goodness knows the Australian people have every right to be concerned about what will be in this 2017 budget. Everything he promises he fails to deliver on. We know he is barely on speaking terms with his own Prime Minister. There was another resounding vote of confidence in the Treasurer just this week. We see every day in question time that those on the backbench go wild every time the Treasurer is up on his feet. They just cannot control themselves. The backbench go crazy when the Treasurer brings in his pet rock—they just go off! They just go crazy. We saw some extra support from a frontbench colleague of the Treasurer with a ringing endorsement. He did not name the frontbench colleague, in fairness. I do not wonder why when he or she said of the Treasurer, 'He'll need to perform or he's out.' What a ringing endorsement from his cabinet colleagues! Well, I agree with the said unnamed frontbencher from the other side. But I probably have a different view about what a better performance looks like. I will share it with the House. I would think a more believable plan to return to surplus based on believable policies would be a better performance, not discredited, unfair cuts. It would involve proper budget repair instead of attacking the most vulnerable in our economy. It would involve proper tax reform, such as negative gearing and capital gains tax reform. That would be a better performance from this Treasurer. How about a housing affordability plan? That would be a better performance. The Treasurer should not be replaced now; he should be replaced at the next election by a Labor government with a plan and the courage to tackle the issues facing Australia's future. (Time expired) 15:23 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The member for McMahon talked about paying the price. Well, we are absolutely paying the price for six years of incompetence of which he was a part. There were six years of incompetence when the member for McMahon was the worst immigration minister this country has ever seen. Then those opposite were unceremoniously turfed from the Treasury benches with an $18 billion black hole. So we are paying the price for six years of Labor. What is worse is that those opposite have the audacity to come into this place, after trying to frustrate every attempt at turbocharging the economy or improving the budget, and complain. The member for McMahon and the Labor Party have been completely taken over by the hard left of their party. That is true of every single policy adopted by the Labor Party now. I see the member for Scullin smiling. I know he is very happy with his takeover of the party. That the member for McMahon opposes every single policy on improving jobs and investment in our economy is an absolute disgrace. In looking at how the economy is travelling, the government and I accept that there are always things that we as a government and parliament should do better. But we are the fastest growing economy in the G7. Let's not forget that. We had growth in the last quarter of 1.1 per cent, a very encouraging number. We have unemployment at 5.9 per cent. Everything we are doing is geared towards increasing investment and increasing opportunities for Australians, which ultimately will increase wages and increase the number of jobs in the economy. The member for McMahon sounded as though he was arguing against himself in his speech when arguing against the company tax cuts, because we have all seen various members of the government come to the dispatch box with the book written by the member for McMahon. I have not read it, and I would not buy it. But I have lots of good quotes from the book, I can assure you. As the member for McMahon has said: It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth. So the member for McMahon was arguing against himself for 10 minutes. Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr SUKKAR 242515 I see the member for Rankin very loyally supporting the member for McMahon. He said: … Australia would go well out of a lower company rate than it is right now. The member from Rankin also said: You're right that Bill said that in the medium term it would be a good aspiration to have a lower company rate. So we had every member of the Labor economic team arguing for company tax cuts. But now the member for Scullin and the hard left of the Labor Party have completely taken over the economic narrative and they are now saying, 'No, we don't want to be internationally competitive.' We have also seen the Labor Party, hijacked by the CFMEU and others, arguing against the China-Australia free trade agreement. We all recall the Leader of the Opposition referring to it as— Mr Bowen DZS We voted for it. Mr SUKKAR 242515 The member for McMahon says, 'We voted for it.' So why did the Leader of the Opposition refer to it as a dud deal? Why would the Leader of the Opposition vote for a dud deal? I will tell you why. It is because the CFMEU pulls the levers in this Labor Party, and the CFMEU said, 'No, we don't want the China Australia Free Trade Agreement,' but then in the end they buckled. That is why, Member for McMahon, you did it. It is shameful that somebody who thinks they are the heir to a proud legacy has now repudiated every single area of consensus that we have shared for about 30 years. For 30 years we have not had to argue in this parliament about lower tax rates, whether that be personal income tax cuts or corporate income tax cuts. We have never, ever had to argue about that. Now we are re-litigating the arguments that we were having with the communists 40 years ago, because they are back. They are back, they are large and they are in charge. But we will keep arguing for it because we represent the millions of Australians who fund our entire system. We represent the millions of Australians who get up first thing in the morning and who do not see their children when they get home late at night because they are paying ever higher taxes. There is no dollar that the member for McMahon can say no to spending. There is no spending reduction that he will support. It is an absolute disgrace. We know the model from the Labor Party now. The model is higher taxes— Mr Husic interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Chifley is already under a warning from question time. Mr SUKKAR 242515 We know that the Labor Party model now is higher deficits, higher debts and higher taxes for Australians. That is the model. We have progressed $24 billion in savings, most of which have been opposed by the Labor Party. We have also seen, shamefully, from the shadow Assistant Treasurer and others opposition to a multinational tax avoidance bill that has seen us collect $2 billion in additional revenue. Why would you vote against that, Labor Party? Why would you vote against that, member for McMahon? It is quite a day when the Greens show more economic sense than the Labor Party. It is an absolute disgrace that you would do that and that you would jeopardise our AAA credit rating. If the member for McMahon was still the Treasurer—but let's remember that you are not because you were unceremoniously dumped in the 2013 election—we would have lost the AAA credit rating at that point. And, now, the Labor Party have tried to frustrate every single attempt. We will keep going. We have been able to show the Labor Party ways in which we can repair the budget and improve the economy simultaneously—1.1 per cent economic growth in the last quarter. They are great numbers. We are the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I would expect that the Labor Party would applaud that. Mr Swan 2V5 We did that for six years, you clown. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think being referred to as a clown by the former Treasurer is quite extraordinary. And we love seeing you there, Swannie. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will refer to those opposite by their titles. We would love to see the former Treasurer back on the front bench because we think you are the greatest electoral asset that we have. So come back to the front bench and keep the interjections going. The member for McMahon started his remarks by saying we are paying the price. We are paying the price for six years of Labor. We are paying the price having gone from $20 billion surpluses to $40 billion deficits that we inherited under this government. We are paying the price for the former Labor government sending us in a trajectory of $667 billion of debt, increased spending and a slowing economy. Now, we are the economy that is the envy of the world. Of course, we have more to do. One thing that this government will ensure is that low-cost energy, a competitive advantage of our economy that we have enjoyed for many generations, continues into the future. The member for McMahon could not explain whether the Labor Party's 50 per cent renewable energy target was a target, an aspiration, an option or a goal, but what we do know is that Labor's policies on energy will make our heavy industry and manufacturing uncompetitive. So when they talk about states like South Australia and Victoria—and I am a proud Victorian; Victoria is the heart of manufacturing in our country—one of the primary economic and competitive advantages that we have had in low-cost energy is something that they have tried to frustrate every step of the way. Ms Keay 262273 What about renewable energy in Tasmania? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Braddon was under a warning from question time. She has continuously interrupted. She will leave under 94(a). The member for Braddon then left the chamber. Mr SUKKAR 242515 We have made real progress on our budget. In the face of staunch opposition from those who created the problem, we have made absolute strides in improving our budget bottom line and in returning to budget surplus by 2021. We will ensure that that timetable is met. We will also ensure that our economy continues to be the envy of those in the G7. 15:33 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin That was another contribution, just like in question time, that does not mention the fact that the deficit under that mob opposite has tripled since their first budget and does not mention a blowout in net debt of more than $100 billion. There was nothing about the consequences of that incompetence for Australia's AAA credit rating and what that means for mortgage repayments and confidence in our economy. We had another question time and another daily display of that rare combination that they have on that side of the House—of swaggering arrogance and staggering incompetence. It was another question time with them pretending that somebody else is in charge and pretending that they can have the power and ego of those jobs without the leadership or the responsibility, or taking responsibility for what has happened to the budget under their watch. It was another question time that showed that those opposite are not just out of touch; they are from another planet. All you need to know about this government is that, under this government, there are tax cuts for the top end and there are pay cuts for workers in the electorates that we are so proud, on this side of the House, to represent. Let's just consider some of the choices that are being made over there. They have chosen to keep a deficit levy that gives a millionaire a tax cut; at the same time, they have chosen to cut family tax benefits. Ms Henderson ZN4 Tell the truth. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite was warned in question time as well. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Judged by the Prime Minister's actions, he thinks that the three biggest challenges that we have as a nation are: (1) low-income workers are paid too much; (2) multinational corporations pay too much tax; (3) it is not quite simple enough or easy enough to slander someone on the basis of their race. These are the priorities of those opposite. Deputy Speaker, while I think of it, the truest thing that was said in question time today was when your offsider, the Speaker, said that the Treasurer's time had expired. We think that, too, on this side of the House. As they shuffled out of here with their long faces trying to avoid the Treasurer's gaze, he desperately searched around looking for some reassurance that his performance today was not as bad as he feared it might be and that he might not be up for the chop—the same fate that befell our old mate Joe. He looked around for some kind of reassurance and did not get it. All he saw were the long and ashen faces of those opposite who are mourning because they have lost the one thing that they care the most about—that is, any shred of economic credibility. They are in mourning on that side of the House because that which they prize the most is gone. They think Australians are mugs. They think that if they tell them that they are all about jobs and growth enough, the Australian people will not cotton on to the facts that sit under that ridiculous slogan that they keep mouthing in here—the record underemployment, the record low wages growth, the negative quarter of growth in the quarter before last and corporate profits going through the roof while wages are growing at record lows. All of these things are the people-facing part of the economy—the part of the economy that those opposite do not understand now, have never understood and will never, ever understand. We remember the last time that the member for Wentworth was the temporary leader of the Liberal Party—some of us were here in other roles; some of us were here in our current roles. We remember very well when he did his—as the member for Wakefield described it—'chicken Churchill' routine from this dispatch box about debt. As the member for McMahon said, he described the $188 billion worth of debt as a 'colossal' figure. He described it as a 'towering summit' of debt and, of course, now it is $317 billion. So if it was bad at $188 billion, what is it now on his watch? I am grateful to the member for Fenner because the member for Fenner reminded me as we were talking last week—as we do from time to time—of another little doozy that the member for Wentworth did from this dispatch box right here. He said: Mr Speaker, there will come a time when Australians will look wistfully at $188 billion of debt and ask not when our debt will rise to that peak, but when it will descend to it. It was a very good question. How right he was. Net debt is now $317 billion and rising, $133 billion more than what he inherited. It is long past time for those opposite to accept responsibility for the budget deterioration on their watch. Theirs is a recipe for division, inequality and immobility. Their trickle-down agenda does not accord with our values, not just Labor's values but Australian values—the fair go and they need to accept that that is the case. It does not accord with our values because an Australia which showers largesse on the wealthiest and most powerful while cutting the wages and payments to those on middle and lower incomes is not the country that we on this side recognise or cherish. On this side of the House, we are about growth which is inclusive, hard work which is rewarded and a decent safety net for those left behind. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:39): I might remind the member for Rankin, referring to the Speaker as 'my offsider' might not be a good career move. 15:39 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I thank the House for this opportunity to talk about the wonderful economic performance of Australia and about the great job the Treasurer is doing in helping to drive Australia's economic growth. Economic growth was 1.1 per cent in the last quarter, 2.4 per cent for the 2016 calendar year. Once again, Australia is growing above the OECD average and faster than every G7 economy. The good economic news just keeps on getting better. Look at Australia's terms of trade—that is, the ratio of our export prices to import prices. That grew by 9.1 per cent, delivering a 15.6 per cent improvement on the December 2015 quarter. That is terrific economic news and, in particular, great news for our exporters. It is not only the cities that are driving this growth. Regional Australia certainly has a great economic story to tell. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Tell us about the economic contributions of the regions. Mr GEE 261393 I am glad the honourable member asked that question because I will tell you. In the last 12 months to December 2016, there was a 23.7 per cent growth in the agricultural sector. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM That is fantastic. Mr GEE 261393 That is fantastic news, 23.7 per cent. Things are looking up on the land. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Tell us more. Mr GEE 261393 I will. Compare and contrast that to Labor's last quarter when they were in office, when agriculture went backwards by 0.5 per cent. Under us, it increases but under Labor it decreases. It is a very sorry tale. I have more good economic news. I think we have to keep the good times rolling here. The gross value of farm production is forecast to increase by 8.3 per cent to a record $60 billion— Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM How much? Mr GEE 261393 I kid you not—in 2016-17. This exceptional value of farm production comes off the back of record crop production in every single Australian state and a strong performance across livestock industries as well. So things are looking up in regional Australia. You have got to give a lot of credit to this government when you look at things like the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, the Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement. All of these agreements struck by the Liberals and Nationals have made a real difference. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM Labor could not do it. Mr GEE 261393 They could not do it; they could not get them over the line. I note that only just last week Australia and China signed a joint statement on enhancing inspection and quarantine cooperation between Australia and China. This will allow our beef producers to export more chilled beef into China worth more than $400 million a year. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM worth more than $400 million? Mr GEE 261393 I kid you not, $400 million. It is great to see economic growth powering along in the regions. Of course, we are working hard to deliver over $24 billion in budget repairs. I have got to give credit where it is due to this hardworking Treasurer. He never stops working for this economy, maintaining the coveted AAA credit rating. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who have been obstructionist on all manner of issues. The backpacker tax is one such example. We saw the member for Hunter pull up stumps, not engage at all and, of course, he got the rug pulled out from underneath him by the Greens at the end of the day—very embarrassing. Let's talk about the company tax cuts, the enterprise tax plan. From those opposite, there has been nothing but hypocrisy. As the member for Deakin pointed out in his address to the House, the member for McMahon said it was a 'Labor thing' to have the ambition of reducing company tax because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth. Compare and contrast that to what we have seen over there, the errant hypocrisy. No wonder no-one trusts the Leader of the Opposition. He also said reducing the corporate tax rate sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy. What an errant hypocrite he is. Those opposite come into this House, they block and they obstruct but nevertheless there is hope for the country because the Liberals and Nationals are here delivering economic growth. We are here. We never sleep. We deliver economic growth right across our country and maintain our AAA credit rating. There are good times ahead not only for the nation but in particular for country communities around Australia. I commend the Treasurer for his great work. 15:44 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner At the end of last year, there was a lovely little yarn in one of the Sydney papers about a cabinet leak. It said that preliminary figures had come to cabinet on the census completion rate. The story did not contain the actual number itself. What it did say, though, was that it had a decimal point in it. According to the story, 'one minister did not seem to get it. How could you have a fraction of a person or a fraction of a household?' With mathematical skills like that, it is really no surprise that, since the government have come to office, net debt is on track to soon double. When he was Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth launched the coalition's debt truck. When they were in opposition, they promised the budget would be in surplus in their first year and in every year after that. Yet we have now seen the deficits rising faster than they were in the global financial crisis, and—as the member for Rankin has pointed out—net debt is on track to soon double. The Australian people were promised a government of adults, but they got a government of screaming teenagers. If only the Treasurer were as ambitious for the country as he is for himself. If only the Treasurer could spend a little bit more time on focused tax reform than on updating his LinkedIn profile, which is probably what he is doing these days. This is a Treasurer who, as the member for McMahon has pointed out, has flip-flopped on every possible tax reform issue—a higher GST, state income taxes and capital gains tax changes. He took capital gains tax changes to cabinet and was rolled. He was against cigarette excise. He was against superannuation until, as the member for McMahon has pointed out, he backflipped and took Labor's position. They have had four years in government, and they are still blaming Labor. Bart Simpson would be embarrassed to blame-shift like these guys blame-shift. They are patting themselves on their back today for closing multinational tax loopholes, for cracking down on multinationals, but at the same time they are rejecting Labor's sensible proposals to close debt loopholes that would raise eight times as much revenue. When it comes to inequality, these guys think Mount Everest is a level playing field! At a time when home ownership is at a 60-year low and wage growth is at a 30-year low, their solution to housing affordability is to tell people to 'get a good job that pays good money'. How do they propose to ensure that we have good jobs that pay good money? They are going to cut penalty rates. Take $77 a week away, and then see how you afford a house. This is at a time when, in the last quarter of last year, house prices rose 10 times as fast as wages. Not everyone is going to be worse off under the Turnbull government. On 1 July, when the millionaires' tax cut kicks in, a neurosurgeon will get a tax cut of $7,000, a plastic surgeon will get a tax cut of $5,000 and a futures trader will get a tax cut of $2,000. Ninety-four per cent of the benefits of this millionaires' tax cut will go to the top one per cent—a group that has doubled its share of national income over the course of the last generation. Frankly, the changes that the government are bringing about through their unfair budgets are so unfair that the Sheriff of Nottingham is now voting for Xenophon in the Senate! We heard something very true today in question time. The Prime Minister said, 'I represented the big end of town, and I've always done the best by them.' Frankly, the Prime Minister continues to do his best by the big end of town. Under this government, the big end of town get a proposed $50 billion tax cut. They get shielding from closing debt-deduction loopholes, and they see cuts in penalty rates for low-wage workers. Every decision made by the government seems almost calculated to increase inequality. At the same time, we have seen wages for the top 10 per cent of workers grow three times faster than for the bottom 10 per cent of workers, and the richest three Australians have more wealth than the poorest one million Australians. With inequality at a 75-year high, we have a Prime Minister who is of, by and for the top one per cent. The moral arc of the Liberal universe is short, but it always bends towards inequality. 15:49 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie When I read the topic for this MPI today, I thought, 'Cripes—this is going to be the quickest MPI on record unless the opposition have their words muddled.' A government member interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 It is a very short list, isn't it? The Howard government balanced every budget. They were in power for more than a decade and did not make a slip. It was a cautious, conscientious and economic strategy, which had our nation purring along. Dr Leigh interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Fenner has had his turn. Mr HOWARTH 247742 When they handed the account to Labor, there was money in the bank. There was money in the bank, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton; you would remember it well. But that is where the wheels fell off, as we all know. During Labor's six years in the driver's seat, how many surpluses were there? Honourable members interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 I do not think there were any. The member for McMahon and the member for Lilley promised a surplus. How many times did they promise a surplus? It was over and over again. They promised and promised, but could not even break even—not even once. They left a trail of destruction and a whopping great hole, and spent billions of dollars that they simply did not have. They did not have it. They tried to buy friends, offering all sorts of sundries and handouts, whether they wanted them or not. They tried to pass off their willy-nilly spending as sound economic strategy. They were stimulating the economy—stimulating the national gag reflex, as it turned out, because Australians wised up and cut them loose. The problem, though, is that we inherited the fallout of Labor's reckless and irresponsible spending. When I say 'we', I am not talking about the government. The truth be told, when we took the public purse from Labor, we knew it was going to be empty. It came as no surprise. But it is not the government who have to cop it. It is not the government who have to cop their incompetence; it is the Australian people. Mr Watts interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 Thank you, member for Goldstein. It is mums and dads, families and aged pensioners. Everyone under the age of 30 who is listening today is going to have higher taxes and increased spending. And what do we have from the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon? He has negative gearing and capital gains tax reform. Let's forget about what it does to rent or how much money it will actually raise. It will be bugger-all. They voted against the 2015 multinational tax avoidance bill. The member for Rankin is a smooth talker. Is that dude a smooth talker? He is a smooth politician. He is good at telling a story, but he does not come here to represent the Australian people and what is in their best interests; he represents what is best for him. He asks, 'How do I get that "honourable" in front of my name?' The member for Fenner says: 'Blame the coalition. Their debt's bigger.' That is what they are saying. But seriously, what could we do with the $15 billion that we are currently paying in interest every year? It is $15 billion. Dolphin Stadium was just built in my electorate at Redcliffe. You could build 1,579 of those a year with $15 billion. I need an overpass at Carseldine worth about $100 million. We could build 150 of those every year. We could fund all the 72 joint strike fighters we are about to have delivered or 15 new Moreton Bay rail links at $1 billion each. We could quadruple the foreign aid budget or replace the education budget. The $15 billion a year in interest that was left to us compounds, and of course the deficit grows when you have that sort of interest. What do Labor do? They come in here and they block and block and block everything. They did not even vote to rein in multinationals in 2015. They did not even vote for that. The Labor Party are like the rogue tenant that took six years to evict and now they stand trying to guard their damage and refuse to allow the emergency services, us, to clean up the mess. The productivity in this place is horrible. I come in here some days and sit down and think, 'Do I have to listen to this? Fair dinkum. The productivity is shocking.' We do three MPIs a week. What would be great is getting rid of a couple of them. We get the shadow frontbench and the rugby scrum over there. Some of them are smart individuals. I have no problem with that. Then you have our frontbench and we work out how we could help the Australian people. On the weekend, Peter van Onselen ran an article in The Australian, saying: The uncomfortable truth that no politician wants to confront is that Australia doesn’t have a plan to pay down the national debt. Worse still, there isn’t even a plan to develop a plan. How are we going to pay off $500 billion? I say we need bipartisan support. (Time expired) 15:54 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Wendy is a single mum who lives in Maroubra in a rented flat with her 13-year-old daughter. Wendy works two casual jobs just to make ends meet and she is looking for more hours. She receives family tax benefit part A and part B and rent assistance. She lives from week to week and she told me that recently she had to borrow $1,000 from a friend just to register her car. Wendy is intent on bettering herself and she studies part-time for certificate IV in financial services accounting. She is trying to educate herself and her family out of the poverty trap. I guess you could describe Wendy as a decent, hardworking Aussie battler. But life has just become a lot harder for Wendy and her daughter because the Turnbull government have just decided, as part of their budget priorities, that they will freeze for two years family tax benefit part A and part B, making life harder for Wendy and her kid to make ends meet. Put on top of that the fact that the Turnbull government supports cuts to penalty rates for the lowest paid workers. So, when people like Wendy work on weekends, her penalty rates will be cut in the future. They have taken away the children's dental scheme, so Wendy now struggles to get access to dental services for her daughter. If the government had their way, they would charge a co-payment every time Wendy went to the doctor or took her daughter to the doctor. And, if Wendy's daughter is lucky enough to win a place at a university, if the government had their way she would be paying $100,000 just to earn a degree. It gives you a picture of this government's priorities when it comes to the budget and the fact that they are intent on making life harder for hardworking Australians like Wendy. On the flip side, if you are a large multinational business, if you are wealthy, what is the Turnbull government doing? They are giving you a tax cut whilst they are freezing the income of people like Wendy. Whilst they are cutting penalty rates, they are giving the biggest businesses in Australia a tax cut. If you earn more than $180,000 a year, you will get a tax cut under the Turnbull government's budget priorities. These large corporations that they wish to give a tax cut to include the big four Australian banks. Yes, believe it or not, they want to give a tax cut to the big four Australian banks. Don't those big banks need a leg up! Don't they deserve a handout from the government in these difficult times! Aren't these big banks struggling to make ends meet and they need a tax cut from the government! Let's look at how the big banks have been performing over recent years. Let's look at the top of the list, the CBA, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. They made $9.45 billion in profit last year. They are the people who, over the course of the last couple of years, brought us the CommInsure scandal, where they ripped off hundreds of thousands of customers on their insurance. They are the ones who brought us the financial planning scandal, where they ended up having to review the files of literally tens of thousands of their customers because some of their planners had been ripping them off and forging documents. That is the Commonwealth Bank, with a profit of $9.45 billion. And then there is NAB. They made a cash profit of $6.48 billion, and what were they involved in? They recently sacked 41 of their planners for ripping off their customers and they recently paid back $14.5 million to customers for ripping them off. Then we go to Westpac. They made a cash profit of $7.82 billion and they recently had a banker who was jailed for forging signatures and falsifying documents and they had to refund 10,600 customers for charging them for insurance that they did not need. All of these banks had planners who had to be reported to ASIC and have been sacked. Three of them are being prosecuted for manipulating the bank bill swap rate. And, believe this or not, with all of these scandals, not one executive of the big four banks has bitten the bullet or has got the sack for any of these scandals. They are the people that the Turnbull government want to give a tax cut to, but they want to make people like Wendy pay a lot more. It says everything about the budget priorities of this government. Is it any wonder you cannot get your budget through the Senate? Is it any wonder that the Labor Party is opposed to reforms such as those that you are proposing. People like Wendy have the ear of the Labor Party. We listen to people like Wendy and we will defend people like Wendy. (Time expired) 15:59 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise today to speak about the budgetary success of our government. Before I talk about that, I want to speak about Wendy in the member for Kingsford-Smith's electorate. Isn't Wendy lucky that she was not confronting the sorts of cuts that Labor made—$23 billion in family tax benefit A and B over six years! This is an example of the unprincipled action that we are seeing from the Labor Party. What an absolute joke. Poor Wendy! We are investing record amounts in health and education and, if you consider our childcare reforms, we are standing up for those who earn the least, providing people who earn $65,000 or less with an 85 per cent subsidy. I say to Wendy, 'You are very fortunate that you are not living under a Labor federal government.' They trashed our economy, they trashed our budget, they drove up the debt and the deficit and now they are not working in the national interest with the government— Mr Husic 91219 Like you did when you were in opposition? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Chifley! Ms HENDERSON ZN4 to maintain our AAA rating. The Labor Party do not care about the budget. They do not care about this economy. They do not care about a AAA rating. All they do— Mr Irons interjecting— Ms HENDERSON ZN4 As the member for Swan has said, they do whatever it takes. The biggest challenge that we confront as a government in running the economy is members opposite. We heard the member for Rankin talk about 'slaying them' in reference to the member for Deakin's contribution. Talking about slaying them, he was the architect of four surpluses that were never delivered! Four surpluses promised by the member for Lilley when he was the Treasurer were never delivered. It was an absolute shocker, and the Labor Party went to the last election promising $16 billion more in deficit than our government. Mr Howarth 247742 Economic geniuses! Ms HENDERSON ZN4 As the member for Petrie has said, they are economic geniuses! Our national economic plan is underpinned by a determination to grow jobs and to build a stronger economy. And what have we done? We have introduced multinational tax avoidance and diverted profits tax bills. I refer to the member for Fenner. Even if I accept the member for Fenner's proposition, the fact of the matter is that this is an example of where the Labor Party have been disgraceful in their hypocrisy. Mr Husic 91219 Another example? Ms HENDERSON ZN4 There are plenty more to come. The hypocrisy goes as far as the eye can see. The fact is the Labor Party opposed our efforts to combat multinational tax avoidance, which, in this year alone, are going to deliver a $2 billion saving, as forecast by the ATO. The Labor Party has stood in the way of delivering $2 billion in savings. Even the Greens were more economically responsible than Labor! The Labor Party does not have the guts or the courage to support us on the policies that it knows will deliver savings. Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Kingsford-Smith is out of his place. If he wants to speak on the next bill, he will be silent. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 We stand up for this economy. The Labor Party has a responsibility to act responsibly in the national interest. At every single turn, the Labor Party is wrecking this economy and our government's efforts to rein in the budget and to run the economy responsibly. Consider also our efforts to cut corporate tax rates. In the UK it is 20 per cent, in Canada it is 26.5 per cent, in the US it is now going down to 15 per cent. The Labor Party previously supported corporate tax cuts. It said it was a Labor thing. The only thing that is a Labor thing is hypocrisy. The only thing that is a Labor thing is a focus— Mr Keogh interjecting— Ms Henderson ZN4 I will take the interjection. Why am I so angry? I am angry. We are all angry. Do you know what? The Labor Party is so reckless that it opposes $5 billion of its own savings. We are trying to run this government and this economy responsibly. Do you know why we are angry? We are dealing with the worst opposition ever. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating would be ashamed of the pathetic standards that we see from this Labor Party. We are focused on jobs and a strong economy, and Labor should start operating in the national interest. Mr Husic 91219 You should have been here in 2010! The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Chifley can leave under 94(a). He has had at least four warnings. He was already under warning from question time. The member for Chifley then left the chamber. 16:04 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand As my colleagues have noted, yesterday, while justifying his stripping away of workers' rights in the form of penalty rate cuts, the Prime Minister stated that his government is delivering the economic growth that Australia deserves. Really? Does Australia deserve an economy growing below trend? Does Australia deserve high unemployment and record high job losses? Does Western Australia deserve to be ripped off again by an outdated and unjustifiable GST distribution system? The Prime Minister screamed today in question time that he was doing his best for Australians. If this is his best, I would hate to see him on a bad day! Really, Prime Minister? If this is your best, try harder. Really, do better. We hear the jobs and growth mantra all the time. Here is a simple fact for Mr Turnbull: there are fewer full-time jobs than there were a year ago. It is not really growth, is it. There are 1.1 million Australians out there looking for jobs to support their families, and they cannot find them because they are not there. Is this really what our Prime Minister thinks Australians deserve? This government is supporting the slashing of take-home pay for everyday Australians while, at the same time, it is prepared to shell out a $50 billion handout for big business. It is hard to tell if the Treasurer is going to go through with it; he is not able to give anyone a straight answer. He has been asked 12 times in the media recently about their big, bold plans for jobs and growth—their corporate handout, that is—and, now, he cannot promise it. What the Treasurer has promised, however, is an increase in the GST—perhaps so Western Australians can pay more to send their money over the Nullarbor! In February last year, the Treasurer declared he could convince Australians that he should increase the GST. Although I would like to see how he would do that—and I would like to see him try—he cannot even convince his own party to back his ideas or to back him personally, for that matter. The Treasurer has been rolled by the party room on negative gearing reform. The cornerstone of his economic policy, the corporate handout, probably will not survive the budget. But, really, who can tell? The handout was a failure from the outset. It was never part of a comprehensive tax reform. It endangers Australia's AAA credit rating and even the big four banks are questioning the benefits of the policy. That's right: even the Prime Minister's banker friends have lost faith in his government's ability to drive Australia's economy, as have we all. This Prime Minister and Treasurer are also standing by the penalty rate cuts—they do it again and again. It will mean some of Australia's lowest paid workers, who rely on Sunday penalty rates, will take home $77 a week less. How does the Treasurer expect the economy to lift when people have less disposable income? As we know, the net debt has this year blown out to $317 billion. We have lost our AAA credit rating in Western Australia, due to the incompetent Liberal government, and we are looking down the barrel of the same fate for the rest of this country. This is the Prime Minister's and Treasurer's Australia, where you do not deserve an opportunity to work, you do not deserve the opportunity to own your own home and you do not deserve to be paid a fair wage for a fair day's work. I am looking forward to getting home for a few weeks, but I am also looking forward to getting back here in May to see what kind of budget this government is going to deliver. I am looking forward to seeing whether the Turnbull government has paid attention to the voters of Western Australia. As we all know, this government has recklessly and ruthlessly threatened withdrawal $1.2 billion of infrastructure funding—yes, they really have done that. This funding needs to be directed to job-creating, economy-building infrastructure projects such as Metronet and, very importantly, the funds need to go to developing a plan for a new outer harbour in Kwinana. It is a long-term nation-building project that will create much-needed jobs and economic opportunities for the people living in local communities across Brand and across Western Australia, and will provide further economic opportunities for the nation. It would help grow the local state economy and the national economy, which the Liberals have manifestly failed to do at all levels of government. Despite the benefits of this project, despite the new jobs, despite the calls from industry to support it, this federal government does not seem to understand that it is necessary infrastructure. They are not interested in it. They cobbled it together for the hopeless 2014 budget and they really need to pay attention and get interested quickly. I hope we see some commitment for it in the upcoming budget. The government fails the economy of Western Australia with its disregard for staggering unemployment figures. In the north of Brand, in the suburb of Parmelia in Kwinana, where I was born, we have seen growth in unemployment from an already shocking level of 15.2 per cent in the December 2015 quarter to 17.7 per cent in the December quarter of 2016. It is a massive increase of 2.5 per cent in a single year from an already high level of unemployment. This government has failed the people of Western Australia and has certainly failed the people of Kwinana and of Parmelia. I hope we will do better in this budget. I look forward to seeing whether it will cut— (Time expired) 16:10 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Those opposite have failed continually on the economy and they have failed continually when they were in government. If they ever return to the Treasury benches their plans for the economy will smash it again. These are the people who took a position of having $50 billion in the bank and turned it into $200 billion of debt—that is quite a feat. One in 10 manufacturing jobs were lost under their appalling economic stewardship and we saw a loss of confidence in the Australian economy, without precedent. So we were in an extraordinarily bad situation under the previous Labor government. Let's look at some of the proposals that they have before us. It is good to see the member for Fenner here, because he might be able to illuminate how this one works, because we all know he is a very thoughtful fellow and an author of some repute. I would really appreciate an interjection on this topic. One of the tremendously bad tax policies that those opposite have is to increase capital gains tax on everything by 50 per cent. You ask: what is the theme of that policy? Would you say that that is a business tax increase theme. But they describe it as a housing affordability policy. If it is a housing affordability policy you would think it would be related to housing. But if you look into their policy—and I am really looking for the member for Fenner to illuminate why this is the case—it applies to farms, to factories in regional towns, and to any investment to which capital gains tax currently applies, but you will be required to pay 50 per cent more tax. It would be tremendous to see a personal explanation from the member for Fenner on this extraordinarily complicated thing that is hard for people to understand, to explain how it helps housing affordability to increase tax by 50 per cent on someone who invests in a farm in rural Queensland. How does that work? I am not hearing any response on this. I would really appreciate it, because I am genuinely confused on this topic. The other good one is that they think a big business is one that has $2.1 million in revenue. Do you know what I think? I think that they think revenue and profit are the same thing. I think they think that if you have $2.1 million in revenue that means you are making $2.1 million. Do you know what? It doesn't actually mean that. In fact, many small businesses in Australia have very small operating profit margins—it might be five per cent. Five per cent is very standard. So let's imagine you are turning over $2.1 million and you are making five per cent on turnover. Do you know what you are making? About $100,000, which is not much more than the average full-time wage. Those opposite say that that is a big evil corporation that should not be provided with any tax relief. That is just an extraordinary proposal—that a business making $100,000 profit is a big business that should not be provided with any tax relief. It is quite extraordinary. My other favourite is the superannuation policy they took to the last election. This was the secret economic policy. They said: we are going to save exactly the same amount as the government—and this is a hard one because it has already happened, so it is hard for the member for Fenner to help us on this—but we are not going to tell you how. We are not going to tell you what our superannuation policy is. We know exactly how much it will save but we do not actually know what it is. That again is kind of a novel approach to policy making. Ninety per cent of Australians work in the private sector. Hardly anyone opposite has ever had a full-time job in the private sector. That is a reality. Ms Madeleine King interjecting—Oh, come on! Mr COLEMAN 241067 No, we can do the numbers. I would be very happy to go through it. A very small proportion of those opposite have had full-time jobs in the private sector, and that is an extremely big problem for people who would purport to say that they can run the economy. Under this government we have the fastest economic growth in the G7—2.4 per cent. We have economic problems internationally but strong economic performance in Australia. We have taken on this extraordinary burden of debt that those opposite left us, with $24 billion of budget repair. Importantly, we have delivered income tax cuts for hardworking Australians on average incomes. They think a small business earning $100,000 is a big evil corporation. We think that that is the sort of organisation that should be absolutely supported. We are about growing the economy. Those opposite do not understand how to grow the economy. Their record is appalling and it is so important that they are not given the opportunity to implement their terrible policies. Debate adjourned. BILLS 68 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017 68

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017

Returned from Senate 68 Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 68

Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 68 16:15 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga 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 the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 16:15 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith As I was saying before the break, I do support the amendment, and Labor will vote against this bill, because it will increase poverty in Australia. By freezing family tax benefits you are making the most vulnerable in our community worse off. Schedule 1 of this bill freezes for three years the income-free areas for working-age and student payments, Newstart, youth allowance, the parenting payment and the carer payment. This means that for these people their payments will not keep pace with the cost of living. This will impact 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes. These people have no wiggle room in their household incomes. When their car breaks down, they struggle to find money to fix it. They do not holiday, and a night out at a restaurant or a movie is really a luxury for people in these circumstances. The threshold after which the parenting payment is reduced is $188 per fortnight. For Newstart it is $102 per fortnight. There is no rationale for this three-year freeze. In my community not one week goes by where people do not talk to me about housing affordability and whether or not their kids are going to be able to afford to live in the community that they grew up in. House prices are going through the roof, and rents are doing the same, so the cost of living for people in our community is increasing at a dramatic rate, yet the approach of this government through this bill is to freeze the incomes of the weakest, most vulnerable and poorest in our community. This bill will make life difficult for many more of those. Schedule 3 extends the waiting periods for those people accessing the parenting payment and youth allowance by one week while amending the current severe financial hardship provisions to a 'personal financial crisis' exemption. This is a truly harsh and heartless change with no discernible policy rationale at all. Schedule 4 of the bill freezes the indexation rate for family tax benefits part A and part B for two years from 1 July 2017. The impact will be significant on those families that rely on family tax benefits to get by. A family on $60,000 with two primary-school-age children will be around $440 worse off in 2018-19. A single parent on $50,000 with two high-school children will be around $540 worse off in 2018-19. A single-income couple on $60,000 with three children under the age of 12 will be $600 worse off in 2018-19. It affects about 1.5 million families in Australia that will be worse off, and 600,000 of these families are on the maximum rate of FTB-A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 a year. But, as I said earlier, at the same time, the government is proposing a five per cent tax cut over the course of the decade for the largest multinational businesses in Australia, with turnovers of over $1 billion, and they include the big four banks. It completely represents just how out of touch this government are and the fact that they have their priorities all wrong when it comes to this budget and this legislation. Even when indexation resumes, this cut will mean that, into the future, families will be receiving less each year than they would have been. This reform puts them behind the eight ball, and they can never catch up, particularly as, as the Reserve Bank of Australia and the government's own Treasury have been forecasting, inflation is set to increase in Australia over the course of this year. It is astonishing to note that this bill is actually a 2014 budget measure. This is something that was chewed up and spat out by the Australian public the first time, and yet the government keeps bringing it back. They keep bringing these dodgy 2014 budget measures back, and this is further proof that Malcolm Turnbull is just Tony Abbott in a more expensive suit. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member will refer— Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 The Prime Minister is just the member for Warringah in a more expensive suit—thank you, Deputy Speaker. Schedule 2 of the bill relates to the automation of income stream review processes. This is a measure that we welcome, and one that will improve the accuracy and efficiency of the social security system and reduce the regulatory burden on income stream providers and recipients of social security payments. From 1 January 2018 a six-monthly electronic data collection process will be introduced for income stream information from financial service providers. Recently we have seen just how disastrous things can be when the social security system is not running at its best. Many in my community that I represent—as I am sure is the case for many other MPs in this place—got in touch with me to express their worry, concern and dismay at the letters that they had received from Centrelink which claimed that they owed money, but the debts that were owed were actually inaccurate and grossly overestimated. This proved deeply upsetting for many, and it is something that this government should do all it can to ensure never happens again. A more regular and accurate reporting system is a good place to start. The bulk of the measures in this bill, unfortunately, will leave many hundreds of thousands of Australians worse off, particularly through the family tax benefit freezes. It is hard to believe that the government would resurrect measures from their disastrous first budget, which really, in retrospect, led to the member for Warringah being deposed by the current Prime Minister on the basis of poor economic management. But here we are, with these unfair cuts coming up again and again. This government's priorities are enshrined in this bill. They are the wrong priorities. They attack the weak, the vulnerable and the poorest in our community, yet at the same time the government offers tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals in Australia and the largest businesses, with turnovers of more than a billion dollars. That tells you everything about this government's twisted budget priorities, and that is why I and my Labor colleagues are opposed to this reform. 16:23 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which, quite frankly, is a rotten piece of legislation that attacks Australian families and those already struggling to get by, especially in my electorate of Lindsay. I note that it was only last week that I spoke in this place about the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill, which has been reworked into the bill presented without notice, all thanks to and courtesy of a dirty deal with the crossbenchers in the Senate, namely the Nick Xenophon Team, One Nation and Derryn Hinch—apparently the people who were elected to this place to stand up against the major parties like us for everyday Australians. Well, I am not sure how they define sticking up for people, but this certainly is not it. And I must say honourable mention goes to Jacqui Lambie for her personal account of what it is like to live in the real world and rely on support. As someone who, as a parliamentarian, has given a personal account of life in reality, I commend her on her brave contribution. What this bill proves yet again is that this unfair Liberal government is incapable of standing up for ordinary Australians. In this bill, we see $1.4 billion being ripped away from Australian families who are already doing it tough—leaving 1.5 million families worse off. Mr Khalil 101351 Shameful! Ms HUSAR 263328 It freezes the rates of family tax benefit A and B for two years—and, when you consider the rising cost of living around this country, the fact is this measure will hurt families who can least afford it. It is not right and it should not be happening, and those responsible for it should absolutely hang their heads in shame. Labor has time and time again stood up for Australian families against the Liberal government's attacks, ever since the shocking 2014 budget. The government prove day after day that they have an ideological obsession with taking money from people who are struggling so that they can hand huge sums of money to their big business mates. The family tax benefit measures contained within the bill are actually from the 2014 budget. It is unbelievable to think that this government is still trying to pass elements of that unpopular and unfair failure of a budget—a budget that was so unjust that it led to the downfall of a Prime Minister and his Treasurer. And, with the credit ratings agencies circling, the pressure for this government to be responsible could not be more urgent. Mr Khalil interjecting— Mr Pasin interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Wills and the member for Barker! Ms HUSAR 263328 I might remind the member for Barker that no government members are speaking on this, and he had ample opportunity, if he had something to say, to add himself to the speakers list. But here we are again—and every single Liberal and National Party member is about to vote to cut $1.4 billion from 1.5 million families. This is not fiscal responsibility; this is lazy policy from an incompetent mob who would rather see people go without than solve the real problems. There are 600,000 families who are currently receiving the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A, which means their entire household income is less than $52,000 each year. These are real people struggling to get by as it is, and this unfair Liberal government is reaching into their pocket and making them worse off. They are pitting vulnerable people against other vulnerable people. It is unconscionable and unAustralian. And it goes to show that those opposite do not understand how hard it can be for low-income families. As the shadow minister for families and social services mentioned earlier, this measure was originally opposed by Labor following the 2014 budget, so the Liberals withdrew the legislation and took it out of their next budget. Now, without notice, and following the dirty deal I mentioned earlier with the Senate crossbench, here we are again, fighting to protect low-income families from this unfair government, fighting to stop unfair cuts that will make life harder for families that are already doing it tough. And, looking at the speakers list today, it is absolutely unsurprising to see that not a single government member is willing to get up and defend these changes—not one single one. Mr Khalil 101351 Gutless! Shameful! Ms HUSAR 263328 They are happy to vote for the changes, but not one of them is prepared to defend them, because they know they are simply unfair. Well, I think that if you are happy to vote to rip away $1.4 billion from low-income families, have the guts to stand up and say why. And, if you cannot defend it, do not support it. Stand up for the families in your own electorates and vote no. