2017-06-20 45 1 3 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

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

BILLS 1 BILLS ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017, ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017, ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017, Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 1

ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017

ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017

ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016

Assent 1 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017, Major Bank Levy Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Major Bank Levy) Bill 2017 1

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017

Major Bank Levy Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Major Bank Levy) Bill 2017

Returned from Senate 1 Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Oversight of the Implementation of Redress-related Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Committee 1 Appointment 1 12:03 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate: (1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be established following the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon: (a) the Australian Government policy, program and legal response to the redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission, including the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme and ongoing support of survivors; and (b) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament. (2) That the committee present its final report on the final sitting day of November 2018. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members – 4 senators, and 4 members of the House of Representatives, as follows: (a) 2 members of the House of the Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips; (b) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips; (c) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (d) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; (e) 1 senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator; and (f) the Leader of Derryn Hinch's Justice Party (Senator Hinch). (4) That: (a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and (b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee. (5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (8) That Senator Hinch be appointed as chair of the committee and the committee elect as deputy chair a member or senator nominated by the Opposition. (9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (10) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President and the Speaker. (12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (13) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (14) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (15) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution. Ordered that the message be considered immediately. 12:04 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I move: (1) That the House concur in the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse; and (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017, National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 2

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017

Second Reading 2 12:05 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the second reading debate of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 and its companion bill, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017. The bills support the government's commitment to a high quality vocational education and training system by ensuring that the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, is appropriately resourced to adopt a regulatory approach that enhances the quality and integrity of our VET sector. This bill amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, the NVETR Act, and the companion bill amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Act 2012, the NVETR Charges Act, to replace the current annual registration fees collected by ASQA under the NVETR Act with an annual registration charge collected under the NVETR Charges Act. These amendments ensure the legislative basis for ASQA's cost-recovery arrangements is appropriate for the broader regulatory activities it undertakes to enhance quality across the whole sector. ASQA's risk-based regulatory activities include targeted compliance monitoring, intelligence collection and data analysis. These bills will have no additional financial impact on businesses or ASQA's revenue. The charge simply replicates the current fees calculated and applied by ASQA. As with the fees, the amount or calculation of the charge will be determined by the minister and agreed by the Council of Australian Governments Industry and Skills Council. These bills support ASQA's high-quality regulation of Australia's VET sector by ensuring it has proper cost-recovery arrangements in place to give it the flexibility, resources and support it needs. However, following comments from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I will propose amendments to this bill so that the amount of the charge will be determined by a disallowable legislative instrument and will be no more than required to recover the likely costs incurred by the national VET regulator, ASQA, performing its functions. I commend the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3 12:08 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 3

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017

Second Reading 3 Explanatory Memorandum 3 12:10 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. Consideration in Detail 3 12:10 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 20 to 22), omit "a National VET Regulator annual registration charge (or charges) for a financial year,", substitute "an amount of National VET Regulator annual registration charge for a financial year, or a method for working out such an amount,". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 11 to 16), omit subsection 6B(2), substitute: (2) Before determining an amount of charge, or a method for working out such an amount, under subsection (1): (a) the Minister must be satisfied that the determination will result in recovering no more than the Commonwealth's likely costs incurred by the National VET Regulator in performing its functions; and (b) the Minister must get the Ministerial Council's agreement to the amount of the charge or to the method. Note: The Ministerial Council's prior agreement is also required to the amount of certain fees determined under section 232 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 16), at the end of section 6B, add: (3) Despite subsection 44(1) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 of that Act (disallowance of legislative instruments) applies to a legislative instrument made under subsection (1) of this section. These amendments address concerns raised by the Senate's Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its Scrutiny Digest No. 5 of 2017. The amendments limit the amount of the national VET regulator annual registration charge—the charge—to no more than required for cost recovery. The amendments provide that I, as the minister, may determine the amount of the charge or a method for working out such an amount. Before making a determination, I must be satisfied that the amount determined will recover no more than the likely costs incurred by the national VET regulator in performing its functions, and obtain the ministerial council's agreement to the amount of the charge or the method for working out that amount. The amendments ensure parliamentary oversight of the use of the taxation power by excluding the legislative instrument imposing the annual registration charge from the exemptions from disallowance. I commend the amendments to the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 4 12:12 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Fee Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2017 4

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Fee Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 4 12:13 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Foreign investment over the last two centuries has been important to Australia's economic prosperity. In the 19th century, foreign investment helped to build our wool industry. In 1855, CSR's investment helped to build the sugar industry. In 1877, we saw the United States firm Schweppes set up in Australia, followed by Kraft and Kellogg's. Indeed, Kraft's purchase of Vegemite in 1935 probably helped make that product the success story that it is. There have, of course, been periodic controversies over foreign investment: the role of the Vestey family; the controversy over the withdrawal of foreign investment from Adelaide, with the former Treasurer, the then member for North Sydney, goading Holden to 'put up or pack up'. We have seen, under this government, a somewhat schizophrenic attitude to foreign investment. They continue to occasionally speak up about the benefits of foreign investment. But then, when Archer Daniels Midland made their bid for GrainCorp, for the first time a major United States foreign investment bid was blocked by then Treasurer Hockey. Australia's rules around foreign investment, compared to the OECD, are relatively restrictive. One index of foreign investment compiled by the OECD ranks Australia as the fifth most restrictive jurisdiction within the OECD for foreign investment. This bill streamlines fees for foreign investment and Labor will be supporting the bill. It modifies a series of fee increases due to indexation, it creates new fee tier structures and there is some simplification of existing fee tier structures. The government claims that these changes will better align fees payable with consideration paid for the relevant acquisition. The government also claims that differing fees for different transaction categories have created complexities and caused delay in ascertaining the correct fee. For example, some acquisitions, such as agricultural land, are subject to multiple-tiered fees while others, such as business acquisitions or the acquisition of a mining or production tenement, are subject to flatter fee tiers. The government notes in the explanatory memorandum that a number of low-value transactions are subject to fees disproportionate to the value of the transaction. The explanatory memorandum to the bill further states that amendments to streamline and simplify the commercial fee framework will not apply to the framework for residential property. But there are amendments that increase residential property fees, said to fund the implementation of the Critical Infrastructure Centre. Overall, the changes are broadly revenue neutral, with the cost to revenue of around $400,000 over the forward estimates. While Labor supports this bill as it is somewhat of a simplification of foreign investment fees, we note that the government's history in this area has been one of increasing complexity. I spoke in this place on 16 September 2015 about the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill, a bill which, as Senator Wong pointed out, had an exposure draft and regulations accounting for more than 170 pages and a 105-page explanatory guide. Indeed, one of the Minister for Trade's own investment specialists said: … the new fees have fuelled the narrative around Australia being a high-cost destination to invest in. The Office of Best Practice Regulation noted of that bill that the new red-tape burden that was being imposed by the government had been imposed without proper assessment of the regulatory burden. That is why those changes were criticised by the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Food and Grocery Council, the Queensland Farmers Federation and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australian. The government still maintains a plethora of screening thresholds—some 22 different screening thresholds, differing according to value and type of investment and the nationality of the investor—and 33 different levels and categories of application fees. This bill simplifies those application fees somewhat, but it does not simplify the differences in screening thresholds, which see, for example, a half a million dollar investment requiring scrutiny if it is to come in under one nationality but not under another. That level of inconsistency across our foreign investment laws does little to provide the reassurance that Australians seek that foreign investment is in the national interest. Australia has traditionally been a net importer of capital. It is what has allowed us over much of the past two and quarter centuries to consistently do more investment in Australia than our national savings would allow. Were foreign investment to dry up, Australians would have to consume less or invest less, and neither are those are choices that a capital-hungry nation seems eager to make. If we are to have a better debate around foreign investment, it is important that we have greater transparency. The Deputy Prime Minister promised a transparent register of agricultural land but has delivered instead a collection of statistics on agricultural land. The government's plethora of screening thresholds and their willingness to turn away a United States foreign investment bid in GrainCorp have indeed raised concerns. While we on this side of the House do support this modest simplification measure, we believe that there is more that can be done to ensure that the protections around foreign investments on issues of national security and other matters of national interest are protected and that there is not an unnecessary regulatory burden. Unnecessary regulatory burden does nothing to support Australian interests and does too much to increase the cost of investment for foreigners. As we increase the cost of those investments through unnecessary red tape, invariably we decrease the quantity of investment in Australia. Foreign investment has the potential to significantly boost Australian living standards and it is through that prism that Labor supports this bill. 12:20 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie We live in the best country in the world and, as a nation, we are very blessed and we are generous. Australians are welcoming and our country is rich in opportunity. It comes as no surprise, then, that we attract significant foreign investment. I spoke last week on foreign resident capital gains withholding payments and I emphasised that the very things that make this country so great are the same things this government is working to protect: improved health care so that we live happy, healthier lives and can be confident that the health system has the back of Australians and their families; increased funding for schools so that every Australian child gets the best educational start possible; investment in infrastructure to connect communities with opportunity and ensure safe and efficient movement whether by road, rail or runway; a comprehensive solution and a budget repair so that Labor's big fat debt accumulated through decade of deficits does not weigh on the smallest of shoulders—our children and the generations to come; and hope, purpose and productivity as a result of our commitment to boosting jobs, driving growth, backing workers and the businesses of course that employ them. I am pleased to speak on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Fee Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The coalition government recognises that foreign investment can advance Australia's position as long as it is consistent with our national interest. Foreign investment has the potential to strengthen Australia's economy, create new jobs and unlock innovation, and it affords reciprocal investment, importantly—opportunities for Australians wishing to invest offshore. But the coalition government will always put Australians and their families first. Foreign investment demands an attentive eye and a firm hand because—well, let's call a spade a spade—on the ground in my electorate of Petrie foreign investment is unpopular. I think of the Kidman cattle station that was recently for sale. I had many emails and people contacting my electorate office in relation to the Kidman cattle station sale saying that they wanted it to remain in Australian hands. I passed that on to the Treasurer and other people, as a good local member should do. In the end, it was sold to an Australian with the majority share and partly overseas owned. But this is just one example. If I look over my time in parliament, I have had constituents contact me about a dairy farm in Tasmania that was sold. It turns out that it was being sold to Chinese investors but that it had been previously owned by New Zealanders for several decades. When I spoke to the Tasmanian members on our side of the House in the last parliament about that issue, they said that the investors were actually investing in new equipment and upgrading machinery, and that it would create a lot more jobs that were so desperately needed in Tasmania. So there are always two sides to the story. The Darwin port is another example of what state governments and territories can do in relation to foreign investment. When the Darwin port was leased that was also extremely unpopular in my electorate. Go further back and you can look at Cubbie Station that was sold under previous governments. There are those opposite, like the member for Fenner and others, who say that they support foreign investment. It also does not help when you have unions, like the CFMEU, before the last election running campaigns against the Australia-China Free Trade Agreement. They called into my electorate and others saying how bad this would be for the nation. So those opposite should not come into this place and say that this is great and then turn a blind eye to what their financial backers are doing in relation to sound policy to produce jobs locally. But I do stick up for my electorate and I do pass on this. The coalition government is reforming Australia's foreign investment framework to better balance much-needed investment with appropriate safeguards, including stronger enforcement, stricter penalties and increased scrutiny. This foreign acquisitions and takeovers fees imposition amendment bill builds on the coalition government's commitment to Australians. It supports good investment and implements a more efficient and streamlined foreign investment fee framework, amending the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act and reducing red tape. The amended fee framework will simplify the regulatory burden on business and support efficiency, reducing the number of fee tiers for some categories and implementing a standard fee for low-, medium- and high-value acquisitions. Changes to Australia's foreign investment framework are not made with the intention to either encourage or discourage any particular investment category. Instead, they are made to ensure fees payable for the privilege of investing in our nation are applied more consistently on a like-for-like basis right across the board. These changes are timely. They stem from listening and reflect community concern about a lack of compliance and enforcement of the foreign investment framework. As I said earlier, concerns about who is investing, what and where have been increasing, particularly with regard to foreign investment in residential real estate and its impact on the affordability of housing for Australians. Our foreign investment policy for residential real estate is designed to increase Australia's housing stock. The federal government has acted in guarding the overall integrity of that framework. For example, changes to the foreign resident capital gains withholding payments provisions bolster affordability, including limiting foreign ownership in new developments and charging foreign owners who leave their residential properties vacant. This has the positive effect of boosting available rental stock without compromising affordable ownership or driving up market prices. The foreign resident capital gains withholding payments provisions are one way we are safeguarding affordable housing and supporting Australians to achieve their goals. The provisions include an annual charge that will be imposed on foreign owners of residential properties if the property is not occupied or available to rent for at least six months in each year. This discourages foreign investors from buying Australian homes and letting them sit vacant. The charge provides an incentive for the foreign owner to make their property available on the rental market if they do not intend to live there, increasing homes available to Australians who wish to rent. Foreign investment is understandably an issue of concern to Australians. Without appropriate regulation and oversight it has the potential to negatively impact our lives and our livelihoods. I am very proud to be part of this Australian government that is protecting Australians and their families by protecting the interests of our nation, Australia. Our commitment to this can be seen across a range of portfolios, and our integrity is demonstrated in the consistency of intent that underpins reform. We are cracking down on multinational tax avoidance by way of some of the strictest laws and practices in the world. Increased compliance and the introduction of new laws cracking down on unscrupulous behaviour will ensure multinational companies also pay their fair share. It is what we ask of each other, and we certainly expect no less when it comes to multinationals that benefit from access to the Australian market. We are keeping the Australian dream alive by ensuring that foreign investors who wish to acquire Australian residential property comply with our stringent capital gains tax rules, as outlined earlier. With this bill the coalition government are reducing complexity, achieving more equitable fee outcomes and minimising the regulatory burden for stakeholders. Above all, we are protecting the interests of Australians and our nation, taking a strategic and considered approach to guard the future of Australians to come. 12:30 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Firstly, I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Dr Chalmers 37998 Both of them! Mr PITT 148150 Absolutely—both of them. This bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Fee Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2017 to implement a streamlined and simplified foreign investment fee framework. This bill gives effect, in part, to regulatory reforms that the government is undertaking to ensure Australia's foreign investment framework is robust and operates efficiently. The amended fee framework will reduce complexity, achieve more equitable fee outcomes and minimise the regulatory burden on stakeholders. The streamlining changes are broadly revenue neutral, ensuring that foreign investors continue to meet the costs of funding the system. The fee framework will reduce the number of fee tiers for some categories and implement a standard fee for low-, medium- and high-value acquisitions. The new fee structure will also legislate more existing discretionary fee waiver arrangements to provide a more transparent and consistent approach. The changes to the framework are not intended to encourage or discourage any specific investment category and, instead, aim to ensure fees payable for different investment categories are applied on a more consistent basis for like transactions. The bill will also introduce a 10 per cent fee increase for residential property applications to fund the establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Centre. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 7 12:32 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 7 BUSINESS Rearrangement 7 12:32 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 7 BILLS Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017 7

Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017

Second Reading 7 12:32 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to speak on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Australian Passports Act, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005. The intention of this bill is to prevent Australians—that is, all Australian passport holders, including those who hold more than one nationality—who are listed with reporting obligations on a state or territory child sex offender register from travelling overseas to sexually exploit or sexually abuse vulnerable children in overseas countries where, in many such cases, the law enforcement framework is weaker and the activities of these people will not be monitored. It is important to note that that is the purpose of this bill. It is a very worthy purpose. It is one which Labor entirely supports. The legislation goes further than some existing provisions that already provide for a child sex offender's passport to be refused, cancelled or surrendered on the basis of a state authority's assessment of the likelihood of the offender causing harm. Labor does recognise that this bill provides a means to reduce the opportunity for reportable offenders to engage in the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children overseas, and Labor supports the bill on that basis. It is a worthy purpose. It is a bill that is designed to get at an undoubted evil. If there are measures that can reduce Australian passport holders who are sex offenders from travelling overseas to engage in the exploitation or abuse of children in overseas countries, that is something that we should, of course, attempt to achieve. Under this legislation, a state 'competent authority'—that is the term that is used in the bill—which is going to be a state or territory police force, a state or territory court, or the authority which operates the state or territory sex offenders register, will be able to request the Commonwealth minister responsible for passports, currently the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to cancel or not issue a passport in order to prevent a reportable offender from travelling overseas. I should pause for a moment to say that the concept of a reportable offender is based on the already existing eight state and territory sex offenders registers. A reportable offender is someone who has been convicted of a sex offence, is on the register as a consequence of the conviction being recorded, and has continuing reporting obligations under the state or territory legislation which establishes the particular register. There are differences between states and territories—some states have simply a sex offenders register; other states have a particularly named child sex offenders register—but in all Australian jurisdictions there are registers on which the names of convicted sex offenders are recorded. Those registers carry with them the obligation to report, in a range of ways, to the authorities. The length of the reporting requirements differs between states and territories and differs to some extent depending on what offence the offender has been convicted for. But, generally speaking, for more serious sex offences, the reporting requirement will be for 15 years; for less-serious sex offences, the reporting requirement will be for eight years; and, in the case of multiple offences, the reporting requirement will be for life. The bill provides that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be required to act on a request coming to her from the state or territory authority. In other words, it will be a mandatory decision. Further, as a result of it being a mandatory decision, the bill provides that the minister's cancellation of a passport or other action to prevent a reportable offender from travelling overseas will not be subject to merits review. As I understand the way in which the bill has been drafted, it is because the decision to demand the surrender of a travel document or to cancel a passport is a procedural decision and not discretionary in nature that the decision will not be subject to merits review. I will return to that later. The other part of the bill introduces a new offence into the Criminal Code. It will make it an offence for a reportable offender to leave Australia unless the relevant state or territory competent authority has given that person permission—however that permission is described—to leave the country, or unless their reporting obligations have been suspended. It is made a serious offence by the provision in the bill of a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or 300 penalty units. However, there are safeguards in the bill where a reportable offender has to travel overseas for a particular reason, such as to visit a dying family member. The safeguard is, in essence, that if there is a good reason for making an exception, the state or territory competent authority can give the person permission to travel on a case-by-case basis. There is a definition of 'competent authority' in this bill. It is a person who has responsibility for or powers, functions, or duties in relation to the way in which this will arise and be brought before the Commonwealth minister. Generally speaking, it will be clear from the state or territory legislation who the competent authority is, but, in addition, there is a power in this bill for the minister to specify by determination a state or territory competent authority in relation to the particular instance that has arisen. A competent authority can request that the minister issue a travel-related document to a person who has been denied a passport—for example, if the person was overseas at the time that their passport was cancelled—to enable them to return to Australia. That is of course a familiar scenario. It is one which has arisen in recent times in relation to so-called foreign fighters who have had their passports cancelled. There is a need for them to be able to be issued with documents to return to Australia, and there is provision made for that. The bill will ensure that a competent authority can also withdraw or amend the cancellation request in relation to a reportable offender to enable the issue of a travel document if, for example, a reportable offender wanted to travel overseas to visit a dying family member or for another acceptable reason. The framework of the bill ensures that a person would be able to seek permission from a state or territory competent authority to travel and, if that permission were granted, the person, if they did in fact travel, would not be engaging in an offence under the new offence that will be introduced to the Criminal Code. When we are examining what is quite a sweeping measure, such as that found in this bill, it is necessary to acknowledge that there will be a very large number of Australians who, potentially, will be affected by these measures and will be banned from travelling overseas. As I have said, the measures are drafted so as to capture offenders with current reporting obligations, and, because there is not a uniform national child sex offenders register or a uniform national sex offenders register, the number is not readily quantifiable. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in her second reading speech, has referred to a number of approximately 20,000 Australians who will be affected by these measures, and that is the number on which we should proceed, there being no other estimate that is readily available. As I have indicated, the offences that result in a person being listed on a sex offenders register and the corresponding period for the reporting obligations differ between the various states and territories. In the broad, we can say that the severity of the offences determines the length of the reporting requirement. That is why we see offences divided into class 1 and class 2 offences. Examples of class 1 offences would generally include sexual intercourse with a child, the murder of a child, sexual assault, maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person, child sex tourism, sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia and incest. Examples of class 2 offences would generally include—and there are differences between the state and territory registers—indecency, abduction, child pornography, using the internet to deprave a young person, prostitution, trafficking, grooming or procurement. In some states, a wider range of offences are made registrable, such as the offence of loitering near schools, which is on the statute book in some states, and, depending on what offence has been committed and whether multiple offences were committed, a registered offender will be subject to different reporting obligations. The consequence of this, because of the fact that there is no nationally consistent register and no nationally consistent reporting requirement or provisions relating to a register, depending on which state or territory the offender has been convicted in, the measures that are to be found in this bill will apply differentially to offenders from different states. The reporting periods, generally consistent across the states and territories, as I have said, are 15 years for the more serious offences and eight years for the less serious offences, and there is a reporting period of life if multiple offences have been committed. There is an issue arising from the fact that, in some states and territories, sex offenders have committed sexual offences, so defined, that are not what are generally thought of as child sex offences—I think that most Australians, if asked, would think that we were talking about offences involving paedophiles—and a range of other offences are caught by the registers. An example would be something which has been referred to in some recent law reform reports in New South Wales. All sexual contact with a child under 16, even where that contact is said to be consensual, is an offence, and