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Lindsay will resume her seat. The member for Barker? Mr Pasin 240756 I would ask the member opposite to withdraw the reference reflecting on a member. I think you should withdraw the word 'gutless'. You might have to move back to your seat to do it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Barker raises a good point. I heard that. The member for Wills is very lucky that he has not been asked to leave, because he is out of his place. I request that he remain silent and, if he does not, he will be leaving under 94(a). I call the member for Lindsay. Ms HUSAR 263328 If you cannot defend it—and we just had a pathetic showing from the member for Barker—do not support it. Stand up for families in your own electorate and vote no. Recognise and understand that these families deserve more support, not less. You do not fix the problems that stem from poverty by taking more money away from people who actually need it. It is not rocket science. Mr Pasin interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Barker will be silent. Ms HUSAR 263328 But we know already that the Prime Minister and those Liberals on the opposite side of the chamber will not stand up for low-income families, because their track record is one of cruel cuts and shameful decisions. But, in this particular case, I think it is pretty telling that there are no government MPs here to defend these cuts—only to sit opposite and throw slurs. Another element of this bill is a three-year freeze on the income-free area for all working age and student payments by the Commonwealth government. This means that, for three years, the income tests applying to payments for single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the rising costs of living. We already know that many of these payments are incredibly difficult to survive on now. And we know the current thresholds are very low, too low. But these changes will make it even more difficult for the 204,000 Australians affected, because it means their income thresholds will effectively reduce over time, leading to an effective cut in their purchasing power if they are earning a small amount of income. It does not make sense to hurt these people. This measure will do nothing to lift people up and it will do nothing to encourage and support the poorest people to build a better life for themselves. Labor will not be supporting this measure. Similarly, we will not be supporting the measure that introduces a one-week waiting period before people can access parenting payments or youth allowance. Again, this measure simply does not make sense. It is just bad, lazy policy from a bad, lazy government. The only reason the government is introducing this waiting period is to save money and—instead of getting tax-dodging multinationals to do the heavy lifting, instead of hitting up the big banks that continue to rort their customers, instead of scaling back their unfair big business tax cut—they decide to save money by taking a week's pay from the poorest of the poor in Australia. It is absolutely astonishing. Senator Jacqui Lambie, as I mentioned earlier, spoke passionately last week about the realities of living on welfare. And that speech hit home, to more people than you can know—to many, many people, because they know that that is the reality and it is clear for all to see that this government has no idea how tough some people are doing it. They do not know and they do not want to, because ignorance is bliss. For someone who has also relied on welfare, the stigma and relentless shaming of this government of those people is cruel and unnecessary, and we see it time and time again from this government. The lifters and leaners, poor people who do not own a car or the simplistic comments of a simple Prime Minister who says: 'Get rich parents;' whether it's the 700,000 low-paid workers having their penalty rates ripped away or the 330,000 pensioners who are worse off after this government changed the pension asset test, or the various other cuts this government spruiks day after day—they are always targeting those who can least afford it. This measure is just one more example of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's clear disregard for those struggling to make ends meet. As the member for Jagajaga noted in her contribution, these unfair cuts come at a time when inequality is at a 75-year high in Australia. Company profits are at record levels; wages growth is at record lows. The widening gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger in Australia, and the rich just keep on getting richer, and those in the middle and towards the bottom are missing out on the growing wealth of our nation. We need a government that will address this problem and ensure there is a little fairness in the system. Instead, we have got a government that actively punishes those at the bottom, while gloating about a $50 billion big business tax cut that will hand $7 billion straight to the big four banks. Not to mention that this will add $4 billion to the interest and the budget bottom line. For people so obsessed with the debt and deficit, obviously, they cannot get their accounting department right. And, in hurting 1.5million families, they cannot even front up to the chamber to defend their decisions. It is weak and it is poor leadership—and the people out there are getting tired of this unfair, arrogant government. Now there is one element of this bill that we have said we will support, and it wasn't tied to the unfair cuts contained throughout this amendment. It is a straightforward measure that will automate the process of collecting income stream information for social security recipients, improving the accuracy and efficiency of the social security system and reducing the regulatory burden on income stream providers. This measure would potentially help avoid another robo-debt disaster by providing a more regular and accurate reporting system. Labor has made it clear to the government that this measure would enjoy our support, if it was separated from the unfair elements of this bill. This shows that Labor has its priorities right and that this government is proving, yet again, that they have their priorities wrong. Now all of these unfair cuts are being rammed through this parliament at a rapid rate so the government can pay for their childcare changes. Well, we believe in child care and we believe in supporting working men and women, but we do not believe that increased support for child care should cost the poorest Australians through the nose by pitting people who need our help against other people who are vulnerable. Sadly, that is this government's default position. This bill is plainly unfair, and we will not be supporting it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Before I call the member for Indi, I just remind the member for Wills that he is not in his own seat when he is making interjections. He should make sure he is silent at that particular time. 16:33 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi    I rise in the House today to say that I will not be supporting the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and to outline my reasons why. In doing so, just to put on the record, I do get the budget emergency argument but I do not get cruelty, I do not get inefficiency and I do not think we are being our best selves with this particular bit of legislation. There are clear reasons for me deciding not to support this legislation that go to the heart of balancing social justice with the need for the government to make savings. We pride ourselves on providing support for those in need. We, as a nation, must ensure that the safety net is maintained for the most vulnerable, even when the government takes action to seek the savings necessary to balance its budget. I believe the cuts proposed by government have the potential to impact significantly negatively on benefit recipients within my electorate, including the 20,231 aged pensioners and 32,024 pensioners with a concession card. These measures rely on increasing incomes to make the savings. They potentially increase red tape, in allowing more regular updating of pay rates. They set a waiting period for additional payments and they set a waiting period for all pauses in indexation for two years, reducing the cost over the forwards of the compounding indexation. In my electorate, there are more than 10,000 families who receive tax benefit A; 8,000 families who receive tax benefit B; nearly 500 who receive the partnered parenting payment; nearly 1,800 who receive single parenting payment; more than 9,000 who have a health care card; 2,700 have a low-income card; 4,500 are on a Newstart allowance; more than 20,000 receive the aged pension; and over 32,000 have a pensioner concession card. Without good argument—and I will be referring to the budget argument later on—I will not support legislation that leaves those in my community worse off. I will not support legislation that makes life more difficult for those who are already disadvantaged. The changes proposed by the government are tinkering around the edges at an issue that requires a holistic approach. Good policy should not result in further inefficiencies for either the government or the recipients. Social services are often looked at as a series of welfare payments. But social services should not just be a time and place mechanism; they should act as a safety net with compassion at its core. I am worried we have lost the compassion in the development of our social policy. Compassion is frequently referenced as a reason for policy, but it is frequently left out of the equation when it comes to implementation. I believe these measures increase red tape. They will set a waiting period for additional payments, and the setting of a waiting period for all pauses in indexation for two years does not show compassion. In 2015 the government released the final report of the McClure review of Australia's welfare system—A new system for better employment and social outcomes. And, while some might call it semantics, the title of the report gives us a clear indication of where the government's focus lies: better employment. I believe the focus of social welfare, before anything else, should be about better social outcomes. Better employment will come as a result of better social outcomes. A person's employment status or unemployment status cannot be looked at in isolation. Employment security is one of our greatest challenges, but, sadly, having a job for life no longer exists. The workforce has been undergoing a massive transformation over the past three decades, and currently the average Australian stays with one employer for just three years and four months. If this plays out in the lifetime of a school leaver today, it means that they will have 17 separate employers in their lifetime. People are used to moving on, but the big shift we are seeing now is that there is no longer just one job for life; there is not even a career or an industry for life. People will be changing employers, professions and industries and retraining as they go. Nowhere is the challenge of employment security felt more than in regional Australia, and no group feels it more than the young people. I believe the government should not be looking at welfare payments as a short-term cost but rather as a long-term investment, particularly when directed towards investment in our young people. Young Australians living outside the capital cities and other major urban population centres encounter a number of challenges that are not normally part of the everyday experience of young people living in metropolitan areas. These challenges include obtaining access to suitable and appropriate health and welfare services, education and training, paid employment, economic stability and recreational opportunities. In rural areas there are fewer employment opportunities, with far fewer career options, and household incomes are lower on average than those for people living in our cities. Regional employment and training opportunities can be scarce, and last week's release of the youth unemployment rate of 13.3 per cent for my electorate has shown that there has been little change in this number over the past 30 years. We have a severe problem with unemployment. When people are working between jobs we absolutely need the social safety net to catch them, look after them and propel them forward to the next step. Making it a punishment, making them feel ashamed, making them feel embarrassed does not do what we want it to do. Our safety net system should have an adequate payment system based on need that encourages people to prepare for and seek work where it is reasonable to do so. It should support people who are unable to work. It should feature fair returns from work, individualised requirements for participation in the workforce and support services that build individual and family capacity. It should give people a sense of security so that they are able to fully participate in the community. But that is not what is happening. Our approach to social services results in people falling through the cracks, having to compete against one another and compete against the system. Let me tell you a story about one of my constituents. Let me call her RB. I know RB well. In my previous life as a teacher, she was one of my students. I have watched her growth and development and I can assure the House that she is a woman of great integrity and great responsibility. In her middle age she suffers from chronic illnesses; however, she was unable to obtain her disability pension card for some time because she was earning just above the threshold. Having the card made all the difference, even while pension payments were minimal because of her partner's income. But following a small increase in her partner's income RB lost her pension card. In her words: … losing the card meant my health costs went up substantially, and that's not allowing for dental and optical as well. But perhaps more significantly it means my sense of independence and my self-esteem has suffered immensely and the burden on our relationship was also increased substantially. Sadly, she is not alone, and her experience is not particular to those receiving the disability pension. The experience of loss of independence and self-esteem is an experience that is felt by so many people relying on the government to support them when they are most in need. It should not be a punishment. I want to remind the government that this is what happens when the design of a policy to help those most in need, those most disadvantaged and those on the margins is driven by economics and not by compassion or fairness. We can and we should have both. We need compassion, we need fairness and we need economic outcomes. I believe as a nation we are capable of combining all of these together. When we try to make it either/or we are less than our best selves. The need to balance the budget is not lost on me. I am a farmer and a businesswoman. I run my own household and I have degree with a major in economics. I understand macro- and microeconomics and I would like to work with the government to identify budget savings. There is no shortage of this discussion in our office. I understand the need for fiscal responsibility—but not at any cost and definitely not at the cost of those most in need. We have heard from Senator Jacqui Lambie the very personal stories of what it is like to be reliant on government support, of the personal toll when complex requirements means having to move between different providers and the very direct impact this has not only on individuals but their families and how this invariably leads people to fall through the cracks, often taking their family with them—and I have to say, if there was one question I heard repeated over and over again last weekend, it was: 'Cathy, did you hear Senator Lambie?' 'Cathy, did you hear Senator Lambie?' 'Cathy, what are you going to do about what she said? She's right you know. She's got it.' I would like today to take a step back and take a moment to talk about how my electorate sees how government can take a leading role in providing support. I would like to include in the budget some thoughts from the kitchen table conversations that we held in the Indi electorate in 2015. Kitchen table conversations was a process that involved over 600 people coming together, talking in small groups about their vision for their community, about the role for an elected representative and the issues they were facing. It was then followed by the Indi summit, which was a community-led initiative that engaged people in shaping their future by encouraging them to share and develop their ideas. It was an opportunity that allowed members to create a vision, to show leadership, to raise issues that were important to them and then for them to talk about the solutions. The idea was: government is not like some knight on a white charger that is going to come over the hill and resolve our problems—we know that that is not possible—so what do we need to do in our communities to resolve our own problems, and, given that I am the elected representative, what was the message that I could take from the Indi summit to Canberra? I was told: early intervention to reduce disadvantage, including targeted programs to address and manage issues such as violence, poverty and homelessness; support for programs that focus on early intervention to reduce disadvantage—programs that break the cycle of disadvantage by reducing homelessness and domestic violence; policies that change the mindsets and relationships between government agencies, local government, community groups, volunteers and citizens from 'doing to' to 'doing with'. The people in my community—just as Jacqui Lambie outlined so well—want to be part of the solution. They are very keen to move themselves to another and better place and to get a job to earn enough money to have the status and recognition that brings. They want to be part of the solution. They do not want to be done to. They do not want to be seen as numbers in the system or playthings for the government and the budget to balance one against the other by taking from Peter to give to Paul. In talking to the government about this, there is an enormous willingness in my electorate to work together. There is no shortage of discussion about how we could do this better, how we could make savings, how we could make the social security system work better and be more efficient and how we could target it better. In our rural communities, people understand that it needs to be targeted. You cannot have one size fits all; otherwise, you get a blanket approach and people get benefits who clearly should not be getting them. Rural communities see that and they understand it, so there is no shortage of opportunity to say to the government, 'We could work with you on this.' But, really, really importantly, we need to have early intervention that reduces disadvantage so that we are not paying huge costs at the other end, and we must do something about local poverty and homelessness. In bringing my comments to a close, I call on the government to provide leadership in social investment; investment encased in welfare support that builds confident, strong, vibrant and resilient communities. It is resilient communities that have the confidence and the skill to build local frameworks that provide local support in the face of adversity and times of need. My final comment is about a conversation I had in my office as I was getting ready for this speech. We were talking about a systems approach to disadvantage rather than a reductionist approach. A systems approach would recognise that schools, hospitals, GPs, churches, local members of parliament, service groups and a whole-of-community approach have a role to provide the infrastructure to support and encourage people and lift them on their way. To the government, the minister and the relevant people: come and talk to us in rural communities. We have no shortage of ideas. We definitely want to be part of the solution both in balancing the budget, so that more money can come back to our communities for infrastructure, and for providing people with pride, confidence and the courage they need to live the lives they want in the places they want to live them. 16:47 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I want to put on the record concerns from people in my electorate who this bill will have an impact on. People in regional communities will be hit very hard by measures in this bill. Zombie cuts are back. They are again a tax on those in our community who are the most vulnerable. In my electorate, over the last five years, we have talked a lot about hidden poverty, about the people who are slowly going under because their household income is stuck or falling yet the cost of living is increasing. On a daily basis, we hear from welfare organisations about a 40 per cent increase in people seeking help—organisations like the Salvation Army, Uniting Care in Kangaroo Flat and Forest Street Bendigo and St Vincent de Paul in Bendigo, whether supporting people with food relief, rent assistance or getting the car fixed—who are struggling to survive. This bill and the cuts before us will only make it worse. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the member for Indi's comments. I hope members of the government and other regional MPs were listening to some of the recommendations that she put forward and also listening to some of the stories she put forward about the experiences of people in her electorate. These are real people who are really struggling in our regional towns. These are towns where it is not just one person; in some cases, it is entire neighbourhoods that need support right now. The member for Indi talked about the social welfare net and the importance of having a strong social welfare net so that people do not collapse into dire poverty that then affects their lives going forward. These are the experiences of people in my own electorate. I held a listening post not that long ago at the front of Coles in Bendigo. A single mum approached me. She said, 'Lisa, I need help. I am struggling with Centrelink. I am caught up in the review system. I do not know how I am going to pay my rent this week. Who should I speak to? I have almost spent my entire family tax benefit payment that I received after the last tax year. How do I pay for food next week? How do I get my son to and from school and to his appointments next week?' She had moved to Bendigo under tragic circumstances, which a lot of people find themselves in. It is a family break-up and she is without any support or any money. She is in that situation where she is most in need. She has skills herself. She has multiple degrees. She is out there trying to look for work but right now needs our support. This government is not there for her. It is very lucky for this particular individual that Max at Uniting Care Bendigo was able to help. The Bendigo community reached out and supported this family in my electorate to make sure that they did not go under, they were not evicted from their home and the children could go to school with lunches. We have a situation in Bendigo where children are not sent to school because mum or dad cannot afford to buy lunches, because all of their money is going towards rent. We talk about rent stress in this country and it is a real issue, yet the measures in this bill are going to make it even harder for people to survive going forward. We have inequality in this country at a 75-year high. What does that mean? Households in this country are struggling to survive. More and more people are being evicted, more and more people are being forced to live in their cars and more and more people are just dropping out of our system. They are not productive in our economy, they cannot get the hours that they need at work and, therefore, they are literally going under. This is a hidden poverty problem that has now become a stark reality for so many people. In my own electorate of Bendigo, about 30 per cent of households are trying to survive on less than $600 a week and many families will be caught up in this government's cruel measures that we are now debating in this House. The two measures that I particularly wish to highlight are indexation and the family tax benefit—first of all, the freezing of the income indexation threshold for people of all working ages and for students. This includes Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment and carers payment. This will affect about 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes, including a lot of people who live in regional electorates. These are people living on very low incomes. The threshold has been frozen when it is already incredibly low. As an example, parenting payment will reduce after a person earns $188 a fortnight. For Newstart, it is $102 a fortnight. There is no rationale for freezing these thresholds for three years. It is the income test. I do not understand why a government, when somebody is earning money and wants to work more hours, would not let the income threshold increase. These are people who are trying to survive on low wages and earn a bit extra. If their wages increase, what they can earn before they lose their payment should also go up. All the government is doing is taking away the incentive for people to work and locking them into poverty. I believe we have to go the other way. I believe that we need to start looking at increasing the income threshold to encourage people to work more. It should be celebrated. When somebody is working and we encourage them to work more, yes, they get a bit more of a social welfare net and payment from us, and we should not lock them into poverty by cutting that payment. We should encourage them to earn more. We need to look at increasing the income bank, as we called it in my day, for students so they can build their earning capacity and we can see some of these people lifted up out of poverty. We have a university in my electorate and this is an issue that comes up a lot when I talk to students at the Bendigo La Trobe campus. Young people leave home to move to university, and we joke about it being a rite of passage—when you are a student you survive on two-minute noodles, not that that is a healthy option, a smart option or a government policy we should ever be endorsing. We now have university students seeking food relief help because all of their Newstart and all of their wages are going on the cost of study, which is increasing, and the cost of rent, which is also increasing. Average rents in Bendigo are now $250 per week. When you are on Newstart or youth allowance, it is very hard to make that payment. This is rent in a regional town, let alone the rents in Melbourne. When you have students who are reaching out for food relief, there is a structural problem in our system, and the indexation measures before us around freezing people's capacity to earn are only going to make that harder. The changes to family tax benefit are effectively a cut. A family on $60,000 with two primary school aged children will be about $440 worse off in 2018-19. These are the same parents who have lost their schoolkids bonus. These are the same parents who, if they work in hospitality or retail, have just been hit with a penalty rates cut. Sixty thousand dollars is not a lot of money and it is actually higher than the average income of people in my electorate. A single parent on $50,000 with two children in high school will be about $540 a year worse off in 2018-19. High school is the time in young people's lives when costs start to increase for parents. They do not decrease; they actually increase, particularly in regional areas, where we have a youth unemployment problem. We do not have enough jobs for young people to get involved in and there is a spike in people aged 15 to 19 being unable to get work. We just do not have enough jobs in our region because this government has dropped the ball on job creation. Another example is single income couples on $60,000 with three children under the age of 12. They will be $600 a year worse off. Six hundred dollars makes a big difference to families who are trying to survive on $60,000. It does not go far enough. This is from the same government that, in the budget, is going to let the people at the top end of the scale, the millionaires, basically receive a pay rise. The levy that was in place will cease, so millionaires will basically receive a tax cut of $16,000 or $17,000, while people at the lowest end and the people affected by these changes will be grossly worse off. To a single income couple with three children, $600 is a lot. In the time that I have left, I wish to talk about penalty rates and the impact of the Fair Work Commission decision. We have seen this week from the Australia Institute that there will be a $650 million blow to the budget because of the cut to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers. That is just the beginning. Right now, employers in the beauty and hairdressing industry want the same cut to the wages of their employees. Also, clubs, pubs and hotels are doing exactly the same. So this problem for the government is going to blow out unless they join Labor and back our legislation to protect penalty rates. It is not only going to hurt those workers and lock them into poverty and needing more from our social welfare system; the starting figure for that budget cost, if we do not take action, will be $650 million. Read what the Australia Institute has put out; read it and understand it between now and when we come back for the budget when this parliament resumes. This bill is another cruel attack by this government on the most vulnerable in our community. The government are also attacking hardworking families, people on the lowest of incomes. The government do not seem to understand the impact of these decisions, or they do understand and they just do not care. You can tell that because of the volumes of speakers they have to defend these cuts—not one of their members is willing to get up here and defend these cuts. There are no marginal seat holders standing up and telling the truth. They are happy to heckle but will not engage in the debate. They will not listen to the real stories of how these cuts will affect people. We have so many families close to going under in our own electorates—people who are really struggling, people who might be working full-time, who are going to be hit with a cut to the family tax benefit. These are people working in industries like retail, like horticulture, like food processing. If you work in chicken, if you are lucky enough to be directly employed, you might be able to take home $50,000 a year. You are one of the families that are going to be cut. You work hard in food processing, but it is a minimum wage and you are likely to be affected by these changes. The government needs to start listening to the stories of people in their electorates, particularly those in regional communities. These cuts will hurt families, these cuts will hurt young people and these cuts will hurt our pensioners. This is at a time when the government is also not doing anything to support wages growth and is not doing anything to support increasing employment opportunities. Unemployment in our country is spiking and underemployment in our country is spiking, yet the government are not addressing this. Worse still, through the measures that are before us they are locking people into low household income and locking them into poverty. It is the wrong approach, particularly at this time with the state of the economy and the state of the community and people's living standards. I ask people to vote against this bill. (Time expired) 17:02 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan It is my pleasure today to speak about the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill, because this bill has significance to me and to my electorate, being an electorate that is predominantly in the outer suburbs. Today in question time the Prime Minister was asked to defend low-income earners. He was asked if he believed that big business deserved a $50 billion tax cut while the lowest income earners will continue to suffer. He was asked if he thought it was fair and responsible to increase the minimum wage. On both counts, he could not assure the Australian people that his government actually cared for them or was willing to fight for them. The Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill testifies to this—it testifies to this government's blatant disregard for Australian families and to their relentless attacks on Australian families. I want to start with family payments. The measure under schedule 4 of the bill will freeze indexation of family tax benefits parts A and B for two years, leaving 1.5 million families worse off. The bill will cut $1.4 billion from Australian families. It will freeze family tax benefit rates for two years, meaning that the payments families receive will not keep up with the cost of living and 1.5 million families will be left worse off. Almost 600,000 of these families are on a minimum rate FTB A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 a year. That is not a lot, certainly not in this day and age. The cuts will leave a family on $60,000 with two primary school aged children around $440 worse off in 2018. A single parent on $50,000 with two high school children will be around $540 worse off in 2018-19. I was in one of those families once, and I know what it means to be $540 a year worse off. It does not sound like a lot to me now, at all, but back then, having two boys and trying to raise them on my own and send them to school, I know that that little bit of help that I got with the family tax benefit meant that my children had the books, the uniforms, the shoes and the bags to start the school year every year on time and with the things that they needed to get through that year. And I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I had a roof over my head, I had a means of transport, but, most importantly, I had hope. I had hope of finding a job. Because I was studying and working towards getting a job, I had hope that one day I would be able to provide for my children and that one day I would be able to more easily afford the books, the uniforms, the bags, the pencils and pens and everything that they needed to go to school. I had hope that one day I would be able to pay the mortgage and that one day I would be able to pay for the groceries in full. Sadly in this day and age, with unemployment at a record high in my electorate, many people in my electorate and many people in the outer suburbs do not have that hope. I would like to move on to schedule 3 of the bill, which introduces a one-week waiting period before people can access parenting payment or youth allowance. This one is particularly significant to me. It makes it harder for people who are already in a difficult financial situation to access the financial hardship exemption by requiring that they are also experiencing a personal financial crisis. At the age of 25, I found myself in a very violent marriage. I had a three year old and a one year old. It was the hardest decision that I had to make to leave my violent husband, but it was a decision that needed to be made for the good of myself and my children. I will never forget the day that I walked into that Centrelink office, that building of grey concrete with its harsh lighting and the carpet that had been stepped on by millions of desperate souls before me. I will never forget being told that I would have to wait for my first parenting payment. I had absolutely nothing. I had not a cent to my name, and I did not know how I was going to feed my children for that next week until the parenting payment came through. I will never forget walking out of the building that day, turning the corner, leaning against the harsh concrete wall and breaking down in tears. I will never forget the face of a man approaching me and himself walking into the Centrelink office and wondering whether he saw on my face the shame, humiliation and desperation of what I had just been through. I will never forget those days. The government does not seem to understand that people in these situations, many of them mothers fleeing family violence, are not there to scam the government. We are not criminals. We are there because we have no other choice. Many of the people who seek these kinds of payments are not there out of choice. The very principle of a social security system is that it is there for people who need it. The very principle of it is that the measure of our compassion as a society, the measure of our progress as a society, is how well we look after the most vulnerable in our society. It is that we never leave anyone behind. It is that we ensure that nobody is left in a situation where they are so desperate that they go to desperate means. This is what social security is about. I would like to move on to schedule 1 of the bill, which freezes the income-free areas for all working-age and student payments, meaning that for the three years the income tests applying to payments for parents, job-seekers and students will not keep pace with the cost of living. Again I reiterate the importance of ensuring that payments keep up with the cost of living. While the cost of living increases and wages stay stagnant, there is no chance for economic growth. That is not how you grow an economy. It is not how you grow an economy to give big business $50 billion in tax cuts while you cut the pay of the most vulnerable in our society. It is not how you grow an economy by giving business $50 billion worth of tax cuts while impeding the capacity and ability of people to spend by cutting their wages and freezing their earnings so they do not match the increases in the cost of living. This part of the bill will affect 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes. I will talk again about my situation and my experiences. As a single parent raising my two sons, I was also looking for work at the same time. I was struggling to raise my kids on just $400 a fortnight. I would like everyone to think a bit about that. I would like you to think about how hard it is to try to raise a family on less than a third of what a backbencher gets in travel allowance for four days of sittings. That is pretty much what it amounts to. $400 a fortnight amounts to less than a third of what I get as a backbencher in travel allowance for four days of sitting. I have not forgotten what that is like. I have not forgotten what it is like to stand at the shopping centre counter and return half your shopping because you simply cannot afford it that week. I have not forgotten what it is like to delve through my purse and pick up coins just to be able to afford essentials like milk and bread. I will use every last breath that I have each time I walk through these doors to remind this government that there are people out there in my electorate, and in their electorates, for whom this is not something that they can push into the past—it is part of their everyday reality today. Labor has stood up for Australian families against this government's attacks on families. We will continue to do so. Just bear witness today to the number of people who have stood up to speak about this bill. Our list is endless. On the other side—crickets! Nobody is there to defend their attacks on families. If only just one of them could stand up here today and defend why they think it is okay to consistently attack families, to consistently attack those most vulnerable in our society, to consistently attack those who are so desperate, as I once was, that they have to go into a Centrelink office and take social welfare. We did not want to. We do not want to, but we have to. We rely on our government. It is part of the social cohesion and the trust that everyday Australians have in their government, knowing that their government looks after them, knowing that their government cares for them, knowing that they can trust that when they are in a dire situation, when they are desperate, when they find themselves in a situation that they have absolutely no control over, that their government, the people who they have elected to stand here in this very chamber, will fight for them. I will not stop fighting for those most vulnerable in our community, because I know what it is like from my own experience. I know what it is like from the people who walk into my electorate office every day and tell me how hard it is for them. I will not give up on them, and I implore this government to not give up on them as well. 17:14 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I just want to congratulate the member for Cowan on that speech on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Like her, I know from my own experience what it is like to do it tough. I was prepping for my contribution this afternoon, and as part of that process I was going through my first speech. In my first speech I spoke about the experience of my family—my working class matriarchy, my background: my great-grandmother, in a country house out in the western district of Victoria, bringing up 13 children on her own as a single mother. She was a domestic. She cleaned the properties and washed the clothes of the wealthy in the western district. And she did it very, very tough, bringing up those 13 children on her own as a single mother, cleaning and washing until her hands were red raw. It was a tough life, and there was not much money to go around, particularly with those 13 mouths to feed. And then, to reflect on my grandmother, who I actually did not meet: my grandmother died when she was 54, when I was just six months old. She died of an undiagnosed heart condition, because, like her mother, she was from a very disadvantaged background and lived from week to week, a life of disadvantage and poverty. My grandmother brought seven children up on her own when my grandfather walked out on her when my mother was just born. She brought up those seven kids on her own in a housing commission house in Preston in Victoria. Again, she did it very, very tough. She was also a domestic. She had three cleaning jobs and basically worked around the clock: one job in a hospital, one in a theatre and one in a factory. Those three cleaning jobs kept food on the table. As I said, this poor woman, who worked so hard to keep food on the table for those seven children, bringing them up on her own, died of an undiagnosed heart condition at 54. So, that is another layer of my history where I do have a keen appreciation of what it is like to do it tough. And then there is my mum. My mum left school at 15, dragged kicking and screaming. She was desperate to be educated and acknowledged that education is the great transformer, the great way of breaking that cycle of disadvantage. But unfortunately she had to pay her way, so to speak, and she had to contribute to putting food on the table, so she was dragged kicking and screaming from Preston girls' school and had to go to work at 15. You would have thought that that cycle of disadvantage, that cycle of poverty, that cycle of doing it tough would have ended with my mother and with my sisters and me. But, unfortunately, my father walked out on us when I was 11, and that threw us, too, into a potential cycle of disadvantage and hardship. It was essentially only education that broke that cycle. But I know what it is like to do it tough, because I have done it, and I have a family history of doing it tough, of being born on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak—of being born to a matriarchy of cleaners. When my father walked out of us when I was 11 he left us with $30 in the bank and my mum on her own with three daughters to bring up: me at age 11, my middle sister at nine and my little sister at six. Through those first few years particularly, life was pretty tough, because Mum was not actually working at that stage. It was very tough given the fact that we did not have money for food, so every second night we would go to friends and families for dinner. Quite often, as so many single mothers do—they do not eat at dinner; the food is reserved for the children—my mother would not eat, so she got very thin in that process. As I said, I know what it is like to do it tough. I come from a family that has done it tough—three generations of a working class matriarchy who have done it tough. That is why I say that this bill is outrageous and just underscores the Turnbull government's completely unfair treatment of low- and middle-income Australians. Labor is not being obstructionist in any way on this bill. What we want is a bill that is fair but that does not target the lowest income earners in our community, the most vulnerable in our community, and that is what this government has done with this bill and with so much of its agenda. We thought it was going to be over in 2014. We thought those dark days of 2014, when that hideous budget was launched on the Australian community, were over. Yet they continue and they continue and they continue, because essentially it is part of the coalition government's DNA to target low- and middle-income earners while giving a $50 billion tax break to the big end of town, to big banks, to big business. Labor has made it clear. We are not being obstructionist in any way. We are standing up for what we value. We are standing up for what we believe in. And we are standing up for policies that support our values. We will not in any way support policies that cut across Labor values, that cut into the very fabric of society. Our social fabric includes access to education for all, no matter what your background is, no matter where you grow up, no matter how much your parents earn and no matter what your postcode is—access to education, access to universal health care, access to opportunity, access to disability services. Labor will never, ever support any proposal or policy that cuts into our values and cuts into what it basically is to be Australian, that cuts into our social fabric. We will not support any policies that target low- and middle-income earners and the most vulnerable in our community. That is what we have here—this is 2014 reheated. It is 2014 over again. This bill hurts the most vulnerable in our community because it freezes the income-free areas for all working age and student payments for three years. These are people who are on Newstart, who are on Youth Allowance, who are on the parenting or carer payment. It will freeze indexation of the rates of family tax benefit parts A and B for two years. It will extend the ordinary seven-day waiting period that currently applies to Newstart or sickness benefits to additional payments to parenting payment and Youth Allowance. Labor has stood up for Australian families again and again since the coalition government was elected in 2013—not this one, the previous one, the Abbott government. We now have a different iteration; the leader may have changed but their policies are exactly the same—exactly the same targeting of low- and middle-income earners. Despite all the rhetoric and despite the fact that this man was going to be different and was going to make a difference, there has been no change at all. As I said, we have the policies of 2014 reheated and we have a leader of our nation who essentially stands for nothing. He is a leader who has backed down on his commitment to a republic, on his commitment to marriage equality, on his commitment to climate change—a leader who has abandoned all the policies he feels strongly about simply to have the job of PM under his signature block. That is essentially it. People in my community are constantly telling me, 'We had so much hope for this Prime Minister. We thought he was going to make a difference, and yet he has let us down significantly.' He has not delivered on what he fundamentally believes in—marriage equality, climate change and the republic. He has abandoned all those principles and all those views that he once promoted, advocated and clung to for the sake of having the title of Prime Minister on his signature block. Members of my community throw their hands in the air because they cannot believe a man could abandon so much of himself to achieve this title. They say to me: 'We have a Prime Minister who is agenda less, a Prime Minister and the government that is visionless and that has no idea what it wants for the Australian people. There is no vision and so there is no plan for us to get there—just ad hoc ideas that are thrown around. They are floated for 24 hours and spiked the next day, floated for 24 hours and spiked the next day and so on. We have seen that on superannuation, on tax, on GST, on states collecting income tax. Late last year we saw the emissions intensity scheme proposed and spiked the next day. This government is running from one policy to another policy and another policy, because they have no idea, no direction, no vision and no agenda. One member of my community told me, 'We have a Prime Minister who treats this job like hobby.' It is so true—he does treated like hobby. He has no agenda— Mr Keenan E0J Really? Ms BRODTMANN 30540 You have no agenda. Don't take it from me—this is actually from a member from my community. I think I am repeating the truth. This is the perception, and I am just sharing with you some views of the people of Canberra. I can share more with you, if you would like, Minister. I have imparted some of those, but the one thing that keeps coming up to me is that the Prime Minister is one big disappointment and the government is another big disappointment. They say to me, 'We had so many expectations.' The big-disappointment government is completely out of touch with what is going on in Australia and completely out of touch with the needs of Australians, are deeply those on low and middle incomes Mr Keenan E0J You're very negative today. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 I am not negative; I am speaking the truth, Minister, and I am speaking the truth that is coming from the people of Canberra. I am passing on the views of Canberrans to the minister and he should appreciate this feedback. I do not know that he would get it from the other side of the chamber— Ms Macklin PG6 I think he would get a strong message from Western Australia—from these two West Australians. They should have got the message. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Indeed. That is right. They should have—exactly. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The member for Canberra, I appreciate you are passing on that information, but you might want to come back to the subject of the debate. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 I am passing on the views of the people of Canberra, Deputy Speaker. They passed on their views on what happened in 2014 to me. In 2014 I went out doorknocking just after the budget. I always like to go out doorknocking after a budget—be it our budget or a coalition government's budget—to get a sense of what the community feels about it. Is it good or bad? What are the good elements, what are the bad elements? You cannot get a purer form of feedback than from knocking on someone's door, cold calling on someone, and asking them what they think about a piece of legislation or a particular budget. I spoke to one mother who was absolutely petrified about what was happening with the cuts to Newstart and wondering how on earth her child could survive all those weeks with no support. That was a very common theme in 2014—concerns about the outrageous cuts to Newstart. There was one mother, and I will never forget her. When I knocked on her door and asked if she had any feedback on the budget, she said, 'No, I don't have any feedback.' I left and, as I was walking down the street, she came running down the street in tears. She basically said, 'I'm so upset by the budget that I couldn't speak when you knocked on my door. But I want to tell you as a single mother I'm absolutely terrified about the opportunities for my child in getting access to education and also about my future. I'm terrified about what this budget will mean for my family.' I have done it tough, Deputy Speaker, and I do not want any Australian family to do it tough. That is why this government's proposal is absolutely outrageous; it is the 2014 budget reheated. The government should be ashamed of itself. 17:29 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank all members for their contribution to the second reading debate and, by way of summation of that second reading debate, I will note that the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 seeks to secure the next instalment of remaining unlegislated savings from previous budgets. This bill secures further savings of $2.4 billion over the 2017-18 forward estimates period, building to $6.8 billion over the medium term. This new bill contains three measures from the original omnibus bill, including, firstly, the maintaining of income free areas and means test thresholds for certain payments and allowances at their current levels for three years; secondly, the automation of the income stream review process, which will lead to improvements in the accuracy of income support payment reporting and reductions in customer debts; and, thirdly, the extending and simplifying of ordinary waiting periods for the parenting payment and for youth allowance for a person who is not undertaking full-time study and is not a new apprentice. The bill also includes a new schedule to maintain the current family tax benefit payment rates for two years at their current levels from 1 July 2017. That measure will achieve savings of about $2 billion over the 2017-18 forward estimates, which will build to $5.5 billion over the medium term. It is important to note that under this new measure there will be no cuts to family tax benefit payments. Indeed, over the two-year maintenance period many families will still see some increases in their payments as a result of increases to particular income thresholds for family tax benefits. The government has also reversed a previous decision to increase family tax benefit payment rates to offset, in part, the effect of the phase-out of FTB supplements, which was contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill. Not proceeding with that increase in FTB payment rates will reduce costs by a further $2.3 billion over the current forward estimates period compared to the previous social services omnibus savings bill and will reduce costs over the medium term by about $11 billion. This bill builds further on the $6.3 billion in budget improvements achieved over the forward estimates through the first omnibus savings bill, which passed the Senate on 15 September 2016 and included a saving of $1.6 billion over the forward estimates and $7.1 billion over the medium term gained from the abolition of the family tax benefit supplement for households with incomes of more than $80,000. It is, of course, the government's intention to secure the passage of both this bill and the child care bill so that one may pay for the other. I would like to acknowledge the very positive way in which the crossbench has worked with the government to deliver this significant reform package that will make a real and positive difference to nearly one million Australian families through improved childcare services, and I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga 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.

The House divided. [17:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 73 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:41 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Bill read a second time.

The House divided. [17:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question agreed to.

 Consideration in Detail 83 17:48 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (7) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item. (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item. (3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item. (4) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 21), omit the Schedule. (5) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 16 (line 35), omit the Schedule. (6) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 1 to 9), omit the Schedule. (7) Title, page 1 (line 2), omit "family assistance and". As the member for Grayndler usefully pointed out, we could do these amendments one by one and we could divide on them one by one. I was actually going to do this in a minute, but now that the Leader of the House is so up on things we might as well remind them that this government wants to take $1.4 billion out of the pockets of families. That is actually what you are doing. That is actually what this bill that you have all voted for right now is all about. All of you, go out into your electorates and tell all the families—1½ million families—that you are going to take money out of their pockets. That is what you have just voted for. This detailed amendment is trying to take that out of the bill. No doubt, in a minute, you will all do the same thing again—you will all vote to keep it in the bill. You are all like lemmings. You are just going to do what you are told. You do not care what the families in your electorate actually think. Now, he has come over because he still does not know what is going on! I just say to the minister at the table that the purpose of these amendments is to take all of these cuts, which are going to hurt the poorest people in the country, out of the bill so that we do not have so many people losing so much money as a result of this government going back to the 2014 budget well and hitting very vulnerable Australians. A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung— Mr Katter HX4 We have no idea what the amendments are. With all due respects to that opposition spokesperson, it would have been nice if she had told us what we were voting on. We are being asked to vote here without any knowledge of what we are voting on. Without criticising the chair, I must emphasise to the opposition spokesperson— The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 73 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:01 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be agreed to.

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

 73 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 70 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 86 18:07 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017 86

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017

Second Reading 86 18:09 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I am speaking tonight on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017. The trial that is covered by this bill will give jobseekers an opportunity to gain short-term seasonal work without the risk of losing their Newstart payment or other social security benefits. It is a trial that Labor will support. Trial participants will be able to earn up to $5,000 in eligible seasonal employment, such as fruit or nut picking, in regional or remote Australia without this impacting their Centrelink payment. Currently, single Newstart recipients without children can earn up to $104 a fortnight and young jobseekers receiving Youth Allowance (Other) can earn $143 a fortnight before their payment is reduced. Newstart recipients can earn $1,036 a fortnight before their payment reduces to zero. Youth Allowance (Other) recipients can earn $648.50 a fortnight before their payment reduces to zero. The trial would allow Newstart and Youth Allowance (Other) recipients to participate in specified seasonal horticultural work, such as fruit picking, and earn up to $5,000 in a 12-month period before their payments begin to be reduced. The existing income test will begin to apply to trial participants once they have exceeded the $5,000 limit. The trial will be capped at 7,600 participants. It is due to start on 1 July this year and will last for a period of two years. The bill also introduces a seasonal work living away and travel allowance, which is an additional incentive for jobseekers to travel in order to participate in the trial. The allowance will be administered by the employment service provider and is valued at $300. Labor certainly does support the importance of helping jobseekers to find work. That, of course, is why we will support the trial. We want to make sure that there are appropriate safeguards in place so that employers and employment service providers will not be able to misuse the program. We would like to see the government make sure that the program upholds labour standards so that employers cannot rip off participants or undercut their competitors. We support evidence based policy making, so we will certainly be carefully reviewing the results of the trial evaluation. We are also acutely aware that unemployment currently sits at 5.9 per cent—the highest it has been for more than 12 months. What is most concerning is that the rate of unemployment in Australia today is higher than in the United States, the UK and New Zealand, and youth unemployment is now at 13.3 per cent. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high, particularly in regional and remote parts of Australia. In total, more than 650,000 young people were unemployed or underemployed, and that is defined as having some work but wanting more hours. That was in February 2017. Underemployment, at 18 per cent of the youth labour force, is the highest in the 40 years since the survey began. Underemployment—and this is a very serious issue facing this country—now affects more young people than unemployment. As the latest Brotherhood of St Laurence report Generation stalled notes: In the past 15 years the average gap has widened between the actual working hours of young underemployed people and the hours they would like to work. The report makes clear that the growing number of young people combining study with work does not explain the rise in underemployment. On the contrary, the rise in the percentage of casual and part-time jobs has mostly been among young workers who are not studying. So clearly, as policymakers, all of us need to consider new approaches that address the problems of unemployment and underemployment. Not only do these high rates of youth unemployment and underemployment create significant risks for the young people affected but Australia's economic future is also put at risk. We are all aware that as a nation we are ageing. Youth unemployment risks more than just the livelihoods of young people who cannot find work; it also undermines the income tax base we will need as a nation to support our ageing population. Labor believes that, as a nation, we need a renewed focus on supporting young people to find work and reach their full potential, for both the individuals concerned and our country to reach their full potential. It is very easy in a debate like this to get caught up in the numbers and the figures, but, of course, we all have to remember that we are talking about young people—real people. I just want to give one example. Nineteen-year-old casual worker James Bowen was featured in a recent BuzzFeed article. He said he has been paying about two-thirds of his weekly income on rent. James currently works 10 to 20 hours a week in retail on the Gold Coast but is desperately trying to find a full-time job. He says he applies for about 30 jobs a month. It is not unusual for him to fill out a dozen applications a day. He says he rarely gets calls back from businesses after he has applied for jobs. He receives about $23 a fortnight from Centrelink, which covers the cost of a few meals. He is considering moving to Brisbane to look for work, but he has been put off by the cost of housing. I just want to say to those opposite that they really need to stop blaming people like James—young Australians who want to work but who cannot find work. They cannot find jobs that simply do not exist. Sadly, James' story is becoming increasingly common. I hosted a jobs and skills forum in my own electorate just last week in West Heidelberg, and this issue of youth unemployment and underemployment was a particular focus. People at the forum particularly wanted to discuss better ways to help young people transition from school into further study or work. I am very sorry to say that, unfortunately, those opposite really have not been doing enough to make a difference for these young people's lives. Of course, we all remember that back in 2014 the government axed the terrific Youth Connections program. This was a highly successful program that helped vulnerable young people to transition through education into work. Intensive, case-managed support helped these vulnerable youngsters become job ready. Unfortunately, the Abbott government axed it—they just got rid of it. In that same 2014 budget, the Abbott government tried to introduce a six-month wait for Newstart for young jobseekers under the age of 30. This became probably the most reviled measure from the 2014 budget—the government telling young jobseekers that they would have absolutely nothing to live on for six months. To this day, this government is still trying to introduce a five-week wait for young people under the age of 25. I say to the government again: how on earth do you think young people are going to live with nothing to live on for five weeks? But that is what this government still wants to pursue through this parliament. Then, of course, there is the other cut to young people that the Treasurer has recently told us he is still going to pursue. He wants to push young people aged between 22 and 24 off Newstart onto the lower youth allowance. This is a cut of around $48 a week—almost $2½ thousand a year. That is what this government wants to take out of the pockets of young unemployed people. It was good that the government could not get that cut through the parliament last week, but the Treasurer has made it clear he is to going to pursue it. These cuts are still the policy of the Turnbull government. We know the government also still wants to deregulate Australian universities, making it harder for young people to afford to go to university. Fees for university of up to $100,000 would leave our young people trying to get a higher education with enormous debts. We have had attack after attack on young people from this Liberal government. Of course, most recently we have seen the Prime Minister's refusal to do anything about protecting weekend penalty rates. We have a Prime Minister who is happy to see a pay cut of up to $77 a week for retail and hospitality workers—people who are working in pharmacies, chemists. Many of the people facing a cut to their penalty rates are young Australians—young people who cannot do without their penalty rates. They really depend on their penalty rates to get by. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he does not care at all about those young people. He is not going to do anything to stop the cuts in penalty rates. We on this side know that it is incredibly difficult for people who are trying to manage on Newstart or youth allowance. We have even had the Business Council of Australia come out and say that the current level of Newstart is too low, but all this government does, through whatever method it has, is continue to say that all income support recipients are either criminals or rorters. The government wants to do anything it can to cut the incomes that these people are trying to survive on. These are very, very serious cuts that the government is still saying is its policy. One of the most extraordinary contradictions is that, right this minute, we have had the government vote to freeze the income-free areas for jobseekers. So a few minutes ago everyone in the Liberal and National parties voted to freeze the income-free areas for jobseekers. They just voted for that. They did a deal with Independent senators to push through these cuts to jobseekers, which mean that with each year they can earn less and less in real terms before no longer qualify to receive their payment—Newstart or youth allowance, for example. It is a cut to the same income-free area that this trial would actually relax for participants. Talk about not knowing what they are doing! This is a really important point. On the one hand the government is saying to unemployed people that you are going to make it harder for them to earn a dollar, and then in this bill you say that you are going to give them some relief. The evidence is in the government's own figures. The changes that would freeze the income-free area would actually see 264,500 Australians on the lowest incomes—the absolutely lowest incomes—have their thresholds being frozen. The thresholds are already incredibly low. That is what everyone over there just voted for. Just to give one example, the parenting payment threshold after which the payment is reduced is $188 a fortnight. Everyone over there just voted to freeze that. Then they come in here a minute later and say they want to put forward this trial that proposes to relax the same income-free area for participants in the trial. We support the trial and the improvements to the income-free area. But, honestly, you can hardly expect a pat on the back for attempting this trial while at the same time you are freezing the income-free areas for these very low-income and vulnerable Australians. So while we support the trial today we certainly will not be forgetting the government's record of targeting young Australians. This is a small trial. It is worthy of support and we will support it today. For that reason I commend the bill to the House. 18:24 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill. But the government's farcical bungling of its own backpacker tax will go down in parliamentary history as one of the worst own goals ever. There was a video doing the rounds on the internet recently of a goalie who bounced the ball into play, but he bounced it so badly that it dribbled into the back of his own net. Well, that video sums up the backpacker tax debate—a bad bounce, a bit of dribble, and an own goal. This government introduced a damaging tax at 32.5 per cent that had fruit growers in my electorate howling and backpackers scrambling for the departure lounge. Then the government cut the rate to 19 per cent, without doing any research about whether the lower rate would be any more competitive, before reluctantly settling on 15 per cent, but only after getting its arm twisted by Labor and the Senate crossbench. And the performance of the Deputy Prime Minister, the agriculture minister, throughout that period? Well, that was something to behold. The vision of the supposed farmers' friend vigorously supporting a taxation regime that hurts farmers will not be forgotten in a hurry. The Deputy Prime Minister and his Nationals colleagues failed to stand up for farmers before the election, when the government passed the 32.5 per cent backpackers tax, and they stayed quiet in all the months afterwards. It was only after farmers and Labor pressured the government that action was taken. But, out of that ridiculous period I am pleased to see some semblance of common sense emerging. Members may recall that early in the backpackers debate, on 22 September last year to be precise, I was interviewed by the ABC's The World Today and I suggested that one solution to the issue of farm labour shortages could be to offer a Centrelink amnesty to jobseekers. Essentially, I argued that Newstart recipients and pensioners should be able to pick fruit and not have the earnings assessed by Centrelink. My idea was that such an approach would act as an incentive for Newstart recipients to seek work that might otherwise seem unattractive because of the pay or the travel or the inconvenience, and it would also be administratively simple, with Centrelink simply ignoring earnings from such an endeavour. The thinking behind the proposal was simple. I wanted to get people onto farms as quickly as possible to pick the fruit. I opposed the government's backpacker tax. I opposed it at 32.5 per cent. I opposed it at 19 per cent. I opposed it at 15 per cent. I reluctantly supported 12 per cent but my preference has always been to abolish it. I opposed the backpackers tax not because I have a great love for backpackers, though I am sure most of them are lovely young people, but because it is bad for Tasmanian farmers. It makes it harder for them to get labour on their farms to get their fruit picked. My sole motivation throughout this entire sorry debate has been to ensure we have people on farms picking fruit when it is at optimum ripeness so that farmers can get top dollar for it on the market. To date, Australians have generally demonstrated a reluctance to take up fruit picking. It is long, hard work, the pay is not fantastic, it is often isolated and it is seasonal. For people living in towns it can be expensive, cumbersome and disruptive to travel to a farm and back and then have to deal with Centrelink, and then see most of your earnings disappear. For many it has simply been easier not to do it and to instead seek more stable and secure ongoing employment. For that reason, fruit picking has been ideal for backpackers, who are usually fit and young and regard the job as a rite of passage and part of their holiday experience. It also gives them a pathway to extended working holiday visa benefits. I am happy to see backpackers continue to work on Tasmanian farms but I would dearly love to see jobs taken up by Tasmanians whenever possible. I saw my proposal as a way to achieve that. Unfortunately, the idea was not taken up at the time by the government, which means we lost the benefit of getting Australians onto farms this season. In recent months, however, I am pleased to see the government has opened itself to the idea of encouraging more Australian labour onto Australian farms, albeit reluctantly and only after pressure was exerted. The amendment before us is not as simple a solution as I had proposed. In fact, it is a red tape picnic. With so many rules, conditions and limitations it will keep bureaucrats busy for hours to work out eligibility. But, it is a start. As part of a trial to get young Australians working on farms, eligible job seekers will now be able to earn $5,000 a year in 2017-18 and again in 2018-19, with farm earnings not affecting their Newstart or youth allowance. There is a bunch of eligibility criteria, but the guts of it is that someone can, essentially, work on an approved farm for a limited amount of time and keep the cash. It is a sensible proposal that I am happy to support, and that I am happy my party is supporting. Assuming full-time hours, someone earning the minimum adult wage of $17.70 an hour will reach their $5,000 limit in 7½ weeks. Fruit picking seasons generally last longer than seven weeks, so this trial program, which is capped at 7,600 participants, could well fall short. Personally, I would like to see it go further. I know there are many people on the age pension, for example, who would not mind earning a little extra pocket money. How fantastic would it be to see our seniors picking fruit, without the government picking their pockets? Fruit gets picked, older Australians are socially connected and get some fresh air and exercise, and we expand the available labour pool on our farms. It is a win-win all round. This amendment, as it stands, is welcomed by the industry. I have spoken with Phil Pyke of Fruit Growers Tasmania, and he is genuinely excited about the opportunity this presents. As members know, the fruit and produce of my electorate is some of the best in the world, and this measure will help ensure it gets to market, rather than rot on the vine or the tree. Just today The Advocate newspaper in my state reported on the situation facing Sassafras apple farmer John Brown. Mr Brown told the paper he has thousands of bins worth of apples to pick but nobody to do the work, and he stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr Brown says a combination of the backpacker tax fiasco and other sectors employing his usual labour pool was the cause of his shortage. Mr Pyke from Fruit Growers Tasmania told The Advocate there is a shortage of farm labour across Tasmania, especially on apple farms. He says: We haven't seen it get to this level before. Mr Brown described the backpacker tax as 'a disgrace', and I agree with him. He is pleased with this amendment but he says he needs fruit pickers now, not after 1 July: We are desperate. We're about 60 pickers short and need more pickers in the next few days It is a shame that this government took so long to act, and that it did not listen to me back in September when I first raised the idea of a Centrelink amnesty for jobseekers. If this government had acted sooner, we would have people on farms right now, picking fruit. It is my sincere hope that this two-year trial will encourage unemployed people, and especially young unemployed people, in places like Derwent Valley, Brighton and the Central Highlands onto local farms. Workforce planning undertaken by councils in my electorate shows that over the next three years there will be a 36 per cent increase in agriculture jobs in those areas alone. The more local people we can get onto local farms now, the better placed they will be to take up the full-time jobs that may eventuate over the next three years. We know times are tough and that it is incredibly difficult to live on Newstart or youth allowance. Australians are choosing not to work on farms not because they are lazy, but because it is often more expensive to take the job than not. It can be difficult, in fact nigh on impossible, for people on these income support payments to afford the petrol that it would take every day to get to and from work on what can be isolated farms. There are many in this country who acknowledge the rate of Newstart and youth allowance is too low. Indeed, even the bleeding hearts at that well known hotbed of communism, the Business Council of Australia, have said Newstart is so low it is an impediment to jobseeking. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to reviewing the level of Newstart. These amendments give people on Newstart a glimpse of what life can be like on a working wage. The $5,000 annual limit equates to just under an extra $100 in weekly income when averaged over the year. I doubt anyone will be booking air travel to Paris or buying shares, but it is nothing to sneeze at. If seven weeks of working on a farm gives someone the positive encouragement they need to get out of bed and groom themselves for a day at work, and then a little more incentive to find ongoing work, then I reckon it is money well spent. And I reckon it is a safe bet that most of that extra money will be spent where it can do the most good—in local shops. 18:35 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I was part of the Nick Xenophon Team negotiating on the working-holiday maker reform package, and we were able to secure this excellent initiative, which will see more Australians working in horticulture and more Australians in the labour force. The Nick Xenophon Team comes to this parliament with the intention of ensuring that, wherever possible, we will seek to improve government policy and legislation. We are not obstructionist. We are determined to work constructively with government, and this bill is a shining example of that intention. This legislation relates to a two-year trial which will allow more than 7,000 Australian jobseekers to do seasonal work and earn up to $5,000 without affecting income support payments. This is a major breakthrough. Until now, there was a disincentive for unemployed Australians to engage in seasonal work, as it meant that they would immediately lose their support payments. For growers in my electorate, this trial means that they will have better access to a wider and deeper pool of labour and will be supported by jobactive providers. This will give more jobs to more Australians—Australians on Newstart and youth allowance will be targeted, and they will be targeted into temporary work. This bill will have a real and positive impact on unemployed Australians. If you are only offered a short period of work, particularly if you are a long-term unemployed person, you would be particularly anxious that you would lose you income support payments. If you consider that if you lost your income support payments you would have to deal with Centrelink to get those supports reinstated—we all know what an arduous process that is—it is clear that job seekers are being deterred from entering seasonal fruit picking work. This bill seeks to reduce those barriers to entering into short term employment. Under the trial, unemployed job seekers who travel more than 120 kilometres to a farm will receive a $300 living away from home allowance on top of the wage for working on a farm, on top of their Centrelink payments. This is crucial to attracting metropolitan-based job seekers to the regions and attracting regional-based people to harvest in the regions. Jobactive providers will also be eligible for incentives under this trial, receiving up to $100 per participant per week. Again, this is a crucial measure to ensure that employment providers view seasonal work as a viable option to place people and offer them an incentive to work on a farm. It is well known that there is high unemployment in the regions and this continues to grow. This is coupled with the fact that for too long successive governments have focused on the major cities and turned their back on regional and rural Australia. Schemes such as this one will encourage unemployed people from regional and metropolitan areas to work in areas they might not have considered before. I believe many will find they like the work they do in this trial and many will possibly stay on in the agricultural and horticultural sector. Certainly farmers tell me there are many jobs on farms after harvest, even with pathways to management. This makes this bill and this trial incredibly exciting. My community has been faced with robocalls, television and radio ads and Facebook posts in the last 48 hours, run by the CFMEU, saying that I was not supportive of Australian jobs and that I was seeking for foreign workers taking Australian jobs. This is a lie, and I want to use the debate on this bill to confirm that. Here is a perfect example of the work that the Nick Xenophon Team is doing, in conjunction with government, to promote Australian jobs. Seasonal work is predominantly undertaken by international backpackers and migrants. While it has been used as a tool by backpackers as a means to make some money, and is often an opportunity to meet the requirements to stay another year in Australia, in my discussions with local growers it is clear that they are desperate for more workers in the agricultural sector, particularly during peak periods. All of those who undertake seasonal work will be trained in the tasks they are performing. For overseas workers, this can present issues. Growers have spoken to me about the significant language barriers they face in many instances when they try to communicate with their workers. There is also an issue that overseas workers will work for one season and then leave. This means training must be performed over and over again, at a significant cost to the farmer. If Australians are engaged in seasonal work there is a higher chance that they will return the following season. This means less training costs. It also gives the worker an opportunity to grow and develop new skills. I want to address claims made by the CFMEU and the ACTU that I do not stand up for Australian jobs. I want to let the parliament and people of Australia know that these claims are blatant lies and fearmongering. My office has been inundated with constituents who are upset and angry that they have been robocalled by these unions. They are not upset and angry with me—the majority of callers are quite satisfied with the policies of my party, because they understand the difference between facts and lies. I say to the CFMEU, save your union members' hard-earned dues. Do not waste their money. Where were these robocalls when we had large amounts of 457 visa approvals? Let's look at this. Between 2007 and 2012-13, 457 visa approvals increased from 87,000 to 126,000. When was that? During the last Labor Government's years. It is hypocritical for the finger to be pointed at the Nick Xenophon Team, when time and again we have stood up for Australian jobs and Australian families. I urge the Government to protect Australians from these unsolicited robocalls. Such calls should be required to clearly provide, at the beginning a message, information indicating where the call is coming from and who is funding the call. The receiver should then have the option to continue the call or terminate the call. In relation to 457 visas, I want to see greater scrutiny in employer testing of the market. I want to see a tightening of the skilled occupation list and, importantly, I want to see an intensive focus on training Australians in occupations on those lists. We must put our effort into supporting the building of our own workforce in areas of need, particularly in regional Australia. With increasing unemployment, especially youth unemployment, we should need very few, if any, 457 visa holders in our country. Once again, we have shown initiative and willingness to negotiate with the government to achieve an outcome that will be significantly better for up to 7,600 unemployed Australians who are recipients of Newstart and youth allowance. Hundreds of growers of Australian produce will benefit from this. Importantly, this trial will be reviewed, and I believe the program will show an economic benefit across the regions and will be extended to other industries in regional Australia. I also urge the government to ensure that funding is set aside for this program to be promoted. Promotion needs to be undertaken with industry and business groups as well as economic development offices in regional councils and jobactive providers. In summary, I thank the government for its negotiations in good faith on this trial. I hope that everything possible is done to promote it and that we see it blossom into a fully-fledged, permanent incentives scheme. Unemployed Australians will benefit. Australian farmers will benefit. Regional Australia will benefit. I commend this bill to the House. 18:43 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank all the members for their contributions during the second reading debate state of this bill. By way of summation of the second reading debate, I would note that the bill introduces a measure that was announced in the 2016-17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which will provide a two-year trial of incentives aimed at increasingly the number of eligible jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work such as fruit picking. The measure responds to valid concerns about the ability of the Australian horticultural industry to attract significant numbers of seasonal workers by introducing three incentives aimed at increasing the number of job seekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work. Incentives will commence as a trial from 1 July 2017 for two years, and will be capped at 7,600 participants. There are three incentives. Under the first, Newstart and youth allowance recipients who have been receiving those payments continually for at least three months will have access to a seasonal horticultural work income exemption. Under this exemption, eligible Newstart and youth allowance recipients who participate in the trial will be able to earn $5,000 a year for eligible seasonal work without it being assessed under the social security income test. Eligible jobseekers will be able to access the $5,000 income test incentive in each of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years. The concession will apply only to earnings from specified horticultural seasonal work, and eligible employment for this measure will be seasonal, short-term employment in the horticulture industry picking and packing fruit, nuts or other crops in rural and regional Australia. Qualification rules will be relaxed for this group so that they continue to qualify for Newstart and youth allowance, other, while undertaking eligible horticultural seasonal work. The amendments in the bill relate mainly to this incentive. This income test concession will provide a strong incentive for jobseekers to participate in the trial and undertake horticultural seasonal work and a practical opportunity to build work experience and skills. The second incentive is a seasonal work living-away and travel allowance of up to $300 a year for eligible jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work more than 120 kilometres from their home. This payment removes a disincentive to undertake seasonal work by recognising the additional expense that may be incurred by jobseekers travelling significant distances from their principal place of residence to take up an eligible seasonal job. The bill includes a provision so that seasonal work living-away and travel allowance would not be assessed as income for income support purposes. The third incentive is for employment providers, who will be eligible for a provider seasonal work incentive payment of $100 per week for up to six weeks a year for each eligible jobseeker they place with eligible farmers. These three incentives are expected to cost $27½ million over the forward estimates. This amount includes funding for the Department of Social Services and the Department of Employment to evaluate the effectiveness of these incentives during the two-year trial period. The incentives for jobseekers to undertake seasonal work will help in responding to the concerns of the Australian horticulture industry about their ability to attract sufficient numbers of seasonal workers. They are aimed at helping to increase the number of unemployed Australians who participate in seasonal work and therefore the number of seasonal workers available to work on Australian farms and orchards. The incentives will also provide jobseekers with a practical opportunity to enter the workforce and to build work experience and skills. They are certainly in the best interests of the Australian horticulture industry and jobseekers, and I support the parliament for the passing of these measures. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY There being no further speakers, I will now put the question that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Assent 92 Third Reading 92 (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (18:47): Mr PORTER 208884 by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 92

Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017

Second Reading 92 18:48 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I want to make a contribution to the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 and I also move an amendment: 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: (1) abandon its support of the decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and (2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut”. Labor will not stand for corruption in any form, and we will support legislation that is properly drafted that applies to companies and registered organisations. There is no tolerance for corruption, whether in fact it is a company officer bribing a union official or an officer of a registered organisation, or for that matter whether it is a company bribing another company or bribing a public official or bribing a foreign official. Bribing officers of entities should be unlawful, and we believe there should be no tolerance in terms of either making or receiving a bribe. We also say that whilst we are going to consider this bill closely we do question the motivation of the government. This bill is based on three of the 79 recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. The Heydon recommendations were made 16 months ago, yet this lazy and incompetent government, led by a do-nothing Prime Minister, took no action to respond to any of Dyson Heydon's recommendations—not before the double dissolution election and not after it, not even when this parliament was debating the two anti-worker pieces of legislation that were the Prime Minister's justification for taking the nation to the polls. This government did nothing in response to the Heydon recommendations—until, of course, they realised that they were on the wrong side entirely when it comes to cutting penalty rates. If they wanted to have a genuine mandate from the Australian people for some of these reforms, it would have been proper for them firstly to consider the recommendations and respond to those recommendations prior to the last election. They chose not to do that: no formal response by the government to the recommendations of the Dyson Heydon royal commission prior to the election and no policy pronouncements other than the two double dissolution bills—which, by the way, had not changed in any significant way from the time they were introduced in December 2013, before the royal commission had even commenced. So, there is no point saying that the two double dissolution bills arose out of the recommendations of the royal commission, because in fact they were introduced into this place before the royal commission started. We now have before us this bill which, arguably, takes up three of the 79 recommendations of the commission. We have made our views known about the motivations, the efficacy and the integrity of that royal commission. We did find, as we might recall, the royal commissioner did accept an invitation to raise money for the Liberal Party while he was commissioner of the royal commission. He chose to accept it—in fact, he tried to suggest that he was not sure what the invitation was. We all recall the invitation with its massive Liberal logo. Of course, he was willing to go along. There was even a spot where you could put your credit card details, so you could send more money the Liberal Party. This royal commissioner accepted that invitation during his time as commissioner. We, of course, have had questions about the integrity of that commission and the political motivations of its recommendations. Despite our serious misgivings about the political nature of the executive commission—and that is what a royal commission is; it is not a commission of the parliament; it is not a court of law; it is an executive government commission—and despite the reservations we have with respect of those recommendations, the motivations of the commission, the integrity of the commissioner, nonetheless, we do not support and we will never tolerate corruption in any form. That is why I want to make clear that we will seriously consider this bill. We want to make sure that this bill is not designed in a way that is unfair to workers or that is uneven in its application. We do not want to see the effects of this bill being manifestly unfair and so we are going to seriously look at the construction of the provisions that go to the offences within the bill. We are also going to look at the exemptions, particularly in relation to cash payments or in-kind payments to registered organisations, because there are a lot of legitimate reasons that employers and unions work together for the public good or, indeed, for the good of the workforce of that company and the members of that union. The government thinks that there should be no relationship between employers and unions because their hatred of unions is so great. They think there are only two types of unions—militant unions or acquiescent unions, and they are all corrupt. That is the world view of the merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull. That is what he thinks of unions; that is what the whole front bench thinks of unions. That is why they are so motivated to destroy the union movement. They do not believe it is a significant tenet of democracy. They like to undermine unions on every occasion they can and that is why they have been obsessed since they were elected in 2013—obsessed—with bringing in laws to target unions. We think that has been very unfortunate, given the other challenges that are currently occurring in workplaces. There are some very unfair laws and there is a lack of enforcement of laws in this country in workplaces. Too many deaths in workplaces occur, and we could do better to prevent those deaths. Too many people are underpaid, and we could do a lot better by enforcing the law and improving the law so that workers in this nation are not underpaid. In fact, this government has been going on for some time saying that they will respond to the 7-Eleven scandal. Remember that? They talked about the 7-Eleven scandal; they were concerned about the 7-Eleven scandal. It is a terrible case in which thousands of workers have lost money. It is argued that there is at least $100 million that the company underpaid its workforce, but I would say that it is higher than that. That is one company, one franchise arrangement—many employers but one franchise—with enormous amounts of money. The Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, has for months been talking about the remedy the government has in mind to deal with exploitation. But where is the bill? They told Fairfax it was coming and the Fairfax papers put it on the front page, but we did not see the bill. Then they told the Telegraph and the Telegraph ran a story about it coming into the parliament—no, there was no bill introduced into the House. And then more recently it was introduced into the House. Well, where is it? That bill has now been withdrawn so we can talk about other matters. In other words, the obsession is so great within the government in relation to unions that they were willing to remove the only legislation they have ever proposed since elected in 2013 that deals with worker exploitation that is happening now in workplaces. Their callous disregard for workers in this country has no precedent. It is reflected in the amendment I moved insofar as they are not supporting a parliamentary remedy to negate the effect of the Fair Work decision that will cut the real pay of 700,000 workers. You may as well just put your hand in their pockets and take their income out. We are awaiting that other bill. Given that it has now been junked—it is been deferred yet again by the government, which never ever attends to worker exploitation because their obsession with unions is so palpable and so great. Having said all of that, we will look at this legislation in good faith, because as I said we do not tolerate corruption in any form. We have zero tolerance for it. Quite frankly, if there is a corrupt union official, I want that person prosecuted and, if the offence is so great, jailed. If a company's chief executive officer or any officer of a company has bribed another person in an unlawful manner under existing laws, I would like to see that person brought to justice. Unequivocally, I have no time for that conduct. I have to say there has been no consultation process whatsoever for those people who will be affected. As I understand it, the registered organisations have not been consulted, employers have not been consulted in any significant way, if at all, and yet they have introduced this bill into the house without consultation but that really is a consistent pattern from this government. It is important then, when we look to this bill and we consider this matter, to ensure that there is an appropriate Senate committee for those who may be affected, if this bill is enacted, to have an opportunity to explain whether they have concerns with the bill. The terms of the new offences differ from the model legislation recommended by the commissioner. They differ from existing bribery and corruption offences in the Criminal Code, and we cannot have any confidence that this legislation does not unfairly target workers, and that is what we are hoping to determine through a proper process. The so-called corrupting benefits offences are broadly similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, bribery of a foreign official and corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official, although there are key differences in the construction of the provisions. For example, there are different tests of intention for making or receiving a bribe which would seem to make it easier to prosecute a union official than the employer: a company pays a bribe intending to influence a union official to act improperly or a registered organisation official asks for a bribe intending that the company believes that the official will tend to be influenced to act improperly. In comparison, in the equivalent bribing Commonwealth officials offences the test is intending to influence for both giving and receiving a bribe and the maximum penalty is 10 years, whereas in the equivalent corrupting benefits Commonwealth officials offences the test is intending that the person will tend to be influenced for both giving and receiving the corrupting benefit and the maximum penalty is only five years. The new offences do not require dishonesty on the part of the person making or receiving the bribe. The word 'dishonesty' is not within the construction of the bill. It is unclear whether the requirement that the intention has to be that the union official is influenced to act improperly effectively establishes the element of dishonesty. The equivalent offences in relation to Commonwealth officials require dishonesty but do not require the official to be influenced to act improperly. The bill also prohibits employers from giving cash or in-kind payment to a union or to a person nominated by the union and prohibits the union from requesting or receiving cash or in-kind payments. The bill expressly excludes membership fees, wage deductions and benefits provided for employees and possibly covers provisions of union training services, tax-deductible donations and payments for services in accordance with the law or a judgement, but the regulations can remove or add other payments, including the ones excluded in the bill. That regulation, I understand, would be a disallowable instrument, but the variations could occur nonetheless in that manner. The offences do not require the requests for cash or the payment of it to be dishonest. It seems possible, therefore, that a union official would be making a request if they approached an employer on behalf of an employee who has been made redundant and were seeking payment of entitlements lawfully due to that ex-employee. If this situation is captured by the new offence provisions, it is an absurdity and it is wrong. The bill places obligations on unions and employers to disclose any benefits they or related entities may receive as a result of the operation of provisions of an enterprise agreement. What this government seems to fail to understand—and, again, it is their world view or perhaps their ideological blinkers—is that, for people who have actually engaged in workplace bargaining, these types of disclosures are legally required to be made by employers to their workforce and by unions. If anyone understood the enterprise bargaining process and understood the requirements under the Fair Work Act, they would understand that you need to explain the provisions of the agreement and provide access to that to everyone who needs to vote on that agreement. I do not have any problems in principle with the intention of this bill to ensure proper disclosure on this or any other matter that might be in an enterprise agreement because Labor's position is that every provision—every clause—should be provided to the workforce and to the membership of a union or unions in order for them to be able to vote in favour or against the draft enterprise agreement. My understanding is that that is a requirement under the Fair Work Act. If there are any problems with the current arrangements—if there is a deficiency—I think we can sort that out in the Fair Work Act. I do not think it needs to be about finding another mechanism here, but, again, I am happy to listen to why the government considers that important when there is already a requirement for all those matters to be disclosed. If you were to read the construction of the bill—if you would listen to the rhetoric of the government—you would think that there could somehow be an agreement between an employer or employers and a union or unions and that somehow the workforce and membership would not access the provisions of the agreement. That is just not lawfully possible. If it does happen it is a deficiency with enforcement because the Fair Work Commission has to make sure that the parties to an agreement have complied with the requirements of the act, and they are required to do that. I know those opposite would far prefer that the Fair Work Commission did not deal with many matters. In fact, they would suggest that they would like to see more individual agreements in place that would just be filed in the employers' filing cabinet. The recommendations they have sought to make in terms of changes to the Fair Work Act are that they wanted individual arrangements that could be varied for employees to be no longer oversighted by a third party—not by the Fair Work Ombudsman and not by the Fair Work Commission—and just kept in the employers' file. They wanted no third-party oversight. We do not agree with that, and we would not agree that any provision of an enterprise agreement should not be provided to every employee who would be under that agreement or for every member of a union. The opposition has no difficulty with formalising the process of unions and employers making these types of disclosures as long as the requirements apply equally to both parties and so long as it is not a superfluous provision given the requirements under the Fair Work Act. This legislation, too, is narrowly focused. It really begs the question: are there comparable provisions to stamp out other forms of corrupt payments between companies? Do we have sufficient offences to ensure that we can deal with corrupt payments to public officials and foreign officials, the offences to which I referred earlier? If in fact those laws are fine and work, why is it then that those offences are constructed in a different manner to the offences that are contained within this bill? Labor has no tolerance for corruption—not within the union movement and not within the corporate world. There is a whole series of things we can do to make sure that there is less corruption in society. For example, recently the government ensured that there is whistleblower protection within registered organisations, and yet they have denied comparable laws in the corporate sector. We would ask the government, 'If you want to ensure greater accountability and greater transparency, why is it you do not have the same whistleblower protection in the corporate sector that you have for registered organisations?' In fact, the reason the government managed to pass the whistleblower provisions that relates to registered organisations is they made undertakings to Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch. Those undertakings were that they would move next to provide whistleblower protections to the corporate sector. Nothing has happened. Their benefactors seem to be getting off scot-free. Malcolm Turnbull's best mates, the big end of town, seem to be exempt from whistleblower protections. Why is that? It is not just about dealing with offences; it is about dealing with disclosure provisions and ensuring that people can come forward and be protected under the law. There are other matters that we can raise on other occasions, and we will do just that. We will be looking at the bill to see if it treats people evenly, if there is no unfairness towards workers and if the exemptions to payments that are made to registered organisations are sufficient in that they cover those matters where there is a public good. I will just mention a couple of examples. For example, if it is the sole or predominant purpose to provide an entity that might be owned by a union the ability to train people on health and safety then we want to make clear that that is expressly exempt. I believe it is exempt, but we want it to be expressly exempt. I have had people raise with me that there are trust funds established between companies and unions to look after widows. The Maritime Union of Australia and a company have set up a trust fund for a widow because of the death of a worker of that company who was also a member of that union. They wanted to set up a fund to look after the family of the deceased worker. Is that arrangement exempt from these provisions or will the construction of that arrangement be such that it will not be exempt? If so, that is an issue for us. There are charitable reasons why employers and registered organisations may find themselves providing money to an entity that may be owned or part owned by a registered organisation. Will those charitable intentions and arrangements be exempt from capturing the offences outlined in this bill? That is important. On this side of the House we think that you can argue with employers and you can argue with unions. That happens all the time. But those relationships between employers and unions are often longstanding. They may argue up hill and down dale over employment conditions, but they also, for example, support their industry. You will hear unions backing in industry. The maritime union will support the maritime industry. Forestry workers support the forestry industry. The CFMEU are strong supporters of that industry and, indeed, the mining and construction industries. The SDA will support the retail industry and the like. So there are reasons why there is common ground. The view of the government is that there is no common ground between employers and unions. But that is not the real world. That is the fanciful world of the Liberal Party where every union is the enemy and every union official is corrupt or either acquiescent or militant. That is not the real world. I think people on the other side should get out a bit more and find out that those relationships are important. Whilst they will always disagree from time to time, they resolve those disagreements most often. Sometimes they agree on things beyond just employment conditions. I understand that the government does not like those forms of relationships and does not believe that people should work for their betterment beyond just employment matters. But I think the government should consider what I am saying in relation to that. I just want to touch on the amendment. The government has introduced this bill, as much as anything, it seems to me, to deflect from its position on the penalty rates decision. Every member on the other side has voted at least procedurally in this place to stop us debating the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and to stop the effect of the bill. Whilst it might have only been a procedural vote, effectively every member on the other side has said that they do not want to stop the decision taking effect. These are the same members of this place who were happy to abolish the order that increased the wages of truck drivers and abolish the independent umpire. The government actually did that. So if it can intervene by using this place to stop truck drivers' wages going up, surely it is within its remit to use this place in a manner that will stop retail and hospitality workers' wages going down? I am looking at the member for Dunkley. He is getting ready for his lines. He is going to say a few things. We know what the member for Dunkley thinks about penalty rates. He has made some pretty remarkable statements about penalty rates. He does not think they should exist in many circumstances. But he is not alone. He is a new member. I do not want to spend all my time talking about the member for Dunkley. He is a new member; he might be a one-termer, too. But the fact is that there are at least 60 members of the government who are on the record saying they want to either cut or abolish penalty rates. So we have some work to do. But, given that almost every crossbencher in the Senate has now backflipped on their original position on penalty rates, and given that Senator Hinch, Senator Xenophon and Senator Hanson have now backflipped and decided to support Labor's bill in the Senate, it is very lonely being a government member on this position—very lonely, indeed. I do not just want to get their votes on this bill; I want them to apologise for their position. I want them to apologise that they are willing for people in their electorates to be hurt by this decision. They should apologise, but, first, they need to join Labor in supporting our bill. I have moved the second reading amendment because I think, in the context of what is going on in relation to a recent decision by the Fair Work Commission, it is only proper that members in this place certainly say a couple of things: firstly, there is zero tolerance for corruption; secondly, the real income of low-wage workers, at a time when wage growth is at its lowest in a generation, is protected and supported by this place. That is the debate we should be having and that is the debate we will have. Finally, I want to say that we will continue to examine the provisions of the bill. If this will lead to less corruption in the corporate world—of corporates trying to bribe union officials—and if it will lead to less corruption elsewhere, we are up for that consideration. If, on the other hand, this is an uneven application of a bill and is, in any way, unfair to workers and their representatives at the expense of employers, then we would have some problems. Despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, we will work constructively with the government on this bill. If they are well intentioned and fair, then we will certainly see if we can reach accommodation. I think we should all be standing up against corruption in whatever form it takes and whoever it involves. That should be a significant role of this place and that is why I want to do that. After this bill comes back from a Senate committee, I would like to see if we can improve this, if necessary, to ensure that we see less corruption in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? Mr Dreyfus HWG I second the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton 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 the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 19:18 Mr CREWTHER ( 248969 Dunkley ) ( ): I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. We are fortunate to live in a country where we are all afforded representation, whether it is through parliament, association or union, and we have many things to be grateful for in a society where we are free to unite and negotiate as one. That is, traditionally, what a trade union should be for: a fair go where there is minimal communication or representation where there is none. There was a period when having representation could literally mean the difference between life and death, where workers were deprived of their rights and overworked, but no longer. We have passed beyond the era of necessity. Trade unions have become politicised and have their own agendas. Once upon a time, trade unions represented their workers' needs and agenda. Now, in so many cases, it is the reverse. We see these problems emerge when trade unions stop being solely about the rights of their workers and become their own entities. We see these problems emerge when trade unions start to work for things that differ from the needs and safety of their members. We see these problems when trade unions begin to advocate for themselves at the expense of their members. That is where this legislation comes in. This bill bans secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions which may influence the outcome of any enterprise bargaining agreements and potentially tempt trade unions to forget the interests of their members, on whose behalf they are meant to be negotiating. Money is a funny thing and can seemingly cause even the most vigilant trade union to neglect their duties. The second part of this legislation requires disclosure of any legitimate payments that arise as a result of an enterprise agreement. Just like any businessperson—or, indeed, a politician—trade union members have a right to know the interests of those who have so much influence over the outcome of something that has so much of an effect over their lives. We regularly update our own register of interests—information that is publicly available—so that our constituents, whom we represent, know exactly what our interests are and so that we can demonstrate that we are not privately influenced by one business, one membership or one donor over work that we do on behalf of our electorates. Trade unions must be compelled to do the same. If the payments they receive from firms are legitimate and do not compromise their members' interests, they have nothing to hide. If the opposition are indeed for workers, as they insist so regularly and earnestly, they should have no concerns or hesitation about supporting this legislation. We have seen multiple examples of this kind of behaviour by trade unions in recent times. One of the most remarkable examples to me is the instance where the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug & Alcohol Committee, an entity controlled by the CFMEU, received a payment of $100,000 from Thiess-Hochtief during construction of the Epping-Chatswood rail link in Sydney, supposedly for industrial peace. One would think this would be bad enough, but what happened? That $100,000 was invoiced as being for drug and alcohol safety training and siphoned off into the CFMEU's general account. I am sure that we all can see the inherent problems with this, and it is certainly not the only example of these secret payments occurring. The Heydon Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found that these payments were commonplace between businesses and trade unions to secure favourable treatment and prevent hostilities. Perhaps they are private kickbacks used for personal gain, such as with former CFMEU official Dave Hanna using free building materials and labour to renovate his home. Perhaps the payments are made in response to threats to boost the union's coffers, such as the NSW CFMEU demanding donations of employers to a rehabilitation fund. Or perhaps the payments are used to—and fancy this—increase an official's own status and power within the Labor Party! It is a wonder that there are not more speakers from those opposite. You would have thought that many would be able to offer us insights from having first-hand experience of these 'corrupting benefits'. Those opposite talk about things like penalty rates for the average employee but support unions who make deals that mean employees of the generally larger businesses get much lower penalty rates than those of small businesses. Those opposite support big business over small business while hypocritically opposing our own tax cuts. As the Prime Minister said when addressing the House on this bill last week: The role of union leaders is to put their members first. They are paid by members to represent their interests, which members rightly trust will be the first priority of their union. This behaviour and these deals are an absolute betrayal of workers' and members' trust. Any honest union leader or business should have no problem with this legislation; after all, it is only targeting unions which are not faithful to their members and which place their own agenda above the needs of the members. The sole motivating factor for union officials should be the welfare of their members, certainly not their house renovations, their political agenda or their status within a political organisation. Union members pay their union dues to their unions to represent them and it is their right to know exactly what their enterprise agreement entails and what was involved in the negotiation. If any payments were involved in the formation of those agreements, workers have a right to know what and why. They are paying for a service and paying for that service to be conducted without risking the integrity of the agreement being compromised by payments amounting to something close to bribery or extortion. Imagine the response when, having just signed up to a new enterprise agreement, workers should find out that the people that they were counting on—that they were trusting to have their best interests at heart when negotiating the agreement—were receiving payments on the side from the very organisations that were meant to be standing by their side. I ask those in the House at the moment, regardless of their roles prior to being elected to this place, to just imagine themselves in that situation. You would feel the betrayal, the disappointment, the distrust and be wondering what demands were relented upon with the agreement to the payment. You would worry about what aspects were sacrificed in an agreement to line the pockets of trade union officials at the expense of benefits, or which paved the way for cheaper employee pay or conditions. Let's discuss another example, something a little closer to home. Thiess and John Holland, 'engineering, contracting and service providers to the infrastructure, energy, resources and transport services sectors', were found to have paid the Australian Workers' Union $300,000 plus GST to ensure minimal industrial disruption while EastLink was completed. This payment was disguised in false invoices for 'training', 'back strain research', 'AWU magazine advertisements', 'forum tickets' and 'conference sponsorships', none of which were ever provided and the payments were never disclosed to members of the AWU or to employees. Now EastLink is one of Melbourne's primary freeways. It is critical to traffic flow and to easing congestion between the eastern and south-eastern suburbs. EastLink finishes—or starts, depending on the way you look at it—at the northern tip of my electorate and connects my constituents and other commuters with the Monash Freeway, the Eastern Freeway, Peninsula Link, Princes Freeway, Burwood Highway and Maroondah Highway, to name a few. This road is a tolled road and is predicted to be for many years to come. One would certainly hope that my constituents have not had to subsidise this secret payment to the AWU. Some of the worst instances of these secret payments have been used to entice unions to sell out their members to benefit their own interests. What kind of representation is this? These are the people who trust and rely on these officials who have let them down. We need to make sure that corrupt trade union officials cannot betray their members any more. These kinds of payments have been found in successive royal commissions over the past 30 years. The Heydon Royal Commission recommended banning the practice of secret payments, and that is precisely what this government will do. By making it a criminal offence to give, receive, offer or solicit such payments, the coalition government is demonstrating its commitment to restoring integrity and fairness in the workplace. These secret payments are dubious at best and criminal at worst. It is especially concerning when members are not being told what their union is doing or not doing on their behalf. This legislation is in defence of workers—ordinary people who rely on their union to represent them and advocate for their interests. Criminal penalties for making, receiving, offering and requesting secret payments will apply equally to both the employer and to the trade union, ensuring that to do so is in no-one's interest. Penalties for secret, illegitimate payments will include up to two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for companies. Penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will include up to 10 years in prison or $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. These figures are significant enough that they should deter even the wealthiest of employers and unions from doing the wrong thing by their members and employees. Over the past few decades, millions of dollars have flown freely into the coffers of unions with absolutely no extra assistance or support for members being forthcoming. Whatever the purpose of the payments—be they for personal advantage, professional advancement, political advocacy or other—members are paying a fee for which they should rightly expect advocacy and nothing but advocacy for their workers' rights by their union. Same as any other service provider—a bank, a referral service—consumers should always be told if people or an organisation receive a commission for advocating on their behalf. If an outcome has been compromised, members should know about it. If their trade union has stopped short of the best outcome, members should know about it. This legislation has the hallmark of the coalition government taking action on this matter. We are a government that strive to protect the individual and to ensure transparency in trade union activity. With the passage of this bill, even legitimate payments will be made known to members and employees prior to enterprise agreements being voted on. It is their right to know. There have been a number of high-profile bills that are part of a broader view to reform relations in the workplace to be respectful, transparent and fair to workers, union members and employees alike. This is one of them. Banning secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions, and requiring disclosure of any legitimate payments and financial benefits will restore integrity to the workplace. This is why this bill should be supported by the Leader of the Opposition, those opposite and everyone in parliament. I welcome their support for this important reform to outlaw corrupting benefits. (Time expired) ADJOURNMENT 99 ADJOURNMENT Telecommunications 99 19:30 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I rise tonight to talk about a major issue in my electorate. Residents living in the new Belmond estate in Clyde have—believe it or not—been without a phone, internet or guaranteed mobile service since November 2016. In 2017, how does it make any sense that residents who have bought a new home have no guaranteed way to communicate for several months, especially in the case of an emergency? Over the last few months, we have been meeting with local residents, and we have heard, understandably, a number of alarming stories. In one instance, a woman was watching tennis on television when a man tried to break into her home and threatened her life. Due to a lack of phone reception and coverage, she struggled to call the police at a time of a great stress. In a second instance, a resident's brother passed away in the United Kingdom. Family overseas were trying to call her, but she did not receive the urgent message until she left the estate the next day. These stories are a disgrace. How can it be reasonable that a suburb of Melbourne—the fastest-growing suburb in Australia—would not have a phone service, particularly for those in a time of need? I first became aware of this issue in January 2017, when a constituent, Elyse Cumine, contacted my office and advised that she did not have access to a phone line or internet at her new residence in Clyde. She also advised that over 40 local residents were experiencing the same difficulties. These concerns were subsequently raised with the Minister for Communications, Telstra and NBN Co. But after receiving responses, the residents were obviously concerned because their problems had not been remedied. They raised these concerns with me and the media. On 6 March 2017, The Age journalist Lucy Battersby wrote a pivotal article exposing the delays in connecting NBN services at Belmond estate in Clyde and pointing out that additional civil works had to be completed before the services become operational. According to Ms Battersby, due to the roadworks, NBN Co still had to install 7.8 kilometres of fibre optic cable from Belmond on Clyde to the nearest point of interconnect exchange to complete the connection. I think the article by that journalist was pivotal in achieving some outcomes I will talk about shortly. In early March, I also met with residents on two occasions. Initially, we met at the estate. They were good people. We met on a Sunday morning. Then we had a special meeting at my office on Tuesday, 15 March. At this meeting, residents received a briefing from representatives from NBN Co, Telstra and the City of Casey. They were advised why the services had not been provided, and they were offered some temporary solutions. The representatives apologised to the residents for the frustration and inconvenience that had been caused. However, they were still left very dissatisfied about the temporary solutions after the meeting. Even with the Universal Service Obligation, they were required to pay extra for a satellite phone and were told that fixed phone and internet services were still months away. Telstra offered the fixed voice service, but a number of the residents had problems with the satellite phones and returned them. It is unacceptable in a modern area such as in my electorate that, when residents apply under a Universal Service Obligation, a guaranteed phone service cannot be provided. You could understand this in a remote area or in an area that had experienced a natural disaster, but in one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia it is completely unacceptable. I would strongly suggest that the Minister for Communications and Telstra work together to improve this Universal Service Obligation, which should absolutely guarantee a phone service to those in need. I would certainly like to thank the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network for urging NBN and Telstra to provide temporary coverage and for attending the special meeting at my office. Today I am pleased to advise that NBN Co has finally stepped in to provide an NBN service to the residents in Belmond on Clyde. That is long overdue. It was supposed to be in May, apparently, but I think a bit of attention seems to have gone a long way. However, there are some key things that need to be done. The City of Casey needs to work with telecommunication providers like Telstra to approve, as quickly as possible, the building of a new mobile phone tower to provide mobile coverage to those living in the Belmond estate. NBN Co needs to assist residents with installing the NBN from today as quickly as possible. We need to ensure that this does not happen in the future. It is not good enough that areas all over the country may be experiencing this. The NBN should have already been rolled out. It was only because of great residents like Elyse Cumine and that brave group of residents that came together in my office that we now have a service that should have been provided the moment they shifted in in November 2016 Page Electorate: Community Events, Page Electorate: Telecommunications 100 19:35 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like to inform the House about the wonderful Sikh festival that is occurring in Woolgoolga from 14 to 16 April to celebrate Vaisakhi, marking the start of the Sikh year. It is the celebration of the establishment of the Khalsa order in 1699, making it a major event in the Sikh calendar. It is the first day of baptism as the Sikhs know it today. The festival also historically marks the beginning of the wheat harvest season. As part of the three days of celebrations, there will be a parade through the streets of Woolgoolga on Saturday, 15 April, blessing the town with Sikh scriptures. The large parade includes floats, men and women dressed in the traditional colourful dress of saris and turbans, and musicians and sword displays. The parade will finish at the Woolgoolga Beach Reserve, where the Sikh community will provide the wider community with a wonderful free lunch of Indian cuisine. The organising committee of this celebration is the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple management committee. I would like to acknowledge the executive members—Jindertal Singh, Kulbir Singh, Joginder Singh and Malkit Singh—as well as other committee members. I would also like to personally congratulate the committee and the wider Sikh community on what is a very important and significant date in the Sikh calendar I would also like to inform the House of some fantastic projects that are coming to fruition in the Bonalbo and Tabulam areas. Next month, on Saturday, 8 April, a bronze statue of a working dog will be unveiled as a tribute to Bonalbo and all the working dogs for the important role they play on the land. I would like to thank all those who made this tribute possible: Sharon Tucker, David Whitney, Michelle Malt and Todd Weston from the Bonalbo Show Society; Paul and Kerry Horne from the Dog n' Bull Hotel; Andrea and Michael Whitaker from the Bonalbo post office; and many other businesses within the town which helped raise funds needed on top of the $5,000 federal government grant. I would also like to make special mention of Fraser Ramsey who was very much involved in the project. Also, this month I will be looking forward to attending the opening of the new bridge on Duck Creek Road at Old Bonalbo. The new bridge will be officially named McKee's Bridge and replaces an old timber bridge built in 1929. The bridge has been funded through our Bridges Renewal Program and is one of many bridges which have received funding in the Kyogle LGA. There is more for Bonalbo. I am also very much looking forward, as I know Bonalbo residents are, to a new mobile phone tower which is going to be switched on this month. Telecommunications are an extremely important issue in Bonalbo, and the long-awaited tower is one of two towers planned for the area as part of our Mobile Black Spot Program. It will bring coverage to an area well known as a mobile black spot area. There is more for Bonalbo. I am also this month very much looking forward to the Bonalbo and District Community Hall announcing a solar grant through our Solar Communities program which is going to help the hall reduce energy costs by installing solar panels. I congratulate Donna Van-Lewan, Darryl Melling, Vilya Detozser, Marion Conrow and Bill Mills for the work they do as part of the hall committee and the Bonalbo community. Close by, in Tabulam, a new skate park is going to be opened soon as well. It has been identified as a priority for the youth of Tabulam and the district community. The community based Tabulam skate park committee led the charge. It resulted from a partnership between the community and the federal government through our Stronger Communities program and the Kyogle Council. It was developed in consultation with local youth. A sketch provided to Kyogle Council by Daniel Sorrenti was developed into the final design by the council, working with Daniel and two other locals, Anthony Staveley and Josh Campbell. I would like to acknowledge members of the Tabulam skate park committee: Deborah Stavely, Hayley Jenkins, Kelly Khelloul and Adrian Keef. I also acknowledge Frank Burgess and Warwick Jansen from the Tabulam and District Chamber of Commerce. I also thank George and Alison Martin from the Tabulam Hotel, Peter Cootes and Trish Martin from Tabulam Rural Agents, Ridley Bell from Mountain Blue, and Gordon Lemaire for their assistance with the fundraising. Well done to all involved in this fantastic project. I am looking forward to opening and starting all these projects this month. Taxation 101 19:40 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Mr Speaker, you will know that last week, on 24 March, the Commonwealth Grants Commission updated their per capita relativities for use in the distribution of GST revenue among the states and territories for 2017-18. I note that the member opposite has a great interest in this because the Western Australian government and the Western Australian community feel that they have been hard done by. I have to say that is also true for the people of the Northern Territory. Sadly, despite the fact that we did not anticipate these changes, the overall impact on the Northern Territory is to reduce the relativity from 5.28 to 4.66. Even on the figures of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, they believe these changes would be around $269 million for the next financial year, which would be around four per cent of the Northern Territory's current budget. So, effectively, it is a four per cent cut in the revenue for their budget. If you use the Northern Territory Treasury figures for 2017-18 compared to the Northern Territory forward estimate figures, the number is $385 million, or almost six per cent of their budget. It is really difficult for a jurisdiction like the Northern Territory, with a budget of only about $6½ billion dollars, to have to tolerate the impact of these sorts of cuts. It is fair to say that the method of reviewing the redistribution is accepted across the states and territories and we have to take the rises and the falls, but, nevertheless, this is going to cause a great deal of hurt in the Northern Territory. I note that the Commonwealth Grants Commission is charged with reviewing its methodologies and reporting back to states and territories and the federal government by February 2020, but that is not going to help us at the moment. There is a real problem here because, as the Grants Commission acknowledges, the Northern Territory does not have the same fiscal capacity as other jurisdictions. In their report they say: The Northern Territory’s below average fiscal capacity is primarily due to its above average assessed expenses which arise from its above average shares of a range of high cost population groups, including exceptionally high proportions of Indigenous people and people in remote areas. Having represented the Northern Territory in this parliament for quite a few years, I can attest to the accuracy of those statements. But it raises a real issue about how they are going to maintain the provision of infrastructure and services to the Northern Territory community, and it will create great pressure on the budget for the Northern Territory and great demands on the Northern Territory Chief Minister and Treasurer to meet the needs. I could go into a diatribe about the failures of the former CLP government to anticipate these sorts of things. I will make the observation that they were pretty crook, they were hopeless and, in fact, there is no question at all that much of where we are now is a direct result of their incapacity to govern properly and to govern for all of the people of the Northern Territory. It raises the possibility that the Commonwealth government might, as the Grants Commission concedes, provide the Northern Territory with increased assistance through Commonwealth payments. I would say to the Commonwealth that you need to look very carefully at the possibility, for example, of increasing funding to the National Partnership on Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment and using that avenue to provide capital for the Northern Territory to provide additional services to people living in remote communities—principally Aboriginal people. That would take a lot of pressure off the Northern Territory government's own budget. It would build upon the successful investments made by the Stronger Futures program, which was introduced by Labor when in government. I say to the government: here is an opportunity. Sit down and negotiate in good faith with the Northern Territory government, the Chief Minister and Treasurer, and provide a capacity for them to get additional funding from the Commonwealth for these very important services. Cyclone Debbie 101 19:45 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Firstly, I would like to express my sympathy for the residents of Collinsville, Sarina, the Pioneer Valley and surrounds. I am sure the last 24 hours have been harrowing, but please know you have the Australian government's full support. As Tropical Cyclone Debbie receded overnight, our thoughts and prayers now turn to action. The priority now is recovery and ensuring the impact on lives and livelihoods is minimised. The effect of Tropical Cyclone Debbie on Capricornia has been multifaceted, highlighting the span of the region. I have spoken with the five mayors that cover my electorate, and their concerns are as diverse as the region itself. At this time, it is vital that the communities in outlying areas are not neglected. Collinsville has been badly affected. While the cyclone passed through the mining town as a category 2, many of the homes there are fibro. They have, therefore, sustained significant damage. Power lines and trees are down and communications have been cut. It is a community that is proud and tough and where neighbour takes care of neighbour. Prior to the storms hitting, local construction company Up Built assisted residents to prepare properties free of charge. Although communication lines to the mine site are still down, Glencore Mines have reported that there has been no damage to critical infrastructure and that everyone is safe. While production remains suspended, they are hoping to resume within the next 24 hours, with employees due to return to work today and tomorrow. In Sarina, Woolworths now has power, and shops are starting to open. There is still significant flooding, especially around Jackson Street and Range Road, but the rain continues. The Bruce Highway is now open into Sarina, but water around the showgrounds is still rising, so it may be cut off from the north. In the Pioneer Valley, water is now the enemy. We have been speaking to locals in the sugarcane industry. The wind and rain overnight has left hundreds of hectares of sugarcane crops flattened. The relentless rain is preventing them from assessing the damage, but there is anticipation of at least 25 per cent in losses. The longer the rain continues, the higher the damage, as the sugar cane becomes waterlogged. A large percentage of crops appear to have snapped, rendering the cane useless. It will be another 48 hours until the full extent of damage is known. The area affected by Tropical Cyclone Debbie accounts for about 29 per cent of total agricultural production in Queensland, based on 2011 ABS statistics—that is, 21 per cent of farm businesses in Queensland. Seventy per cent of Queensland's sugar cane comes from this region. With harvest set to start in under three months, the financial impacts on these farm businesses will be huge, but right now we need to get them out of their isolation and get their electricity back on so that they can get back on track. Of particular concern are the industries that keep these regions alive—mining, tourism and agriculture. The longer it takes for these industries to reopen, the longer the economic impact on the communities. I applaud the efforts of every level of government and the swift action taken by the Prime Minister to deploy the Australian Defence Force. These forces proved essential following Cyclone Marcia. The speed of deployment for this event will make recovery that much easier for people on the ground. The Insurance Council of Australia has declared a catastrophe event for the damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Debbie. Insurance companies have been quick to show support. The Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, jointly funded by the Australian government and state governments, have been activated for affected regions in Capricornia. We have had some practice and we are getting very good at responding to extreme weather events. The people of Central Queensland are resilient. At times like this, the best of us shines through. But we cannot be complacent. The people of these regions will need our ongoing support to get back on track. One thing I can say for sure is: I hope the member for Melbourne does not take sugar in his latte because he will certainly be getting a very bitter taste from the canegrowers of Central and Northern Queensland. Alvarez, Mr Jose Antonio, Nassar, Mr Leslie 102 19:49 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise tonight to pay tribute to a well-loved local who passed away in late March, aged only 48. Jose Antonio Alvarez was a dearly-beloved member of the Mount Druitt Labor Party and was very active in our local branches. They will feel his loss greatly. Jose was of Spanish descent. He came to Australia while he was very young and made a strong contribution to our country. He suffered with his own challenges, but he was an example of a person who did not let mental illness stop him from making a huge contribution to his community in a wide variety of ways. He said little, he thought deeply, he acted a lot. These are the things that I admired about Jose. He was quietly determined but also had a very strong competitive streak. He refused to let the challenges of life stop him from giving the best of himself to those worse off, to those people in need or to causes he felt strongly about. His quiet nature changed when it came to politics, though. He was always up for a debate, fiercely defending Labor values in any argument. Jose was a member of Calvary Chapel Bidwill Outreach Centre church and volunteered consistently at its outreach program from Mondays to Saturdays for seven years. He would spend time with local youth that came through the outreach. He would play his favourite game, chess, or chequers or ping-pong with whatever kids came through the door. Some young people bought their hard maths homework to him for help, as well. His quiet confidence and intelligence attracted young people who might not otherwise be comfortable around rowdy crowds. Jose finished a Bachelor of Accounting and was progressing through a Masters of Accounting. He plied his trade as the bookkeeper for his church and for others. His church pastor, Al Cifelli, knew Jose for over 24 years and remembers him very fondly. Pastor Cifelli said, 'We were honoured to be his friend. Not only that, he was family to us.' Pastor Cifelli also recounted a story where Jose defended Mt Druitt from becoming the butt end of a world record. The second-best chess player in Australia once came to Mt Druitt with the intention of easily beating 50 players faster than it had even been done before. But Jose had plans of his own and he held his own long enough to dent the time and prevent the record from being broken. He felt devastated about impacting on the world record, but he felt a quiet pride about defending Mt Druitt's honour. In 2009, Jose moved back home and became his mother's carer. He held her in high regard and they built an especially deep bond while he was caring for her. Jose was the Vice President of the Mt Druitt Labor branch until last year and was an energetic supporter of so many of us in the area. I have stood with him at railway stations in bitter cold and in early morning heat. He was always willing to help out. I was so grateful for the assistance he extended. He was always putting her shoulder to the wheel and was one of those unseen heroes. While we said goodbye to him on Saturday he will never be forgotten. He will be a part of our local area for many years to come, because our memories will always serve to honour what he has done for us. Another person I wanted to honour is someone who lost his life last year. We have many talented and creative people using new technology to change how we communicate and to challenge the way we look at things by turning innovative ideas into reality. When I think of that type of person I think of someone like Leslie Nasser. Leslie used digital innovation to make the world a more interesting place. He was known for his satirical column at Crikey, and founded and managed TweeVee TV, which moderated tweets for the live broadcast of the ABC's Q&A program. In fact, Q&A executive producer Pete McEvoy described Leslie as the 'engineering genius behind Q&A'. When Twitter took up the Q&A hashtag, traditional media followed suit with their own versions. So he was a trailblazer. For ABC radio he was stubborn in his insistence that specialty content should be made available to all Australians on demand and then added the means to produce podcasts. The social media operations he developed for Victoria Police became the standard model for online dispatches. In his time at digital agency Razorfish, Leslie produced building-scale art projects such as helping Samsung stream their projects on the sails of the iconic Opera House. He made his home in Idaho with his US-born wife and three daughters and from there he ran his own business, Wrangling Cats. But, unfortunately, in October last year he died when hit by a car while out walking with two of his three daughters. Leslie, you will not be forgotten. Thank you for the laughs, thank you for the memories and thank you for your pioneering spirit. GST, Swan Electorate 103 19:55 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I did not rise to speak about GST, but after hearing the Labor member for Lingiari talk about GST in the Northern Territory, which is run by a Labor government, I cannot ignore it. I just mention to any Western Australians listening that the Labor member was complaining about the fact that their ratio has dropped to 4.66, while Western Australia's ratio is at 0.34. So this has become a national issue, I think. I know Kevin Rudd realised it. He acknowledged it back in 2007 and said he would fix it, but he did not. But our Prime Minister has at least started the conversation about the floor in the system—meaning putting in a minimum floor. At the same time he has written to all the state premiers to initiate that program. I think he should be acknowledged for the work he is doing to put some fairness back into the GST distribution system. I would now like to update the House on some of the projects in Swan that the coalition government has delivered. I recall when I was first elected to parliament as the representative for Swan, the new members' briefing advised that the work of a member could be broken up into three roles: parliamentary, party member and constituency representative. The latter has always been my priority, representing the good people of Swan in the great state of Western Australia. I have spoken previously in this chamber on how important it is to me to be the representative of Swan, to consult with the community, to establish the needs of our electorate and then develop a plan through which we are able to meet those needs. I am very proud of the projects I have been able to deliver during my nine and a half years as the local member. Like in any growing community, a big part of those needs is delivering community infrastructure that benefits our community and actively assists. I am eager to continue working with constituents, local governments and organisations in the electorate of Swan in achieving and delivering results that are of great benefit to our fantastic community. Before we came to Canberra last week, I made a visit to the Belmont City Bowling Club to see their $12,000 grant from the Stronger Communities Program, which was able to be used for some new equipment, which I spoke about last week. That is just one example of how the coalition has made a difference in the Swan community. From the two rounds of the Stronger Communities Program more than 20 local clubs and organisations in Swan have been given funding to help improve their buildings and facilities. This is something I am very proud to have achieved for the local community. Some of the other community groups that have benefitted include: South Perth Senior Citizens Centre; the Victoria Park Swimming Club, which has an upgraded fitness centre; the Belmont Men's Shed, new tools and equipment; the Belmont Toy Library, fitout and equipment; Manna Inc, a new van for transporting the people who come to their place to get free meals during the day; the Curtin University Boat Club, which has a new trailer and trolley; the Dynamic Flame Badminton Club, to purchase new equipment; Perth Football Club, for new equipment and some dugouts around the boundary of the oval; and Connect Victoria Park, for reinvigoration of Connect Victoria Park, which is one of the local not-for-profit organisations in the electorate. There are many more, and all of these grants have made a huge difference to the local communities. The coalition has also made a considerable investment in tackling crime in Swan. Since the coalition was elected in 2013, with the assistance of another Western Australian member, Mr Keenan, the member for Stirling, we have been granted $145,000 for CCTV cameras in the City of Belmont. I spoke to one of the local sergeants the other night who said that they had been very useful in their system and have been helpful in apprehending criminals who are taking advantage of cars parked in car parks. On top of that, we are in the process of funding $300,000 to upgrade lighting in the Town of Victoria Park to tackle crime in hotspot suburbs such as Burswood and St James, where at the moment the lighting is dull and inefficient. And then we have countless campaigns that I have led for Swan. Some took longer than others, but in the end Swan has had great success. I also recall my campaign for something that is close to me, which is the campaign for better health services in the Belmont area. The Belmont area now has access to many great health services, which were lacking when I came into parliament. It includes a Medicare Office, a HBF office, the Belmont City Medical Centre and the Belvidere Street after hours service. I have more to say but I have another matter I would like to raise quickly. It concerns an article in The Australian today about the CFMEU being fined by a federal court for industrial bullying over the Perth Airport project in my electorate. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 8 pm the House stands adjourned. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 104 NOTICES

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) took the chair at 10:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 106 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Northern Territory 106 10:00 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Northern Territory is still assessing the impact of devastating GST cuts. Chief Minister Michael Gunner and Treasurer Nicole Manison are hoping to be in Canberra later this week to meet with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The point is: we have a massive amount of unmet need and historical infrastructural deficit in the Territory that will stop us from realising the development of the north and the realising of the huge potential of the Northern Territory for our nation. We need to lead in closing the gap, not continue to go backwards. We have huge potential in the Top End and we want the opportunity to develop our industry and resources and to maximise our unique access to those massive Asian markets. More than ever, we are looking to our local industry and businesses and ways that we can boost our local economy and grow local jobs. We are also looking for the infrastructure investment that has been promised by this government, which to date, to be honest, has not been delivered. We have got absolutely nothing to date from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Then there is the Minister for Defence Industry, the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, who has promised us a share of the defence pie, stating that defence expenditure will not be localised into one state—we all know that he is talking about South Australia. But we in the Northern Territory are part of a Commonwealth. You may say that other states will be benefiting, but we are not seeing it in the Territory, where we have a very significant defence presence but very little local contracting or infrastructure services to support it. I have just been meeting this morning with the Executive Director of the Master Builders Association NT, David Malone, and some of the members of the MBA. As they say, this government is not currently joining the dots for local defence companies. On the one hand, it is promising to ensure the benefits of defence industry expenditure will be shared nationally, but then the government is unable to align contracting and tendering packages to meet the pool of local skills and capacity. Northern Territory businesses and industry are cut out of a lot of defence industry tenders right from the get-go, as these contracts are tailored to meet the profile and experience of southern companies. This must change. We in the Northern Territory want to be given the same respect as any other Australian businesses. Recently I have hosted visits from shadow ministers, including the member for Canberra and the member for Grayndler, and next week I will host the shadow minister for defence, the member for Corio. We are meeting key industry groups, government, local construction companies and small operators to discuss how they can compete and attract defence industry contracts big and small. We have the capacity in the Northern Territory and we hope that we are given the opportunity to use it. North Sydney Electorate: War Memorials 106 10:03 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney As we approach Anzac Day 2017, our minds turn to those commemorative events, marches and dawn services that will unite Australians in gratitude for those who have served Australia in times of war and conflict. At the heart of those events will be the war memorials constructed by a grateful nation in every town and suburb across Australia. They are a permanent marker that reminds us of the sacrifice of those men and women who served. We as a community have a deep obligation to ensure those memorials are preserved, and that is why programs like the federal government's Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program are just so important. My electorate is home to many memorials, and I want to acknowledge the efforts of the North Sydney RSL Sub-Branch to see two of those restored and refurbished. The Northbridge War Memorial was built in the early 1950s and was the centre of commemorations undertaken by the Northbridge RSL Sub-Branch. In 2001 the sub-branch ceased to exist and, without a sub-branch to maintain the memorial, it fell into disrepair. It has not, however, been forgotten and, with the support of Willoughby City Council and the federal government, the North Sydney RSL Sub-Branch has overseen its restoration. It was a special moment for me to be able to attend a flag-raising ceremony at the memorial earlier this month to mark the completion of its restoration. The flag raising was attended by representatives of the community and the RSL and the Mayor of Willoughby, Gail Giles-Gidney, along with her fellow councillors Hugh Eriksson, Rachel Hill and John Hooper. I was particularly pleased that we were also joined by Keith Arneman, who signed up at the age of 18 to serve in World War II and fought in the Middle East. Keith was the last member of the Northbridge RSL Sub-Branch and we honour his service and that of his peers. The North Sydney RSL Sub-Branch are also working to see the North Sydney cenotaph in St Leonards Park refurbished. I am pleased that all three levels of government—federal, state and North Sydney Council—are supporting them in their endeavours. Constructed through the donations of residents across the North Shore, the cenotaph records the names of 500 local citizens who made the ultimate sacrifice for Australia. The most recent grants will see its ornate brass lamps, which stand on the four corners of the cenotaph, returned to working order for the first time in many decades. This follows many years of efforts to see it restored, and I was pleased to play a small part in this as a North Sydney councillor over a decade ago. It is now the centre of commemorations on Anzac Day, with several thousand residents joining veterans at the dawn service held each year. I want to congratulate all those at the North Sydney RSL Sub-Branch who have worked to ensure these two memorials continue to stand proudly as reminders of the sacrifice of so many. I particularly acknowledge the sub-branch president, Alex Wilson, and his committee, particularly Bronte Pollard. These memorials, and so many others across my electorate, will be the centre of Anzac Day commemorations in a few weeks time. They are a tangible demonstration of our commitment to ensuring that the bravery of those who fought for Australia is never forgotten. Dobell Electorate: Legal Aid 107 10:06 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Brooke is a Central Coast mum who lives with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety as well as other medical problems. To cope with family violence and sexual assault, Brooke turned to alcohol, and when that became too much her daughter was removed from her care. Brooke could not keep up with her mortgage payments, and the bank threatened to take her home, so she turned to the Central Coast Community Legal Centre for help. The Central Coast Community Legal Centre represented Brooke in negotiations with the bank, linked her with a financial counsellor, and worked closely with the bank to halt foreclosure and help with mortgage payments. At the same time, they brought in a case management service to help with alcohol rehabilitation and other support services. With the help of the caring and dedicated staff at Central Coast Community Legal Centre, Brooke was able to keep her home and is working hard to get her daughter back. Jack is an elderly Indigenous man with disability, including visual and mobility impairments. Jack also has a low level of literacy. On the advice of a lender, Jack took out a personal loan. He had already accrued a large credit card debt with the same lender and was encouraged to take out the loan to refinance his credit card debt. He did not realise how big the repayments were going to be or that meeting them would mean making the choice between food and essential medicine or paying back the loan. When he asked the Central Coast Community Legal Centre for help, they found his personal loan was for a larger amount of money than Jack owed on the credit card. They helped him complete an application for financial hardship assistance, which saw his loan repayments reduced to $20 per week. They also arranged a financial counsellor to help him with budgeting and to better manage his financial affairs. These are two of the nearly 6,000 people helped by the Central Coast Community Legal Centre last year. Sadly, a further 1,700 were turned away. From 1 July this year, the Central Coast Community Legal Centre will have its funding cut by around $74,000. Without this funding, the service will have to cut either a director or the Aboriginal access worker. This will seriously jeopardise their ability to help people in need like Jack—people experiencing family law issues, problems with debt, including Centrelink's robo-debt, and discrimination. They are a vital support for victims of family and sexual violence. The value that community lawyers provide my community is enormous. Their work helps keep families together, people out of jail and people employed, and it protects those who need it most. The government should, and must, reverse these cuts as a matter of urgency. We cannot see more people living like Jack, more people placed in situations where they are in desperate need and do not get the support that they need to find help. Bennelong Electorate 107 10:09 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Last Saturday morning, I attended three local events that confirmed with me how special and strong the community in Bennelong is. First up was the Ryde Little Athletics season finale fun day/age group trophy presentation. I had the honour of starting the parents 60-metre dash. After pulling the trigger, I joined in the race. I didn't catch; I didn't gain, but it was fun. The heart was pumping and the spirit was great. It is always exciting to see the parents do what they implore the children to do, and this is part of an initiative that we are trying to get the parents to do what the children do. It is a great organisation promoting positive activity amongst our young people. Club President David Sutherland and all of the organisers are community champions and should be congratulated. David introduced me to a special young athlete: Nathan Barbara. He is a double amputee but active in the club; an athlete who competes with prosthetic legs that he manages to walk and run with—a true example of a wonderful attitude to life; a real champion, and his parents are justly proud. I also mention North Ryde Dockers AFL club, who partnered with the athletics day, cementing a shared appreciation of the benefits of active recreation for young people. After my 60-metre dash, I then ran—well, I drove—to Eastwood to open and participate in the Australian Asian Association of Bennelong, the AAAB, Harmony Cup football competition. Hugh Lee and the association are outstanding community ambassadors; real advocates for respect and harmony in our community. It was my absolute pleasure to support their initiative and to participate. I joined in the AAAB celebrities team—they said 'celebrities plus me'—and we got smashed by Medibank, who were semiprofessional. Despite my best efforts in defence, I think my best football days are behind me, and very few. Local teams supporting Harmony Day included Ryde City Council; the Australian Chinese Soccer Association; Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Korean Soccer Association of Australia; Woodies Eastwood Rugby—they tried to tackle and were yellow-carded; Ryde Community Forum; Ryde Police—an arresting team; and the United Cultural Community @t Ryde. The national anthem, both the verses, were sung beautifully by a local celebrity—who did not join our celebrities team!—Rosanna Gallo. Finally, after doing my best as the AAAB celebrities team's super sub, I departed for Ryde civic hall for an amazing Korean banquet lunch. It was the Korean Society of Senior Citizens Day celebration. I shared my meal with my neighbour from Reid, Craig Laundy—who was very gracious and drank beer, which he does very well—another great champion of this diverse community. President of the Korean Society of Sydney— (Time expired) Denison Electorate: Welfare Reform 108 10:12 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Older Australians are getting a raw deal from this government. Indeed, just last week in the Sunday Tasmanian, a survey of local pensioners found that many are struggling, that a staggering 74 per cent of respondents run out of money every fortnight and that 63 per cent go without necessities, including fresh food. So for a start, we need to fix the age pension because it is obviously far too low and should be lifted immediately to a liveable amount. Instead, this government seem determined to diminish retirement incomes for many older Australians, in particular for superannuants and those on part-pensions. While some measures, like the 2014 budget proposal to index pensions to CPI have rightfully been abandoned, pensioners are still being targeted in a ruthless campaign. For example, the changes to the asset test, which I voted against, have left some in my electorate entirely without a part-pension. Indeed, just recently I met with a constituent who has lost his entire part-pension and has to live on just $26,000 a year—entirely from his superannuation. Moreover, the cuts to part-pensions for defined benefit recipients are hitting hard many people who are, in fact, on very modest incomes. Even those approaching retirement have been targeted with changed rules around the accumulation phase of super. More broadly, one of the most alarming findings in the Sunday Tasmanian was that 80 per cent of pensioners were concerned about being caught up in the Centrelink debt recovery process—and no wonder because this program is terrorising older Australians. While I am glad I was able to successfully lobby the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the matter, the government still stands by it. Regrettably, things are only set to get worse as the program is expanded to cover the age pension. Nor are the government doing any better with aged care because they have cut $1.2 billion from residential aged care and are refusing to take any action to crack down on the rorting by some home-care service providers. The Sunday Tasmanian research should be a powerful wake-up call to all of us. Pensioners are saying things like, 'I only buy necessities and hope I don't get sick,' or 'The budget is gone by about day nine or 10 of every fortnight,' or 'No lunch or coffee with friends; can get lonely.' No-one should have to live like this in our fabulously rich and fortunate country, so all members in this place and, especially the Prime Minister and his cabinet, really should read the newspaper article I refer to and, to that end, I seek leave to table the relevant edition of the paper. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is leave granted? Mr Robert HWT The paper is freely available to everyone in the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Leave is not granted. Mr WILKIE C2T If I could make the point though that this is not easily available on the mainland. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP I appreciate the member's point but leave is not granted. Anzac Day 108 10:15 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies As this is the last sitting week before Anzac Day, can I take the opportunity to encourage all Australians, including my constituents in Menzies, to participate in the various Anzac Day services, both on Anzac Day and beforehand. Over these four years, we are commemorating the centenary of the Great War, and it is worth recalling that more than 400,000 Australians enlisted to fight in the Great War, and another 3,000 nurses in addition to the 400,000 men. The population of Australia at that stage was about five million. To put that in context, 400,000 out of a population of five million—but you need to halve that because the 400,000 were males—so we are talking about one in five of males in Australia enlisted. And, then, if you break that down to the ages of people who enlisted—of eligible ages—somewhere in the order of one in two to one in three young adult men, some of them barely out of adolescence, enlisted to fight in the Great War. It is no wonder why that war had such a significant impact on the psyche of this country. There is nowhere in Australia, in your electorate, Deputy Speaker, or mine, or every small city or town, every village or, indeed, hamlet throughout this country where there is not a memorial which has on it the names, sometimes of dozens, of people who went to fight in the Great War and many of whom did not return and many more of whom were injured. We commemorate, in particular, this year what has been described as the last great cavalry charge in history, the Battle of Beersheba, where the Australian Light Horse was involved liberating Beersheba. That started the breakthrough against the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent progression through what is now Israel, Jerusalem and the Levant. Indeed, there was some 31 light horsemen who were killed in that charge and another 36 who were injured. As I said, I encourage all Australians to participate in Anzac Day services. In my electorate, or close to my electorate, on the Sunday before Anzac Day at 2.45 pm at the Croydon RSL and at 3 pm at the Doncaster RSL and, then, on Anzac Day itself there at dawn services at Croydon at 5.45 am and at Doncaster, also at 5.45 am. There are services at Templestowe with a march beginning at 8 am and a service at 8.30, and a service, also with a march, beginning at Warrandyte at 10.30 am and a service at 11 am. It is our opportunity to say how grateful we are to the men and women who served and continue to serve this country in the Australian Defence Forces. Field, Mr David 109 10:18 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I want to highlight the remarkable work of my local constituent David Field of Kingscliff. David has been volunteering for the Australian Volunteers for International Development program since 2011. In 2011 to 2013, he was assigned to the Philippine Red Cross updating their lifesaving and lifeguarding techniques. On the major tourist island of Boracay, he established a professional lifeguard service as well as junior water safety projects and a cultural sporting activity to highlight water safety. In 2013, he brought a senior Red Cross trainer to Australia to learn about surf lifesaving under the Zahn lifesaving scholarship, a scheme set up by David and funded by a local Kingscliff business owner. This trainer returned to Cebu and went on to set up a volunteer lifesaving service. In 2014, David accepted another volunteer position in lifesaving development, this time in Danang in Vietnam. Following the completion of the project, David was asked to return and develop more program to achieve and maintain world standards in beach management and water safety. David has relied upon the willingness of fellow North Coast surf lifesavers to travel to Vietnam to help him develop surf lifesaving and drowning prevention awareness. He has hosted three such tours by Australian lifesavers, including a tour in 2016 by 29 junior lifesavers and their parents from the Cudgen Headland Surf Life Saving Club. Surf Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving New South Wales have also been very generous in their support, including assisting David with the shipping of second-hand rescue equipment from Australian surf clubs to Vietnam. To facilitate lifesaving development, David has often had to step beyond the constraints of the volunteer program and create opportunities to raise the level of involvement. David has also arranged surf lifesaving carnivals in Vietnam and has organised for lifeguards to attend world conferences and visits to Australia for additional lifesaving education and training—all financed with the Zahn scholarship. In addition to his work on the Australian government's volunteer program, David has been active in lifesaving development in Thailand since 2001, and in 2004 he founded the Phuket Lifeguard Club with a group of like-minded Thais to improve water safety standards in Southern Thailand. In 2009, the Phuket Lifeguard Club took over the contract to provide lifeguard services at 11 local beaches, and they then became the Phuket Lifeguard Services—a program modelled on David's experience as a professional lifeguard with Surf Life Saving Australia. In its first season managing those local beaches, fatalities during the monsoon season dropped to single figures, after a high in 2008 of 44. David will continue his work in Phuket in 2017 with a team of Australian lifesavers who will train more than 100 lifeguards. This journey of lifesaving development and projects and raising awareness in South East Asia has been a really passionate interest not only of David but also of his wife Susan and sons Blake and Lachlan. Individuals like David are an inspiration to us all. I would like to thank him for his dedication to volunteering and improving the lives of others both here locally in his surf lifesaving commitment but of course all of that in South East Asia. He has made a huge difference and I commend him on the remarkable work that he is doing both locally and internationally. Chisholm Electorate: Child Care 110 10:21 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm Across Chisholm, child care is something that so many people are concerned about. Childcare costs are intrinsically linked to the family budget. In talking to parents with young children across Chisholm, whether they work as retail shop assistants, in small businesses, as teachers, nurses, carers, hospitality workers, tradesmen or volunteers, the issue and cost of child care is something that needs to be factored into their daily lives. As with anything in life, we need to plan the budget and important matters such as child care. I am proud to be a member of the Turnbull government and I am most proud of the fact that we get things done. We are pragmatic and we deliver. This is underpinned by the Turnbull government's understanding that families are the backbone of our society, and we understand that every day parents are making choices in the best interest of their family. The flexibility of the Turnbull government's childcare reforms means that families can access a range of care options to suit the growing changes of their family's needs. Covered by the changes include in-home care, family day care, long day care, occasional care and outside-school-hours care, which includes before and after school and vacation care. The Jobs for Families Child Care Package gives parents more choice and opportunity to work and provides children with a high-quality early education. We make no apology for the fact that our childcare package is for families who want to work or want to work more, whilst providing a safety net for those who need it. We believe in helping Australian families and giving them the opportunities to get ahead. For some, access to child care can mean the difference between working and not working. More affordable access to child care puts the opportunity of work within reach for so many more families. This is a very fair and agile package, which is pragmatic and workable. It will provide the greatest hours of support in child care to the families who work the longest hours and the greatest subsidy and financial support to the families who earn the least. Additionally, an activity test will ensure that taxpayers support for child care is targeted to those who depend on it in order to work or work additional hours. The government is committed to reducing regulation and red tape for childcare providers. We will make the transition to the new system as simple as we can, to avoid burdening providers with paperwork and red tape. In Chisholm, we have 11,770 children using approved child care, we have 5,900 families using approved child care and we have 122 childcare services. The Turnbull government continues to deliver—delivering for families in Chisholm and across Australia and helping Australian families, the backbone of our society. Community Celebrations 110 10:24 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Labor extends its best wishes to Assyrian communities in Australia and around the world celebrating Assyrian New Year or Akitu. Assyrian New Year is one of the oldest celebrations in history and dates back to ancient Assyrian and Babylonian empires over 6,000 years ago. Akitu is a celebration which marks the beginning of spring and symbolises the awakening of nature. Assyrian people gather with family, friends and community to welcome the season of blossoms with dancing, music, traditional food and poetry. Australia's Assyrian community in Sydney marks this special occasion with a festival at Fairfield Showground every year, attracting thousands of people, highlighting the vibrant cultural heritage that is celebrated in our diverse multicultural society. Every celebration is part of our Australian story. On behalf of Labor, I extend warm wishes to those celebrating Ridvan. Ridvan is a 12-day festival which celebrates the beginning of the Baha'i faith in 1863. Ridvan, translated as 'Paradise', is named after the garden of Ridvan outside Baghdad where the founder of the Baha'i faith stayed for 12 days after the Ottoman Empire exiled him. During celebrations, particularly on the first, ninth and last days, people abstain from work and take part in gatherings, parties and picnics. It is a joyous occasion and often includes reflection, prayer and reading from the Baha'i writings. The Baha'i faith teaches that the service of humanity can bring lasting happiness, and it is in this spirit that Ridvan is celebrated. I extend Labor's best wishes to Sikh communities in Australia and around the world celebrating Vaisakhi. Vaisakhi celebrates the beginning of the harvest season and commemorates the formation of Khalsa Panth, the baptism of five Sikh men who offered to uphold and preserve the Sikh faith by sacrificing their lives and establishing a spiritual community. During Vaisakhi, a day of remembrance, friends and family come together to read sacred texts, enjoy festive foods and socialise with loved ones. The teachings of Sikhism promote equality, unity, meaningful interactions and respect. These are values which are entrenched in the Australian story and enhance our experience of a modern, multicultural Australian society. Between now and when parliament returns, we will also have the Easter celebrations. For the Eastern and Western Christian churches, the dates are different, the Eastern churches relying on the actual observation of the vernal equinox, and the Western churches using 21 March as a fixed date. But, even though the dates change, the celebration is the same. So, whichever date people are observing for the feasts of Holy Week, from Palm Sunday to Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Saturday and ultimately Easter Sunday, on behalf of the Labor Party I wish you, in advance, a very happy Easter. Diabetes: Continuous Glucose Monitors 111 10:27 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee You know, as a backbencher, you can achieve quite a lot. I look back over my last few years in the parliament and think of Australia-wide intervention orders—an idea that came out of our office and has now been implemented—to protect victims of family violence. I look at Safe Haven Enterprise visas, which provide a pathway for residency for some of those 30,000 people on the legacy visas. One of the things I have pushed for, which came out of a conversation with a young man called Blair Gould, was continuous glucose monitors for children with type 1 diabetes. I was very pleased to see that, nine months ago, we made an election commitment worth $54 million that we would roll this out for children under 21 across Australia. It saddens me that, nine months later, we still have not delivered on this election commitment. We are on our second health minister, and it is time that we delivered continuous glucose monitors, subsidised for children with type 1 diabetes. I met with a 10-year-old girl called Alexa Cameron who explained to me what that monitor was doing for her. She put it in a really succinct way: 'It allows me to be a child. And I get to eat one more scone.' And this is really what it is about. Blair said to me the other day that he had pricked his finger 7,000 times since being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. To the credit of the local Lions club, they have actually come in— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:28 to 10:42 Mr BROAD 30379 Before the suspension I was talking about continuous glucose monitors for children with type 1 diabetes. This issue was raised with me by a young man called Blair Gould, who I met in Birchip. He explained to me that he had had his finger pricked 7,000 times. I also came across another very impressive young lady called Alexa Cameron, who showed me a continuous glucose monitor. She said that it meant that she could manage her blood sugars. What she really said was that it meant that she could actually have another scone. In the election campaign in July, the federal government committed $54 million to subsidise continuous glucose monitors for children under 21 years of age with type 1 diabetes. It saddens me that, nine months in, we still have not delivered on this election commitment. This is a commitment that should be honoured—that must be honoured. My understanding is that the minister is working on it, but it is time that we deliver this for the children of Australia. This is certainly a very worthwhile project. It was only because it was raised with me, that people came and saw me, that I became aware of this. At its very core, it is about children having the opportunity to be children—to grow up—and so that we can ensure not only that they can manage their disease but also that their lives are better. It is time to deliver this. Let us deliver it now. 10:43 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 111 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources 111 Report 111 10:43 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I welcome this report. The direct value to the Australian economy of honey and other hive products produced by managed honey bees is estimated at $100 million per year. This may not sound like a lot when compared to the contribution made by other industries or sectors; however, what should be taken into account is the indirect contribution honey bees make through the pollination service they provide to other agricultural sectors. Quantifying this value to the Australian economy is not exactly easy; however, the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council estimates that pollination services provide around $4 billion per annum to the agricultural industry. This is why the committee felt that establishing an inquiry into this matter and, in particular, having a focus on the biosecurity of the Australian honey bee industry, was an important economic issue to pursue. It is a particularly important industry for Tasmania. It employs a number of people in rural areas and provides important economic benefits to local communities. Honey and associated apiary products are an important part of Tasmania's clean and green image, with Blue Hills Honey in Mawbanna, which is in my electorate of Braddon, just one example of Australia's top producers. The varroa mite poses a particular threat to the Australian honey bee industry, which is clearly not immune to risks and faces a range of biosecurity threats. Biosecurity threats to this industry were an important concern to the committee, particularly the threat posed by the varroa mite. Australia is the only bee-carrying landmass where varroa is not yet present—and I stress, not yet. Sadly, it is quite possibly a matter of when, not if. Varroa infestation can have catastrophic consequences on honey bee colonies, ultimately culminating in the collapse of the hive. Of the two species of Varroa, V. destructor poses the greatest risk to Australia's honey bee and horticultural industries, which is of significant concern for Tasmania. The ongoing risk of bee pests like varroa arriving in Australia is extremely high. Well-known Tasmanian bee industry stalwart, Lindsay Bourke, presenting to the committee as Chairman of the Australian Honeybee Industry Council, indicated that there are between three and four detections of pest bees or bee pests at the border each year. Tasmania as an island state has a biosecurity risk advantage, and therefore fewer pests and diseases are present in our environment in comparison to that of our counterparts in mainland Australia. We therefore need to ensure that biosecurity measures are strictly enforced. However, our island status, and therefore our natural biosecurity barrier, is no match for the varroa mite, as experienced in the enormous impact it has had on the island nation of New Zealand. Strong quarantine facilities are extremely important, not only for Tasmania but for the whole nation, to protect the viability of the industry and of our agricultural sector. As stated in the report, the best and first line of defence is pre-embarkation. The committee heard that Australia employs a range of strategies to try and prevent biosecurity incidents as related to honey bees. These include activities beyond, at and behind Australian borders. The committee was provided with evidence to demonstrate the work that occurs along the biosecurity defence continuum, and that the key to our biosecurity defence is pre-embarkation inspections. It was important for me to ensure the committee's report included recommendations that strengthened pre-embarkation inspections, and this is reflected in recommendation 4. The committee has recommended the Australian government undertake analysis of pest bee risk gradings for Australian ports including airports, which currently do not have a rating, and include pre-embarkation inspections and processes at various ports, and for this assessment to be completed by the end of this. Interception at likely entry points into Australia was identified as another key method of dealing with the intrusion of bee pests. It is pleasing to hear about the collaborative approach being undertaken against the significant threat that the arrival of varroa presents to the Australian honey bee and wider agricultural industries. These approaches, such as selective breeding programs, are recommended by the committee to be undertaken with international industry partners; in particular, learning from the experiences of other countries who have had to deal with varroa, such as New Zealand. The issue of smuggling bees also warrants further investigation. Along with the committee, I wish to see a detailed examination of this issue. The committee stresses the urgency of ensuring the national bee pest surveillance program is assessed, with a request to immediately initiate the necessary research and development required to do this. This is to ensure the program is effective, efficient and optimised, and for particular focus to be given to catch boxes. The committee heard the number of catch boxes and sentinel hives at ports are insufficient in number, and not in strategic and logical locations at port. In fact, some are too far away, which does not allow for an optimum response to an incursion. Of course, an appropriate response to the risk of a varroa incursion, and thus early interception, requires funding. The committee recommends the Commonwealth appropriately fund model 3 of the surveillance program. This would result in additional ports having the capability to detect an incursion and would be at a cost of approximately $1.9 million per annum, which is relatively small considering the impact varroa would have on our agricultural sector. It is imperative that the Australian government investigate the member for Paterson's suggestion that an easy-to-use smartphone application be developed to help members of the public take part in eradication programs. The biosecurity of the Australian honey bee industry is a very important issue, and this report goes a long way to resolving some of the key issues facing the industry. 10:50 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I wish to thank the committee for the compilation of this report. I think it is a very useful contribution in this field and makes some very interesting points, not least of which is the importance of the honey bee industry in Australia. That industry, worth an estimated $100 million per year, is comparatively small, but its value to Australia's economy is much greater. It has been estimated that pollination services provide $4 billion per annum in value to agricultural industry in Australia. That is a big and important contribution. I thank all the committee members for their work in this field. It is important to note that without honey bees for pollination many fruit, nut, vegetable, legume and seed crops could not bear fruit or seeds. That is why this area is so important. Although a range of insect species can pollinate plants, honey bees play a vital role in pollinating many horticultural crops. In addition to the pollination of crops, bees can also assist the grazing industry by improving the yield and persistence of common fodder crops such as clover. This can reduce agricultural input costs and may also have environmental benefits by reducing the need for graziers to use fertilisers or other chemicals. This industry does not receive the recognition that it really deserves, and its importance needs to be highlighted when reports such as this are handed down. I need to mention the wonderful work on honey bees that is being carried out in the electorate of Calare. There are many people working diligently in this field, including those who run Maya Sunny Honey, which produces a 100 per cent raw honey range handcrafted wholly by Andrew Wyszynski. Andrew's passion for bees started at a very young age in the countryside of Poland, where he helped and learned from his parents on their apiarist farm. Maya Sunny Honey has 250 hives, and its products are stocked all over Australia, including at David Jones, Harris Farm and even here in Canberra at the National Gallery of Australia. I could not discuss honey bees in Calare without mentioning the Mudgee Honey Haven and Frank and Trish Maiolo, who run the honey haven. It is one of the premier tourist attractions in the Mudgee district, established in 1990. Frank and Trish currently have 400 hives. They produce a variety of honey products, including pure honey, creamed honey, gourmet honey, BeePower active honey, health and beauty honey products and mead-honey wine, which is made using a time-tested ancient recipe, fermenting pure Australian honey to create unique flavours and aromas. There are three mead-honey wines in the range: honey mead, spiced mead and honey liqueur. Members of the committee will no doubt be very keen to sample some when they are in the Mudgee area. Dougal Munro has been beekeeping since the age of five, when his father had a large apiary. When he was not tending to the large family orchard or their massive vegetable garden, he could be found inspecting the bees. Dougal's farm is located at Springside, just south of Orange, and is a little over 120 acres. His parents purchased the property in 1979. It was in addition to their separate and much larger farm closer to Orange, which has been owned and farmed by Dougal's family for almost a century. Dougal currently has 120 hives at the property near Orange, where he also farms garlic, potatoes, artichokes, asparagus, horseradish, apricots, peaches, nectarines, cherries, plums, figs, mulberries, kiwifruit and quinces. There is even one lonely sugar maple that he has for maple syrup. He is another great achiever in the field. So is Cottesbrook Honey, which is based at Fitzgeralds Mount, between Blayney and Bathurst. Tracey and David Parker operate 600 hives there, and they have been doing that since the 1980s. Cottesbrook Honey specialise in producing premium varieties of honey, honeycomb, creamed honey, beeswax and other beehive products. Not only do they keep hives but they also process and pack their own honey. I also have to mention the Australian Queen Bee Line, who are based in Orange. Charlie and Brenda Casido run honey production there. They have got a centre. They carefully gather pure honey products from their own bee communities located throughout eastern Australia. Their collection area ranges from southern Queensland right through to Victoria in the south. Charlie and Brenda produce honey and honeycomb products, royal jelly, pollen and beeswax. Their bees are also hired to a number of orchards in our region, to pollinate stone fruit and cherries. We all know how important orcharding and horticulture are to the Calare electorate. Australian Queen Bee Line are currently selling around 10,000 queen bees Australia wide. They are also exporting around 10,000 queen bees to the international market. I caught up with them at last year's Australian National Field Days and was able to gain a greater understanding of what they actually do there. They are doing a wonderful job. It brought home to me that bees are the unsung heroes of horticulture, because, when you listen to all of the work that the Casidos do in terms of pollination at our orchards, it is quite amazing. They are providing bees to Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Philippines and Canada. Charlie and Brenda say that there is a huge demand for queen bees in Canada, of around 65,000. However, they can only supply 10,000 of them, due to seasonal conditions. They have currently got five permanent staff and five casual staff on call. I also have to mention Goldfields honey, which is situated at Vittoria, between Orange and Bathurst. Grant and Vikki Lockwood have been operating Goldfields honey for approximately 40 years. They have 5,000 hives and, along with producing honey products, also provide pollination services across the central west of New South Wales as well as Victoria and parts of Queensland. I note that the report makes six recommendations to the government aimed at improving early threat and detection strategies for the biosecurity of Australian honey bees. The government will be responding to the recommendations in due course, but I think it is fair to say the government has not been idle in protecting Australia's biosecurity. The government is aware of the potential for bees to be illegally imported into Australia. A proactive investigation by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources was launched in February 2015 and remains open. A number of pathways have been examined, and no instances of illegal bee smuggling have been detected to date. However, in 2000, a New South Wales beekeeper was prosecuted after being detected trying to smuggle queen bees into Australia concealed in pens, of all things. So there is a need for constant vigilance in this field. Australia does have systems in place to increase our protection from introduced bee pests and diseases such as varroa mites, including incursion prevention systems which include the requirement for all vessels arriving into Australia from overseas to provide the department with a pre-arrival report so that a biosecurity risk assessment of the vessel can be undertaken prior to its arrival. Cargo can only be imported to Australia under approved, strict biosecurity conditions that effectively manage pest and disease risks. There are inspections at the border to intercept smuggling and reduce the risk of entry of foreign bees and any pests and diseases they carry. There are also early detection systems in place such as general surveillance activities at airports, seaports and premises under approved arrangements. The National Bee Pest Surveillance Program is also in place, which uses sentinel hives, catch boxes and other methods to detect exotic bees and bee pests. There are emergency response procedures in place as well. So I think the government has been proactive, but there will be a response to the recommendations of the report in due course. Can I conclude by thanking the committee for their important work in this field. It means a lot to electorates such as Calare that have a heavy investment in horticulture. Can I also conclude by thanking all of those involved in the honey bee industry in the electorate of Calare and across Australia for the important work that they do in our communities and for our regional economies. It is important work. It is work that is not recognised enough, but hopefully, through this report and this process, they will get the credit that they so richly deserve. I thank them in this House today. 11:00 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise to speak today on the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources entitled Safe keeping: inquiry into the biosecurity of Australian honey bees. The importance of honey bees to our lives cannot be understated. The importance of a healthy bee population to this country is critical to how we live and to what we eat. The committee report notes—quite clinically, I think—the significance of the pollination services that honey bees provide. If honey bees were in a position to send us all an invoice for their important work of fertilising flowering plants by the transfer of pollen, the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council tells us we would be up for $4 billion every year. I think the bees are worth much more. I think these beautiful insects are invaluable. We must do all that we can to protect them from disease to allow them to do their good work, which they do for free. I am a beekeeper. I am not sure if there are any other members of parliament in this place that also keep bees. My husband, Jamie, and I have kept bees for a number of years. We have become keen apiarists. It is the most delightful pastime, if sometimes accidentally painful. In fact Jamie will rob a hive of its summer honey tomorrow while I am here in this place. I am sad to miss out on this exercise because there is nothing quite like gently opening up the lid of a super and hearing the low rumble of a colony of bees getting about their important work. There is a mix of exhilaration and trepidation in invading their home, which is what we are doing, but we are doing it to check on the health of the hive and to rob the hive of its excess of honey. This honey is made up of the teaspoon of honey the worker bees will each produce in their very short, yet very productive, six-week lives. The tone of the buzz of the bees changes as we get about our beekeeping work. We do this work quietly, quickly and gently and, at all times, try to keep our heart rate down, which can be difficult as the modulation of bees changes as you disrupt their day. But, from my experience, it is best to remain calm and purposeful when working with bees—and of course dirty beekeeping clothes help a lot with one's confidence. Helping harvest the Shoalwater honey later this week will be our cousins, David and Christina Galloway from Cumbria in the north of England, who visited the parliament earlier this week. In fact they also keep and care for bees, and we spoke in this building about their hives that are infected with the destructive varroa mite. We talked about how they have to actively manage this pest that has decimated beehives around the world. They told us how the mite first arrived in the south of the UK, in Devon, in 1992 and progressively made its way through the whole country. There was no stopping this pest, and now all British beekeepers can do is to manage the infestations. Thankfully the destructive varroa mite is not in Australia, and that is in part due to our isolation. But being an island is not enough, as New Zealand has discovered, as has the remote island of Hawaii. The vigilance of this nation's biosecurity measures and the proactive manner in which authorities seek out potentially devastating pests are the principal reason we remain free from the destructive varroa mite. I commend the committee on its work and support its recommendation that the National Bee Pest Surveillance Program implement an enhanced program to intercept pest bees and infected bees at ports around this country. This they will do through more sentinel hives and catch boxes—very practical, very effective and very efficient means to protect our healthy honey bee population. These traits are hallmarks of the beekeeping community. I also want to congratulate the committee on taking on board an idea put forward by my friend and colleague the member for Paterson, the thoroughly modern Meryl Swanson. She recommended that the government investigate developing an easy-to-use smartphone application that will enable the public to report pest bees that they spot in their gardens, on their farms and in their towns. The increased popularity of amateur beekeeping will make such an easy-to-use app a very useful weapon in the fight to maintain our biosecurity. Education of the public is critical. The importance of biosecurity in quarantine procedures to protecting the Australian environment and maintaining a healthy bee population, which is the healthiest in the world, will be critical. The report noted that queen bees have been intercepted—mailed—through the post from overseas. I can assure members, you can receive bees in the post. It is quite an interesting process, but you can only get them from Australia. Seeking to import queen bees from overseas is one of the most reckless things any beekeeper can do. It endangers our whole agricultural industry, and I urge those people who are thinking of doing it to never do it. There are many people working very hard around this country to prevent bee diseases making it to Australia but, should what beekeepers fear the most and the varroa mite make it to this country, there will be a need for further urgent discussions on how we can quarantine infected sites. Western Australia is separated from the rest of this country for the most part by arid lands and desert. Tasmania is separated by the sea. Should the varroa mite arrive, then the discussion will turn to how we use the landscape of this country to maintain healthy populations as far as possible. There has been a long history in Western Australia of trying to keep out pests from the east. We have been pretty successful with the Collingwood Football Club but, sadly, not the rabbits—as many will know, there is a rabbit-proof fence that started construction in 1901. That was rabbit-proof fence No. 1. It stretched 1,834 kilometres. Some years later, when that did not seem to work, we built another rabbit-proof fence, rabbit-proof fence No. 2, which stretches 1,166 kilometres. People were trying to do their best but, ultimately, it was an effort in futility, and of course rabbits are everywhere. We have tried to keep cane toads out of Western Australia. Again, we have failed, although people are trying very hard in the north-west of our state to keep them moving further down from Kununurra. They arrive on trucks out of the Northern Territory and, as I said, all we can do is do our best. But, nonetheless, these pests persist. Western Australia has strict biosecurity laws. If you come to Western Australia, you will be asked to throw all your fruit and any bee or honey products in a bin. There will be dogs at the airport—cute little beagles—that are seeking to protect Western Australia's agriculture industry by making sure you do not have a stray apple, banana or jar of honey in your luggage. If you arrive at the Perth domestic airport and someone asks you to open your bag and relieve yourself of all your fruit, please do it quickly and quietly. There is never a fuss; we are just trying to keep Western Australia safe from these eastern pests. Jamie and I brought our first queen bee and starter colony from Ms Tiffane Bates, a queen bee breeder and apiary keeper of the UWA Centre for Integrative Bee Research—known as CIBER. The work of this centre was the star in a remarkably popular documentary called More than Honey. I encourage people to look this up on the web; it is easily accessed. It talks about the devastating effects of colony collapse disorder, which we are seeing around the world. Ms Baits was awarded a Churchill Fellowship and has undertaken extensive research on how bees can be bred resistant to varroa mites. Ms Baits in her reports for her Churchill Fellowship called Australia the last honeybee oasis. That we are, and this oasis we hope to remain. But it is important for research by Ms Baits, her colleague Professor Boris Baer and others at the UWA centre for bee research to continue. Their focus is on discovering genetic traits in bees or existing bee stock that are able to survive an infestation of the varroa mite and build and maintain healthy working colonies of good temperament while minimising the use of chemicals. Temperament is an unusual word to hear in relation to bees but, I can tell you, having gone through a few different queens, we have experienced beehives and colonies with a good temperament that were nice and quite gentle to work with, and then there are bees that are a bit more aggressive and they are very difficult to work with. This is where the pain comes in in beekeeping. I sincerely hope our biosecurity measures hold out against this beehive-destroying pest, the varroa mite, and I am pleased that research is continuing should the worst occur. There are more funds going towards bee research. There is a cooperative research centre for honey bee products, also located in WA and now with a new office out in Yanchep. It will assist efforts in offering pollination security to the agriculture industry of WA and increase the ability of the industry to attract and train professional beekeepers and increase the number of hives. This is of great importance, as I said, to the agricultural industry of Western Australia. Again, I urge anyone in this House that might also be a beekeeper to get in touch. There are lots of parliamentary friends groups in this place, but I am yet to see one that is for beekeepers. It might be a small group, but nevertheless I think maybe we should start it. I thank the committee for their very hard work, I support their recommendations and I hope we as a parliament can continue to work together on such committees to look after these beautiful insects, bees, that provide so much to our community and our lives. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 116 CONDOLENCES Robinson, the Hon. Ian Louis 116 11:11 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper Last week, the New South Wales North Coast lost a great community advocate. Ian Robinson served as an elected representative for three electorates across five decades. He was first elected to represent the seat of Casino in the New South Wales parliament, serving from 1953 to 1963, before making the switch to federal politics. He represented the seat of Cowper, the seat that I have had the honour to represent for over 15 years now. Mr Robinson represented the seat of Cowper from 1963 to 1984. In 1984 he successfully stood as a candidate for the new seat of Page and held Page in 1987 before losing to Labor's Harry Woods in 1990. Ian Robinson served as Deputy Chairman of Committees from 1976 to 1983. He also served as Assistant Minister to the Postmaster-General from 1971 to 1972, and he served on a range of parliamentary committees, including Public Accounts and also Foreign Affairs and Defence. Over his 37 years as an MP, Mr Robinson established a reputation as a tireless advocate for rural communities. He fought passionately for regional development and for better infrastructure for country towns and communities. On reading the Hansard transcript of Mr Robinson's first speech to the Australian parliament, delivered just down the hill at Old Parliament House, I was reminded of the old saying that the more things change the more they stay the same. In that speech, he spoke of the challenges of decentralisation and regional development, battles still being fought by the Nationals more than 50 years later. He also spoke of the need to improve country roads, construct new dams, build a base of productive industries and provide options to allow people to have fulfilling careers in the regions. These were all relevant issues in 1964, and they remain relevant to Australian regional life today, and the Nationals continue to fight on behalf of regional communities for the same values. He also mentioned the vexed issue of electoral redistributions, another issue that remains contentious for communities along the New South Wales North Coast. In many respects, he was typical of the Country Party tradition that is now carried on by the Nationals. Before entering politics, he was a dairy farmer, a journalist and a businessman. As with so many Country Party and National Party representatives before and after him, his time as an MP was merely an extension of his lifelong commitment to community service. Although he was a politician for most of his career, he was not a career politician. Ian is survived by his beloved wife, Florence, and I extend my condolences to her and the Robinson family. 11:14 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom It is a great honour to rise to speak of the late Hon. Ian Robinson, a great friend of my father, Tom McVeigh, who served alongside him in the Australian parliament in the 1970s and 1980s. Ian Robinson was one who, in his long political and public life, never changed—wearing it on his sleeve and enclosing it in his heart, never to be erased—his allegiance to and support for his beloved Country Party. He was the ultimate advocate for its philosophies, aims, objectives and policies and was a resolute defender of the same. He was grounded in these attributes by his mother and father, highly regarded and successful dairy farmers in the Casino district of northern New South Wales; thus he had the advantage of both the practical and the theoretical knowledge of rural life. He knew how to milk a cow—unlike some, who believe milk comes from a plastic bottle, he knew it came from a cow's udder—and was a delegate to important rural meetings. Ian Robinson was never one to criticise. He had, rather, the courage to let the people decide after he had had a go. He was elected to the New South Wales parliament in his early 20s. He developed a reputation, through his logical comments expressed softly and without rancour towards opponents, to such an extent that, when Sir Earle Page died during an election campaign and the seat was won by a Labor Party representative, the powers that be persuaded him to resign from the New South Wales parliament to contest the seat at the next federal election. He won the seat and held on to it until his retirement. He quickly made his mark, and in the Sir William McMahon government was an assistant minister, strongly supported by party leader the Rt Hon. JD Anthony. He used to travel all around Australia, advocating and defending policies, and used to open field days and shows on account of his friendly manner and personal skills. On the defeat of the McMahon government he became, as it were, a tutor to the young recently elected Country Party members, all of whom warmed to him. He developed a very strong personal friendship with my father, Tom, and Tom was the only parliamentarian to be invited to help him in his various election campaigns. They were old-fashioned campaign street meetings with a loudspeaker in the back of a truck, where much enjoyment for both sides came from the to and fro of ideas. Yes, I am told that on one occasion rather rotten tomatoes were thrown, but they missed. Ian was assisted by his wife, Cynthia, who was a professional journalist. Cynthia and their son predeceased Ian. The late dinners at their home in Grafton overlooking the Clarence River, I am told, were occasions of great fun. Both knew that, when staying over, Tom, my father, did not appreciate that his room was also the normal lodgings for their cat, and as a matter of courtesy the door and windows were sealed to ensure the cat slept outside. The cat always found a way through, I am told, and there was little doubt that Ian had a hand in that, simply in order to annoy Tom. Ian Robinson had a wonderful sense of humour. Ian was always immaculately dressed, even on visits to managers on his dairy farm. He was always generous to them and very supportive. He was the old-style politician who knew almost all of his constituents by name, their children, their schools attended, the names of their working dogs, home dogs and cats. He had a very special loyalty to his New South Wales Country Party leader, Leon Punch, whom he called 'Punchy', federal colleagues the Hon. Bruce Cowan and Reverend Phil Lucock, and his federal leader, the Rt Hon. JD Anthony. He was a lifetime member of the Masonic Society. He often laughed at how a friend of his—who will remain anonymous, but let's just say he is very well known to me—arranged for Ian to be photographed shaking hands with the Pope as the Pope moved through a guard of honour in the King's Hall in the old Parliament House prior to an official dinner. He proudly displayed the photo in his electorate office in a prominent place for all who visited to see. During recent times, Ian shared his life with his second wife, Florence, at their Grafton home, and our thoughts are with her at this time. Finally, I personally recall fondly the visits to the beautiful Clarence River region of northern New South Wales to visit Ian with my father, Tom, and the fact that he always had lollies available for my younger brother, Peter, and I when we visited Canberra as young boys. Vale Ian Robinson. May he rest in peace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the Federation Chamber. 11:19 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Proceedings suspended from 11:20 to 11:23 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH 117 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH 11:23 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I am pleased to make my contribution to the address-in-reply and the debate on the Governor-General's speech. In December 2013, when I delivered my first speech in parliament, I said: The people of Indi have a vision for a community where people feel they belong and have a sense of purpose, where people pull together and help each other, where diversity, acceptance and tolerance are valued; a community that has quality services, infrastructure, education, jobs and health and opportunities for the next generation. In this speech today in parliament I want to talk about some of the work we have done since that first speech was made, the agenda for this term of parliament and the call to action to the people of Indi to take the Indi way of working and move it on to the next stages. I would particularly like to begin by acknowledging and recognising the work of my community. As an Independent member of parliament, the community plays an integral role in ensuring that I act as an effective local member. My community understands the issues, and I need to make sure that I stay connected to my community so that I understand the issues. The Indi way, as we call it, started with the involvement and enthusiasm of country young people, the young people in my community, and it continued with a commitment to training, support and empowerment of volunteers. We took the enthusiasm and the energy and together we moulded it and gave direction to that want to make the world a better place. And we encouraged, with all our volunteers, a commitment to values, to be respectful, to be our best selves, to acknowledge difference and to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions. Ultimately, this model builds on the understanding that our democracy is important to us. But democracy means everybody has the chance to have their voices heard, to engage in political action and to actually work for the change that they want to see. In north-east Victoria we value democracy, we value participation and we want to make sure it is continued. Part of my role as a member of parliament is the facilitation and the development of anybody who is interested in learning about politics. There are a whole lot of ways that we do that. We have volunteers who come to Canberra. We have learning and training programs through the office. I go out to communities. I speak to schools. Schools come to Canberra. We have leadership development programs. There are a myriad of ways of explaining to people that, as the representative, it is my job to take the ideas of the community to Canberra and, not being a member of a party, I do not rely on my party for the ideas; I actually rely on my community. We call this the Indi way. Initially, we were driven by a sense of dissatisfaction and disillusionment. I know it is common right across Australia that people are sick of the way politics works. They do not trust that things are going the way they should. That certainly was the feeling in Indi, but we did not fall into that trap. We did not go down that negative path. We took those feelings of disconnect and dissatisfaction and asked, 'What can we do with it? How can we get a member of parliament who is actually going to have our vision and will represent us but be the representative and not necessarily the power base that perhaps you get from parties?' In Indi we have a saying that the future is made or determined by those who turn up. Not only did young people turn up to run the campaign and not only do many people now turn up to be part of the political activity of the electorate, but in this speech today I want to make a call out to those who stood up in the 2016 election and did the work, did the hours, did the miles, did those numerous meetings and gave the intellectual power that they had to do the planning for the election and help with the community development side of it. We had over 700 signed-up volunteers, all of whom had signed on to the value statement and contributed to the election. But it was led by this amazing team of wonderful people: Alana Johnson, Anne Shaw, Chris Hazell, Denis Ginnivan, Jacqui Hawkins, John Davis, Judy Brewer, Karen Nankervis, Michelle Dunscombe, Nick Haines, Phil Haines, Roberta Baker, Roland Wahlquist, Ross Kearney, Rowan O'Hagan, Ruth McGowan, Susan Benedyka, Tammy Atkins, Tony Lane, Cam Klose, Julie De Hennin, Trish Curtis, Mark and Jill Howard, Angela Killingsworth and Jane Taylor. They were the core group, but it is always dangerous when you name some people, because it was also everybody else who made the difference. The election in northeast Victoria was cold and wet and rainy and long, and many, many volunteers stood for hours in the very miserable cold weather not only doing how-to-vote cards but also having conversations with people, engaging them and talking about how other people could get involved—a deep and heartfelt thankyou for that work. I know you are going nowhere, that you are staying involved and that you will continually stay in touch with me and make sure that I represent our interests in this parliament. But Indi will only thrive as more organisations, groups, communities and people gain the skills and confidence to act on their own solutions, make their own plans and take effective action to get results. There is absolutely no point coming and seeing me, as a member of parliament, and describing a problem. It is of interest, but it does not get the answer we need. All too often people come to me with a problem and say, 'Cathy, can you do something about it? Can you go to the minister?' What we have come to understand is, sure, that is an action, but, if you give a country problem to a city minister, they will give you a city answer. You get a much better response if you bring together known ways of working and give the minister a solution to the problem—that is, if you say: here is the problem, here is what needs to be done, here we are as a community and here is how we can work together. That is what we have been doing in Indi. I was so pleased last week to be able to bring representatives of the dairy industry to parliament. People from the dairy industry came up. They are going through a really tough time, but they had sat down, defined the problem and worked out answers to what needed to be done, and they came to Canberra. We had a very constructive day meeting the Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, talking about these issues and setting up partnerships that we know we can move together, and I was really pleased to do that. Also last week, the Alpine Valleys Community Leadership Program came to Canberra. It is another example of a community group learning about leadership—coming up here, spending the day and actually getting a hold on how parliament works and how they can advance it. I just made a little error there—it was Alpine Valleys who met the Prime Minister. It was not the dairy group; they were busy doing other things. When the Alpine Valleys Leadership group spoke to the Prime Minister they talked to him about the need for leadership training and empowering communities so that people who put up their hand to be president, secretary or treasurer of a group can not only learn how to do those jobs but learn how to network and engage with their community, and also with parliament. I was so pleased, because the Prime Minister said he was really interested in this idea of community leadership and how we could get it working nationally. I know in New South Wales it is not so popular, but in Victoria we have 10 geographically based community leadership programs. We get some money out of the Victorian government, all of us put in kind in, and every year we graduate about 30 community leaders, who then go back and work in their community in a networked way. The good thing about them coming to Canberra is that they get to understand how parliament works so they can then take on their own issues and start working in the system. These delegates are a really good example of how effective people can be in their own communities. Together with that work, the thing we did in Indi in 2015 which was so strong was a series of kitchen table conversations. Something like 400 or 500 people turned up around kitchen tables to talk about their issues. We then pulled that together to have the Indi Summit, of which we have a report. The Indi Summit said, 'These are the issues that we care about in our electorate and we are going to commit to doing things about these issues.' Of course, among those there are some issues that I have a particular interest in and will work on, namely renewable energy and employment for young people. The arts are really big in Indi, so how do we develop and grow the arts? How do we get a stronger voice for young people? How do we make sure our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are represented? They are some of the topics that we are now working really closely on with our community. What I am really pleased about is that we have set the model in place. We have now had four years of it working and it shows that community groups are interested and able to do things about their own problems. They can then come and work together with their political representatives. Then, with access to government and opposition, and to ministers, we can do the Canberra work to get rid of the roadblocks that are stopping change, to get the incentives that we need. Many of them are there; we need to bring them back into the community. I am really pleased that that model is doing so well. In my next three years of being the member for Indi, I want to talk to government about how we can do a much stronger job on policy development, particularly rural and regional policy development, that builds strong partnerships with the people on the ground, the grassroots groups who know exactly what is going on. Sometimes they might not have the exact answer, but together they can work to solve things. Too often in government we work backwards. We say, 'What happened?' and we spend our time catching up. I spoke in parliament yesterday about the problems we have with our train line, and all I could say is that we are spending huge amounts of time and energy trying to fix a problem that should not have been there in the first place. We are doing catch-up. I see the member for Corangamite is here in the House, and I know the enormous problems she has with mobile phone delivery, with roads, with transport. We are all playing catch-up. The truth of the matter is— Ms Henderson ZN4 We have made some great achievements though, all the same. Ms McGOWAN 123674 Of course, and similar to me. We are making huge progress. Ms Henderson ZN4 Huge progress. Ms McGOWAN 123674 We are, but we would much rather not be doing it. We would much rather be putting all that skill into designing the future for our communities. We would much rather take those skills that we have, the programs that we have and the community connections we have and go, 'Here's how we can actually do what the Prime Minister wants to do, which is to use the innovation and creativity that we know our communities have.' I am not for one moment saying that we are not having a great effect. Clearly that is why we got re-elected—because we are able to deliver for our communities. But I am really looking forward to not having to do all that repair work. I am looking forward to being part of a parliament that actually works with communities, that looks at a 20-year plan and says, 'Here's how our rural and regional communities are going to take their place as major contributors to the future of Australia.' In that particular area, I have been working with the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Fiona Nash, on a regional policy for Australia. I am optimistic that that minister is going to have some good news for us shortly. I have been working with the Prime Minister on how that might work out well. One of the really important things about Canberra and policy that we have noticed is that government sometimes tends to make 'policy by grants', as we call it. There is no-one in rural Australia who does not want a grant. There are many of us who have spent years and years applying for grants, jumping through hoops—and maybe being successful—but it does not actually do what we need to do, which is create the long-term longitudinal space where we can grow the country. We need policy to do that. We need a good white paper that comes out. Maybe we need another summit that brings people together and builds engagement. We need a process where government has a big picture for Australia—so states, local government and our community groups all work together on it—and there is adequate funding in the system. I am really appreciative that the government has announced the Regional Ministerial Taskforce. That is a huge step in this direction. When I asked the Prime Minister a question in question time, he responded to that with a list of grants—all this grant money that the government is giving out. I acknowledge the grants—and I know that we do well in Indi with our grants—but it does not address the big problem that we have to talk about, which is investment in policy and programs that are going to be there for the long term and that will give the opportunity for the government to leave a legacy in our community. It is a cohesive approach to regional policy, an opportunity to work together, to bring communities together, to have that white paper, to have a summit and to build the coalitions of engagement that we know we need. John Anderson, when he was Deputy Prime Minister and responsible for regional development, used the technique of a national summit to great advantage. He would bring communities together and he would introduce them to each other so that some of the more prosperous communities in Victoria could meet with communities in other places that perhaps were not doing so well. He created a national understanding about issues. Organisations would then go and work together—for example, Australian Women In Agriculture. We were a national organisation. We got to meet and greet and work together and then create a national project with John Anderson and the department to do some fantastic work. I know there are many, many opportunities for that. For me, a rural policy needs to be enduring, bipartisan and enjoy community support. It needs to be robust and meaningful. If the government could do that, could get the process right as well as the outcome, it would be such a legacy—a legacy which would stay with us for a very long time. In talking about the role here in Canberra in doing that, I would now like to focus a few of my comments on how regional politicians have an important role to play here. I speak to my colleagues in the House today and acknowledge their commitment to rural and regional Australia. I know that we all do good work individually, but the idea of all the regional politicians collectively working together on the little slice that we have would be really welcome. When I was on the agricultural standing committee and we did a review into agricultural research, the standing committee came to northeast Victoria and met with the researchers and farmers. We had some really productive results from that. If we cannot get the policy right, cannot get the government to agree to a white paper or cannot get the government to have a national summit, I call on the government to ask one of its standing committees to do a review of the grants programs and how they work in regional Australia—and then to make some recommendations. If we are going to go that way, how do we make it better? How do we make it needs based? Finally, I would like to talk briefly about some of the exciting work that is happening in my electorate and the pride that I have in the work that the community is doing. I spoke about the dairy industry and the great work they are doing, and I spoke about the leadership program and the work they are doing. Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to talk about the youth work that is happening. Next week we have a youth policy camp, where local governments right across the electorate are getting young people together. They did one of these camps last year, and a significant number of young people stood for local government, as a result of learning how to, in a bipartisan and non-political way. So we now have a significant number of young people in our country areas who are on our local councils. They will be there for the long term and learn their way. That has been a wonderful outcome. In the area of renewable energy, almost every single town in my electorate has a community based group looking at renewable energy. I have been absolutely delighted to talk to the Prime Minister about the importance of community energy systems. I will be talking to the Minister for the Environment and Energy later on today about how we need a national approach to supporting community energy systems. There are over 60 communities already in Australia developing their own community based energy systems, and they are going to go from strength to strength. The wonderful thing that I see happening is that in little towns like Yackandandah, for example, the community gets together and actually learns about electricity rather than just being consumers. Two hundred or 300 people are turning up to public meetings. They are understanding about the poles and wires companies and the political debate we are having, and they are really inputting into that. With that goes some other really exciting things. I was in Yackandandah on the weekend for the Yackandandah Folk Festival. I had the really lovely experience of standing at the crossroads in Yackandandah where there was a big tent set up. I think it was called 'waste watch'. It was the Yackandandah environment group. There were 5,000 or 6,000 people at this festival, and on the crossroads they had a tent and all of the wheelie bins came to this one spot. They had a team of volunteers—I think close to 20 working on shifts—going through all of the rubbish, in full view of everybody, sorting all of the rubbish into disposables and recyclables and making sure that they did not do waste filling. That was a noble thing, but the really important thing that happened to me while I was there watching was that I had this overwhelming sense of being taught to be a much more responsible person regarding waste. I could see the accumulation of waste and I could see these really good community people separating it all out with gloves and protective clothing on. But it was the public education of it such as, 'We don't want to use plastic water bottles and disposable cups.' I had such an education about what not to do because of what the community did. What I am trying to say about the Indi way is that the community take responsibility and do their own work and, in the process, they educate us, and then we build up a whole community of people who have responsibility. So, back to the beginning: I got elected because people were disillusioned and disenfranchised. Four years later, I am so proud to say I am representing an electorate that is no longer that way. It is rapidly becoming engaged and it is better understanding the politics and how to make a difference to get the change that the member for Corangamite and I know we need. I am going to finish with a quote that I used in my first speech: The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating; the paths to it are not found, but made, and the making of these pathways changes both the maker and the destination. We are showing that we are changing the destination. 11:43 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It is my great pleasure to rise to reply to the Governor-General’s address. I was elected in 2013, and at the time my election I spoke about being a strong local voice. I hope, like you, Acting Deputy Speaker Wicks, that I have demonstrated that, by being a part of the Liberal Party, I can not only be part of a great party but also be a strong local voice for my community, identifying the issues that matter, going out and fighting like there is no tomorrow and delivering in spades for my electorate. I am so proud to represent the federal electorate of Corangamite. It is a wonderful part of the world, with 7½ thousand square kilometres of magnificent coastline; wonderful parts of Geelong all the way through to Colac, with 188 kilometres of coastline, including the Great Ocean Road; and amazing agricultural areas, small country towns and an incredible national park stretching all the way up to Ballarat. I grew up in Geelong. I love my town. I love my electorate. When I go out into my community and represent the people of Corangamite I do it with a fierce passion. I do it with a fierce sense of wanting to make a difference and I do it because I am absolutely determined that we deserve the very best. I do believe that under the Turnbull government we are delivering in spades for regional Australia, and I am incredibly proud of some of our initiatives. I hope that the people of Corangamite recognise that I have indeed been willing to go in and fight for them on the issues that matter. I hope that they have seen that I demonstrated that over the terrible Wye River Christmas Day bushfires, which of course caused so much devastation in 2015 in Wye River and Separation Creek. I am incredibly proud that the federal government, through the Natural Disaster Recovery and Relief Arrangements—the NDRRA—has put so much investment into that community. That community has gone through so much. When a group of home owners came to me to say, 'We are being treated very badly by AAMI insurance, and many, many months after that fire we still do not have our insurance policies resolved', I was so pleased to go in and fight for them to hold AAMI insurance to account, to say that this is not good enough, to take their claims to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, and to institute, with the great support of the minister, an ASIC inquiry into the conduct of AAMI insurance, which is still ongoing. I hope that the people of Corangamite will see that from the very beginning, when I first was preselected as the Liberal candidate back in 2009, I fought tooth and nail for the Princess Highway duplication project. I narrowly missed out on being elected in 2010, but I continued that fight. Now, with great pride, we are injecting more than half a billion dollars into that road. The duplication of the Waurn Ponds to Winchelsea section has now been completed—and, boy oh boy, the people of Winchelsea and the township of Winchelsea are absolutely sparkling as a result of the investment in that road—and the next section between Winchelsea and Colac is now well underway. I am so proud, and I say, 'Shame', to the Grattan Institute, which said that this was a road to nowhere. This is a road to somewhere very special. It takes people down to places like Colac right through to south-western Victorian to Warrnambool and beyond, and, of course, to the magnificent Great Ocean Road. I am so incredibly proud because I think that this really does symbolise so much of why people across Australia backed our government at the last election. I am very proud to stand up for rural and regional Australia. I reflect on the member for Indi's contribution, and can I say that much can be achieved by being a member of this government and by being member of our great Liberal Party. In contrast to Labor, which did not spend one dollar on mobile blackspots, we are now tackling blackspots across the nation, with a $220 million investment. Eighteen mobile base stations have been committed in the Corangamite electorate. A number are up and running. One in Carlisle River is just about to be turned on. Much more hard work is required to get them all up and running, but it does demonstrate that, whether you live in a large regional city or a tiny town, your voice matters. We have not seen that same approach from the Labor Party. We have taken the same approach to the NBN—a more equitable NBN than was proposed by Labor and one which significantly subsidises rural and regional communities. I am very proud that right across the electorate the NBN is being rolled out and making a real difference. Another very important issue in Corangamite is rail. It is extraordinary—and this has been a project that has been on the radar for many years, including when my mum was the member for Geelong in the 1990s—that the Labor Party at a state level had very few infrastructure projects in the pipeline. We know that Daniel Andrews cancelled the East West Link contract after saying there was no contract. That was clearly untrue and a terrible untruth. It was one of the most economically reckless decisions in Victorian history. It cost Victorian taxpayers a staggering $1.2 billion, and now we have a poor cousin of that project, the Western Distributor, which is only half of the western link of the East West Link, and we desperately need that full western road link into Melbourne. It is a complete nightmare travelling from Geelong to Melbourne at the moment. I have to say we are very proud of the $3 billion we have committed to the first state government willing to build the East West Link. We have a very strong commitment to that project from the state Liberal opposition under the leadership of Matthew Guy, in contrast to the terrible decision made by Daniel Andrews. Of course, this was a project that was previously supported by both sides of politics, so again what we have seen from the Labor Party is a very unprincipled decision where the likes of the Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard—and I include the member for Corio—were not willing and did not display the guts to stand up to Daniel Andrews and say, 'We need this infrastructure in Victoria.' Similarly, the Regional Rail Link is, regrettably, a project that is simply not doing the job. The Regional Rail Link was meant to make travel between Geelong and Melbourne so much faster, and what we have seen in the Regional Rail Link is, I think, a monumental failure. It is now servicing the suburbs in western Melbourne—places like Tarneit and Wyndham Vale—and the people of Geelong and Corangamite are being left behind. I was very pleased under the leadership of the Prime Minister to make a commitment of $1 million to duplicate the rail between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds, and yet we have seen no action from state Labor in progressing that project. Where is the business plan? Where is the feasibility study to get these projects moving? We as a region have so much potential. Geelong, Torquay, Ocean Grove, Colac and everywhere in between—it is such a wonderful place to live, to work and to raise a family, and yet we are seeing major challenges in the development of vital infrastructure to support the growth in our community. It is a reflection on the state Labor government that it took a campaign led by me as the federal member doorknocking week after week, month after month to get the duplication of the rail track through Geelong onto the state government's agenda, and now I am again calling on the state to get on with the job of doing that work and progressing that duplication. Another great achievement of this government in Corangamite is the way that we have led the way in funding the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road. Before I was elected I was absolutely delighted to make a commitment of $25 million from the Commonwealth matched by $25 million from the former Liberal State government, and we were able to deliver a $50 million upgrade of the Great Ocean Road, making a real difference to places like Anglesea and Lorne with the upgrades they received. The Boggaley Creek Bridge was upgraded, as was the Separation Creek Bridge. Now I have been holding a number of summits with communities. I held a summit in Lorne and another one in Apollo Bay, reaching out to the community because we have now committed another $25 million, which was matched by the state after lobbying for that matching funding for some six months. All in all, there is $100 million in an upgrade program in what is an incredibly important, iconic road not just in our region, not just in Australia but internationally. We have absolutely led the way, in circumstances where the previous federal Labor member, Darren Cheeseman, and his government at the time had not supported any federal investment in one of Australia's most important and iconic roads. The road is an incredible memorial to the men—returned soldiers—who built it, starting in 1919. You and I are regional members, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks. I am aware of the way in which you, as the member for Robertson, have delivered for your community. It is not because of Liberal policy; it is because you identified the needs in your community. You have the $72.5 million Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute, with $32 million coming from the federal government, and the new ATO office, which will deliver 600 new jobs into Gosford by the end of the year. Along with what we are doing in Corangamite, this did not happen because of Liberal policy; this happened because we regional members took our jobs very seriously. We identified the issues, the needs and the priorities in our electorates and we went out and we fought. That is absolutely fundamental to my job. Each and every day, Madam Deputy Speaker, like you, I am going out fighting for jobs, infrastructure and the environment in my community. One of our hallmarks is the way in which, despite our challenges in manufacturing, we can see a greater and more diversified economy in Geelong. A number of years ago, we secured the Advanced Manufacturing Industry Growth Centre based in Geelong, at Waurn Ponds, at Deakin University, which is an extraordinary university doing amazing things and leading the way in showing how a university can work with industry to forge new opportunities, groundbreaking research and new jobs. Perhaps the best example of that is Carbon Revolution, which started off as a university project. A group of students got together to test a lightweight vehicle for a race, and they decided that their vehicle would be more lightweight if they used carbon fibre wheels. From that, now we have an incredible business in Carbon Revolution, which built a new factory, supported by $5 million from our government—not the Labor Party, as the member for Corio wrongly and very dishonestly states—funded by a $15 million contribution to the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. This company is leading the way globally in developing these lightweight wheels, and it has just raised $50 million to develop even further. We are proudly a very strong advanced manufacturing growth centre. I will not hear any discussion about the failure of auto manufacturing. Ford sadly has ended its manufacturing in Australia, but it still has some 500 people working in Geelong and at the Lara proving ground—500 employees, engineering and designing cars for Ford's global market. And just yesterday I met with the chair of Chemring, another incredible company, which has flown under the radar to a large degree. It is making flares for the defence industry, including flares for the F35 project. Some 100 people are working out at Chemring's Lara factory. There are so many wonderful advanced manufacturers in our region, supported by our belief and our investment in advanced manufacturing, not just through the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund and our $155 million Growth Fund but also our Geelong Region Job Connections program, underpinned by other very important investments like the establishment of an Australian Bureau of Statistics centre of excellence on the waterfront. In so many ways, I am incredibly proud of the way in which our government is continuing to invest in our region. The National Disability Insurance Agency headquarters is under construction—a $120-million building under construction. Even the state government's WorkSafe building, also under construction, has been underpinned by a low-interest loan of $68 million from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. So, again, the Commonwealth is playing a very significant role in the development of that building. In these closing minutes of my address today, I want to make a few observations about the big fights that are yet to be had. We are so proud of what we have delivered right across the economy, standing up for communities big and small: the NBN; mobile base stations; supporting Avalon Airport to become an international airport; supporting the dairy industry and farmers; and focusing on energy security and job security, and on national security, which is resonating in places like Torquay, Ocean Grove and Geelong because of the real issues and concerns about community safety, which I feel we are seeing really becoming an alarming issue under the current state government. One of my big objectives is to secure a City Deal for our region, and I am delighted with the support that we have received from the likes of G21, which is a great organisation bringing together our five regional councils. It was my great honour to organise a meeting with the Prime Minister and G21 last week here in Canberra. Together, we are working to try and bring a City Deal to our region, which brings state government, local government and the federal government together, along with other major institutions like Deakin, and industry, to form an agreement, with one vision and one plan, to make sure we can continue to drive investment in our region. Fixing the regional rail link is an absolute priority. We must see significant movement from the state in fixing the regional rail link and getting on with regional rail. It is so vitally important. Another big focus for a City Deal, I believe, is tourism. We saw a complete lack of interest from the previous federal Labor government when it came to supporting tourism in our region. Let us not forget that the Great Ocean Road is the centrepiece of a $2.1 billion regional tourism economy, and we need to keep that investment going. I am very pleased that I am working with a group of people—and I will have more to say in the coming weeks about a very significant project to continue to drive tourism investment and to increase the yield. So we see a City Deal as being very important. As part of that, like what the state Liberal government did in the 1990s when my mother was the member for Geelong, I think that an independent planning authority to drive and fast-track that investor confidence and development is very important, which obviously mimics what has occurred with the likes of the Townsville City Deal. I will finish by saying: I am very conscious of some of the social challenges in our community, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon—and I welcome you to the chair, and recognise you as the deputy chair of our House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; we have just announced an inquiry into family violence law reform, and I am very cognisant of the real issue that this is in the community, along with issues like ice addiction and other challenges for families. So I am incredibly proud to be the member for Corangamite and to have been re-elected. I will continue to stand up and fight for my community at every opportunity. 12:04 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to take part in the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech today. It is important, in looking forward to what should be done in this term of the parliament, to reflect on where we are now. Unfortunately, what we are seeing in this parliament is a government that is led by someone who lacks authority amongst his own party. The Prime Minister is someone with very little authority amongst the coalition, as is quite obvious from the marriage equality issue, where the Prime Minister—despite his previous commitment to having a free vote and to changing the law to allow for marriage equality—has been unable to deliver that; the Prime Minister seeming to have been comprehensively rolled in his own party room in relation to taking real action on climate change; and of course, just this week, the Prime Minister's efforts in relation to the extradition treaty. So we have a Prime Minister who lacks authority and who is unable to lead his own party, let alone the nation. And behind him what do we see? We see dysfunctional and divided Liberals who are much more interested in fighting amongst themselves than they are in pursuing the national interest. That is really regrettable and, unfortunately, does not bode well for good government in this country. On the other side of the aisle, we have a Labor Party opposition that is incredibly united. We are an opposition team who are looking together with one set of values and one set of voices for the future of this nation and what needs to be done in relation to this nation's future—and there are a lot of challenges facing our nation. Inequality is at 75-year highs. Wages growth is in the doldrums. It is the slowest it has been since the wage price index started being kept in 1997. We have high unemployment but also very high underemployment, with 1.1 million Australians unable to get the additional work that they want even though they may already have some hours every week. Those challenges are contributing to, as I said, increasing inequality. We have a situation now where the income distribution is getting more and more spread out and where more and more of the nation's income and wealth is accumulating at the top of the income and wealth distribution, so we are seeing very, very broad spreads between people who are very poor and people who are very wealthy. We are also in a situation where we are facing quite significant challenges in democracy, where we have a nation of people who do not really have faith in political institutions anymore, do not really trust democracy and, even worse, do not really see the relevance of politics to their lives. That is a real problem, of course, because politics is where decisions are made about the allocation of resources, the raising of revenue and the creation of rules that determine the outcomes for our country and have real impacts on people's day-to-day lives, whether it is family tax benefit cuts, the way that child care works, the fiscal conditions and what they mean for the economy more broadly, something as simple as how schools are funded—that is not really that simple, but it sounds simple—what resources are allocated to hospitals, or how much attention is given to reducing and eliminating family violence. All of these things are affected by decisions that are made in politics by elected representatives. So a lack of trust in political institutions and a cynicism about politics means it becomes too easy for people to withdraw from, disconnect from and ignore politics altogether. But the problem with doing that is that, if you vacate the field of politics, you are leaving it to someone else. You are leaving it up to other people to make the decisions that will affect your life and your family's lives. That is why it is really important, now more than ever, that people do not just disengage from politics but do take an interest, get involved and work on strengthening institutions, not walk away from them. Labor have a clear set of values that we articulate consistently and have done over many decades of our existence. We certainly change and adapt with the times—we are a party of progress—but we are very clear about the fact that we stand for community, we stand for empowering working-class households, we stand for empowering middle-class households and we stand for reducing inequality and not accepting the idea that somehow increasing inequality is just a law of nature—because it quite clearly is not. It is a function of the decisions that are made in politics and elsewhere, and, if that is true, the decisions that are made in politics and elsewhere can turn increasing inequality around and can deal with the disadvantage that is being created amongst a lot of Australian households. To give you an example of these issues, something that is highly affected by politics and by the decisions that are made about the allocation of resources, the rules that are made and the revenue that is raised is training and skills in this country. Everyone in this parliament, I suspect, is well aware that the bottom is falling out of apprenticeships in Australia, and that is certainly the case in my electorate. It is a really important challenge for my electorate. In fact, apprentice numbers have declined by one-third in my electorate since the government was first elected in 2013. Since the current coalition government was elected in 2013, apprentice numbers have dropped by one-third. There have been $2½ billion of cuts to skills and TAFE nationally by this government since it was elected. That is a real problem. The fact that skills and vocational education are being undermined in this country and the fact that people are not taking up apprenticeships is a real problem, because it is just not the case anymore that there is a wide range of entry-level jobs out there for people to go into while they are still at school or when they finish school. In my day, I, as a 14-and-nine-month-year-old, went and got a job at a convenience store, of course—I had worked in my parent's small business before then—and ended up working at one of the big supermarkets. It is getting harder and harder for kids to find those entry-level jobs that give them something to put on the resume and the skills that they need for employment—skills like knowing how important things are, knowing how to work with co-workers that might be different to you, or knowing how to pay the right amount of respect to the boss but not allow yourself to be exploited at the same time; those sorts of skills that are second nature to people who have had a lifetime in work. Kids are not getting the same opportunities, and one really important thing that we can do to make sure that young people are able to be equipped for the jobs of the future is to really focus on education. That means dealing with vocational education and training. That means doing something about the funding arrangements for schools, which are so unfair and unrealistic in this country and are leading to some schools been much worse off than others, when that just should not be the case. It means doing something about access to university, and not making it harder for people to go to university if that is what they want to do. And, at the very, very front end, it means a focus on early learning, education and care. It has been unfortunate to see some of the acrobatics that the government has engaged in in relation to child care in recent weeks here in the parliament. There are certainly some good moves that are being made by the government in relation to child care but, at the same time, asking for those to be funded by cuts to school-aged kids' families and also ignoring the needs of the very, very disadvantaged kids, by offering only 12 hours of care rather than 15, which is the difference between one day and two days, the government has really displayed a regrettable lack of understanding and sympathy not only for the highly disadvantaged households but also for the middle-class and working-class households that are being asked to take cuts to their own living standards in order to fund the early learning and care reforms. I mentioned schools funding. It is very important that we continue the focus on schools funding. You will recall that the government, when it was elected back in 2013, claimed to be on a unity ticket with Labor in relation to schools funding. That, unfortunately, turned out not to be true. They had those signs up on election day: 'We will match Labor's schools funding dollar for dollar.' That was what they were claiming at the time, but it just was not true. In fact, in my electorate of Griffith, schools are going to lose around $10 million in the next few years alone. Nationwide, that is a function of the fact that the Liberals are cutting around $30 billion from schools funding over the decade. If you want to get a sense of what that number means on the ground, it is the equivalent of sacking one in seven teachers—that is what that amount of money could represent. That means that schools in my electorate will be hurt. I have been talking to schools in my electorate about what they are doing with the additional funding that they got because of the work that Labor did in government to commission a report on how schools funding could be reformed. Those schools are reporting back to me about the incredible things that they are doing not only in the classroom but also with the supports that they are putting around disadvantaged kids, the focus they can give to gifted and talented kids at the other end and all of the work that they are doing with the additional funding that they have. The Liberal-National government's school cuts that are coming down the pipeline are going to mean less one-on-one attention for kids, they are going to mean fewer teachers and they are going to mean students being left behind or not reaching their full potential. That is why we are so concerned about these education cuts: for the kids themselves—for their own futures—but also for the future of the nation. Education not only is important to the living standards of a particular household or a particular person but also determines whether we are going to be a nation with a workforce of the future that has the skills, the attributes and the knowledge needed in order to do the jobs of the future; to pay the taxes of the future; to contribute to having a strong country where we can continue to fund the services that everyone relies on—the hospitals of the future and the schools of the future; and to continue to come to terms with the fact that we do, as a society, owe obligations to people who, for example, are on the age pension—so that, instead of having a situation where conservative governments try to hack into the age pension every other year, we actually have a good, strong economy that can deliver the taxes needed to pay for the services and the supports that people need. I mention the age pension specifically, because I know that a lot of people in my electorate have been very concerned about the government's repeated attempts to cut the age pension. Some have been successful and some have been unsuccessful, but a consistent feature of this government has been their attempts to reduce the age pension. We saw it in the disastrous 2014 federal budget—possibly the worst federal budget in the history of the Federation. I do not know if there has been another budget that had such a terrible effect on confidence for this nation. You saw in the aftermath of that budget that people just stopped going out and spending money on coffees, stopped going to the newsagent and stopped consuming and doing all the things that they were doing before. The effect of this drop in confidence really hit the economy. Of course, when consumption slows down economic growth slows down, and we saw that very clearly in the months and years following the 2014 federal budget. In my state of Queensland that was a particular hit. It was during the term of the Newman government—a government that sacked 20,000 public sector workers. When you sack 20,000 people in Queensland, that of course has consequences not just for those people but also for local small businesses. People who lose their jobs do not tend to spend as much money. People who are afraid that they are going to be next to lose their job, because you have a government taking the axe to the public service, are not going to be out there consuming and patronising small businesses. So we had already had that massive blow to our state's economy and confidence and then, to have on top of that, the 2014 federal budget was a great shock, certainly to people in my electorate. There were a lot of attempts to make cuts in the 2014 budget. I actually do not know if I could nominate the worst; there were so many terrible ones. Remember they axed the Interactive Games Fund. They decided that they would cut funds to the Australian Taxation Office. They cut funds to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. They took an axe to all sorts of things in that 2014 federal budget. The 20 per cent cut to public funding for universities was in the 2014 federal budget. There were axes taken everywhere. Everything was cut except, I think, Joe Hockey's cigar budget. But, other than that, there were axes taken left, right and centre in the 2014 federal budget. But, for me, one of the worst was the attempt to cut the pension by fiddling with the indexation arrangements. Labor in government had looked at the age pension indexation arrangements and said that it is not really enough to look at what the CPI says, for a couple of reasons—firstly, because pensioners have different living costs than the general population. So we added the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index as another index to be used for the age pension, and you took whichever was the greater of two. But you also want to benchmark it against average weekly earnings, so that as community living standards rise so do pensioners' living standards and you do not have this increased inequality. So it was also benchmarked against average weekly earnings. But this government, in 2014, decided to try to get rid of those indexations and benchmarking and to just leave pensioners in a situation where they would be worse off. It was disingenuous and it would have left pensioners $80 a week worse off. Luckily, there was a very significant community campaign brought against these cuts and Labor campaigned against them as well and we were able to defeat them. But we have not been able to do so with all of the pension cuts that this government has introduced. Unfortunately, if you elect a coalition government, you get coalition policies implemented. Oppositions can do only so much to stop coalition governments from implementing coalition policy. Unfortunately, the coalition government's instinct to cut the pension has, in some cases, been successful. We are particularly worried about the current attempts to scrap the energy supplement, which will cut $1 billion from pensioners, people with a disability, carers and Newstart recipients across the country. If the Liberals are able to cut the energy supplement, that will mean that that supplement will be scrapped for new pensioners from September this year. It will mean a cut of $14.10 per fortnight to single pensioners, or $365 a year, and couple pensioners will be $21.20 a fortnight worse off, or around $550 a year worse off. This might not sound like a lot of money to the Prime Minister. But I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, if you are a pensioner going to the pharmacy to get things that you need, these cuts will hurt. It is very disappointing to see the government yet again looking to find savings—that is, cuts—from pensioners, and at the same time continuing to pursue their ridiculous enterprise tax plan, which is a $50 billion tax giveaway to big business, multinational corporations and Australia's big banks. At the same time as the government are saying that pensioners need to tighten their belts, they want to reduce the nation's taxes by giving $50 billion away to big business, multinationals and big banks. In other words, they want to make it even harder to pay for the services that Australians need, put even more pressure on the federal government, and increase the deficit even more—which is a pretty significant feat, given that they have managed to triple the deficit since their projections in 2014. They have already tripled the deficit, and now they want to give away $50 billion of tax revenue. That is going to make things even worse. And they turn to us and say: 'Well, what are you doing about savings? What are you doing about budget repair?' It is very simple: how about you don't give away $50 billion of tax revenue? How about we in this country look at superannuation tax concessions that are generous? How about we—finally, as a nation—agree that we need to do something about negative gearing? It is very clear that we need to do something about negative gearing and capital gains tax. Labor has been out very strongly leading the national debate on negative gearing and on housing affordability. It is regrettable that the government has failed to get on board, but I am hopeful that they will, at some point. The other cuts that we are still feeling from the 2014 budget—and that the government are still pursuing—are their cuts to hospital funding over the decade. At the last election, we committed to restoring the historic agreement with the states to 2020, which would have meant an additional $400 million for Queensland public hospitals. My electorate already has world-class public hospitals, like the Princess Alexandra Hospital, which I visited recently with the shadow minister for health. Cutting funding to hospitals makes it more difficult for hospitals to provide those world-class services, and more difficult for them to engage in service innovation, like the service innovation going on at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Probably even more of a concern to people in my electorate is the fact that Medicare remains under siege by this government. Based on the latest figures, the GP bulk-billing rate in my electorate is woeful—it is 68.1 per cent. We rank 141st out of 150 electorates for bulk-billing rates. That is just for GP bulk-billing rates; our overall Medicare bulk-billing rate is even lower, at 66.8 per cent. That means that there are people in my electorate who just cannot access bulk billing. As many as eight per cent of people in the Brisbane South Primary Health Network will choose to delay a visit to the doctor or—worse still—avoid seeing a doctor at all. Eight per cent in my electorate; that is about 13,000 people who live in the electorate who might be at risk of compromised health care as a consequence of not be able to get access to bulk billing. I wrote to the new Minister for Health, on the day that he was sworn in, to raise with him my very strong concern about these figures and about the compromised health care in my electorate if the current situation, where bulk billing is languishing, is allowed to continue. I also wrote to him about the rising costs of private health insurance—something that people in my electorate are very concerned about. The latest figures from Private Healthcare Australia indicate that about 60 per cent of people in my area are covered by private health insurance. There was a 5.6 average premium increase in 2016, and that followed on from an average increase of 6.2 per cent in each of the first two years of the coalition government. That is putting people in my electorate under a lot of stress. 12:24 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina In 1899, the famous poet and literary figure Henry Lawson, in his poem 'Twas a Land Set Apart, wrote: 'Tis a land where national honour Might rise with a stainless name! And the people be wise and prosper, And freedom forget her shame! And the wealth of the people only Be told by the wealth of the State— —and so on. I have quoted a verse in my two previous address-in-reply speeches. I felt, given the new extent of my electorate boundaries, it was appropriate to use some lines from Lawson, born on the Grenfell goldfields in 1867—and now part of the Riverina electorate. Australia and the land it has become is a place we call home and are proud. It is 'a land set apart', and the greatest assets, the richest attributes, of this great southern land are its people. We live in a time of great prosperity, with much to be thankful for, and it is with grateful thanks that I stand here today. 'Politics is not about power; it is about people.' Those were amongst my concluding words in my first address-in-reply to this parliament on 21 October 2010, and—as I stand here now, in the 45th Parliament of Australia, the representative of a Riverina electorate quite different to the one which elected me almost 6½ years ago—that statement is truer than ever. No matter where you go or what you do, no matter the time or place, politics is always about people—people ahead of power. It is the conversations and interactions I have with people around the Riverina and Central West and across Australia's small businesses which inspire me each and every day. People have inspired me my whole life. As a newspaper editor, the purpose of print was the people, the readers—meeting people and sharing their stories; going into bat for my community and its people. Every person has a story; every individual has a unique tale to tell. To use the community's newspaper to be our champion and to see Wagga Wagga and the Riverina and its people prosper: that was my aim, and so it was my aim, as a small business owner, building from my home's garage in Wagga Wagga, to grow and create a multiplier effect across the Riverina region. A small business, too, is about people. As our small business grew, so did the local printer, moving premises, buying bigger equipment and, perhaps most importantly, hiring more staff, proving again that regional people can mix it with the best. To represent people in this parliament is a great privilege; it is a great honour. I stand here today as the representative of eight shires which were not previously in the Riverina electorate, and the greatest part of the challenge of our new geography was meeting its people. From Tootool to Tullamore, from Yerong Creek to Peak Hill, the people of my electorate are resilient, hardworking, fantastic, wonderful people. The number of shires and communities we welcomed to the Riverina electorate at the last election is high, and its geography is very different. The shires and communities around Cootamundra, Cowra, Forbes, Grenfell, Harden-Murrumburrah, Lockhart, Parkes and Young are each country towns with a vibrant community and a very, very bright future. While the map has changed, the character of our electorate remains the same. We are all, in the Riverina and Central West, proudly country. We all want more jobs. We all need better mobile-telephone coverage. We all want to see good local roads and booming local businesses. Today, as it is every day, ours is a story of regional Australia—a story of great hope for our nation's future. We have a desire to see our communities grow, services grow and small businesses grow. And, more than anything, we hope our towns will be stronger and more resilient for the next generation. When thinking about the issues which were clear in Riverina at the last election and the priorities which will drive me in this term of parliament, I want to talk about three main points: supporting small business, building inland rail and connecting country communities. If we are to build buoyant country towns, these three are the character of my Riverina and Central West electorate, and these are ambitions the Nationals share. The roads, the bridges and the rail lines, which are the arteries of our region, will entwine our enterprises—our farmers and our primary producers—with the markets which will buy from them and with ports. It will see small business succeed. It will create the jobs and opportunities country people want, with a future on which they know they can rely. And the Nationals' plan will see that destiny manifest. Country communities are naturally communities of small business. In cities such as Wagga Wagga or Parkes, or in remote places such as Tullamore or Warroo, the local economy is only there because of small business. Small business is our country's job creator. Australia's 2.1 million small businesses employ almost five million Australians—more than any other sector in our economy. In the Riverina and Central West, the more than 15,000 small businesses I proudly represent keep jobs available locally. They do a grand job. They create opportunities for locals to invest, and they sell the goods and services our nation needs and people worldwide need. Small business is naturally at home with the Nationals. Of the 15,000 small businesses in my electorate, around a third are farmers. As this government moves to expand the definition of small business to a turnover of $10 million from its current threshold of $2 million, many of its beneficiaries will be farmers. Ask any country person and they will tell you that when the season is good so is the town, and if farmers do well so do local farm-machinery small businesses and car dealers, as well as people who run shops in a country town's main street. In fact, everybody prospers. If farmers do well then people in our cities are fed and clothed. Our economy grows and—just as recent data on exports shows—Australia's economy becomes the envy of the world. That proud story starts with small businesses in rural and regional Australia, someone taking a risk to pursue their dream. Whether that is starting a small business from home, whether it is diversifying the farm into different commodities, or whether it is trying to grow and give another local person a job, country small businesses and their people are what make regional Australia so great. That is why our plan to back small businesses will work. It will cut taxes for small businesses and make their paperwork simpler. It will mean more small businesses are able to write off new equipment sooner and it will make it easier for them to hire someone new. As the Turnbull-Joyce Liberal-National government's Minister for Small Business, I know this is a plan that will work across Australia. It is something people have raised with me from Wombat to Western Australia and it is something designed to put small business in the driver's seat. Locally, I know it will work too. The Nationals' plan for inland rail and the critical country roads which connect to it is a boon for our local economy, our region and our people. Country people know it is not just an upgrade of safety for those who use the road, although that is a top-of-the-mind issue. Investing in roads and building inland rail makes freight more efficient. It constructs a corridor of commerce, the benefit of which sits almost entirely with small business. Thanks to our plan, inland rail is very much the character of the Riverina and central west. Every single community in my electorate benefits from the planned inland rail route, which calls the Riverina electorate home. It is going to be the backbone, the spine, of the electorate. With hubs at Wagga Wagga in the south and Parkes in the north, the benefit from bulk freight is clear. Farmers and small businesses will benefit from ongoing work on the Riverina Intermodal Freight and Logistics Hub at Bomen, in north Wagga Wagga, a project I support and which has obtained considerable federal funding. It is about jobs. It is about investment. This inland rail will be a boon for farmers and small business. The jobs, investment, construction and ongoing work will not only diversify our local economy but also ensure regions throughout the Riverina and central west have the bright future they expect, demand and, indeed, deserve. This is particularly true of the Riverina electorate's northern hub at Parkes. It is the only place on Australia's map where the Melbourne-to-Brisbane and Sydney-to-Perth rail lines intersect. Parkes is a freight hub community. Its people and communities today are the realisation of the dream that Australia's bulk freight should move efficiently through its inland. I have met so many people whose lives and livelihoods in town are linked with moving Australia's assets. The people in Parkes understand this is a benefit which will live for generations. Their mayor, Ken Keith, understands that. He appreciates it and is in there supporting it. Parkes' can-do attitude and infrastructure-focused local leaders, such as Councillor Keith, together with investment from local business, show that it is a town passionate about its future—just like Forbes, with its mayor, Councillor Graeme Miller. To listen to people in Parkes is to hear the story of what we can do, not what we used to have. It is the same with Forbes and right throughout that northern area of my new electoral boundary. The passion and dedication of locals is what drives me. The hundreds of small businesses and the vibrant chambers of commerce in Parkes and Forbes are what inspire me. In fact, the Parkes Chamber of Commerce was the first one I met as small business minister, just days after my appointment. I am also inspired by the story of Northparkes mine, led ably by Stef Loader and her team. I have recently learned that Stef will be moving on from her role and I wish her all the very best in whatever the future may hold for her. She is a great person and an inspiration. She will certainly leave the mine in an enviable position. It is a facility which is leading the world in innovative mining techniques and employs several hundred people locally. The mine is a generous contributor to the local community and the reason that many locals continue to call Parkes home. The Riverina story is a story of the region's farmers as well—productive and resilient people who feed and clothe the nation and ensure Australia's economy is one of strong export growth and high-quality product. The very best product comes out of the Riverina and Farrer electorates. I say that not just because the member for Farrer is sitting behind me but because of a few things I will mention in a minute. Travel anywhere in my electorate and people will tell you about mobile coverage. With challenges of varying topography and long distances between towns and populations, few people in my electorate were untouched by the need for better mobile coverage. When we came to government in 2013, country communities across the Riverina and central west—as well as right around Australia—were crying out for better mobile coverage. First, it is a matter of safety. For those who live in remote locations or who travel on country roads, the inability to connect to emergency services when they need it most is a risk country people simply could not and should not have had to cop. More than this, the reality of small business in regional Australia today is that business happens 24/7. Connecting to commodity information and being able to buy and sell product in real time thanks to reliable mobile and internet coverage is amongst the greatest investments this government can and is making. That is why I know our plan to keep delivering for country communities is working. While this government has invested in two rounds and will soon invest in a third of the Mobile Black Spot Program with more than $220 million over three years, the Labor Party is still yet to understand the benefits, I am afraid to say. Money from rounds 1 and 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program has ensured increased mobile phone coverage and connectivity is provided to communities from Bedgerabong to Koorawatha, Ladysmith to Woodstock and many places in between. And there is more to come. Further funding is planned thanks to the Nationals and my constituent the Minister for Regional Development and Young based Nationals Senator Fiona Nash, who understands how vital communication is to country communities. This government continues to deliver for rural and regional Australia. I am proud to be part of the team ensuring the people and communities of my electorate and other regions receive the programs, services and funding they deserve. I am proud of the recent achievements I have been able to deliver for the Riverina, including more than $12 million in funding in community development grants, which have seen money flow to upgrades of the Forbes netball courts and the Parkes Airport as well as the Forbes saleyards and a massive investment towards the upgrade of the levee bank in Wagga Wagga. There is over half a million dollars in funding to help make our towns safer through the Safer Streets Program. This will ensure police, local councils and communities have a better ability to reduce crime. I have had the opportunity to announce funding of closed-circuit television in Cootamundra, Forbes, Temora and Wagga Wagga. By working together with governments at all levels, particularly local councils, we are upgrading and repairing bridges in all corners of the nation, and my electorate has benefited from our focus on funding ageing bridges through the Bridges Renewal Program. Five upgrade projects, including in the Riverina and Central West, have been successful. There has been $595,000 for the replacement of Kadina Bridge in the Parkes Shire, $9.8 million in Wagga Wagga for the replacement of the Eunony Bridge, $2.1 million in Gundagai for the replacement of the Gobarralong Bridge, $100,000 in Caragabal for the replacement of Beazleys Lane Bridge and $838,000 for the widening of McHenrys Creek Bridge in the Hilltops Council area. I was so pleased also to play a role in the Carrathool bridge upgrade. They had waited for decades for a bridge not to replace—because they cannot replace the heritage truss bridge that they have—but to be built right next door. It was with some amount of sadness but also huge jubilation that we announced that. I say sadness because the great advocate for that, Margaret Merrylees, after whom the bridge will, hopefully, be named passed away on 21 August 2016. The first sod was turned by Margaret as well as New South Wales Minister for Roads Duncan Gay and me on 2 November 2015. They had waited for decades, and the Nationals and the coalition federally as well as in New South Wales delivered. I was also pleased to play a role during the last term of government in ensuring that buyback for water is going to be capped at 1,500 gigalitres. That is going to provide so much security, hope and confidence in the areas of Coleambally, Griffith, Leeton, Hillston and Narrandera. They were part of the Riverina electorate boundaries from 1901, but they now sit proudly with the member for Farrer, and I know that she will do a good job continuing to represent those areas. They are tremendous people. I am sorry in one sense to lose them, but I know they are in good hands with the member for Farrer. The big-ticket items and the large dollar sums do attract a lot of attention and deliver great outcomes for our communities, and rightly so. However, it is often the smaller, more local projects and amounts of money we spend as a federal government that can mean the most. The highly successful Stronger Communities Program, now replaced by the Building Better Regions Fund, with a specific focus on regional Australia, has enabled key local projects to be funded to benefit community groups and organisations with everyday needs. Great examples include $5,000 for a new antenna and transmitter for the community radio station in West Wyalong in Bland Shire, $6,000 for air conditioning of the Beckom Hall in Coolamon Shire and just a bit over $8,000 for a community barbecue in Ariah Park in Temora Shire. These are a few examples of many smaller amounts of funding that deliver a great benefit to my country communities. With a positive plan that delivers for country people and their communities, I stand in this place proud, always, that we remain focused on regional people, the very people who elect us. The people of regional Australia have shown yet again that they want the Nationals to be their champion in the federal parliament. As I stand here today, the Nationals are the only party which can lay claim to holding all its seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as welcoming another member of parliament—the member for Murray—at the last election. We did very well. For a political party in our modern climate, that result is truly extraordinary. For decades—in fact, for almost the 100 years since our party was formed—they have been writing us off; the pundits have been predicting the demise of the National Party. Newspaper columns and popular opinion every day say that the Nationals' best days are behind us. How wrong they are and how wrong they were the last election. With many of my colleagues across the country in very tight contests, none of us underestimated the scale of the challenge on 2 July. Let me tell you: no Nationals member will ever take their electorate for granted. None of us did that, because we know that our electorates deserve the best. None of us took for granted that we would get the credit for the infrastructure that we have built and the investment that we have made in our communities. We do not look for glorification; we just want to see things get done, and, under a coalition government, that is what happens. We all knew, and we continue to know now, that regional people are unique. They are special and they deserve a dedicated voice which understands their needs, their wants and their aspirations. Central to this is the fact that they want someone who listens. National Party members, and Liberal Party members too, listen to our electorates. We are in focus. We are in tune. When the new boundaries of the Riverina electorate were gazetted in February last year, my local Nationals team and I knew that we had a big challenge before us. In my electorate, many communities with which I had not been familiar were welcomed into our electorate's map. In the past in Parkes and Forbes, the Nationals' John Cobb in Calare and Andrew Gee, then in the state seat, were local members for many years. The people of Parkes and Forbes had good local members in those two, and people there knew that the Nationals cared. I want local people in those towns to know that I care for them too. The same is true of the other communities in the then shires of Cootamundra, Cowra, Harden, Lockhart, Weddin—which takes in Grenfell—and Young, previously represented by the member for Hume and by the member for Farrer. They had had coalition members in the past but they had not had a National, in some cases, for more than 20 years. In each of these towns the hearts of the people beat a familiar tune: country people proud of their communities and passionate about our future. That is the philosophy of country people: having a go. In the time remaining, I would like to personally thank the many members of my campaign team who were spread across the Riverina and central west: Bruce Adams, Erin Adams, Ian Armstrong and his wife, Jennifer, Laura Bruce, Cathy Cleary, David and Ruth Fagan, Wes Fang, Pam Halliburton, Margaret Hill, Dominic Hopkinson, Barney Hyams, John Minogue, Dorothy Nash, Mark Olson, Gretchen Sleeman, Richard Sleeman, Lesley Vennell, Robert Vennell and Anabel Williams. There were many more and they all came together to make sure that the Nationals had a good result. I also pay tribute to and thank my three beautiful children, Georgina, who came with me on many road trips—I think she enjoyed it a bit too much—Alexander and Nicholas, and my wonderful and unwavering wife, Catherine. Her ability to make me realise the importance of taking time out to honour and celebrate the special moments and milestones of our collective lives is important. She keeps me humble. It serves as a reality check for me and ensures that I can continue to be the best father and husband that I can be. This is a tough role, and it is one that we all put ourselves up for, whether we are Labor, Liberal, National Party or whatever, so we all need the love and support of our family and friends. It is important to remember that no-one is alone. Politics is not about power; it is about people. I re-dedicate myself to the service of the communities and the people I represent. 12:44 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I might start my comments by responding to the . My mother's maiden name is McCormack, so it is possible we could be related. We might have a genetic grey-hair situation. That might be part of the reason that we are both grey-haired! I just listened carefully to what he was saying in relation to his concern for his constituency. I am sure he is sincere in many respects, but I think it is clear that, as a result of the government's position in relation to penalty rates, it is regional communities that are going to feel it most acutely. According to the McKell Institute, regional economies will be more affected by the cuts—by taking real income out of those economies. It therefore did not surprise me that the minister did not really go on about penalty rates in defending the government's position. Given that he is the small business minister, you would have thought that he would have attempted to put up a defence in relation to their position. What has happened in the last week is that we have now had every crossbencher in the Senate abandon the government and the government's position in relation to penalty rates. We now have Senator Hinch, Senator Hanson and Senator Xenophon—who have long held the view that penalty rates should be cut—on the record saying they will support Labor's bill in the Senate. That is a remarkable turnaround. I suspect their motives are more about defending their own futures than those of workers who are being paid small amounts of money, and who will be paid less if the decision takes effect. But it also highlights how out of touch this government is, that they still stand there arguing the case that it is okay for the Fair Work decision to take effect. The Prime Minister has set the precedent, insofar as intervening in an order of an independent body to prevent truck drivers' wages going up. All he need do is support Labor. He can support a bill in the House that will negate the order that would be made by the commission for retail and hospitality workers' wages to go down. But he cannot hide behind the argument that it is an independent tribunal, because he has intervened on at least two occasions: in the truck drivers' matter, to which I just referred, and also in the CFA matter—which was also an interference by the parliament to realise the government's will, if you like. Hiding behind the notion that the decision is made by an independent body is a nonsense. It is a fiction. The Australian public considers that the only reason why the government supports the decision—given that it has intervened in earlier decisions—is that it wants to see a cut in real wages of those workers. Up to 700,000 workers and their families will be worse off as a result of the parliament failing to act. Tomorrow in the Senate, a bill that mirrors the bill introduced by Bill Shorten into the House will be debated and voted on. That bill is likely to succeed. That bill is likely to pass through the Senate, and it is then incumbent on the House of Representatives to consider the bill, and the government has to think hard about whether it wants to maintain its very anti-worker position. This is quite extraordinary: Senator Xenophon, who has not only supported cuts to penalty rates but actually introduced a private member's bill to cut penalty rates, and Senator Hanson, who has been on the record supporting cuts to penalty rates for years, and Senator Hinch—the same—have now all wilted as a result of the campaign by Labor—and by workers, unions and others, community groups, and advocates for decency in this country—and will support our legislation. I welcome their vote, though I suspect their motives. I do not really care about their motives at this point, insofar as the vote is concerned, but I think it matters over the longer term. Can you really trust these people to do the right thing, if they are only doing it at the moment to save their hides? The government is now running out of opportunities to do the right thing here. We will continue to argue that they should do that, because 1 July is not that far away. From 1 July, some part of that penalty rate cut will take effect. We know that money will be lost in real terms at a time when wage growth is at its lowest in a generation, and people who are currently struggling to make ends meet will find it even harder. And yet the government stands by and lets it happen. But they have an opportunity; we have provided them with that opportunity—that lifeline. They just need to take it. The cuts to penalty rates and to the income of hundreds of thousands of workers may be made worse, given that there are now three other awards that are potentially subject to a cut in penalty rates. You might recall that the Prime Minister said that it was absurd and a nonsense for Labor—in fact he referred to me specifically—to suggest that there could be further cuts to penalty rates. He attacked me on radio for saying so, and yet there are now three other awards that are now before the commission. And it is as likely as not—probably more likely than not—that their conditions will be changed for the worse as well, because the arguments made in the other matters are comparable to the arguments that will be put by advocates to support the cut. So there is going to be an immediate cut on 1 July for hundreds of thousands of workers. There are now more awards that are subject to arbitration by the commission to consider cutting their penalty rates, and the government cannot guarantee that there will not be further workers affected beyond that point. They cannot guarantee that and they are living a lie if they think they can say that they know it will not happen. In fact it is happening to more workers, and it may happen even beyond those workers under those three awards, namely beauticians, hairdressers, and restaurant, hotel and club staff, who are already low paid. They struggle and this will make things worse. You add to that the decision by the government to cut the Family Tax Benefit Part A and Part B and you see a further 1½ million Australian families worse off—$1.4 billion will be ripped from the pockets of Australian families by this government. Around 600,000 of these families receive the maximum rate of the Family Tax Benefit Part A, which means their household incomes are less than $52,000 per year. To give you an example of what this cut will mean to families: a family on $60,000 per annum with two primary-school-aged children will be around $440 worse off in 2018-19; a single-parent family on $50,000 with two high-school children will be around $540 worse off; and a single-income couple or a single-parent family with three children under 12 will be around $605 worse off. Government members may not think that is a lot of money, as they have said in part-explanation of why they are supporting the cuts to penalty rates. But when you are living on the margins, week by week, not being able to pay bills—particularly those big bills that come in, like utility bills—pay the mortgage, pay the rent or pay those certain fees that come in from time to time, if one of your family members gets ill and has to pay beyond what can be covered by Medicare, it becomes a real problem. And I am afraid that this approach to cutting low-paid workers and middle-income earners, and also attacking low-paid workers, is really a pathway to what is happening in the United States. Whilst I have some great admiration for many of the things that have happened in that country, and they have been a remarkable country in many respects, they have very significant inequality and it has got worse and worse over the last three or four decades, to the point where you really have people now working full time below the poverty line, where middle-class incomes have gone backwards in real terms and, in some instances, in nominal terms. The average wage in America has not changed in nominal terms since the Clinton administration. That means that there has been a very mighty fall in real income for those workers. They have hollowed out their middle class. They have impoverished their working class. They are about to rip away the efforts made by the former administration to have some form of universal health care for those people that need it most. That is not the country I want to live in, and yet I think that is the design of many on the other side who want to see lower wages, less support and less investment in education. They want to walk away from needs-based education, having promised it before the 2013 election, and erode access to health care in this country in some respects. The combination of those things would mean that we were heading down that American path, and that would be an absolute shame. It would change this country fundamentally and it would contradict the fair go and the fact that we consider ourselves to be somewhat egalitarian. And that would be a terrible thing. That is why the government has to reconsider some of its policy positions. It needs to firstly look at the effects that some budgetary matters will have upon people struggling. It should immediately join Labor in supporting the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition to stop the effects of the penalty rates decision. It should also, in doing so, say that we should not allow any further awards to have their rates of pay or conditions reduced by cutting their penalty rates without compensation. These are opportunities for the government to take. We can score political points against them on these matters, but that is not the important thing here; the important thing here is: we know the parliament can fix it; we know it is within the remit of the parliament and within the remit of the Prime Minister, and he should set about doing that. One of my beliefs as to why he has not done that to date is: he does not really understand how hard it is for people who struggle economically. I am not suggesting for a moment that he has not had his own personal difficulties. All of us have, at one time or another. And he has made a lot of money, and good luck to him. But I do say this: he also made money from money. He was reasonably well off in his 20s, having inherited a lot of money. And he has never had trouble paying a bill; let us put it that way. That might be a problem—that he cannot understand what it means for these people because he has never confronted it—but you would expect, then, a level of empathy or understanding, if you are going to be the leader of the nation. If he cannot draw on his own personal experience because he does not have any in this area then you would expect him to sit down with the people affected. He made a big song and dance about sitting down with some of the truck drivers and talking about that order of the commission. He sat and talked to volunteers in the CFA because he was concerned about their issues. How can it be that a Prime Minister can make hay in those areas and yet, when it comes to the lowest paid in the country—retail workers, hospitality workers, and, possibly, the way it is looking, hairdressers and beauticians, and restaurant staff relying on tips—not ask them what it means for them to suffer a cut in real income? It is a real indictment on him and on this government that they do not have any understanding. And it appears they now have no friends, either, when it comes to this position, because they are left standing alone in the House and in the Senate. The quicker they come to the realisation that they must take action and join Labor to support this legislation, the better—the better for them but, far more importantly, the better for those workers who are looking towards 1 July and trying to work out how they are going to pay for the bills once their wages have been cut. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time being approximately 1 pm, the Federation Chamber is suspended until 4 pm. Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16 : 00 16:00 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Each of us comes to this place with ideals, values, goals and an earnest desire to contribute to the future of our nation. Read the maiden speech of any member of this House or any Senator, and you will see those hopes and expectations in their purest form. You will notice that these speeches are devoid of the vitriol, game-playing and insincerity that the Australian public have come to characterise as the mainstays of our political system. It is a great shame that this perception of Australian politics has become the norm and that public confidence in parliamentarians has been on a downward trajectory for many years. It is a great pity that the 24-hour news cycle tends to amplify dysfunction, characterise debate as division and promote quick fixes over long-term solutions. It is our great challenge, as members of this place, to contest the prevailing culture through hard work, clear thinking and, frankly, better behaviour. It has never been my style to engage in the intrigue, game-playing or name-calling that occurs in this place, and I am not about to begin, but I think we all realise there is a discord between what goes on here and the expectations of the Australian people. We all need to do better. This debate is an essential opportunity for each of us to revisit the ideals, hopes and optimism expressed in our maiden speeches and to ensure that they are what underpins our work rather than what is trending on Twitter or what appears popular according to a poll. In my maiden speech, which I delivered on 25 October 2010, I spoke specifically about practical priorities for my electorate, including infrastructure, business and veterans. I am pleased to have delivered on all of these three issues and to have worked closely with the McPherson community to strengthen the southern Gold Coast. In the middle of last year I secured federal infrastructure funding to upgrade the M1 from four lanes to six between Robina Town Centre and Reedy Creek Road. Just last week it was announced that agreement has been reached with the state government and that early construction will commence in the middle of this year. This is great news for motorists who spend considerable time every morning and every afternoon stuck in what is known locally as the Robina carpark and stuck further south of the M1. I will continue my fight for the widening of the M1 through to Tugun. Whilst planning for this further upgrade is about to start, it is essential that there are no delays to construction and that there is a continuous build through to Tugun, not the stop-start that has dogged the upgrade so far on the southern Gold Coast. But this is not all that is needed on the M1 I have already raised with the state government and with my federal colleagues the need to address urgently two bottlenecks: southbound at the Bermuda Street merge and northbound at the KP McGrath merge. There is capacity already there to extend the slip lanes and by doing so to relieve the delays at those two key points. I can assure locals that I will continue to fight to fix the bottlenecks and widen the M1 all the way through to Tugun as a priority. Of course, the M1 is not the only infrastructure priority, and over the last three years I have helped secure $95 million for stage 2 of the Gold Coast light rail, $38 million for the Gold Coast City Council in Roads to Recovery funding to improve Gold Coast roads and $1.7 million to fix local dangerous accident blackspots. I have helped secure funding to fix telecommunication blackspots with the construction of a new mobile base station on Currumbin Creek Road and sped up the rollout of the NBN locally. I have also delivered the new smart tracking system at the Gold Coast Airport in Coolangatta. When it comes to local businesses the coalition has certainly delivered over the past three years by cutting half a billion dollars in red tape and regulation, reducing the tax burden by cutting company tax rates and providing immediate tax deductions for assets up to $20,000. We have opened up overseas markets like never before with our crucial trade agreements. In McPherson, I have helped secure important support for local businesses, with over $466,000 in commercialisation funding, $84,000 in industry skills funding, $14,000 in business growth grants and $32,000 for vocational excellence grants. As I have said many times before, the education sector is thriving in my electorate, with Australia's largest private university, Bond University—a leader in innovation—and many other local schools and training organisations offering cutting-edge skills and qualifications. In fact, I have secured more than $5.1 million in Australian Research Council grants for local research projects; $224,000 in Endeavour fellowships and scholarships, $134,000 in New Colombo Plan scholarships to help local students study overseas, and $140,000 to Southern Cross University for specialty mathematics programs. The coalition has also helped fund the Gold Coast Science and Tech Festival and a range of programs in local schools as well as provided over $2 million in infrastructure funding for local schools. It would take more time than we have today to outline the full extent of the funding that has flowed to the southern Gold Coast since the coalition came to office in 2013. It has been my great honour and privilege to work with the community, but there is one section of our community, in particular, that I have to confess is my great joy to work with, and that is our veterans and service men and women. During the past term of office we had the incredible opportunity to acknowledge the Centenary of the Gallipoli Landing and many other significant anniversaries. For our local community, I am delighted to have delivered over $130,000 to local RSLs and community groups to commemorate the Centenary of Anzac and practical support for local veterans, with close to $100,000 in BEST grants to help veterans, and provided a range of support through various Saluting Their Service and Veteran and Community grants. These are important in helping ensure that the legacy of our veterans is remembered for generations to come. Local veterans organisations have also had several opportunities to meet with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs as I posted roundtable discussions that have been very productive. Our local RSLs and veterans organisations are a shining example of our many community organisations that work for the betterment of not only their members but also all southern Gold Coast residents. Our many Surf Life Saving clubs are another example, with so many local volunteers giving generously of their time. It is tremendously positive or our government to be providing over $300,000 to local Surf Life Saving clubs to help them purchase vital equipment. One of the things that I am very proud of is recognising our many volunteers through my annual McPherson awards. These awards are a way for our community to say thank you to those who have given their time and really are the heart and soul of our community. We have three categories: community achiever, Surf Life Saving achiever and young achiever. Nominations are now open for the 2017 awards, and I encourage the southern Gold Coast community to nominate a local hero. Fostering the spirit of volunteerism and supporting the community is, I believe, an important part of my job as the local member. The intrinsic spirit of our local communities is something I believe in very strongly. It is where the solution to so many issues can be found. We need to support the community sector, as we have through the Volunteer Grants Program, where 29 of my local community organisations shared in $120,000 for equipment to make their work easier. This is a great program, first introduced by the Howard government, which I am very pleased we have restored. I am also heartened that one of the first pieces of legislation the Turnbull government introduced this term was a bill to stop the hostile takeover of the CFA in Victoria by the union movement. Community volunteer organisations like the CFA do not need more intervention and obstruction. In fact, we need to be removing red tape wherever possible. Smaller government and stronger communities—that should be our aim. So it is a positive sign of our core belief in community that we have moved so decisively in this matter. By contrast, it is a sign of Labor's enduring pact with the unions that they could allow such a threat to the CFA to even eventuate. It is my hope, and it will certainly be my aim, to ensure that the coalition's policy positions during the 45th Parliament are similarly based on our core beliefs. As I said at the beginning of this speech, our policies need to have the solid foundation of our expressed values and ideals. The values that so many of us articulate in our maiden speeches are a yardstick of why we choose to serve our communities in the parliament. I am not advocating for ideology-driven government. Of course we need to be practical. Our values must always be couched in the mainstream and expressed through the prism of the national interest. By articulating policies founded on our shared values and common beliefs, we will be able to give the Australian public a much clearer picture of what we stand for. Policy that is based on whims, trends or fashion is never as enduring. I also want to point out that, in arguing for a more constructive parliament, I am not advocating for less robust debate. Indeed, part of the problem with the current political climate is that debate is too often shut down and that tactics like vilifying and name-calling are employed as a substitute for serious discussion. Debates are too often divided along partisan lines and personalities rather than the merits of an argument. Robust debate is the cornerstone of any thriving democracy, and we should never hide from it. So, in arguing for better standards, I am also arguing for more robust debate, but debate where arguments of merit are not drowned out. Common sense must prevail. The national interest has to be put above partisan interests, and we must remember that the Australian people want their elected government to govern. The public want the opposition and crossbenchers to respect that fact and seek constructive common ground. One of the other qualities that I mentioned earlier that will help change the negative public perception of our political culture is hard work. I have been honoured, over the first term of the coalition government, to have been tasked with a number of leadership roles, including: chairman of the joint Public Works Committee, member of the Speakers Panel, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science, Assistant Minister for Science and now Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills. These are all roles that I have taken up with vigour and in which I am pleased to have made a contribution. These additional roles have allowed me to apply my specific skills and knowledge, especially when it comes to science and technology, and to meet with and gain insights from some of our leading scientists, educators and business people. I take this opportunity to thank the many people around the country who have given me the benefit of their views and experience over the past three years. I am extremely excited and optimistic to now be working to improve and strengthen the VET sector, which is so crucial to addressing skills shortages and providing alternative pathways to further education. The coalition has always fundamentally believed in apprenticeships and vocational education. We have announced a new, affordable, sustainable and student-focused VET Student Loans program that will restore integrity to the system and ensure it is preparing students for employment. I look forward to continuing to work with the sector, with industry and with students to ensure we achieve the very best VET outcome in the future. Whatever my additional or ministerial roles, I have always made certain that the people of McPherson remain my first priority. Regular listening posts have always been part of my schedule, and they will remain so. Attending local community functions and supporting local community events is something I will always make time for. And assisting local constituents and small businesses is the mainstay of my job. I take this opportunity to thank the people of McPherson for re-electing me. It is a great honour that I intend to repay through continued hard work and commitment. I thank the many local residents I have worked with over the years and those who have stopped to share their views with me. Your feedback helps me to better represent you and our community. There is of course a special group of locals that I have relied on: those who formed my campaign team and gave their time through the long eight weeks of campaigning in manning roadsides and working at pre-poll and, of course, on election day. Anyone who has ever run for office knows it truly is a group effort. It is a testament to our campaign team that in 2013 we achieved a swing to us that was significantly better than the state average and, at the last election, our performance in McPherson was again a standout. Thanks team—we have some impressive runs on the board. It would be difficult to name everyone, but there are some special people that I would like to thank. Let me thank Peter Barrett, Maggie Bevins, Roger Campbell, Peter Cannon, Wendy Coe, Chris Crawford, Dorothy Davis, Lyn Dyne, Roger Emmerson, Wendy Flett, Mary Flynn, Peter Flynn, John Forrester, Roger Green, Hilary Green, Boyd Hain, Peter Hyde, Elaine Hyde, Greg Ingram, John Kearney, Jeszaen Lee, Anthony Lind, Dick Lucas, Eva Lucas, Nola Mattei, Peter McKean, Ben Naday, Cheryl Pearson, Linda Perkins, Ron Pia, Cherry Pia, Kevin Powell, Andy Rajapaske, Paul Rimmington, Jeffrey Robinson, Barry Skinner, Fran Ward-Emerson, Keith Wright and Ada Wright. Can I also give some special mentions to Bruce and Muriel Duncan, Margo Gates, Jack McLintock, Callum Whitehead and Selma Schuller. There are some really special people, and let me acknowledge and thank Hamish Douglas and Natalie Douglas and the woman who self-describes as my 'wingman', Janelle Manders. To my mother, Moya, and my sister, Ann—thank you so much once again for everything you have done over the years, and particularly during the election campaigns where you have stood on countless polling booths handing out for me. I really do appreciate it. To my husband, Chris, who, when I was first elected was described as my 'long-suffering husband', and I rejected that at the time: I think that now, seven years past the election, I would say that yes, you are my long-suffering husband. We have recently celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary—so, Chris, thank you for that. I have three amazing children—Emma, Jane and Kate. When I first spoke in this place I spoke directly to them as they were seated up in the gallery. The words that I said to them are as true today as they were then, and what they will be in the future. My words to them were: always believe in yourself, girls, because I believe in you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for that contribution, and can I add that your husband is a long-suffering husband; I know that. And your kids are so perfect, you must be very happy with them. 16:17 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I am not placed to comment on the member for McPherson's husband, but I will say that it was a pleasure to be in this chamber for her speech. While I do not share all of the sentiments expressed in it, I think the challenge the member for McPherson outlined in terms of the expectations all of our constituents have on us is a challenge we should all seek to rise to, and I will do my best to begin that process in the course of making these remarks in reply to the Governor-General's speech. I start, though, by expressing my deep appreciation and gratitude to the people of Scullin for re-electing me in July last year. It is an extraordinary privilege, an honour and a great responsibility for any of us to serve in this place. I know that none of us takes on the responsibility lightly. So I extend my deep thanks to the constituents of the Scullin electorate—obviously, to those who supported my re-election, but also to those who did not vote for me. I am committed to listening to you and working for you through this parliament. I was particularly pleased that there was a significant swing to Labor in the Scullin electorate, and the credit for that goes to two groups of people. Firstly, to Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and his campaign team. I acknowledge the work of George Wright, our then national secretary, and Paul Erickson, the assistant national secretary. And I am very pleased to see the member for Cunningham here, who made such a great contribution in important policy areas. I acknowledge the work of everyone involved in delivering a platform of policies that we took to the Australian people and which resonated clearly with my constituents in Scullin, as it did across the northern suburbs of Melbourne and more generally. So that is one chunk of the credit for my having the opportunity to continue to serve. The other goes to all the amazing people who I have had the opportunity to work with, and for, in the short time that I have been in this place. I extend my deep appreciation to my staff, to Lori Faraone—and it shows what a long time it has been since the election that, on election day, Lori had one child; she and Jason now have a second and she will be returning to work soon, which I am greatly looking forward to, and I hope that she is too! To Jim Tilkeridis, to Sally-Ann Delaney, to Kali Watson, to Matt Dawson, to Justin Mammarella, and to Eleanor Scott-D' Ambrosio: it is an extraordinary privilege for me to work with you. The quality of the work that you do for people in the Scullin electorate is something that I am in awe of. As I have said more than once, almost all the good work done in the office is done by you; any errors and omissions are down to me. I express my gratitude to all of you for your work through what was a very long—and, in Melbourne, cold—election campaign. I look forward to working with you to meet the challenges of this parliament. I also acknowledge the state members that I am very fortunate to work with: my dear friend Lily D'Ambrosio, Danielle Green, Vicki Ward, Bronwyn Halfpenny and Colin Brooks. I was very grateful for your support and for the opportunity to continue to work with all of you on behalf of the communities of Melbourne's north. I was very fortunate to have a terrific campaign team who ran an excellent campaign and gave me plenty to do. I thank my campaign chair, Samil Demir, a young man with a great future ahead of him professionally and—I hope—in Labor politics. There are many, many people who deserve to be acknowledged in this place. I will concentrate on a few: Koste Kolevski, Liam McColl, Helen Said, John Pathinathan, Nik Cagorski, Joe Petrucci, Katherine Tilkeridis, Vince Morton, Kurt Cauchi, Alex Collum, Rex Ramanathan, Brian and Ellen Smiddy, Gwen Hamilton, Barbara Breaks, Sucettin and Perihan Unal and all their family, Kim Travers, and Jenny and Neil Delaney. Sadly, since the election, Neil Delaney has passed away. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word, someone who made an extraordinary contribution to community, who never asked for anything for himself. So I take this opportunity to think of Neil and his family: I am indebted for the time that I had to spend with you, and I know many others are grateful for everything you did for them. To Anthony Mancuso, Shorsh Ahmad, Rachael Davies, Elvira Tsecouteris, Sasha Nackovski, Trish Mackin, Harry Williams and Jim Bannon—to all of you and to many others who flew the Labor flag in Scullin last year, I give you my thanks. I have enjoyed the opportunity to continue to work for you, and to be inspired by your energy and passion for a fairer society every day that I am in the job. Out of this campaign, something special happened in the communities I represent. A group of people—Trish, Nik and Alex, who I just acknowledged—came together to form a group called the Scullin Volunteer Action Network, recognising their sense that politics and Labor politics should not just be about elections. It is about building stronger, more resilient and fairer communities. I have been really excited by their activism in seeking to engage others in the political process, and to break down some of the sense of malaise in politics and in our political institutions—something that the member for McPherson touched on very effectively and something I will return to briefly. But I wanted to particularly acknowledge their work in taking action locally to correct a problem that is bedevilling all of the developed world—that is, the rise of a reactionary form of populism and a decline in our sense of faith in politics and our political institutions. While it is critical that those of us in this place rise to the challenge of overcoming this sense of cynicism and alienation, it is so wonderful to see people outside of the formal political process—people who do not enjoy the privilege that all of us have, to speak in this place—take action to show their faith in their fellow citizens; their faith that working together we can make a change for the better. I have reflected on the last term in this parliament, my first term, and there are a couple of things I would like to particularly share with the House. There were two campaigns that I was associated with in the Scullin electorate that made me feel very proud to be a local member of parliament in Melbourne's northern suburbs and proud to be a member of the Labor team. I am so proud of the way that the communities I represent came together to reject the proposals for a GP tax and how people stood up for Medicare—standing up for everyone's entitlement to health care. But also, more than that, in standing up for Medicare, the communities that I represent made clear to me that they have a very strong sense and they expect from me a strong articulation of our sense of what it is to be an Australian—a sense of a social compact; a sense of a society in which no-one should be left behind; and a rejection of a dog-eat-dog, Americanised society whereby but for the fortune of your birth, you may not be given the security of having the health care that you deserve. I was also really pleased by the way that the diverse communities that I represent came together when it was proposed in 2014, as it has been proposed since, that laws be changed to license racist hate speech. I was so proud of the way that people came together to speak up for communities that felt under pressure. I was pleased that the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, spent much time working with concerned and affected communities in Scullin. I particularly think of those who congregate around the Thomastown mosque to say that we do not believe in our part of the world that there can be such a thing as a second-class citizen in Australia and that we do not believe it can ever be right to license racist hate speech. The other matter that was important to me in my last term was this process of better connecting people to politics. I took up the invitation of the member for McPherson to consider my own first speech, where I spoke of an aspiration to be a listener and a problem-solver as a member of parliament. I have tried to live up to this, particularly so when it comes to recognising that too many of my constituents—and most of our constituents, I suspect—feel that there is not much point to politics. They feel that whatever happens in terms of their electoral decisions, that cannot change the circumstances of their lives. I passionately believe that they are wrong in this and I equally passionately believe that we must all work harder to correct this misapprehension in the community, particularly when it comes to younger people. We know they are not enrolling to vote in worrying numbers and are not voting or voting informally in very worrying numbers. They are also falling prey to some voices of division within our communities, which must be squarely rejected in this place and in the community. I made it a big priority to try and engage with communities who I felt were marginalised from the political process. I think some progress has been made in Scullin in this regard, but there is much, much more to be done. I was also pleased over the course of the last term to support the election of an Andrews Labor government. When I think about positive change that has happened in Melbourne's north, I think about the impact of the election of this government. I think about that when I see the physical environment of our schools and the investment in healthcare services in the north, but most importantly I see it in the infrastructure rollout, particularly the extension of the train line to Mernda, which will open in 2019, as well as very significant road projects. These infrastructure projects are a huge investment in dealing with a major concern I also spoke of in my first speech. It is my concern that Melbourne, the world's most liveable city, as I am sure all of us in this place know, is at risk of becoming a city in two halves: a very prosperous core and an outer rim, where access to jobs and access to amenity becomes much, much harder. This is a course that can be corrected, that must be corrected soon. We need to recognise all of the costs of congestion—economic, social and environmental—and recognise that they are disproportionately borne by those who live further from the CBD of our major capital cities like Melbourne. So, I am proud to have made a contribution, over the life of the last parliament, to a change in our national conversation around urban policy whereby we now have a government that is committed, at least on paper, to an agenda for our cities and to investments in infrastructure that are not solely about road construction. I am hopeful, despite the continued imbroglios over the much needed Melbourne Metro project, that we will again see the sort of city-shaping public transport projects that our major cities need, with significant federal involvement based on evidence, not ideology. There is of course much more to be done if we are to ensure that all of my constituents, particularly those in the newer, more northerly areas of the Scullin electorate, have every access to good jobs—including good local jobs in precincts such as the Epping central activity district and the precinct in Bundoora around University Hill and the RMIT campus, but also jobs located in the city—and access to all the fantastic cultural, sporting and social amenities that we enjoy in Melbourne. All of us should be able to enjoy them. Again I will refer to the question of trust in politics. The member for McPherson said, 'We all need to do better.' That is an injunction I hope I can respond to over the balance of this term, and I recognise that it is an onus that rests on all of us who are elected to this place. I feel much more deeply now the concerns about alienation that I expressed in my first speech. Again, I think we must be concerned about the rise of reactionary forms of populism, which threaten our collective sense of government's responsibility, and capability, for doing good in people's lives. The buck stops with us and how we behave—our capacity to have the sorts of robust debates that the member for McPherson referred to, where we do test ideas, ideological propositions and different visions for maintaining Australian living standards into the future. We need to find better ways to do that, with less rancour. This is particularly pressing when you look at the world as it is today and the drift towards inequality that is happening across all developed economies. In Australia, of course, inequality is at a 75-year high. We are the least equal we have been since the Great Depression. This raises profound challenges for us, as to the sort of society we wish to live in, as well as for our economy. It is clear that the Australian economy today is working for the few and not for the many. This no doubt is driving some of the sense of alienation, some of the appeal of populism, that I spoke about earlier. When we have company profits at a record high and these profits are not being reinvested productively, that is a problem, and it is a problem that does not call for company tax cuts as a solution. We have changes in the world of work that are exacerbating the trends driving income inequality and wealth inequality. Wage growth is at a record low, and growth of insecure work is outstripping good, secure growth in good, secure jobs. Increasingly, we are seeing new forms of work outside what generally has been understood to be the formal economy—the sorts of jobs regulated under the Fair Work Act and its predecessors. These are profound challenges that government must respond to, and I am pleased to be part of the Shorten opposition, which is starting work on that response as well as facing up to the other critical challenges that Australia needs addressed. No critical challenge is more pressing than climate change. It is beyond disappointing that we have a government that is not facing up to that challenge, to that moral imperative to do good for future generations. Today I had the privilege of receiving a presentation from the Australian Marine Conservation Society about the state of the Great Barrier Reef. To say that the prognosis was shocking is a great understatement, and that is only one illustration of the scale of the challenge we must rise to to begin our journey to a sustainable, low-carbon economy. Over the life of this parliament, I have been given the great honour of working in the schools portfolio by the Leader of the Opposition. I am very excited by this opportunity to work with the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, as part of Labor's education team, with some terrific colleagues—the member for Adelaide, the member for Griffith, Senator Cameron and Senator Collins—and to build on the work of people like the member for Cunningham. I am excited about the challenge of getting Commonwealth involvement in schools right, and I am determined to fight every day for needs-based schools funding. I think the two enduring achievements of the Labor governments that held office from 2007 to 2013 will be the NDIS and getting schools funding right, after more than 40 years of inertia and division. The fight for schools funding is not over. We on the Labor side are looking to the evidence. We are looking to the experiences that we are seeing in every school around Australia. We are committed to holding the Minister for Education and Training in this government, Senator Birmingham, to account for the promises that the government made back in 2013 and for the government's moral obligation to give every kid every chance of a decent start in life, knowing what we do about the value of education—not only as the best guarantor of productive work but also of so many other benefits, particularly in terms of health. A good education is fundamental to a good life nowadays, and for me it is simply unconscionable that we have a government that is rejecting the evidence before it and that has failed to put any alternative proposition on the table. We are nearly in April, and schools, school communities and school sectors have no certainty about what will apply to them next year. This is not good enough. What is also not good enough in the area of schools is our failure to deal with the pressing issue of making sure that every Australian counts when it comes to school education. There is so much more to be done to ensure that children with disability can effectively participate in inclusive education. This has been left in the too-hard basket for too long, and, of all the challenges I am looking forward to embarking upon over the balance of this term, this is the one that I am most keen on making progress on. There is not much time left, so I will end where I began: in thanking the people of Scullin for their confidence in me. I will do my best to discharge their faith to the best of my ability, and I am very proud to do so as part of a strong and united Labor team. 16:37 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It is a privilege to be able to stand in this place for a third term of serving the good people of my electorate of Wright in the Gold Coast hinterland. It is a beautiful part of Queensland, an absolutely picturesque electorate, taking in Lamington National Park, the Gold Coast hinterland, and the glorious Tamborine Mountain and the surrounding communities that reside close to it. Can I suggest that my electorate is extremely diverse in its outlook, ranging from some of the richest fertile valleys in the world—the seventh most fertile valley in the world by way of the Lockyer Valley—where we produce food, including vegetables, for the eastern seaboard and for the Australian table. We produce mostly vegetables in the brassica families: cauliflower, broccoli, corn—which is not a brassica—broccolini, onions, and carrots. We have country that can yield up to 20 tonnes an acre: potatoes, 20 tonnes an acre; onions, 15 tonnes an acre. It is such a beautiful and rich agricultural precinct. Then you have the surrounding communities in the middle of it by way of the Fassifern Valley, with communities like Aratula. If you are ever driving on the Cunningham Highway from Brisbane to Warwick, never miss the opportunity to drive past the Aratula bakery and pull in and get yourself a beautiful Aratula pie, or to stop off at the Aratula butcher, which is always open on a Sunday, and pick up that Sunday family roast. I am so proud and so privileged to be able to serve the people of Wright. This is my seventh year in this place. This is not just the result of efforts that I have made; it is a team effort that allows me to return to this place. In the seven years that I have had the absolute privilege of being able to serve the electors of Wright, I have learned that this place, the Australian parliament, is filled with some incredible talent on both sides of the House. It is unfortunate that too many Australians see the Australian political landscape only through the very short window of opportunity afforded when they witness the Australian parliament. Unfortunately, they make their decision on how we perform here by watching a snippet of what we refer to as question time. I can assure the Australian public and the electors of Wright that that is not the norm. That is happy hour. That is the theatre. It is the gladiatorial bluster that happens for the cameras. The real work is done in the committees. The real work is done when the cameras are turned off. If only the Australian public could see the bipartisanship in this place and how much work actually gets done. I sit with the member for Scullin on the Joined Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That is never going to be newsworthy when people sit and watch the work that we do, but we influence the direction of the country. If only people could see the work that gets done behind those closed doors and in some of the other committees, such as the Public Works Committee. Recently I tabled some documents in the House outlining no less than $1.3 billion worth of funding that we have invested in this country into refits for Public Service offices, whether it be for Defence, Immigration or other areas. It was all done in a bipartisan manner with the support of the government and the opposition and in conjunction with the Senate. That is how our parliament works. That is the truth. But people are not going to back up to buy tickets to that. It is not sexy when they see the place working well. People back up to buy tickets because they want to see the gladiatorial blood on the ground in question time, and then they complain about the way that we perform. They complain and say that we are childlike and that if it were a school environment we would be punished for our behaviour—and rightly so. On the rare occasions that I have the opportunity to spend time with my constituents in a pub, it is a great leveller. They will often say, 'You lot are childlike.' They will say to me quite openly, 'You're a good bloke. We like the way that you work for us. You work hard. You get out of bed early. You go to bed late.' But, when they speak about politicians in the collective, the same people who hold you in high regard will group us all up and suggest that we have our noses in the trough and that we are less than trustworthy. One of the challenges that I have, with the return on the investment for my time here, is to turn around the minds of a few people in my electorate so that they see that there are some incredibly talented people in this place. When you talk about politicians collectively, the first things that should come to your mind is 'incredibly hardworking and disciplined'. I will tell you that if you are not a hardworking politician you are not going to get re-elected. There is only one way to success if you are going to stick around this place, and that is: you need to get out of bed early, you need to go to bed late, you need to work weekends and you need to connect with your electorate. And if you do not do that, you will be treated harshly for it. It is an absolute privilege for me to serve in this place. I walked up to the House this morning. It has a different ambience from driving up in your car. I was on the phone to my brother and I said to him, 'This is my seventh year in this place and when I walk to this place I am not filled with a sense of pride when I look up on a beautifully clear day and see our flag in full flight.' I feel an immense sense of pride not because the building I am going to work in is one of the most stunning pieces of architecture in Canberra. I am filled with a sense of pride because I know that, when I get to the dispatch box, whether it be in this chamber or in the other chamber, I can enter into a debate rationally, in a safe environment, without fear for my own safety, as every member in this place can do, and knowing that, hopefully, we are influencing the direction of this country to be in a better place tomorrow than it was today. That is the intention of all of us. It is my hope that, as Australians, we get to break down the barrier of negativity around politicians. I would love a survey to be done or some statistics to be gathered on what we would actually get paid if we were to calculate an hourly rate and then to apply penalty rates and overtime to it; I would love to see what that hourly rate would look like! I would like to be on any hourly rate that anyone would nominate for me! But you know what? I am fortunate. I would probably do this job—no, I would; I would do this job for nothing. It is a privilege. I do not know if I would want to do this job forever for nothing, because it takes an incredible toll on your family. The time that you, as a politician in this place, spend with your community is at the sacrifice of the time that you would spend with your loved ones: your daughter; your family; your brothers; your sisters. And I want to acknowledge the contribution that my family and my extended family make—including my mum. I grew up in a very humble household, as one of four brothers and sisters. My mum ran a single-income household on a widow's pension. The other day I had the opportunity to take my mum into one of the air lounges in a capital city, and she thought she was a queen! I felt so privileged to be able to expose her to that, because, outside of a political life, we would never have had that opportunity. Yes, we used to fly a lot in our own transport operations, but never at the front end of the plane. So I suppose, coming from a humble background, you do appreciate the trimmings that this office holds. Closer to my electorate, I am proud of some of the things that we are doing in the electorate. The largest piece of inland road infrastructure in Australian history is happening in my electorate as we speak: the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, a project worth well in excess of $1 billion. For many years, my electorate was saying: 'When is the range crossing happening? We are sick of hearing about it.' Now we are delivering it. Construction is underway. Dozers are working. We will have traffic on that road hopefully within two years. The NBN is rolling out, and, again, the NBN was the child of the now opposition, then in government— An honourable member interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 We tweaked it! And there is a debate as to whether or not it is better or cheaper and as to the rollout. But you know what? I think Australians would appreciate a little bit more honesty, and I do not think we would be judged poorly for occasionally offering a compliment to good policy when it is needed, rather than opposing it for the sake of opposing. People in my electorate can smell—and excuse me—bullshit coming a mile away. And they will resonate to sincerity. I think that, as politicians, if we could have, and be seen to have, a softer heart and to have less of an agitated, always-confrontational spirit then I think we would just get more done in this place. I think there is a desire for us to achieve more. But, unfortunately, if it bleeds it leads in the press. People want to see that gladiatorial conflict, even if it be two opposing members of this place at seven o'clock in the morning on news feeds. And there are virtually whole networks allocated to political commentary. Often the stuff that flashes up down the bottom of the screen is the bad news. But there is a lot of good news that happens in the place—a lot of good news. Some of the other work that is happening here, which I am proud of, is the work that I do as a government backbencher, in my capacity as secretary to the economics committee and as secretary to the agricultural committee, where we scrutinise bills that go before cabinet. That committee will be meeting tonight and will again be influencing the direction of the country through some of the work that we do there. I also want to give the Deputy Speaker a quick update on some of the work I do with an organisation that I call A50, the Australian Economic Forum. That 50 is representative of 50 people from around the world who influence the Australian market. I do this in conjunction with Tom Murphy—who started off on the Merrill Lynch desk in New York. He is an Australian who used to play rugby for the Brumbies. How's that? He can play rugby, and is smart and rich! Tommy and I got together and we thought we would pull together this A50. The 50 is representative of 50 people; 20 are the largest buyers in the Australian market. We bring in buyers from around the world in equities, debt, trade, short money, long money, superannuation and hedge funds. We bring them in from the UK, the Middle East, Europe, America, Canada and Asia, and we stick them next to 20 of the top CEOs of Australian listed companies: the banks, the Caltexes, the BHPs, the Rios and the AMPs. We book a room at the Opera House and we put these guys in it. The remaining 10 people in the room are the top 10 regulators of the country so that they all hear the one story. Those regulators look like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the trade minister, the Reserve Bank governor, the Foreign Investment Review Board chairman, the ASIC chairman, the ACCC and a number of other regulators. We sell a simple message: Australia is open for business. I make an effort to pull that group together—and we have done it for the second year in a row; it is extremely successful—because the people in my electorate need security in their future through Australia being a net importer of funds. When I am in the pub, people say to me: 'Why would you invest so much time in that? How does that affect me?' When the value of a superannuation fund held by anyone in my electorate is going south, it is mostly because those 20 guys are pulling their money out of Australia, and it has taken the value off. So I add value to their superannuation funds when I can convince those that invest in our markets that Australia is a good bet—it is a good short-term bet; it is a good long-term bet—and convince them to continue to stay here. There was money looking to leave the Australian market in the downturn of the resources sector. We did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the 20 that were in the room. The net funds under management from that 20 were in the vicinity of $17 trillion. That is what these guys bring to our economy. That is why it is important for me and Tom Murphy to spend time talking to those companies, letting them know that Australia is a place to invest in in the future and that we are a good bet. I can talk about projects in my electorate—and during their address-in-reply speeches, members will do that—but electorates expect members to deliver projects. You are not going to get re-elected because of the size of the projects you do. You are going to get re-elected if you can connect with your electorate. You are going to get re-elected if you can empathise with your electors, if you can truly believe in your elector's concerns and if you do your best to address them. In this place we so often become consumed with issues that we believe are important to our electorates, but when I go back and sit in the pub they are not talking about gay marriage and they were not talking about section 18C. It is so easy to become distracted because a journalist sticks a microphone in front of your face as you are walking into this place—which we refer to as 'the doors'—and asks you about something obscure that happened in the last 12 hours, as if it is the most important thing to them. It is not important to our people at home—to the people we love, to the people we represent. What is important to them is security. It is making sure that they have enough money in their pockets so that they can live a comfortable and safe existence. What is important to them is making sure that there is an economic environment where they can get a better price for their product at the farm gate today than they were getting yesterday. Unfortunately, that is not often the case—in particular, for a number of dairy farmers who are in my electorate; it is beautifully rich country. At the other end of the scale, my cattle market is extremely buoyant and my cattle boys are performing well. I have two or three major selling yards—Silverdale Saleyards, the Beaudesert Saleyards and Boonah. Cattle are going off extremely strongly at the moment. Our grain prices are strong. And in my electorate we have some of the most beautiful country. In closing, I would not be here if it were not for the incredible generosity of so many people in my electorate and in the LNP secretariat. I also want to acknowledge my staff. It would humour the House to know that I was fortunate to celebrate my birthday this week on the 27th, and that my chief of staff also celebrates his birthday on the 27th. My constituent officer, Alice Warby, is turning 70—Alice, I should not have told the world that, but happy birthday to you—also on the 27th. It is as if you cannot get a job in my office unless your birthday is on 27 March! Greg Birkbeck, thank you for the work you do for me. You have been with me since day one, and I think that is a sign of the respect that I have for you. Alice Warby has been with me since day one—it is now our third term; again, that is because of the trust that I show in her and the solid nature of the way that she has my back. Coming onto staff more recently is Rochelle Richards, formerly Rochelle Maloney. Rochelle was my first PA, when I first started my transport business back in 1992 and, after having three children, she has come back to work with me. That humbles me. Her father used to work for me in the transport business for nearly 20 years. My PA, Jo Dempsey, an incredibly strong woman, has gone through some hardship, but Jo is just shining every day, as she learns more and more and grows in the position. To all of those within the LNP branches who drag themselves out to attend branch meetings and to assist on election days, whether it is handing out how-to-vote cards, manning booths or sticking up posters—there are too many of you to mention, but I stand here as a result of your efforts and, in return, I will give everything I have to make sure that I earn your confidence to elect me again as your candidate at the next election. God bless. 16:58 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston It does feel like some time ago that the 2016 election happened, but I have not until now been able to give my address-in-reply speech. While speaking about the 2016 election now may seem odd, it is very important for the completion of history that we document this incredibly important election. I am very pleased to be speaking today about the role that I want to play in this parliament going forward. I would like to begin by thanking the people of Kingston for re-electing me for my fourth term in this place. I am continually humbled by the support that was, and continues to be, given to me by so many of my constituents. As I have already done on many occasions, I pledge again that I will work hard for you, I will fight for you, and I will not let you down. Importantly, I will represent and work for all the residents of Kingston, irrespective of whether you voted for me. This has been the approach I have taken since first being elected in 2007, and it is the approach I will continue to take. Unfortunately, Labor was not elected to government; however, I will be fighting to ensure that the southern suburbs have a strong voice inside this parliament, and also outside this parliament. The 2016 election was one where there was a stark contrast between what the different parties had to offer, and a stark contrast between their visions for the future. In my electorate, locals are uncertain about the future. They expressed to me that they wanted a government that would prioritise their children's wellbeing and their grandchildren's wellbeing, now and into the future. They want to see a priority on access to good health care and other government services—access to education, to job opportunities, to affordable housing, to affordable child care and to better infrastructure. They want the government to support connected, healthy and inclusive communities and to provide services that are responsive to the needs of those communities. I will advocate to try and make sure that our community priorities are the government's priorities. I must note that, at this time, that has been difficult. But I will continue to argue for what my locals want. People in my electorate do not want a government which focuses on just the few at the big end of town. It is for this reason that the Leader of the Opposition's plan—and Labor's plan—for the future resonated in my local community, and it is also for this reason that I was re-elected to the seat of Kingston with a 7.3 per cent swing to Labor, making this the best ever result for Labor in Kingston. In South Australia, Labor focused on the importance of local initiatives to support the creation and maintenance of jobs in South Australia, and access to employment continues to be a source of concern for residents in my local area. Unfortunately, the South Australian community is constantly in a state of shock about the missteps taken by the Abbott government and then by the Turnbull government in awarding the submarine contract, as well as other large procurement projects. Despite the belated announcement by the government, there are workers losing their jobs at ASC now. These are skilled jobs, and ones that we need for the future. We need action from the federal government, as manufacturing at Holden ceases this year. We need to support the many manufacturers of components to adapt and support workers that transition into other jobs. We need the government to support the continuation of steel production at Whyalla. We are entering a precarious situation in South Australia. It is time for the federal government to act. We cannot afford to have the federal government continue to be aloof and disengaged, with the attitude that they have no role in the future of advanced manufacturing in this country, especially in South Australia. That is why I have been calling for all three levels of government to work together to develop a plan for the south, including the establishment of a southern task force to secure our future. I look forward to continuing to work with all three levels of government, with business, and with other institutions. Not only must we secure our advanced manufacturing future; we must also promote new job opportunities. This must be a priority. So far, we have seen the lack of a plan and a lack of action from this government. We have so many comparative advantages in Adelaide, and we need a government that appreciates these advantages, but also does more than that and promotes them—and not just when they are trying to save a few seats at election time. This needs to be an ongoing attitude and not just a way to save their bacon, so to speak. The approach I am advocating is quite a different approach to the one that the government are taking. The government seem to be saying: 'Give the top end of town a tax break, and cross your fingers and hope that jobs get created.' This is a lazy approach, and not a real plan. At the 2016 election, health was also a central theme in the campaign. I wish to place on the record my opposition to the claims that Labor ran a scare campaign on the future of Medicare. It has been clear since the election of the Abbott government—since the 2013 election—that the coalition have had an agenda to destroy our universal healthcare system. Need I remind this House of the coalition's first idea, which was a seven-dollar co-payment? A $7 GP tax. And then there was the abolition of the bulk-billing incentives for Pap smears, blood tests, and diagnostic imaging. We have seen the freezing of the Medicare rebate for six years—effectively a GP tax by stealth. There is an investigation into privatising the payment system of Medicare, not to mention the attack on Medicare, the attacks on our health system, the cuts to our hospital system—forcing higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicines—and the privatisation agenda for Australian Hearing. These are all additional moves that this government have taken to cut down our healthcare system. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have been so sensitive about Labor's campaign for a strong Medicare system. Their agenda has always been about eroding Medicare. In my first speech to this place, I said that it was a fundamental belief that your level of health care should not be based on the amount of money you have in your pocket. On my re-election, I have continued to defend this important principle, and I will continue to do that every single day. A quality education is the best gift we can give our young people, alongside providing opportunities for those who seek a career and reskilling. That is why I will continue to fight to ensure that education is a priority of this government. It is disappointing to see the Liberal Party continue with their excuses about why we must cut early education, why we must cut school education, why we must cut funding to skills and funding to our universities. The government have had three years to make changes to vocational education, but they have just sat on their hands. Education is an investment in the future. It ensures that as a country we can adapt and become more productive and continue to enjoy a high quality of life. The government have continued to engage in distraction in the hope that they can keep cutting funding to our schools without anyone noticing. Labor and I will continue to hold the government to account on their $30 billion of cuts to our schools. The government will keep making excuses with their mantra that it is not about the amount of money spent but how it is spent. Well, that statement is obvious: it is, of course, how it is spent. But schools need the resources in the first place to get what they need. I have had the privilege to visit schools right across this country to see what a difference the extra investment Labor made when in government—whether it be improvements to consistency and pedagogy, to literacy or to numeracy interventions, or extra support teachers. This money that Labor committed is making a difference. Most importantly, schools know what they need. This is something you often hear from the Liberal Party. Of course, schools know what they need. It is just that the government will not provide them with the resources to get what they need. This is the problem with their funding cuts. This term I have continued to fight for a decent education for children and young people in my electorate. I will continue to fight to ensure that children in the southern suburbs of Adelaide get just as much opportunity to fulfil their potential as children on the North Shore of Sydney. During the election, Labor made a number of local commitments for my electorate and I will continue to argue that these should be funded by the government. Unfortunately, that commitment has not been forthcoming. I made a commitment during the election campaign that a Labor government would bring forward the investment to build the South Australian Coastal Park trail, linking Hallett Cove, O'Sullivan Beach and Aldinga to the existing Coastal Park along Adelaide's southern beaches. This $3.3 million commitment to link southern Adelaide's pristine beaches would have created approximately 36 construction jobs and boosted recreational use of the beaches as well as tourism opportunities. Creating this local connection is incredibly important for Adelaide's southern suburbs. It would mean that our pristine beachfront is connected and accessible by both foot and bike. I hope that the Liberal federal government will see the benefit of this project and commit money in its upcoming budget. I have written to the minister to make this request. I hope he pays attention. Equally, I have written to the government to request them to match the $100,000 commitment Labor made to the Hallett Cove Netball Club for the resurfacing of their netball courts. Women's sports often do not attract the same investment as men's sport. After years of temporary repairs, the netball courts are dangerously slippery, and the clubs may be prevented from playing netball matches at home. Resurfacing the courts is vital for the future of these netball clubs as well as the ongoing support and promotion of women's sport in the south. Government and community services play a very important role in supporting members of the community who find themselves in situations they may not have expected, and that is why I will continue to fight for our local community services to get the funding they deserve. headspace Noarlunga and the Southern Community Justice Centre are just two examples of these types of services that the south needs. These services need support and certainty of funding into the future, and I have recently spoken about there being no commitment—rather, indeed, cuts—from this government. It is important that these centres are adequately funded so they are able to properly assist those who require help. In the election, Labor made a commitment to the Southern Community Justice Centre for an increase in $300,000, particularly around supporting victims of domestic violence. I hope the government also supports this centre and stops the cruel cuts that are actually going ahead from 1 July this year. It is time the government stopped these cuts and worked to support those who are most vulnerable. There are many other local projects that I will continue to advocate for, including the rail extension from Seaford to Aldinga, the duplication of Commercial and Beach roads and, of course, the ongoing fight for decent broadband services. Since the election I have been honoured to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to serve as the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and Defence personnel, an incredibly important portfolio. Since being appointed to that role, I have had the privilege of meeting many current-serving Defence personnel, as well as veterans, who serve this country with pride and distinction. I look forward to continuing to work with them. I would like to extend congratulations—though they are a little outdated, but I have already said this in person—to the Leader of the Opposition, our great leader; our deputy leader; and our whole parliamentary team and all their staff. Big congratulations to our national campaign team, led by George Wright, at the last election. This was a big effort and, while we came close, we did not quite get to government. However, it was a sterling effort by everyone. I would also like to acknowledge all those who ran as Labor candidates. I extend big congratulations to both returning colleagues and new Labor members, while for others: congratulations for a valiant effort. It is the collective work that makes our party so great. In my patch of the world, the election result in the seat of Kingston on 2 July took a lot of hard work by so many people. Our campaign was a grassroots collective effort where everyone who handed out a how-to-vote card, every door we knocked on and every phone call we made helped us to communicate Labor's message to those residents of Kingston. I would particularly like to thank my staff who worked through the election campaign—Amelia Peacock, Michael Picton, Adele Lausberg, Tristan Rust, Jemma Slevec and Jason Byrne. You were central to our success. In addition, I give a thank you to the wider campaign team that included Dale Colebeck, Gemma Paech, Sarah Huy and Tom Cicchianni-Jones, who supported me and our office through the campaign. Special thanks go to our local state MPs in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, who helped on the campaign. To my long-term and good friend, Chris Picton, the member for Kaurna: thank you for your help and support. Thanks to our other state MPs—Nat Cook and Katrine Hildyard—for your friendship and support. We have a great Labor team in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, and we work hard together. As is mentioned regularly, I cannot name everyone who worked on our campaign, but I wish to mention a few: John and Fran Drew; Phil and Jo Giles; Marisa and John Eitel; Lucy Fordham; John Gauci; Dave Retallick; Thad Taylor; Donna Blieschke; John Secriean—who was the king of corfluting; my dad—who also did a bit of work—and my mum, so I would like to thank them; Anna Syta; Jim and Deb Phillips; Megan Rohan; Cathie King and Adrian Tisato. Thank you for your enormous contribution during the campaign. I would like to thank Reggie Martin, our South Australian ALP secretary, for his support, as well as acknowledging the support I received from Sonia Romeo and the SDA; John Adley and the CEPU; John Camillo from the AMWU; Nick Townsend from the CWU and Ray Wyatt from the TWU. I especially need to thank Ethne Lange, my office manager, and Honest Lange, her husband and No. 1 sidekick, for their huge support before and during the campaign. I especially thank you, Ethne, for keeping the show on the road during a very long campaign. I am lucky to have you by my side. To Emmanuel Cusack, campaign manager extraordinaire: thank you for spending every spare waking minute working on delivering my campaign when you could have been out enjoying yourself. You produced a campaign that worked with our community, one that put local issues at the centre. Emmanuel, you have an extremely bright future in the Labor movement. My advice to anyone listening is: if you want to win a campaign, Emmanuel is the person to call. Finally, I would like to thank the people of Kingston who have put their trust in me. Without you turning up at the ballot box and having your say, I would not be able to do the work I am doing here. During the campaign I was overwhelmed by your good wishes, overwhelmed by your kind words, overwhelmed by the things that you trusted me with. You trusted me with your hopes and dreams. Every time I speak with people, whether they are distressed or whether they have hope, it is moving to know that I can come to this place to represent them and be part of trying to make those dreams and hopes a reality. I promise you, the people of Kingston: I will continue to work hard for you, just as I always have, and be your voice here in Canberra. I will continue to fight for you. I will continue to make sure that the southern suburbs of Adelaide are not forgotten in our nation's capital. I will continue to make sure that those hopes and dreams are realised. 17:17 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Here we are just over eight months since the longest election campaign in Australia's modern history. Our opponents thought it would be smart to put our community through a dragged-out, waffle-filled, cliche-ridden campaign that went on week after week, month after month. Some of us—I think on both sides—were wondering if it was ever going to end. It was like political purgatory, except that at least purgatory offers the promise of heaven at the end. We did not get heaven. What we got was the opportunity to stand here eight months later still debating the address-in-reply. Why are we doing this eight months later? Because this government do not have anything else do in this parliament. They are not passing legislation. They are hoping no-one will make a fuss, but I would like to reiterate the gravity of this matter and anticipate, on the public's behalf, a serious response to these inexcusable actions. The Prime Minister is so utterly obsessed with the Leader of the Opposition that he has mentioned him in question time 570 times since the election. If I were Bill, I would be worried. That infatuation is just a little bit concerning. If only the Prime Minister were concerned about Australians' jobs and not his own. That is something that would be important to us. But that is the whole problem: this Prime Minister does not have a direction and does not have priorities. Four years of Liberal government and the thing we keep hearing about is the plan. It is like 'the Baldrick government'—everything is a plan. It is straight out of Blackadder. 'A plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel,' will be the next iteration of it. Instead of making positive reforms and passing legislation that would benefit hardworking Australians, the Prime Minister has decided his priority is to water down race hate laws and make bigotry more accessible. Instead of making sure that funding goes to our schools, hospitals and small businesses, he is desperate to give away $50 billion to big business and big banks—the same banks, with record profits, that are now closing much needed branches in country areas such as Broadford. Labor, on the other hand, have stood firm with our priorities. We continue to fight for what matters to Australians: local jobs, local apprentices, protecting Medicare and building a strong economy that delivers for all. One cannot help but wonder just how much better the last eight months would have been had it been Prime Minister Shorten at the reins—a PM who puts the people before himself. We on this side of the House have a pretty simple concept—a concept that those opposite just cannot seem to grasp: we keep our promises. The Liberal government promised that every single Australian home would be connected to the NBN by the end of last year. But here we are in 2017 and seven million homes are still waiting. This sits firmly at the Prime Minister's feet. The MTM, as it is now called, is the Malcolm Turnbull mess. What are they going to say to the elderly in my community who are left without phones because of the dodgy NBN deals? What are they saying about the countless mobile phone black spots in McEwen that mean that we do not have access to the most basic needs, such as emergency services? I am sick of the promises that have time and time again been delayed and changed—jeopardising small businesses and impacting the daily lives of the towns in our communities because of this government's failure. Under our plan, the NBN would have delivered a world-class fibre-optic network to more than 90 per cent of homes and businesses. But, under the misguided leadership of then communications minister Turnbull, the Liberal government decided to put in a second-class copper NBN and Australia's internet speeds dropped from 30th to 60th in the world. Since moving back to Whittlesea from Broadford, I have experienced firsthand the failure of the government's disastrous NBN rollout. With no internet connection at home I was forced to pay for an expensive wireless internet dongle. Parts of my town were only just being connected to the National Broadband Network late last year. It means that we are playing catch-up with global internet standards. It does not matter if you live close to the city or in one of the many towns across our region, you have been impacted by this rollout. South Morang was supposed to be one of the first places to have NBN installed. Communities such as Sunbury, Doreen and Mernda were promised NBN connection by 2015. It is now 2017—and guess what? They are still waiting because of this government's failure. I have constituents contacting me to tell me that they have to drive to their offices in the Melbourne CBD at all hours for conference meetings with European and American stakeholders and business partners. The internet in their homes is so unreliable due to the dodgy NBN that they cannot even be sure that it is going to work. We have whole communities unable to access the existing internet service, because of an NBN they have not seen and certainly cannot use. What kind of innovative and agile plan is for that a quality, reliable internet in a modern country? It is absolutely unacceptable that less than 30 kilometres from the centre of Melbourne there are families and businesses who cannot get access to broadband. I have lost count of the frustrated parents throughout our communities who have spoken to me about having to bunk down at McDonalds because that is the only reliable source of internet for their children to do their homework. It is disappointing. Because of this government's delays, many of our small businesses have had no choice but to move. That is jobs lost in regional communities because of this government's failure. The severely limited wireless towers in my community just do not cut it. We need results and we need leadership, but they are certainly not going to come from this government. As the fastest-growing region in Australia, Victoria makes up 27 per cent of our nation's population, with more than a thousand moving to the towns in our community each month. In spite of this, the government is only investing a miniscule 77c for every $10 of investment in infrastructure. This government is starting a growing gulf in critical infrastructure. We need investment. During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party and the National Party—because they both decided to run candidates this time—did not give McEwen one cent of infrastructure promises—not one. The member for Corangamite can snigger all she wants, but these people— Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Sit down. You can't take a point of order on that, because you were sniggering. Don't waste my time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question? Ms Henderson ZN4 Yes, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Does the member accept the intervention? Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E No, I will just keep going, thank you very much. Ms Henderson ZN4 I am wanting to make it clear that I was not sniggering— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Point 1: there are countless roads that urgently need— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! Ms Henderson ZN4 Could I still raise a point of order please, Mr Deputy Speaker? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 You can raise a point of order. Ms Henderson ZN4 Mr Deputy Speaker, as we know, in this chamber it is inappropriate to reflect on a member. I would ask that the member opposite not reflect on me. That is an inappropriate representation. I was not sniggering in relation to anything that you said. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E This is time wasting! Ms Henderson ZN4 You made a false allegation. The point of order is that you have reflected on me. I was not sniggering in relation to anything that you said— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! Thank you, member for Corangamite. Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! Everyone, resume your seats. I have heard the point of order. I note it, but I do not think he impugned your character, which is what you are suggesting. The member for McEwen has the call. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E As I said: not one cent on infrastructure. After four years we have not seen any infrastructure by this government in the seat of McEwen. We had a Liberal-National government which again did not spend one cent on infrastructure in this electorate. It is an absolute failure of those opposite in the way they treat people in the outer suburbs. There is no denying that; it is a fact. Ms Henderson ZN4 I reject that contention. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E You can reject it, but you have done nothing. Ms Henderson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! The member for Corangamite! Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Just as Labor promised McEwen residents during the election— Ms Henderson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! Everyone cease! I appreciate you are feisty on this issue, but the member for McEwen has the call. Ms Henderson ZN4 I am very passionate about it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 'Passionate', I should have said. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E The story that often gets put out is that Labor never invested in mobile phone towers. Well, let's clear the lie. Every single one of the NBN towers that we put in place was built for infrastructure for telephone towers. What this lot have done is to stop building those— Ms Henderson ZN4 That is absolutely untrue! Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E and we still have not got the towers that were promised in 2014. We have got every right to ask why the government has not told the truth. Why are bushfire-affected communities still waiting for the towers that were promised in 2014? They are still waiting because this government does not care. During the election, we announced funding for the upgrade of Bridge Inn Road in Mernda—it needs to be duplicated because of the growth—as well as announcing upgrades to Craigieburn Road and to the four-way traffic lights at the intersection at Whittlesea. These are just some of the projects that we know would be vital to our community if only the people of McEwen and Victoria were to receive a fair share of infrastructure allocation from this government. But, like the rest of the government's broken promises, investing in safer roads for McEwen was a promise that never was. As we know, when it comes to education this government does not do things by half. The cuts and the delays certainly do not stop. Not just do the cuts target working people, the elderly or the sick; they also target our younger generations. Under a Labor government, through the promises we made at the last election, every student in McEwen would have had the same educational opportunities as the rest of Australia. Labor's plan pushed for more one-on-one support for students, challenged those students who excelled through extension classes, and focused on evidence-based learning to make sure our students would get the most from their schools. Whether it is axing $21 million from the Gonski funding or cutting the schoolkids bonus, the Liberal government have only delivered cuts. Kids in our communities just cannot catch a break with this lot. At the end of the day, every single one of the kids in the 78 schools across McEwen will be our economic, social and political future. They will drive the 'innovation nation' that this government so strongly support. But eight months on from the election we ask: why aren't they a priority? Throughout the towns and the communities across McEwen I have heard from parents who have been unable to afford schoolbooks, uniforms, shoes or excursions. I have heard parents tell me that they have had no choice but to send their kids to school with uniforms that are two sizes too small. In one of our schools, 18 students out of the 20 in the class did not have books because their parents could not afford them—thanks to this Liberal government's cuts. It is unacceptable. It is wrong. It is just unfair. Our families are feeling the pressure caused by this government's twisted priorities. We must ensure that school is accessible to all families and ensure all students across the country have the opportunity to thrive in our education system. What about the government's Productivity Commission review of the NDIS? My constituents know how little this government cares about the NDIS. They have experienced firsthand the attempts to stall the rollout and diminish the effectiveness of services in Victoria. To this government, 'productivity' means making services work harder for less; 'productivity' means making the worse off prove more to get less. I think of Stuart Locke who came to see me about the future of the special school bus that he operates in Seymour. Stuart was worried that the review would include recommendations to cut the bus service and replace it with other travel arrangements—which, as we have seen, has happened in the capital cities. If this were to happen, the close relationship that his service has built over the years with the school and the students would be destroyed—all in the name of the government's 'productivity'. He is worried that these kids will have to travel in vehicles that are not designed for their needs, without the supervision and stability that helps them get to school safely. In rural communities, where the NDIS does not pay for public transport, this means paying for taxis. Not only are taxis too expensive for those who need them, but also the government does not think and does not realise that there are not that many available for people with disabilities. What kind of a rort are you running? We cannot stand for this. The government must ensure that the review will focus on making the best possible NDIS for people with disability and not use it as just another cost-cutting service. Now the government has come out with their latest cracker: they want to cut penalty rates. Again, they have shown that their priorities are all wrong. They are the Irish Robin Hoods—the opposite of Robin Hood: they take from the poor to give to the rich, and serve it on a silver platter with maybe some truffles and a little bit of champagne! An honourable member interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E That is why I couldn't think of it—I have never tried it; I would not know. The Liberal government wants to make the lives of 700,000 Australians worse off by cutting $77 a week out of their pay. If the Prime Minister's support for and inaction on these cuts does not show you how arrogant and out of touch he is, I do not know what would. He is giving a platform for employers to now come out and make new submissions to cut weekend penalty rates in other sectors of the economy. Thirty-seven thousand people who work in industries affected by unsociable hours live in our community, including 8,500 people who work in retail, 8,000 who work in health care and social assistance— A division having been called in the House of Representatives — Sitting suspended from 17:33 to 18:12 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E I represent over 37,000 people who work in industries affected by unsociable hours—that includes the 8,500 who work in retail, 8,000 who work in health care and social assistance and 3,700 workers in the accommodation and food services industry. Removing penalty rates, overtime, shiftwork allowance and public holiday pay means the introduction of around-the-clock work and the lengthening of the working day. I know this because my father worked night shift for 35 years in the printing room of the Herald Sun, and I have seen firsthand the many issues that shift workers face, such as those of health and wellbeing and of family and social disconnection. He was not able to participate in normal family life, because when we were getting up in the morning to go to school he had just gone to bed after a full night's work, so it meant often he would miss out on family functions and school sports events and being there for other activities that a parent wants to spend with their kids. When I worked for the RACV, I had to work Christmas Day and both day and night shifts on weekends. I know this had a big impact on my own family life. I am not going to stand for the Liberal government's refusal to acknowledge the breadth of the impact on our community of these ridiculous decisions they are making. My office has been inundated with constituents seeking advice about incorrectly calculated Centrelink debt. I know I am not on my Pat Malone there. The state in which these robo-debts leave vulnerable people is just appalling. Take, for example, an elderly woman in Seymour who is currently caring for her 17-year-old grandson, who is disabled. She had been benefiting from family tax benefit A and B to help her support his needs. In October last year, her grandson was approved for the disability support pension and backdated, which somehow leaves her ineligible for family tax benefit. Now she is being asked to pay back the family tax benefit she has received since her grandson's payment began. On top of that, Centrelink will not allow her to apply for an interest free loan, which has left her in the lurch about where to go. She has to pay back money that she did not know was coming from her grandson, because of this government's inability to be able to run even a chook raffle, let alone a social welfare system. Without these benefits, she is going to be unable to register her car or pay everyday expenses, which severely impacts the quality of life that she and her grandson experience. Centrelink has already started deducting payments from her latest payments, without even having the decency to consult her. It is a clear example of how this government does not care about the little people. Why is this government not committed to providing families with the right information for their situation? Why isn't the government investing in IT, phones and better staffing for Centrelink? Those are questions that people ask every day. It is disappointing that the government is turning its back on families throughout McEwen and throughout Australia. I am very proud to keep fighting for the people of McEwen because I know that these services are so important to them. It is Labor that puts people first. That was our election promise and it is the bedrock of our values, and it is something that I and my colleagues firmly stand behind. The Liberal government look for ways to cut and save, but what they do not see are the true impacts. They refuse to see that the numbers translate into people, into families and into every single Australian. This government has backed down on so many of its promises and it has failed to deliver properly for the people of McEwen or the nation as a whole. That is why, eight months on, I am not going to back down until it starts delivering for our communities. One thing I have been very proud of in my time as an MP is being able to deliver every promise I have ever made. I said to the people of McEwen, 'I'm here for you,' and I still will be. I will fight this government tooth and nail until it starts to realise that it cannot keep cutting and hurting people who can least afford it. 18:15 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore On reflection, after the 2016 election in Gilmore, it has been a journey. Since I was first elected in 2013, it has been a bit of a roller-coaster ride on so many levels, but I would like to say thank you to the Governor-General for his generous and enthusiastic welcome and opening of the 45th Parliament. We have seen changes in many directions, and I take this opportunity to talk about them and commend the local government staff members, mayors and general managers who have assisted in getting projects shovel ready, planned and processed. In addition, I would like to thank the hundreds of residents and community members who have written, emailed or present a discussion on worthy projects that reflect the needs and our region. When working through the electorate, I initially had part of the Shellharbour municipality within Gilmore and we worked hard on many projects with those residents, from commemorative stones at Shell Cove Public School for Anzac Day 2015 to extra funds for rescue boats at the Shellharbour Surf Club to opening the youth residence in Barrack Heights after the amazing work of Narelle Clay and Southern Youth and Family Services, which was worth in excess of $5.2 million, to the almost $1 million funding for the KidzWish facility to be built in Flinders. In the next month we will be turning the sod at that facility, and Shellharbour council has already donated the land for this very special project. Then I worked hard for funds for the $2 million for the Triple Care Farm. This detox centre is a unique facility in Australia. It will be run and managed by Mission Australia and is also part funded by the Sir David Martin Foundation. It is special. It is for young people between 16 and 24 when they decide to make the journey of recovery. I simply could not be more proud. There were many projects where grants were given to improve pedestrian safety, and this included $150,000 for CCTV in Kiama, as part of the 31-camera network in that CBD, and also in the streets of Gerringong; and $300,000 for three different locations in the Shoalhaven—East Nowra, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point. I am working on getting more CCTV for the shops in Sanctuary Point. We gained additional safety lighting for Kiama harbour and the dark corner in Batemans Bay near the tourist centre. I cannot wait to switch those on and neither can the residents. There is a theme here, and it is about safety and looking after the wellbeing of our Gilmore residents. We have had a phenomenal success with Green Army projects, with participants gaining a whopping 30 per cent employment or further study results. But the bulk was for employment. Unfortunately this program was not run as effectively in other parts of Australia, and when we tried to get testimonials from our Green Army graduates we had some difficulty, mostly because they are now working, which was the aim of the game. I look forward to the rollout of the Launch into Work program and the PaTH program. The PaTH program has a unique approach to inspiring young people who have not previously worked and whose family, for one reason or another, have been unable to find work. They learn how to prepare for work through a mentorship arrangement. Then there is an opportunity of a period of subsidised work, and if it works out for both the employer and the PaTH participant then the employer will get a brand-new and prepared employee. If, however, the potential employee feels that this is not going to be right for them then it is not a major chore to get them back onto income support, as it was never removed. In a day and age when employability is difficult to teach, this is a great option. Our apprenticeship challenge, which we set in January this year, has met with terrific success. Many single-operator businesses have been helped by the Apprenticeship Support Network. We gained 97 official sign-ups by the end of February when our initial target was just 52. We are expecting even more by the end of March. One example is a plumber, who has been reluctant to take on apprentices for years because the red tape and everything involved was such a hassle. The network has made a real difference. The new apprentice is Dane. He is 16 years old and lives in Kiama. He commenced his apprenticeship on 30 January and will do a Certificate III in Wall and Floor Tiling at Randwick TAFE. The apprenticeship is four years, with three years of block release at the TAFE. The only minus in this apprenticeship is that the local TAFEs do not do wall and floor tiling courses and he has so far to travel. This aspect of training opportunities at TAFE is quite a universal problem. I wonder if that is because the government of the day back in the eighties decided that if you did not go to university you were getting a second-rate education? I know that qualified tradespeople are earning very good money right now, and we are going to be critically short of qualified tradesmen and tradeswomen. Congratulations to all those tradies in our region who have taken up the challenge to share their skills for our collective future. There has been a bucketload of funding for road infrastructure in Gilmore. It is a wonderful coastal electorate, with many hundreds of roads. But they are often damaged in the pouring rain after the blistering heat, as only a coastal region experiences. Road funding has come from a number of sources, but my most favourite to fix is the blackspot funding. Blackspot locations are the sites of accidents, some with many frequent minor accidents and others with a sad history of loss of life. It is great to see when work is done on those projects, because I know that it is going to make them safer for my community. The municipality of Kiama has to date gained more than $1.25 million for such projects. Currently I am working on the grant of $1.4 million for the museum-library upgrade in Gerringong, and the promised half a million dollars in funding is now confirmed for the amenities improvement at Jamberoo. Half a billion dollars has been invested in HMAS Albatross, including $157 million for the Helicopter Aircrew Training System. In the next decade there will be another half-a-billion-dollar investment in this base, which will further enhance its existing infrastructure and defence capability and increase employment in our region. I have delivered $1.23 million for the Mind the GaP facility, which is a mental health facility at the University of Wollongong's Shoalhaven campus. It is going to be there to improve mental health outcomes across the region and is also a co-location for the new Lifeline call centre. It will have consulting capacity and research capacity. This is a brilliant outcome for our region, as mental health problems are a really significant issue. It was a great day when we cut the ribbon to open Turpentine Road, a very important link in our region. There had been a $2 million election commitment, an additional allocation of road blackspot funding of around $1.8 million and then almost $3 million of Roads to Recovery funding, so Turpentine Road was a gift to the people of Gilmore from this coalition government. I am now advocating for funding for a number of other roads that are in need all over the electorate. But first let me say that the Shoalhaven has in the last three years received a mammoth amount of road funding: more than $22 million from Roads to Recovery; more than $17 million of blackspot funding—the highest in the last three years; and in excess of $5 million for bridge replacement and heavy vehicle road construction. Most important of all, though, was the $10 million for the planning, engineering and environmental studies needed as a prerequisite for the new Nowra Bridge. I continue to have this as my highest priority for business growth, resident convenience and tourism encouragement. Some $450,000 secured the construction of the section of the Round the Bay pathway at Orion Beach. What a gem that has proved to be. The Dunn and Lewis centre gained $2 million from an election commitment. The lock-up stage is now complete, and I am advocating fiercely for the last stage of funding to see that wonderful project completed. The 21-ship berthing facility at the Ulladulla Harbour was an election promise, and the plans are on display. That will be a tourism drawcard. It will provide a safe harbour for vessels, a great place for tourists to visit and—you guessed it!—work opportunities. The bridge over the Candlagan Creek at Broulee was the result of more than $1 million from the coalition government, and there have been thousands of dollars delivered to small community groups to help with purchases like tools for Men's Sheds, boxing gear for the PCYC and playground equipment for community child-care centres. Yet to be delivered are the funding projects for many of our sporting clubs and facilities. Netball in Ulladulla is in progress; the fencing at the Mariners baseball field is confirmed; the Cougars have an enormous project to work on, including change rooms and meeting rooms as well as improved drainage. I have worked closely with many young people in our region to build skate parks in Manyana, to extend one in Sanctuary Point and to help the organisers of Culburra skate park to follow their dreams. That one will be amazing! We only gave catalyst funding, but they used that for leverage to get an enormous amount of investment. Well done to Alex McNeilly and the wonderful group of local young people, many of whom are likely able to drive now but who I bet still love to skate: Luke Bennett, Daniel Wood, Charley Hayes, Ryan and Matt Byrnes, Tanaya Rogers, Max Feast and Leon Vukelic, who started this project and had the tenacity to see it through. Jindelara respite facility for young people with a disability was a dream held by many in the southern Shoalhaven. With a delivery of an election commitment of $358,000 this will now become a reality. Indeed, many youngsters with a disability will also have an opportunity in the Moruya region as Yumaro has been funded for their disability residential facility. The Bay Push is an inclusive playground, also the recipient of funds, and I am working on more for the next stage of the build. Congratulations to Charles Stuart and his committee for their tenacity. On the larger scale of delivery by the coalition government, many in our region have been frustrated by the existence of mobile phone blackspots. The good news is that there are two towers expected in Gilmore under round 1 of the blackspot program: Kioloa, which is scheduled for construction next year, and Nelligen, which was expected to start earlier this year but is now going to be a co-located facility with an NBN fixed wireless tower. Under round 2 there will be an additional tower at Woodhill, but that rollout has not yet been established. Under round 3 there will be four towers built at Kangaroo Valley, Sussex Inlet/Wandandian/Bewong, East Lynne and Clyde Mountain, better known as 'Pooh Corner' to all those who drive along the Kings Highway and see the teddy bears of the same name clustered in the rock cavern. Our tender process to select the operators which will build the towers in these areas is scheduled to commence around mid-2017. I have to say I worked hard to get these towers allocated to Gilmore, because the beneficiaries are the travelling public, my residents and visitors. The result is that the providers are not able to send a bill to anyone, but everyone in Gilmore knows just how essential these towers truly are. By the end of next year we are expected to have a 90 per cent NBN coverage rate across Gilmore. Of course, this rollout has not been without a few hiccups, but with such a massive infrastructure build no-one could expect that it would be a completely smooth process. One of the best proposals for my region is the $20 million South Coast jobs package. Everybody knows we have a very high unemployment level both amongst adults and, significantly, amongst our youth. A government at any level is not in a position to actually create jobs. However, with a great tax regime as we are planning to deliver, it can inspire businesses to grow and invest, and this ultimately leads to jobs. The jobs package is a dollar-for-dollar grants system that will help give a kick-start to businesses in our region to either grow, export or even move from Sydney or other areas to our region. They have already got their strategic plan. It is mostly agrarian-based, but there are unusual industries like equestrian in the initiative—such as Terry Snow has built down at Bawley Point with his Willinga complex. There are businesses that are waiting in the wings that just need a little encouragement to relocate, and how exciting will that be! A great deal has been achieved, but there is still a lot to be done. There are two major roundabouts in the Eurobodalla that need to be funded and upgraded: one in central Batemans Bay near the visitor centre and one at Tomakin, which will upgrade Sunpatch Parade to join George Bass Drive. I am working with the minister for regional infrastructure to deliver an improved and better intersection at Hector McWilliam Drive in Tuross Head. As I travel around the electorate, local residents talk to me of their perceptions and their problems. Some of these include big-picture issues like making sure multinationals pay their fair share of tax—well, we did that this week—and fixing up child care, which we have done, so it does not stop my people from getting extra work. Other issues relate to the need for a better transport system, which is an issue that affects employment, getting to hospitals and getting health care. We have a strategic plan that we began in 2015 and which has since been added to by another group. We are hoping that it is also seen as part of the project delivery for the $20 million package. We are hoping that this will make a big change to our area, because it impedes on all sorts of employment and health initiatives and is a bit of an anchor for everyone, so we are hoping it improves. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 It being 6:30pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 151 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Member for Cowan 151 18:29 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On indulgence, in handing over to the member for Cowan, I draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that this is the member's 50th birthday. You would not know it from looking at her, but it is important to record this in Hansard. National Security 151 18:30 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I must thank the member for Bruce for spruiking my 50th birthday. I believe that today I have found a cheerleader in the member for Bruce. I have come in today to talk about countering violent extremism, an area that I have some 10 years experience in. Since being elected to parliament I have had several families contact me—and they are still contacting me, even though I have kind of left that life behind. Many of them are desperate to find some form of services or support as they grapple with the very real issue and real prospect of the radicalisation of their young people, whether it be their children, their nephews or their nieces, or their daughters. Oftentimes it is not a case of radicalisation, but that does not stop the parents from contacting me. Nevertheless, they still need help. So I rise today to talk a little bit about what the government is doing in this space. The government stated that they have tripled investment in countering-violent-extremism programs from around $3 million per annum to more than $40 million over four years. As someone who has worked in the field, who has studied in the field, who has worked internationally in the field and who actually set up a not-for-profit community-based organisation to counter violent extremism, I think I have a pretty good handle on this—and here is what I understand. In 2015 the government announced the Living Safe Together grants program, which awarded $1.9 million to 40 community-based organisations. Those grants did not provide for service delivery. They provided only for capacity building, explicitly for the design and development of new services, to build more sustainable capacity in existing services and to strengthen existing services to address radicalisation. That program funding was approved in two tranches. In late April 2015 the Attorney-General's Department recommended, and the Attorney-General approved, funding of $1.6 million for 34 applications. In late May 2015 the Attorney-General's Department recommended, and in early June 2015 the Minister for Justice approved, an additional $365,122 in grant funding for a further eight projects. A review of this Living Safe Together program by the National Audit Office found that, at the time he was asked to approve funding, the Attorney-General was advised that, upon completion of their projects, it was expected that funding recipients would register on the directory of CVE intervention services, known as the CVE Directory. The CVE Directory was to be used to connect at-risk individuals with appropriate services. The ANAO report continued: However, a key shortcoming in the programme guidelines was that AGD had not made clear enough to applicants that a key purpose of awarding grants was to have funding recipients register for the CVE Directory. Thirteen funding recipients have indicated to AGD that they will participate in the directory, but two have advised they will not and the intentions of a further 26 recipients are not yet known. In short—and, in fact, to date, almost two years later—there is no directory of CVE intervention services, despite an evidence-based need for such services in the community. In addition, the report found that only 21 of the 42 recommended and approved applications should have been successful and that there were continuing deficiencies in the Attorney-General's Department's approach to assessing the eligibility and merit of applications. The audit found 21 applicants did not provide letters of support, including four that were awarded funding. It also found that the Attorney-General's Department did not follow up with referees who could not be contacted during the initial phone call. The report found that the department also decided not to contact some referees. But there is more. A further $1 million in funding was also given for the establishment of an Australian Intervention Support Hub in August 2015. There were no terms of reference, no clear outcomes and no definite outputs. To date, I have received no clear answer as to where $1 million went and what that support hub has achieved. All of this underscores the dire situation we have in Australia, where this government continues to shirk its responsibility to keep Australians safe by taking a comprehensive approach to prevention of violent extremism and enabling adequate interventions when people are found to be moving towards dangerous thoughts and behaviours that put Australians at risk. There is no family program, for instance—and families are at the forefront of combating radicalisation. A rapid evidence assessment of vulnerability and resilience to al-Qaeda violent extremism as well as other types of violent activity that was prepared for the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism identifies physical risk factors, including support and reinforcement from family and peers, interpersonal bonds, and social settings and spaces that provide opportunities for involvement and recruitment. These studies, amongst others, demonstrate that family, peers and interpersonal bonds play a critical role in the prevention of radicalisation and evidence the need for strategies to support the capacity of persons attached to an individual at any stage of the radicalisation process to intervene in that process. Past cases demonstrate that family members and friends can be highly effective in planting the seeds of doubt that cause individuals to leave terrorism behind. The German based HAYAT program provides counselling to family members and friends who are of high social and emotional significance to a radicalised individual on how to engage them in discussions and develop alternative reference groups in opposition to radical structures. There is no similar program in Australia and this government has not indicated any willingness to undertake a program that puts families at the forefront of helping young people who are becoming radicalised to move away from radicalised thoughts and behaviours. In fact, Australian research actually provides a strong case for the need for an appropriate CVE program that focuses on families and other socialising agents. Anecdotal evidence—and much of it comes from me personally having dealt with families—shows that concerned persons, particularly parents, seeking advice regarding radicalised individuals simply do not have access to appropriate support mechanisms or avenues or even just advice. Despite all this evidence and despite the input from professionals and experts from Australia and internationally, this government has failed time and time again to heed the call for a comprehensive prevention and intervention framework. We cannot arrest our way out of radicalisation. Arresting young people who are on the pathway to radicalisation and incarcerating them does not stop them from becoming further radicalised. If anything, it increases their propensity to radicalisation and violent extremism. We need a more comprehensive program that puts families at the forefront, recognises influence, recognises socialising agents and recognises the role of religious institutions and education in preventing radicalisation and preventing terrorism in the first place. We cannot arrest our way out of this; we cannot fight our way out of this. We cannot make the mistake of assuming that, by decimating the capability of terrorists on the ground in foreign lands, we can prevent terrorism and violent extremism from taking hold in our suburbs and our homes. We learnt that mistake. We learnt that the traditional approach to terrorism as a hot war where we could eradicate the terrorists' capability did not stop the spread of al-Qaeda inspired and ISIS inspired terrorism. We know it does not work. Every single country that I have worked with in this space—and I have worked with many—acknowledges this. Every country, from the US to the UK to Kenya and Jordan, knows this. Yet this government does nothing, or it wastes taxpayers' money on ineffective and badly managed programs. Where is the accountability? Why won't this government answer simple questions about where the money went—answers that Australians deserve to have? How can this government continue to claim that they have at heart the security and safety interests of all Australians? The evidence shows that the programs that are needed simply do not exist and that parents and families are still struggling to find the services they need when they have a concern about a young person in their midst becoming radicalised. Canning Electorate: Youth Services 152 18:40 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I have risen many times in this place to discuss matters of importance to the electorate of Canning. While today is no different, what I wish to speak about cannot be summarised in a word or a sentence. It is very complex and affects different people in different ways. For some it is drug and alcohol addiction, for others it is domestic violence and, sadly, for too many it is mental health issues and suicide. When I was first elected to this parliament in 2015, Canning was crying out for assistance in stemming the flow of ice into the community. I spoke to school principals who are trying to manage drug addicted children, parents who were scared of their violent kids, service providers who had more patients than resources to help them, and small-business owners who were fighting an uphill battle against crime. The overwhelming message was: 'Something needs to be done.' Within 30 days of being elected, I established the Canning Ice Action Group, made up of educators and service providers I had spoken to, in addition to local government representatives, community leaders and police. A number of meetings and a public forum identified that, while ice is indeed a big problem in Western Australia and in Canning, it is symptomatic of broader social dysfunction. On Monday, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission released the first report of the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program, and the results are alarming. In Perth, the average daily consumption of ice is one dose per 17 people. Nationally it is one dose per 28 people. As the Minister for Justice stated this week, 'We cannot simply arrest our way out of this problem.' The only way we can tackle this problem is with long-term behavioural change and preventive measures. In order for the ice action group to effect that change, it was agreed that we needed to shift our focus from rehabilitation to prevention and to early intervention targeted at, but not limited to, drug and alcohol addiction, mental health and youth suicide. We recognised that there was no point reinventing the wheel by duplicating services that already exist. GP Down South, a wonderful local organisation which runs the Peel Youth Medical Service, known as PYMS, was already operating at capacity in providing outreach and in-house services to 400 young people a month in the Peel region. Eleanor Britton, from GP Down South, has a plan to cater for this growing demand with the PYMS Health Hub, which targets 12- to 24-year-olds in the Peel region. It is a plan supported by the Canning Ice Action Group. The project will co-locate PYMS with other providers in the health hub to ensure that clients and their families have access to a full suite of services, including GPs, psychologists, a mental health social worker and an eating disorder clinic. Tragically, the need for better models of preventive care has been evidenced by a number of youth suicides over the last two years in the Peel region. This is a heartbreaking development in our community. Acknowledging the gravity of this situation very early in April of last year, the Prime Minister and the former health minister met with a delegation from Peel comprised of local and state government leaders from both sides of politics, police, students and youth leaders. We impressed upon them our community's need to get the PYMS Health Hub off the ground. I am very grateful that we managed to secure $2 million for capital works for the PYMS Health Hub at the federal election. The Prime Minister has followed this project very closely and is invested in it. At the recent state election, this project received bipartisan support, with both Labor and the Liberals committing to fund the remaining $5 million. I commend local MLAs David Templeman of Mandurah, from the Labor Party, and Zak Kirkup, the newly elected Liberal member for Dawesville, for their advocacy for PYMS. As devastating as the deaths in our community have been, they have drawn people together to look for a lasting solution. Part of that solution is headspace, a national youth mental health foundation that focuses on early intervention for youth needing help with mental and physical health. It provides work and study support, and alcohol and other drug services. At present, there is no headspace centre in Canning, and the closest one is over an hour away by public transport. Acknowledging a gap in the services, and in response to this government's commitment to fund 10 additional headspace centres, PYMS has started a petition to get a headspace centre in the PYMS Health Hub. We will get the funding for a new facility. We will have a range of service providers that complement the PYMS vision, and we are very much hoping that the federal Minister for Health will commit to putting a headspace centre in the PYMS facility. PYMS has been working very hard and, to date, their petition has just over 2,300 signatures from the local community. Two weeks ago, I stood at Halls Head shopping centre with the PYMS team to promote their petition. In one hour, I heard many stories of loved ones lost to suicide, youth struggling with depression, and parents who did not know how to help. I really noticed the interest and concern that many people expressed about the problem that we have in the Peel region. People who were just there to shop took the time to step aside for five minutes and talk with the PYMS team. It was heartening for all. It just reinforced how many people in our community need better services. Since then, I have had a very positive conversation with the Minister for Health about the petition, and I am hopeful that Mandurah will soon be announced as one of the new headspace sites. This would be a considerable encouragement for the Peel region. However, no number of health hubs or headspace centres can come close to achieving what the Canning community has already achieved on its own. We have service providers united by a focus on preventative care. We have bipartisan support at all levels of government—local, state and federal. We have a football club and a netball club encouraging their young members to talk openly about mental health, and we have community support to address youth suicide. As I have said, we have very strong grassroots support. Last year I went to a fundraiser put on by local community leaders for PYMS, and in one night I think they raised something like $50,000. PYMS is an institution that is fully functional. It has a lot of support, even before the state or federal governments come to the party. The vision is to supercharge PYMS and to make sure that they optimise their service for the community. All the changes that I have spoken about may be incremental, but they are not insignificant. These things take time. Institutions take time to build. Healing also takes a long time. But I am proud of the people of Canning for the support that they have given me. I am proud of the things that they have done as individuals and the way that they have come together as a community to get our young people back on track. I am hopeful that we can find solutions to the problems of suicide and drugs and alcohol, and that we will have a strong community into the future. Paterson Electorate: Telecommunications 154 18:48 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson This month the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network heard evidence from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and that evidence was damning. The testimony revealed that the NBN is simply not delivering outcomes for consumers. This is hardly surprising, given the fiasco that is Malcolm Turnbull's second-rate NBN, but it is still galling—and more than a trifle inconvenient for the many thousands of people who are trying to get decent NBN coverage, who have to connect to the NBN, and who have to suffer through it. NBN consumers are 20 times more likely to put in a complaint to the telecommunications ombudsman than consumers of any other telecommunications service. They complain that they are simply not getting the service they paid for and that, too often, they—frustratingly—get passed between NBN and their retail service provider when there is a problem. That buck-passing is absolutely infuriating, and we hear about all the time. Madam Deputy Speaker, when your phone will not work and your internet speed is much worse than it was before you even tried to connect to the NBN—and NBN blame Telstra, and Telstra blame NBN. But that is exactly what is happening all around this country. I will give you one example where it has been happening in the last week—that is Bayway Village, an over-55 village on Nelson Bay Road at Fern Bay in my electorate of Paterson. On Monday morning last week, my office contacted our NBN representative—to be fair, she is as helpful as she can be, and I must credit her for that—and Telstra to report that some residents of Bayway Village had called us on mobiles to tell us their land lines and their internet were not working. They said that NBN contractors were working in the area and had, apparently, crossed nearby lines, which had resulted in phones being out for nearly the entire weekend. Now, we are not talking about a few households—although I have not personally verified it, residents have told my office that they believe up to 500 properties and 800 residents have been affected. I did say this is an over-55's village, so some of the more elderly residents rely on medical alarms, which rely on phone lines. On Tuesday, with no reply from Telstra or NBN, my office followed it up. On Wednesday, NBN replied—still no reply from Telstra. NBN said that the matter was being investigated but that NBN contractors did not believe they had caused the issue. So, NBN points the finger at Telstra. On Thursday, NBN advised that its contractors had continued investigations and discovered that there was a fault in the existing Telstra cable coming out of the exchange and that there were 30 residents they knew of without a phone connection. They were hoping the issue would be resolved by the close of business Thursday. Fast forward to Tuesday this week—yes, that means another weekend without phones or internet at Bayway Village. My office was contacted again by a resident of the village to say that Telstra had been on site but would now not be able to send technicians out until Friday. Does that mean Telstra calls the fault? We are still not sure—still, no phones. My office advised NBN that Telstra had been there, and our NBN rep said, 'What's happened here is that the information we were provided by Telstra was incorrect. Based on that information, the contractor cut off some of the lines'—seriously. Regardless of who is to blame, it is still not clear who is going to fix it. The residents wait and, still, they have no phones. It is just unbelievable. Another incident was reported to my office this week—and this has nothing to do with NBN, only Telstra. However, I feel it is important to raise it, because it goes to the broader issue of the parlous state of telecommunications in this country in 2017. It involves a business at Heatherbrae in my electorate of Paterson, New River Environmental, which distributes its Ecoworkz range of organic chemical products from premises in Heatherbrae near Raymond Terrace. These products are organic, eco-friendly and are used in industry, hospitality, agriculture and animal care. I am told what they are doing is actually quite cutting-edge, which is terrific. Ecoworkz owner, Neil Tumbers, called my office out of frustration this week because the company's premises at Heatherbrae has been without phones or internet for two weeks. This is a business—can you imagine running a business with no phones or internet? Under normal conditions, that would be bad enough, but Ecoworkz has just launched its online sales business. So, it is an internet sales business with no internet—brilliant! It spent $30,000 to set up a website and an online sales system and had just sent its first lot of products to South Korea, the beginning of an export deal that could net this Heatherbrae company in my electorate up to $10 million over the next five years—and that is nothing to be sneezed at. But now they cannot talk to their South Korean buyers about their order or about future orders. They have tried to talk on mobiles, but the language barrier means that email is the only successful way to correspond with the South Koreans. But they do not have any email at the moment. So after complaining to Telstra every day for two weeks, they are still without phones or internet. Lucky they are cutting-edge—maybe some of their cutting-edge would come to this government! According to Mr Tumbers, they have been told by Telstra at various times, 'It'll be fixed today.' 'It'll be fixed tomorrow.' 'A technician will be there today at four'—we all know those lines when they come through. 'A technician will be there between four and five.' 'It won't be fixed until April 4.' 'It will be fixed on March 23' but, by that stage, it was already March 25. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you can hear that this is a complete joke! But you know what? It is not a joke; it is serious. These conversations happened. This is a business. It is just not on! How could any business operate this way? And this is even before they have signed up to the NBN. Not a week goes by in which my office does not receive complaints about the parlous state of telecommunications in this country, NBN, Telstra and the buck-passing between them. We have a community at Rutherford and Aberglasslyn where about 150 homes dotted around the place still cannot connect to the NBN, despite their neighbours and the rest of the suburb being able to connect to it. So one person is connected and their neighbour has got no connection at all. We have got a similar story in Gillieston Heights and in Weston. And that is before we start on the many other complaints from people like me and my neighbours at Buchanan: we cannot even get ADSL where I live, and we have to rely on expensive dongles. Then of course we move on to delivery speeds. I noted a story in The Australian this week about how some NBN users are receiving: … peak-time connection speeds as low as 1/500th of the service they are paying for … The story went on: Government entity NBN Co, which provides wholesale internet services, and retailers such as Telstra and Optus, who sell those services to the public, each blame the other for the problems. Well, don't we know that to be true! The story continued: NBN Co says many retailers—there are more than 140 selling NBN hook-ups to the public—fail to buy enough bandwidth to provide the speeds they advertise. And therein lies the problem. Retailers say they are being held back by NBN's infrastructure—the Turnbull government's cheap and shoddy fibre-to-the-node, which uses existing copper wire systems for the last leg of the connection to the home, rather than Labor's fibre-to-the-home, which would take high-speed optical cable all the way. Well, now we have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission examining the issue—and not before time. Too many people are being unfairly inconvenienced by the state of telecommunications under this government. It is not good enough. We all know it is not good enough. We have got homes without phones and businesses without internet, in this day and age, and it is not good enough that our internet speeds are slower than a wet weekend. In Australia in 2017, we deserve better. In closing, I would just like to say that we do have a House of Representatives and Senate joint standing committee which was established to inquire into and report on the rollout of the National Broadband Network. I know it is fairly late notice, but those submissions close this Friday, 31 March. Please, if you want to do something about this, put in a submission to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network. It is vital that we get as much evidence as we can to tell the story of what is going on out there, not only in my electorate of Paterson but right across the country. Seriously, the cheap and cheerful option is just a misery for everyone involved. The government knows that. They need to get on board and get it sorted out. Field, Brigadier Chris, AM, CSC, Yamba Golf & Country Club 155 18:58 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page All Queenslanders who are suffering from the devastation caused by Cyclone Debbie are all very much in our thoughts. They can take slight heart, though, that they have a very good man who is coordinating the recovery efforts. Brigadier Chris Field AM grew up in the outskirts of Lismore at Richmond Hill. His mother, Pat, was a nursing unit manager at the orthopaedic ward at Lismore Base Hospital, while his dad, Neville, was a local builder. Chris was a leader from an early age, and he was captain of the local high school, Kadina high, in year 12 in 1983—indeed, in fact, in the same year at the same school as my wife. After completing school, he left the area to join the Army. All Chris ever wanted to do was to join the Army, and I am sure that the people of Queensland will be thankful that he has. With the important work that he is doing, Chris is also a great role model for young people around the country, particularly students from his old high school. I would like to thank Chris for taking on this important role. And I wish all those affected by the cyclone well. I would like to make everyone aware that the Yamba Golf & Country Club, which has hosted a pro-am event every year for the last 15 years, has won the regional pro-am tournament of the year award at the 2017 Queensland Golf Industry Awards. It saw off much larger regional contenders like Rockhampton and Townsville to take out the award in front of a crowd of about 450 people at Jupiters casino last week. The determining factor in this prestigious award is the vote from the pros themselves, proving that Yamba Gulf and Country Club can compete with the best of them. Yamba Golf and Country Club's Annual Pro AM takes place in September, and it draws over 50 professional golfers to the region, not to mention many amateurs as well. The event runs over two days, which is unique—most others are single-day events—and this is what makes Yamba so popular. The prize purse is $25,000 and the event is certainly growing in stature. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the organising committee of pro golfer John Wright, Operations Manager Chris Durrington, life member, David Miles, Function Coordinator Jo Court, the manager, Luke Stephenson, and President Tony Moran. They arrange not only the Men's Pro-Am but also the Ladies Pro-Am.. The lady's event was also recently held, with a fantastic result. It is great to see local businesses getting behind these events as well. Crowe Horwath, BWAC Regional Employment Services do a fantastic job in helping these competitions succeed. It shows that places like Yamba can attract accolades of Australia's golfing elite, and it is a great thing for our community. Again, congratulations to everyone involved. Today I would like to highlight a fantastic spirit that takes place in the Woolgoolga community, who have come together to assist the Woolgoolga Scouts. Over the last 12 months the Woolgoolga Scout Hall, originally built in 1953, has undergone a huge restoration under the guidance of Group Leader Pat Johnson. The project was initially made possible after Vicky Hooper from Nortec approached Pat with the idea of utilising the federal government's Work for the Dole program to restore the 63-year-old building currently used by the 30 children who are members of Woolgoolga's Joey Mob, Cubs and Scout groups. Pat was also able to organise a number of volunteers and tradespeople from the local community, and, between all who were involved, the hall is now looking fantastic. Special mention also has to be made to Barry Kelly, Allan Crouch, Michael Hope, Ken Boyle, John Moon and Mike Sharman from the Woolgoolga Lions Club, who work tirelessly raising funds for community groups in the area and were able to donate funding for the new roof, guttering, plumbing and external cladding. Again, congratulations to all involved in the project and to Group Leader Pat Johnson, who I know is very passionate about the Scouts and instilling their motto of 'Prepare for adventure, prepare for life' into her Woolgoolga Scout members. Without a doubt, dairy farmers on the North Coast produce the best-quality milk in Australia. You need look no further for proof than my local dairy cooperative, Norco, which has just won the 2017 Canstar Blue Award for the most satisfied customers. Australia's milk drinkers scored Norco an outstanding 5-star rating for overall satisfaction and also scored Norco exceptionally high for taste, freshness, value for money and packaging design. Established in 1895, Norco is now one of the few remaining true Australian farmer-owned dairy cooperatives in this country, with more than 330 members across northern New South Wales and South-East Queensland. Norco is a great cooperative comprised of small family farmers that produce a large range of high-quality dairy products and competes against the big brands and the supermarkets. My congratulations go to all the members of the cooperative, and the board chair, Leigh Shearman, and the chief executive, Greg McNamara, along with directors Michael Jeffery, Heath Hoffman, Elke Watson and Greg Billings. Of course, no producer could win this award without the very best dairy farmers in Australia supplying it, and this award is for them as well. Farming of all sizes is still very much the backbone of Australia, and the clean and green approach taken by Norco is a testament to its ability to adapt to changing consumer tastes and the future of dairying in Australia. Social, Community and Disability Services Sector 156 19:03 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Earlier this week I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from the Australian Services Union, including the assistant secretary in Queensland, Jennifer Thomas, Delisiah Brooks, Sian Tooker, James Farrell and Kerriann Dear. The ASU represents 135,000 members across a diverse range of industries in the social, community and disability services sector. These members work hard every day supporting people experiencing or at risk of experiencing crisis, disadvantage, social dislocation or marginalisation. In short, these people work on the front line of supporting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. However, I was very concerned and very distressed at the end of our meeting after learning that local residents in the electorate of Oxley will be affected by this government's devastating cuts to supporting organisations that the ASU and their members work with. In particular, I learned about how funding for the community sector is provided in a chaotic way that disrupts community support, secure work and quality services. The recent Turnbull government reforms have focused on short-term funding and opening the sector to greater market forces. Of particular concern, the Productivity Commission's current inquiry into Human Services is exploring how to increase 'the competition, contestability and user choice' in family and community services. Just like most things this government does: always looking at how it can punish those at the bottom end of the scale rather than looking at helping them for the long term. What we are dealing with here are the lives of every day Australians and the critical support that they need. I find it disturbing that this government is wanting to play with 'market forces' in determining who and how this support is rolled out. These people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and not this government's trickle-down economics policy it seems to be applying across the board. Profit motives and cost reductions will inevitably lead to the erosion of the quality services that are provided to people in need. In a bid to win tenders, organisations may underestimate the true cost of service provision. This will mean either lower quality services or cuts to the conditions of wages of workers in the sector. For-profit providers should be explicitly exempt from providing such services. Every dollar of government funding for community services should go to supporting people in need, not profits for shareholders. We also spoke about the important role that advocacy place in the community services sector—an incredibly important part that members of the ASU and their colleagues play to support vulnerable Australians by speaking out in support of their challenges. Advocacy is why the community sector has traditionally been funded to do the vital work it does, so that services independent of government can speak out about broader social problems facing their clients and put solutions on the table to support vulnerable Australians. I was disappointed and angry to learn that this government is now dictating, through the use of gag orders, in contracts with the community service organisations to minimise the type of advocacy that is so important the sector. I witnessed this firsthand under the former Newman LNP government, which put gag orders in place so that community organisations could not speak out for some of the most frail and vulnerable in our community. This fits hand in glove with the rapidly expanding community services sector and how it is important to meet the growing demand with an effective workforce plan. Instances of homelessness and DV are on the rise whilst awareness about mental health and the rollout of the NDIS are contributing to this rapid expansion. In today's House of Representatives, in this parliament, the government used its numbers to make sure that over 1½ million families would be worse off—not better off, worse off—at the same time the Turnbull Abbott government has ripped out $1 billion from the community sector; $1 billion of essential need and support. We know that funding for professional training and development opportunities for workers to increase their skill set are being reduced. The ASU is working closely with its members to develop minimum standards for the workplace, including qualifications. However, to work effectively minimum standards would need to be supported and funded by government, such as training subsidies for relevant TAFE courses. I have spoken in this place before about the critical need to invest in skills and training through our TAFEs. However, the government continues to rip out of money from the TAFE system, which disadvantages not only thousands and thousands of students gaining accreditation but also the community sector, with increasing limitations on opportunities to further gain skills and training. This is critically important in the disability sector, where the workforce is expected to double by 2020 in order to meet the demand for services. It is estimated that an additional 100,000 workers, at least, will be need to be found to support people with disabilities in the NDIS. In order to attract sufficient workers to meet this demand, disability support jobs must be secure and well paid, with career paths to retain workers in this sector. The ASU have informed me that the current NDIS pricing regime is not adequate and that it is based on assumptions made about the nature of disability support without any consultation with frontline workers, people with disabilities or their representatives. Indeed, in response to the current pricing scheme many providers are seeking to reduce NDIS workers' pay and conditions. This will only exacerbate the workforce shortages in the sector and mean less quality and less continuity in support for people with disability. The appalling way that the government has treated some of the most vulnerable Australians does not stop here. It continues through the latest round of community legal aid cuts that this government is relentlessly pursuing. Community legal aid centres, including the South West Brisbane Community Legal Centre in Inala, are facing a 30 per cent cut to federal government funding from July this year. These centres provide free legal advice and information to community members who cannot afford a lawyer and who are not eligible for government legal aid. The acting director of the Inala centre, Jonathan Ward, said that there is a high demand for the service to provide advice about family law, domestic violence and child protection issues. Currently, there is a five-week waiting list for assistance. To put that into context, a 30 per cent cut in funding from 1 July will mean less people able to access the justice system. I know that the critical work that this centre does for local residents in and around the south-west of Brisbane cannot be underestimated. They have had to fight for every dollar that they have had. It was thanks to the Palaszczuk Labor government that funding was restored, because it was under a conservative, extreme, right-wing government, led by Campbell Newman, that the doors of the centre were closed. They did not just reduce funding, they shut the doors. They slammed them shut tight. For all of the talk we hear about empowering residents and about ensuring that residents under this LNP government have a voice, by delivering a 30 per cent cut to funding they do not practice what they preach. This is an important issue not only for the South West Brisbane Community Legal Centre in my home state of Queensland, but for legal centres right across the country. When I have met with representatives from legal aid, when I have sat with women who have benefited from the advice, support, direction and assistance, words cannot put into action how important these services are. My plea to the government and to the Attorney-General is very simple: do not make these funding cuts. For every electorate in Australia there is a need beyond words for access to justice. For young people and for women's access in crisis situations, we need to ensure that this funding is kept in place. In the budget that is being brought down in about a month's time, I call on this government to do the right thing and show some compassion. Make sure every Australian has the access to justice they deserve. Victoria: Rail Infrastructure 158 19:14 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite Almost 12 months ago I was very proud to deliver $1 million in planning money for a duplicated rail track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds. This project is vital for Corangamite. The current single track through the southern part of Geelong limits the frequency and reliability of train services through Marshall, Waurn Ponds, Winchelsea, Birregurra, Colac and beyond through to Warrnambool. After months of campaigning, I was pleased that the Victorian government finally put this project on its priority list and provided $3 million in funding. Yet, nine months after we made that very important commitment to the people of Geelong and Corangamite, we have heard nothing from the state about the feasibility planning for this project. We have provided the money, and yet we have heard nothing. Where is the plan? Where are the costings? Once again, I call on the state to get its act together and release the feasibility study so that we can get on with building this duplicated track. This has been an issue in my community for 30 and more years. It was an issue when my mother was the member for Geelong—and a great local member she was—in the 1990s. It has inhibited our growth. It is inhibiting our ability to attract new industries to Geelong. If we can have state-of-the-art rail infrastructure in our region, the world is our oyster and there are no limits. I am very pleased to confirm that I and some of my colleagues are lobbying for greater Commonwealth investment in Victorian infrastructure so we can invest in better passenger rail, duplicate this rail track and fix the Regional Rail Link. We need a Commonwealth regional rail fund to invest in regional rail across Victoria. Like so many other infrastructure projects where the Commonwealth has led the way, we can then do everything possible to leverage the state funding we need. We must have First World passenger train services. We must have the very, very best when it comes to regional rail. A critical issue for our region is that Labor's much-hyped $3.65 billion Regional Rail Link is soon going to reach capacity, leading to slower and more crowded train services. The link was built to cater for 18 trains per hour and during peak it is already handling 17 trains per hour. A Rail Futures report has found that, instead of speeding Geelong trains up, the Regional Rail Link has in fact slowed them down, with the fastest journey now no better than in 1958—almost 60 years ago. To make matters worse, trains are expected to become even slower in the future, with long-term plans to build three suburban stations along the Regional Rail Link—and that is on top of the stations which are already there and which, frankly, were never meant to have been there. This was meant to have been a true regional rail link and now there are already stations at Tarneit and Wyndham Vale, which the people of those communities are using more like a suburban service. The regions of Geelong, Colac and all the way through to Warrnambool are being deeply affected. The travelling time for Warrnambool commuters has also increased. The Rail Futures report reveals that the average trip from Melbourne to Warrnambool was 195 minutes in 1985, compared to today's average of 220 minutes. This is simply not good enough. We have been campaigning for a very long time for Premier Daniel Andrews to start taking Victorian regional infrastructure projects seriously. We have seen Premier Andrews trash our Victorian economy with his reckless decision—perhaps the worst economic decision in Victoria's history—to cancel the East West Link project. Mr Hill 86256 The worst project in history. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 'The worst economic decision in Victoria's history' is what I said. In fact—and I will take the member opposite's interjection—this was a project that was previously supported by the likes of the Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Mr Hill interjecting— Ms HENDERSON ZN4 I ask that the member not interject. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! I remind the member for Bruce that the previous speaker was heard in silence. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 That is part of the problem with the Labor Party. The Labor Party does not care about infrastructure. It is now building the Western Distributor, which is a poor cousin of the East West Link. The member opposite shows he has no care whatsoever for regional communities, and it is an absolute joke. In fact, the western road into Geelong—the western section of the East West Link—had a very high BCR, frankly, and is greatly needed for our community. This is simply not good enough. We need a state government led by Matthew Guy, who has the vision and the foresight to invest in regional infrastructure. We need a fast train between Melbourne and Geelong. We need to know that, when the people of Geelong and the people of Corangamite decide to live in our wonderful part of the world, they can get on a train and, if they work in Melbourne, commute successfully. We recognise that Victoria and Melbourne in particular are growing very quickly. We need to do more and we want to do more. We simply do not have the pipeline of infrastructure projects at the moment under this state government, and that really is a shocking situation that we find ourselves in. It is incredible that in so many respects it is the Commonwealth leading the way in driving these infrastructure projects. In 2013 we announced $50 million to upgrade the Great Ocean Road—a project that was not supported by federal Labor. In concert with the state we have just announced another $50 million, but it took Daniel Andrews some six months to agree to match the funding of $345 million for Victorian rural and regional roads as part of a $1.5 billion package that we delivered—money that was allocated to the East West Link which we have now had to reallocate because we cannot get agreement from this Victorian government. But we have $3 billion on the table because we are determined to see the East West Link built. Just last weekend I was talking to people who live in the western suburbs of Melbourne, and there is a lot of anger in those communities because they are absolutely caught in this horrific traffic bind, not able to commute in and out of Melbourne and under the leadership of a premier who does not seem to care about regional infrastructure. I am working very closely with the likes of the member for Wannon, who also cares deeply about regional rail—and I know many other members do—and, of course, the member for Gippsland, the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, who is very empathetic to these issues. We must see this money flow into our communities. We must see the vision. We must see the planning. That is why I am pushing so hard for a city deal to bring the Commonwealth, the state and local government together to drive one vision, one plan—to get this commitment to bring people around the table. Geelong is an amazing place to live, and we are so proud of the commitments that we have made. Look at the difference the investment in the Princes Highway has made. The duplicated Princes Highway, which is costing in excess of half a billion dollars, is an absolute game changer for our region. There is now a housing shortage in Colac. Industries want to head into south-west Victoria because of that road. We know how critical transport infrastructure is to our region. So I say: Victoria, get your act together. Produce the plan, and help and work with us to drive the infrastructure investment that we need. I am going to continue to lobby my government very hard to deliver more funding for better passenger rail so vital for Geelong and so vital for Corangamite. Infrastructure, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 159 19:24 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Having listened to the previous speaker, I will record three brief thoughts in response—it was an interesting mix of fact and fiction. Firstly, I am a big fan of Geelong. In fact, I used to be the senior executive running all of the regional development staff in Geelong and spent a long time there traversing— Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 No, public servants did not deal with federal politicians. That would have been improper. I served under the previous Liberal government and had a lot to do with the planning of Armstrong Creek and fully support what you said about the need to get that duplication happening. It is a critical growth area, both for housing affordability and to spread the urban pattern of Geelong. But, if the member was serious about infrastructure, she would join with Labor in asking this Commonwealth government to give Victoria more than eight per cent of the national infrastructure budget. Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 We have 25 per cent of the population and probably a little more of the economy and we get about eight per cent of the national infrastructure budget. Have a look in the forward estimates. I am confident in those numbers. The final point is about the East West Link. As you said, the western section had the biggest BCR. So why did you fund the eastern section first? The project was abandoned for good reason. But that is a matter for another day. Ms Henderson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Order! I will have order in here. I remind the member for Corangamite that I asked the member for Bruce to let her speak in silence and I remind the member for Bruce to speak through the chair when he is referring to people. Mr HILL 86256 Indeed. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On another matter, I call on the government to have the decency to admit it got it wrong on the national redress scheme for the survivors of institutional child sex abuse. It is over a year since the royal commission recommended a national redress scheme and the government responded, eventually, with a half-baked model that fails to compel responsible institutions to account for the extraordinary harm they inflicted. The government itself acknowledges that only a national redress scheme can provide just outcomes, but it says it will 'invite other governments and institutions to opt in'. It is weak and it is pathetic. 'Opt in' is a phrase we might expect in relation to a mailing list, not for reparations for the sexual abuse of thousands of children. It is one year on, and how many states have joined? None—not one state. The Prime Minister's waffle says: A truly national scheme requires the support of the states and territories. Yet the government has spent over a year failing to win any support. The conversations I have had in my local community with affected local residents, most recently Alan of Glen Waverley, are truly heartbreaking. The courage demonstrated by survivors, over years and years—in some cases by children who were abused in multiple state institutions and religious institutions—should be recognised. These institutions responsible have failed utterly to account for these most grievous wrongs and the federal government, in its shame, is failing survivors too. Institutions will not be forced to recognise the harm inflicted, individually or systemically, in their names and within their walls. They will not be compelled to provide appropriate financial compensation to those lives which have been irreparably damaged as a result. The recommendations of the royal commission were clear. They continue to call for a national redress scheme, not a year ago but on 7 March, and this week, as it enters its final session of hearings, the royal commissioner again said the government needs to look at this. This is important. Survivors have waited decades for redress and, sadly, some will not live to see it realised. The government must acknowledge the flaws inherent in the scheme as proposed and commit to an effective national redress scheme as recommended by the royal commission. The opportunity to do so, to put this right and to do the right thing by survivors of child sexual abuse is in this budget. For some survivors, it is about acknowledgement; it is about recognition; it is about the apology. For some, it is about the money and the possibilities provided by compensation. But, for every single survivor, it is about justice. Labor calls on the government to do the right thing. It is indicative, in my view, of the wrong priorities we see from the government—and we saw it again in question time today. The pattern is clear. In Liberal government land, the effort is put into protecting the wealthy and prosecuting a tax cut for the top end. For every million dollar earner, they get $16,000 in tax, yet they defend wage cuts to the lowest income workers. We will not stand for it. We say they are the wrong priorities. A good way to show that they really care, they have listened and they have heard the message is to do the right thing by properly funding a national redress scheme in the budget. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I thank the member for Bruce for his grievance debate speech on the national redress scheme. As he would probably aware, I have been working on it since 2009 and had a heavy involvement in getting the Prime Minister to announce it in the first place in October last year. The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 161 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Taxation (Question No. 644) 161 644 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 07 February 2017: (1) Has his department undertaken an analysis of the impact of cutting the proposed backpacker tax rate from: (a) 32.5 to 19 per cent, (b) 19 to 10.5 per cent, (c) 19 to 15 per cent, and (d) 19 to 13 per cent, on the supply of labour available to the agriculture sector; (2) If so, what was the outcome for each; (3) if not, has his department requested that an analysis be undertaken for each, or sought such advice, or been provided with modelling on the impact, and if so,    (i) who provided that advice, and    (ii) what was the outcome. Mr Joyce E5D The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: This question was already provided on notice by Senator Carol Brown on 14 December 2016 (Senate Question on Notice 253). The response was submitted and tabled on 8 February 2017. Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media Interviews 161 Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources (Question No. 652) 161 652 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—How many media interviews has the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister given since 1 January 2016, and how many of these interviews were transcribed by (a) officers of, and (b) contractors engaged by, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No records are kept of media interviews undertaken by the Assistant Minister. (a) Nil. (b) Nil. Contractors (Question No. 653) 161 653 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—Since 1 January 2016, what sum has been spent on the engagement of contractors to record and transcribe radio and television interviews of the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In 2016, $439 was spent on these services. Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources (Question No. 654) 161 654 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Since 1 January 2016, how many transcripts of the Assistant Minister for the Deputy Prime Minister's public statements on radio and television have been provided to the Assistant Minister's ministerial office, and were the transcripts recorded in response to a request or direction from the Assistant Minister or his office; if not, who initiated the transcription services. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In 2016, two transcripts were provided at the request of the Assistant Minister's office.   Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister 162 Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister (Question No. 655) 162 655 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources— (1) Who is responsible for (a) managing, and (b) posting media releases, speeches and transcripts to, the Assistant Minister to Deputy Prime Minister's ministerial website. (2) Have all of the Assistant Minister to Deputy Prime Minister's speeches and interviews transcribed by and for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, been posted on the Assistant Minister's ministerial website; if not, (a) how many speeches and transcripts have been withheld from the Assistant Minister's ministerial website, (b) who made that decision and, in each case, (c) what was the basis for that decision. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. (2) The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet does not provide transcription services for the Assistant Minister. Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media interviews (Question No. 656) 162 656 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: How many media interviews has the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources given since 1 January 2016, and how many of these interviews were transcribed by (a) officers of, and (b) contractors engaged by, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No record is kept of media interviews undertaken by the Assistant Minister. (a) None. (b) None.   Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Media interviews (Question No. 657) 162 657 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: Since 1 January 2016, what sum has been spent on the engagement of contractors to record and transcribe radio and television interviews of the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In 2016, no money was spent on these services.     Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources (Question No. 658) 162 658 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources Since 1 January 2016, how many transcripts of the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources' public statements on radio and television have been provided to her ministerial office, and were the transcripts recorded in response to a request or direction from her, or her office; if not, who initiated the transcription services. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In 2016, no transcripts were provided.   Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources (Question No. 659) 162 659 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources: (1) Who is responsible for (a) managing, and (b) posting media releases, speeches and transcripts to, the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources' ministerial website. (2) Have all of the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources' speeches and interviews transcribed by and for his department been posted on her ministerial website; if not, (a) how many speeches and transcripts have been withheld from her ministerial website, (b) who made that decision and, in each case, (c) what was the basis for that decision. Mr Joyce E5D The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. (2) The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet does not provide transcription services for the Assistant Minister.