that is so even where both parties involved are under 16. An offence involving two young people is automatically aggravated because it is designated as a child sex offence, which places the offence in a more serious category attracting higher penalties and, in addition, certainly in New South Wales, child sex offences attract the provisions of the Child Protection Register set up under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, even where both the offender and the victim are children. Also, in Victorian criminal law, you could point to consent being potentially a defence to the offence of sexual penetration or an indecent act where the victim is aged 12 years and over and the accused is not more than two years older than the victim. But, where the accused is more than two years older—so we are talking about the situation of sexual conduct between two young people, perhaps a male of 17 and a female of 15—the offender will go on the sex offenders register. I mention these two examples because, potentially, one could have someone convicted of a sex offence whose name appears on the sex offenders register in a particular state or territory and the offender is a young person. It has been recently mentioned as well that the offence of so-called sexting—the sending of sexual images using digital means—has also resulted in the conviction of some young people of those offences. They too will go on the sex offenders register. I mention these examples because what we have here is a bill that casts a very wide net and it will apply on a blanket basis to some 20,000 or so Australians. Some of whom will undoubtedly have committed serious child sex offences, and they are really the target of this legislation, but others will have committed much lesser offences but nevertheless find themselves on the register. It might be thought appropriate to ensure that we have legislation that makes it possible for that group of people—the people in the lesser category—to escape from the quite harsh effects of what is proposed in this bill. Of course, it may be that that there is further consideration by the government and also by Senator Hinch when this bill goes to the Senate, because, as I have said, the legislation is supported by Labor and is going to pass in this House. One way in which it might be possible to do that is for consideration to be given to some means of ensuring at the federal level, without merely using whatever discretions are available at the state and territory level, some discretion is available to the minister for foreign affairs to relieve particular people from the otherwise harsh effect of this legislation applying to those, who much earlier in their lives committed an offence, but who have not in any sense reoffended and are now embarked on adult life, may have a perfectly legitimate reason for travelling and, importantly, not be thought by anyone to pose the slightest risk of committing some child sex offence. There needs to be some possibility that the bill not act in a completely automatic fashion. It may be that there is sufficient discretion at the state and territory level, but, if not, we would think some consideration should be given to making sure that the legislation does not operate harshly or so as to cause injustice to any people. I have indicated that one means by which some level of flexibility might be introduced into this legislation would be to make the minister's decision a discretionary one. Another means that might be worth considering is to introduce some level of merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in respect of a decision to cancel a passport or a decision to remove travel documents. It is along those lines that some thought might be given to relieving the harshness of the legislation as it presently stands. I say again: Labor entirely supports the intention of this legislation because it is clearly designed to get at the recognised evil of convicted Australian sex offenders travelling overseas to engage in further reprehensible offending against children. Despite the strength of the bill as it is presently drafted, it is possible to see the amendments to the Criminal Code, the Australian Passports Act and the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act are not going to amount to a permanent set-in-stone type travel ban for persons who are listed on the register. Those sex offenders who are listed on registers are only subject passport restrictions for the period that they are subject to reporting obligations under the relevant state or territory register. There is provision for a reportable offender to seek permission from the relevant state or territory competent authority to travel overseas, and it should not be thought that the bill operates in a completely rigid way even now. The comments I have previously made are directed at making sure, and it may be that this is something that will need to be done by keeping the operation of this legislation if it becomes law under review, that it is not working an injustice on people who have committed offences at the lower end of the spectrum—people who have committed offences that are not traditionally thought of as paedophile-type offences, which is very much the intended primary focus of this legislation. But be in no doubt, Deputy Speaker, sexual abuse and exploitation of children is a dreadful scourge and an evil, in Australia and abroad. Labor supports legislative action that aims to limit the capacity of registered child sex offenders to travel overseas, for the very direct reason that, in many overseas countries, reporting and investigation practices are not nearly as robust as they are here in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. 12:55 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Of course the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017 is something that I am going to support and support very strongly. I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, and the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, for addressing this issue, because clearly what we have been doing in the past has not been working. It saddens me to read that in 2016 more than 770 registered child sex offenders travelled overseas from Australia, often without complying with their obligation to notify police of their travel to countries where the law enforcement framework is weaker than in Australia and their activities are not monitored. One of the things that we take very seriously in Australia is the protection of Australian children. That is a view that is held is by both sides of this parliament and by Australian citizens. The innocence of youth must always be protected. It saddens me when we hear instances of that not happening in Australia, but we do have a very strong law enforcement regime to capture and prosecute people and ultimately to protect young Australians from the breakdown of innocence. But there are some people who seek to set step outside of Australia to access what they perceive as a more vulnerable target, and that is children in other parts of the world. It is imperative that we as a government hold the values that we hold for Australian children for other children in other parts of the world and say that we will not allow children in other parts of the world to be preyed on by people who seek to take away their innocence and exploit them for their own sexual gratification. This is the chamber that tackles some of these big issues. This is the chamber that sends a signal to those sex offenders that not only will they not be allowed to abuse Australian children but they will not be given an opportunity to leave the country and partake in abuse of children in other parts of the world. The details of this bill are very sound. At any one time, there are up to 20,000 registered child sex offenders in Australia. The government is introducing legislation to prevent child sex offenders with reporting obligations from travelling overseas. There will be a new system in place, and I will run through some of the key points of that. Currently there is no legal authority to cancel or refuse to issue a passport solely on the basis that a person has been convicted of a child sexual offence. We intend to rectify that now. Step 1 is that the state and territory registers record the details of child sex offenders with reporting responsibilities. When new offenders are convicted and entered into one of these registers, the state or territory will make a passport denial request to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If the offender has a passport, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will cancel any Australian passport that the person holds. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will notify the offender. If the offender has no passport, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will put an alert in its system which will flag if the offender applies for a passport, and the passport will be refused. These measures will help to implement the obligation to protect the rights of vulnerable children. That is in line with our international obligations. It is really pleasing that I can speak on this legislation. In an ideal world, you would never have to think about something like this, but sadly this is not an ideal world; this is the real world. In the real world, governments—and I am pleased to see bipartisan support on this—need to take a strong stance to protect the innocence of youth, the innocence of children, both in Australia and overseas. I am happy to speak on this bill and to commend this bill. 13:00 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I firstly begin by acknowledging the efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice on their work in the preparation of the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017. I would also like to acknowledge the sensible bipartisan approach adopted by those opposite. We cannot protect children too much, not just Australian children but this problem of child sex exploitation knows no international boundaries. The exact figures on child sexual exploitation and child trafficking are almost impossible to accurately determine. UNICEF, interestingly, have identified that as many as two million children are exploited in the commercial sex trade around the world. There is a particular problem in relation to child exploitation in South-East Asia, where some of the world's most vulnerable and impoverished children are most at risk. For example, in Indonesia, though many young girls often overstate their age, it is estimated, once again by UNICEF, that some 30 per cent of female prostitutes are under the age of 18 years and some are as young as 10 years of age. An estimated 40,000 to 70,000 children in Indonesia are victims of sexual exploitation and an estimated 100,000 children are trafficked every year. An International Labour Organization study in 2011 in Port Moresby was able to interview 175 child sex workers in less than eight weeks. Despite the hidden and illegal nature of that trade, they found children as young as 10 involved in commercial sex work. They found that all children consumed alcohol and that many had been raped or physically abused; 13 had been tested and found to be HIV positive and many had gone through pregnancies and abortions; 41 per cent had become sex workers before they were 15; and children were found to see as many as 10 clients a day. Many of those clients, sadly, come from this country and many of those clients are registered sex offenders. Our current laws just simply are not keeping up to speed with the prevention of this vile, vile conduct. Who is this bill going to impact on? The bill will impact on registered offenders who have been convicted of a child sex offence and placed by a court on a state or territory register. Under state and territory laws, registered offenders have reporting obligations for between five and 15 years, depending on the seriousness of their offence. In the most egregious of cases, the obligations are for life. Their reporting obligations enable authorities to monitor and supervise these registered offenders. At any one time, there is up to 20,000 registered child sex offenders. Every year, some 2,500 new offenders are added to the registers, while slightly few than that complete their reporting obligations each year. This is a blight on our country that up until now these, mainly, men—it has to be said—travel overseas to take part in the exploitation of young children. There have been more than 770 registered child sex offenders who have travelled from Australia overseas in 2016 alone, many of whom had violated an obligation under state or territory laws to notify police of their intended travel, many of whom had been recorded by police as being of a medium, high or very high risk of reoffending and who had been convicted of offences against children under 13 years of age. There is currently no legal authority to cancel or refuse to issue a passport solely on the basis that a person has been convicted of a child sex offence. Child sex offenders can be denied a passport while they are on parole, under section 12 of the Australian Passports Act. Since 1 January 2011 the Minister for Foreign Affairs has only received 63 requests to deny passports to child sex offenders. Clearly, the laws that we have in this country to date are simply not working. They are not protecting children overseas from this vile child sex trafficking and sex tourism. The state and territory registers under the new system of passport denial will record the details of child sex offenders with reporting responsibilities. When new offenders are convicted and entered into one of these registers, the state or territory will make a passport denial request to DFAT. If the offender has a passport, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will cancel any Australian passport that the person holds and DFAT will notify the offender. But, if the offender has no passport, DFAT will put an alert in its system which will flag if the offender applies for a passport and the passport will be refused. Consistent with how the relevant section of the Australian Passports Act already operates, offenders will be unable to seek administrative review of these decisions. If and when the offender no longer has reporting responsibilities, the offender will be able to hold a passport in the usual way. These are important reforms. They will protect children overseas from this sort of conduct, and I am very pleased there is a bipartisan approach to this bill. I congratulate the Minister of Justice and the Foreign Minister on their great work. I commend the bill to the House. 13:08 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017, which is a very important bill that will protect vulnerable children, particularly within our region, from being preyed upon by Australian paedophiles. I would like to thank the members for Mallee and Fisher and the shadow Attorney-General who contributed to the debate. The bill reflects the seriousness with which this parliament needs to take offences against children, particularly the seriousness with which we need to take child sex tourism. They are tough measures. No country anywhere in the world will ever have done more to crack down on child sex tourism, as far as we are aware, once this bill passes the parliament. It will send the strongest possible message that the parliament will not tolerate children being abused. We will not tolerate such abhorrent crimes. The risk posed to vulnerable children overseas by Australian child sex offenders is unacceptable. Currently, we do not have effective mechanisms to stop registered child sex offenders—offenders who appear on the national register that we have—from travelling overseas to prey on children who are often in countries that do not have the same robust approach to these offences as we do here in Australia. The reality is we are in a region where law enforcement agencies have different capabilities, where cultural practices are different and where, in some cases, the sorts of things that we would consider to be abhorrent crimes are not even criminalised. It is up to us to take the appropriate action to make sure that Australians are not participating as child sex tourists. Unless these tough new laws are passed, I think it is very clear that Australians will continue to travel overseas to commit such offences. This will make Australia a world leader in protecting vulnerable children overseas from child sex tourism. I do urge all members to support this legislation as a matter of urgency. I just want to address some of the points that the shadow Attorney-General made. I appreciate that he made it clear that the opposition will be supporting this bill, and I thank him for that. I think that is very important. He did make some suggestions about the sorts of things that should be looked at in the Senate as possible avenues for amendment. If any of the suggestions that he has made are taken up, I can assure him that the effect of this bill will not work. If the suggestions that he made for amendments were to become reality in the Senate, we will not achieve what we are trying to achieve here. All of the things that he has suggested have been very extensively explored by the government when we crafted this legislation. With things such as a merits review, there was a specific reason why we did not include a merits review within this legislation. Of the five passport cancellations that the foreign minister made of convicted paedophiles in Australia, three of them were overturned through merits review. So 60 per cent of them were overturned through merits review. It is our expectation that if merits review were to be in this legislation, this legislation will not work. Secondly, the shadow Attorney-General talked about scalability and dealing with less serious offenders. You only appear on the child offender register if you have committed serious offences. You only appear on that register if you have had a custodial sentence imposed on you of over one year. And you could appreciate in Australia that, if you have had a custodial sentence imposed on you for only one year for your crimes, you have done something pretty horrendous. So there is no such thing as someone who appears on the ANCOR who has only done something that is not serious. Everything that they have done is serious. That is why we have this register. The idea that maybe you only abused one child and that that is not particularly serious is not something that the government would remotely entertain. So I would urge members in the other place to take account of this if they were to look at making amendments to this. If they do make amendments, I fear that the whole intent of the legislation will be destroyed. Finally, the shadow Attorney-General talked about ministerial discretion. Again, there were very specific reasons why the government chose not to go down this path when we crafted that legislation. There are 20,000 offenders that currently appear on the child offender register, and 2½ thousand are added every year. If we were to require the foreign minister to individually review all of those cases, it would literally be impossible for that minister to make a sensible judgement on all of these cases, and that workload would be completely impossible for DFAT to administer. Of the three suggestions the shadow Attorney-General has made, I urge the Labor Party to completely ignore the idea of amending this legislation based on any of those suggestions. I am not suggesting ill will on his part. But if he and the Labor Party were to go down this road, this legislation will not work. We will not be stopping the two Australian child sex offenders travelling overseas every single day. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 12 13:14 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 12

Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 12 13:15 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Two of the three changes to the Fair Work Act contained in this bill relate to recommendations made by the Productivity Commission, the third of which was made by Justice Heerey over 12 months ago. The abolition of four-yearly reviews is a partial response to recommendation 8.1 of the Productivity Commission report into workplace relations. The provisions in the bill which allow the Fair Work Commission to overlook minor technical or procedural errors when approving an enterprise agreement where those errors are not likely to disadvantage employees respond to recommendation 20.1 of the Productivity Commission report. The PC report into Australia's workplace relations system was handed down to the Turnbull government on 30 November 2015 and was publicly released on 21 December of that year—almost one and a half years ago. I have to say that the government has been very tardy in responding to that report given the time that has elapsed. Really, where has the government's response been in all of that time? How would the Australian people know whether or not the government agrees with its own Productivity Commission recommendations? You might recall that the minister failed to even make any preliminary responses to the recommendations and therefore went into the next election, the election of last year, without any position on the Productivity Commission report that the government had commissioned when elected in 2013. The government have never responded to the Productivity Commission report; not before the election and not since. It would seem that the only reason they have bothered with the changes put forward in this bill is that the unions and employer groups have pushed for them to do so. As with almost everything else, this is a do-nothing government—a lazy, incompetent, do-nothing government—and the only reason they have responded is that there has been a bipartisan position of employers and unions suggesting there should be some amendment—a significant amendment, I would add—to the Fair Work Act. Even then, the bill has had to be amended because of stakeholder concerns. Not only did they seek to predicate the basis of this bill upon the request of the ACTU, Ai Group, ACCI and others; there have also been problems associated with the original construction of the bill, and therefore amendments will be made to this bill, as I understand it, by the government and indeed in some cases supported by the opposition. While I am debating this matter—just in case I forget; I have done it before!—I seek to move a second reading amendment, which will be seconded by the member for Hunter. I move: That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to: (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". The Fair Work Commission must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions. In doing so, the Fair Work Commission must take into account a number of factors, including the need to ensure a simple, easy-to-understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. One of the mechanisms by which this occurs is a four-yearly review of awards. The other mechanism is through applications to vary awards, which may be made by employers or employees. Employee and employer groups have joined in their concern that the ongoing four-yearly reviews are a significant drain on the resources of the Fair Work Commission and upon the parties. Unfortunately, the current four-yearly review has been on foot for three years and is not scheduled to finish before the end of this year. This is running right up to the mandated start date of the next four-yearly review, which is next year. Labor are always open to ensuring that procedures of the Fair Work Commission achieve their intended aims. If the four-yearly review process does not assist in achieving the modern award objective because it has become too burdensome then we will support appropriate amendments to the act. The opposition, however, are concerned to ensure that removing the four-yearly review in the manner proposed in this bill does not have unintended consequences. The government has asserted that, whilst the abolition of the four-yearly review removes the mechanism for a holistic review of modern awards, the process of variation of modern awards by application will continue. It is very important that modern awards are able to continue to be reviewed to ensure that they meet the modern award objective and that this is able to be done through a process where workers, unions and employers have equal access and equal standing. This is why the opposition, while broadly supportive of the intent of the legislation that is being proposed, agrees with the additional comments from Labor senators on the Senate legislation committee, recommending amendments. Labor are pleased that the government has accepted our position and will move amendments in consideration in detail to ensure that the current four-yearly review processes described as 'award stage' and 'common issues' stage can be completed. Labor also believes that the provisions in the bill that require that the Fair Work Commission be constituted by a full bench to make, vary or revoke a modern award should be removed. There is no need for minor technical variations to awards to be heard before a full bench. This will have resourcing implications for the commission and will make it more difficult to vary awards. Labor will move these amendments in the Senate. The bill also purports to give the Fair Work Commission the power to approve an enterprise agreement which would have been genuinely agreed to but for minor technical or procedural problems if the employees covered by the agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by these errors. The Productivity Commission and the government rely on the well-known example where it is suggested that an enterprise agreement was rejected because the employer stapled additional pages to the notice of employee representational rights form. Other well-known technical errors include using company letterhead and putting the incorrect phone number on the notice. While Labor are generally supportive of the intent of changing the act to allow genuinely minor or technical procedural defects to be forgiven, we have taken the position that the bill is deficient because the wording of the relevant provisions is ambiguous. Specifically, we are concerned that the use of 'disadvantaged' in proposed section 188(2) does not adequately reflect the intent of ensuring the enterprise agreements are genuinely agreed to. So Labor are pleased that the government has accepted our argument about the drafting flaws and will move an amendment to make it clear that minor procedural deficiencies can be overlooked only if they did not prevent employees being informed of their right to be represented by a bargaining representative and other procedural requirements. The final change provided for in this bill is to extend the complaint-handling powers of the Minister for Employment and the President of the Fair Work Commission to the Fair Work Commission members who formerly held office in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and to apply the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act 2012 in relation to Fair Work Commission members. You might recall that this matter, quite famously, became an issue after the minister appointed Justice Heerey to review the conduct of the former senior vice-president Michael Lawler, who made a series of allegations and comments on an ABC program, which called into question his conduct and indeed whether in fact he had failed to fulfil his obligations as an officer of the commission. And there were difficulties for the president and for the Fair Work Commission to deal with that and other forms of conduct by the former officer of the commission. These are sensible changes and should have been introduced a long time ago. But this is another example of the government sitting on its hands for an extraordinarily long period before acting. Justice Heerey's report into the Michael Lawler saga—you might remember he was an officer who was appointed to the commission by the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—was tabled in the Senate on 15 March last year. More than 12 months have passed and we are only now seeing the legislative response recommended by Justice Heerey. I have to say that Justice Heerey conducted that review very quickly, expeditiously and professionally, but the government failed to respond adequately in a reasonable period. Nonetheless it is here now and contained within the bill and we support the provision as outlined. But we have to say that there were concerns about that, and we wonder whether in fact it was because of the attempts by the government to distance itself from its response to that review and the disgraceful behaviour of Mr Lawler, who was appointed, as I say, by the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, when he was Minister for Employment. Labor believes it is important to acknowledge Mr Heerey's report as it indeed vindicates the actions and the conduct of the Fair Work Commission and, in particular, the manner in which President Iain Ross dealt with that challenging situation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for 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. So the question now before the House is that the amendment be agreed to. 13:27 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In the few minutes that I have I would like to say that it is quite surprising that it has taken so long for this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017, to come before the House. A lot of us remember in the last parliament this government declaring with great fanfare that they were going to review the Fair Work Act and declaring that they were going to get out there and give the power back to employers and restore the balance in the Fair Work Act. The Productivity Commission actually came to Bendigo and asked lots of questions about penalty rates and they were actually pushing the idea that penalty rates needed to be cut. They spent a day in Bendigo and they went to a lot of places. One of the recommendations they made was around the awards and how often they should be reviewed. Since the Productivity Commission handed down their report we have virtually seen nothing from this government. They have sat back and they have allowed Fair Work to go ahead and cut penalty rates. It is 11 days now until that pay cut kicks in. But the government have finally moved on this issue about reviewing the award every four years. When you have a situation where the union movement, the ACTU—the peak union body—is recommending in accordance with the Productivity Commission that the four-year mandatory review be scrapped and when industry groups like AIG and employees are recommending that it be scrapped, you would think that it would be done pretty quickly and that the government would have said, 'Great; we've received the report and we'll immediately proceed to do that.' But that was not the case. We have seen the government drag this out and finally, now, it has come before the House. It is disappointing that, when there is agreement in the Fair Work space, the government sit back and do nothing. It is similar to how they have behaved around penalty rates. I support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Gorton around penalty rates, and I just want to remind people in this House what is about to happen. Seven hundred thousand workers—people in hospitality, people in retail, people in pharmacy—will have their penalty rates cut in 11 days. We are talking about some retail workers losing up to $6,000 a year because their Sunday penalty rates will be cut. Equally, people on the highest incomes—including the Prime Minister—will actually receive a tax cut of about $6,000 a year. Yet— 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 Bendigo will be given an opportunity at that time to continue her remarks. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mavrogiorgis, Mr Elias 15 13:30 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh Today I rise to speak on a sad situation, and that is the passing of a stalwart in the South Australian Greek community, Mr Elias Mavrogiorgis. Mr Elias Mavrogiorgis was born on 5 January 1947 on the beautiful island of Ikaria in the Aegean Sea, and he passed away peacefully on 15 June 2017. The Greek community of Adelaide has lost a great man. Elias migrated to Australia in 1956 and, from the beginning, immersed himself in all things in the community, including the pan-Ikarian association of Australia and the significant work that he did in the Greek Workers Educational Association of SA, known as 'Platon', and there he assisted many migrant Greek workers. He was passionate about supporting newly arrived Greek migrants. Elias worked for over 30 years at Rubber Mills'—as it was known then—Bridgestone site at Edwardstown. It was there that he assisted a number of newly arrived migrants with their very first job. The same enthusiasm was carried through to his various and numerous volunteer roles within the Greek Orthodox community of South Australia and the community at large. In 2011, I presented Elias with a National Volunteer Award. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Jenny, and his children, Maria, Georgina and Vasili and their families. Our community is better and stronger thanks to Elias's work, his efforts and his contributions. Queensland Government 15 13:31 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman In the week that the State of Origin hangs in the balance, Queensland has slipped to fifth out of eight in the State of the states report, under a Labor government—behind Tasmania! But it is Tim Nicholls and Deb Frecklington that offer the passion and the policy to turn things around. What Queensland wants is: a $100 million youth jobs package; two new regional casino licences; red tape cut by 20 per cent over six years; a half-a-billion-dollars Royalties for Regions program; Tools for Tradies; guaranteed no-lockout laws for young Queenslanders; apprenticeship boosts; incentive grants to help business with the up-front costs of employing young people; the rolling out of free wi-fi for our tourism areas; the removal of limitations on claims for child-sex-abuse survivors; and to make it harder to get bail for alleged offenders involved in DV. They also want: mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse in early education and care, and police to have the option of GPS monitoring as part of bail conditions. These things are what Queenslanders want. We are sick of a government that cannot run trains, let alone run trains on time. Now is the time to do something for this great state of Queensland. Freeze registration on the family car; save Queenslanders hundreds of dollars a year. At the moment, we are the do-nothing state. It is time for the do-something state and for the do-something-great state and to vote LNP at the next state election. Big Group Hug 15 13:33 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga Big Group Hug is a fantastic grassroots organisation based in Rosanna in my electorate. It is run entirely by volunteer residents who believe that all children deserve the very best start in life. Big Group Hug provides crucial items like nappies, clothing, toys, prams, car seats and nursery furniture to local struggling families with children newborn to age 12. In a typical month they receive 400 requests for help and deliver around 6,000 items to local families. We know that winter can be a tough time for vulnerable families. Babies and children get sick. Medicine and energy costs increase. And making sure that children have got access to warm clothing is a must. I am very pleased to be able to support their 'Singlets, socks and jocks make for warm and happy tots' campaign. Today I pay particular thanks to Vena Byrne, Fay Jackson, Merle Woodford and Dorothy Dickens from the Summerhill Residential Park in Reservoir, who hand-knitted beautiful quality jumpers, coats, blankets and beanies. The wool for their knitting was donated by the Lions Club of Diamond Valley, and I thank President Trevor Kennett for his great support as well. Finally, I would like to thank Julia de la Harpe, Relationship Coordinator at Big Group Hug, for reaching out to my office to support their work. Swan Electorate: Bentley Regeneration Project 16 13:34 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise today— Ms Macklin interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM to update the House on the Bentley Regeneration Project within my electorate of Swan—and thanks to the member for Jagajaga for interjecting! The project is a joint initiative between the Housing Authority and the City of Canning and will provide 1,500 new dwellings, as well as revitalised multipurpose civic and community facilities. Located centrally within the Bentley Regeneration Project is Brownlie Towers, which was built between 1969 and 1970 and consists of twin 10-storey towers. Initially labelled as a triumph of community building initiatives because of its proximity to schools, shops and a swimming pool, Brownlie Towers quickly became an environment which was riddled with antisocial behaviour. In my time as the federal member for Swan, my constituents have voiced concerns over the high crime rates, the presence of drug activity and the high vacancy rates in the main towers, which have seen squatters come and go. I have continued to advocate for the regeneration project. The electrical, plumbing and safety issues are significant, and I am sure all members would agree that the safety of our constituents is paramount. The car park of the towers is set to be demolished later this month, which is set to deter antisocial behaviour. City of Canning councillor Jesse Jacobs and other councillors have been in touch with me to discuss the future of Brownlie Towers, noting that their demolition would be beneficial to the project and would be good for residents. There are approximately 100 people living there, and these people deserve better, and it is a very worthy project. I look forward to working with the Housing Authority and the City of Canning to ensure the best outcomes for the residents of Swan. McEwen Electorate: Brain Fitness Conference 16 13:36 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen On 28 June I am heading out to Diamond Creek East Primary School for their inaugural Brain Fitness Conference. Led by Dr Maria Ruberto, a renowned psychologist with over 15 years of clinical and industry experience, the school is running a new and empowering two-day conference for grade 5 and 6 students. The brain conference is designed to help students manage their own wellbeing and brain health and to develop optimistic behaviours. It is so important that all students develop lifelong cognitive skills that promote an understanding of how individuals learn best, and that is exactly what this conference is about. The Diamond Creek East Primary School students will learn how to develop a psyche of resilience, foster their optimistic thinking and build an overall sense of wellbeing and strong mental health. In a world increasingly run by social media, we see a rise in cyberbullying and mental illness. The important skills covered in the conference will help the students in tackling these issues and harnessing their strengths and potential. The brain conference will cover aspects of how the human brain works and how students can develop a growth mindset. The school will teach strategies for proper nutrition and the importance of sleep and will explore the vital links between gratitude, thankfulness, and the development of an optimistic outlook. I am so proud to be involved with this fantastic project and proud that schools such as Diamond Creek East Primary School, under the leadership of Rob Rostolis, are taking steps into the future and teaching their students good brain practices to set them up for a lifetime of success. I hope to see schools throughout my electorate, as well as all over Australia, take the initiative and run programs to teach their students such pivotal life skills. Hughes Electorate: Schools 16 13:37 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Earlier this week, St Patrick's College, a great school in my electorate, at Sutherland, sent out a letter to parents and carers. It stated: The Federal Government has this week to pass the legislation, which will leave low-fee Catholic school systems, including ours, financially worse off … This is simply not true. The facts are that, in the current year, St Patrick's College receive $8,308,000. Next year, they will receive an increase—I repeat, an increase—of $318,700. Next year they will receive a per student increase of $255. That money will go into a pot for the Catholic school system for New South Wales, which can be allocated as the Catholic school system sees fit. That pot will be 3.8 per cent larger. The Catholic schools in New South Wales are getting more money. They are getting more money over and above inflation. Next year, St Patrick's College, in my electorate, will receive more resources from the federal government. To say otherwise is simply misleading. I call on those in the Catholic school system to not send out letters that mislead the pupils in my electorate. (Time expired) Spinal Muscular Atrophy 17 13:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Last week I met an amazing Darwin mum and her daughter Aviana. Aviana is a gorgeous, happy and inquisitive almost one-year-old bub. She slept well in her early months and had what her parents called a calm nature, but her parents have been a bit concerned about a flat spot at the back of her skull. They later learnt from Aviana's paediatrician that this was a tell-tale symptom of spinal muscular atrophy, SMA. It is a terminal condition and there is no cure. As her parents say, it is the cruellest situation possible to know that Aviana will waste away. It is heartbreaking. However, there is a glimmer of hope: a clinical trial of a medication that can slow down the progression of SMA. Aviana has received some incredible medical care and, on behalf of her parents, I want to thank the health professionals involved. Aviana has been able to access the new treatment, a miracle drug as her parents call it, but not all SMA families have access to it. So, Aviana's parents, even though it is too late for their precious child, want other families to make sure that the carrier testing of the parents is done so that they know the risks, the newborn screening for SMA is done and there is more awareness and more training for medical professionals. My heartfelt wishes go to Aviana and her courageous parents. I hope members will join me to help raise awareness and treatment of spinal muscular atrophy. Queensland Election 17 13:41 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Deputy Speaker, you may well know that Queensland is warming up for an election and endorsed state candidates are out pounding the pavement. I could not be more proud of the state Liberal National Party candidates whose seats combine to account for the federal electorate of Petrie. Tracy Davis is the state member for Aspley, and is an asset to the community and a pleasure to work with. Together, we have kicked plenty of goals when the much-loved Bald Hills Memorial Hall was burnt to a cinder. I was proud that this government was able to come to the rescue with $150,000 in funding to help its rebuild. Kerri-Anne Dooley for Redcliffe is a mum and a nurse and gives back in spades. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone more passionate and active. She has been working hard to shine a light on a range of community concerns and needs, and I want to particularly make mention of the need for more parking at Redcliffe Hospital. Kara Thomas, who is for the newly created seat of Bancroft, is a mum and a nurse. If that is not enough, for her young years she was also one of our community's true gems, opening her home as a foster carer to children in need. Kara is a passionate child protection advocate. I am almost out of time, but I cannot forget Reg Gulley from Murrumba, a seasoned campaigner. All the best, mate. Education 17 13:42 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Not content with ripping $31 million in funding from schools in the Chifley electorate, the Turnbull government is trying to make life even harder for young students aspiring to give back to their community. We all know in Western Sydney how important a university education is to help people get ahead and contribute to society, but the Turnbull government is slamming that door shut for many permanent residents. I have been approached by a local school's career adviser about changes to Commonwealth-supported university places. Government proposals mean many permanent residents will not qualify for a Commonwealth-supported university place and will bear the cost of that degree. One example is a New Zealand citizen, a year 12 student at Loyola Senior High who has lived in Australia for five years. He grew up in a family affected by domestic violence and has dreams of becoming a social worker and working with the Pacific Islander community in the local area. His degree will now cost him over $90,000. Another student is a Syrian migrant who arrived in Australia in 2015. He is an outstanding maths student who is aiming to become a maths teacher. His degree will now cost over $100,000. They are just two examples of the thousands of students across the country affected by these brutal changes from a government that says they support Australia innovation but whose policies indicate otherwise. This change undermines the accessible nature of our university system, causing uncertainty for our permanent residents. Not only is the Turnbull government trying to make it harder for permanent residents to gain citizenship; it is making it outrageously expensive for them to get a degree. Agricultural Shows 18 13:44 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia As the weather starts to slowly cool down in Central Queensland, the show season begins. The traditional country show has been an important part of our rural communities for more than 100 years. In regional Australia, the annual show still carries a feeling of nostalgia, honouring our agricultural heritage. When I attend the show I am always reminded of some of our wonderful Australian traditions like woodchopping and the lamington-baking competitions and, when I was young, I won first place for my pikelets. The dedication of volunteers every year and the enthusiastic support from the communities mean our children and grandchildren get to share some of these traditions today and have some old-fashioned fun. Shows and festival events in country towns help stimulate the local economy. They support local charities, provide opportunities for schools and clubs to raise money and bring together scattered farm folk. They blend attitudes and life styles and enlarge social networks. Events like the annual Yeppoon and Rockhampton shows lift community spirit in hard economic times and bring the community together, offering some light-hearted fun. I would like to congratulate all those who entered their art and photography, their baking, their crocheted blankets, those who showed their animals, those who volunteered and those who took their children along. You are always helping to keep these much loved and needed traditions alive. Brand Electorate: Queen's Birthday Awards 18 13:45 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise today to congratulate two residents of my electorate of Brand in south-western Western Australia who have been recognised in the recent Australian Honours list for the good work they do in the local community. Mrs Kay Cleak from Bertram has been honoured with a Medal of the Order of Australia for her services to veterans and their families and also for her service to youth through her work with the Scouts. Mrs Cleak's dedication to these organisations has seen her take on many roles in RSL branches over the years, including as treasurer, membership officer and secretary. Her service to Scouts Australia stretches back to the 1980s and has seen her serve as senior Cub Scout leader, assistant commissioner and district commissioner—to name just a few of her roles. These organisations and the community have benefited from Mrs Cleak's commitment and involvement. I thank her for her service. Mr Stephen Treeby from Wandi—wonderful Wandi—this year has been awarded with a Public Service Medal for his service to the Mandogalup Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade. Joining the brigade in 1970, Mr Treeby has served as firefighter, captain, fire control officer and the deputy chief fire control officer. In his 47 years of service, the community has suffered a number of large bushfire emergencies. The work the brigade does and the volunteers do saves lives and saves properties across the district. Mr Treeby is a mentor for new volunteers; he has implemented gender equality in recruitment to the Fire Brigade, which has led to increased female participation in it. He has led the push for a new Mandogalup fire station and control centre, and I look forward to seeing it in operation. His tireless work for the community—(Time expired) Forde Electorate: Queen's Birthday Awards 18 13:47 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Ninety seconds is probably not enough time for what I want to say today about the recipients of OAMs in the Queen's birthday honours list for 2017. My first nod is to the family of Geoffrey Lloyd McDonald AM of Cornubia who was recognised posthumously for his incredible contribution to the field of engineering. Mr McDonald is remembered and lauded for devising rollover frames for tractors and machinery and for helping draft the quad bike safety standards. His career spanned more than five decades. Secondly, I want to acknowledge Helen Hogan of Mount Warren Park in my electorate who was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the sport of lawn bowls in Far North Queensland. A former Cairns City Council alderman, she served as president and publicity Officer for the Far North Queensland Bowling Association. Locally she has been involved in a number of our bowls clubs and more particularly as publicity Officer for the Tamborine Ladies Bowls Club. I would also like to congratulate and recognise the work of Lisa Hoskin, also of Logan who has been awarded a Public Service Medal for her tireless work as a service centre manager for the Department of Human Services. Well done to all and thank you for your contributions to our terrific community and to our country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Just before I call the member for Scullin, I would ask honourable members to be respectful of the people speaking. We still have 10 minutes before the photos are taken. World Refugee Day 19 13:48 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Today, of course, is World Refugee Day, and on World Refugee Day this year we reflect on the report of the UNHCR, which tells us that at the moment there are more displaced people than at any point in history—more than 65 million people. It is a sobering and troubling thought for all of us, but in this context I am inspired and continue to be inspired by the extraordinary contribution of refugees and their achievements in the communities I represent and in Australia more generally. I am also inspired by the work of volunteers supporting those who have sought help and refuge in Australia from persecution in their homeland. I think about those who volunteer for the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Whittlesea Community Connections in my electorate and great organisations like Welcome to Eltham. In recognising these people's achievements and the contributions of refugees, I reflect on the obligation of all of us in this place to engage in a respectful debate which recognises the significant public policy challenges that face us—practical, legal and moral—regarding the 65 million displaced persons. We can do better. In making my contribution, I say that I stand with refugees for respect and diversity. Farrer Electorate: Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program 19 13:50 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise today to highlight the wonderful ongoing work of the volunteers in my electorate who support the long and proud military history we share right throughout Farrer. As many of you know, the Australian government helps organisations around the country with the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants program. I am delighted to announce today the latest recipient in my electorate to receive one of these grants is the local branch of the Balranald RSL, with $1,500 to help install a new concrete apron around the town cenotaph. Balranald is a small town on the Murrumbidgee in the Western Riverina and the memorials and cenotaphs in the district show how much the region gave and how many young men were lost in two world wars. As a community, we must keep the Anzac spirit alive and teach future generations about the history we share and the importance of reflecting on the price so many have paid for our values and freedoms. I encourage any other community organisations across the Farrer electorate interested in applying for funding under the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants program to contact my office or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We look forward to supporting keeping the Anzac spirit alive. It is especially important during the Centenary of Anzac that we honour those who served our nation in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations. Citizenship 19 13:51 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Members will have noted that Labor will oppose the government's proposed changes to citizenship legislation. Labor is committed to any measure that will keep Australians safe and we know that national security legislation comes on the advice of our national security agencies, but we have seen no evidence whatsoever from our security agencies that the measures proposed in this bill will substantially benefit national security outcomes. It applies to people who are applying for or are already permanent residents. They have gone through extensive security vetting already and, if they are a security threat, they should not be here. Delaying someone's path to citizenship isolates the individual from Australian society. It impacts social cohesion. This cannot be good for the person or their sense of belonging in Australia. We are committed to supporting new Australians learning English and we would back it up with real funding. But what kind of message is snobbery? What kind of message does forcing applicants to reach a level of competency of English higher than is required by most universities send to Australian society as a whole? The effect of these government measures is to prevent a large number of people from becoming new Aussies—people who have lived in this country for years and have worked hard, have paid their taxes, have contributed to Australia and want to pledge their allegiance to this country. That is the definition of integration that we believe in. Maranoa Electorate: Birdsville 19 13:53 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa As we head into the winter break, I want to mention a unique and special event happening in my electorate of Maranoa in case anyone is looking for an outback holiday that will stick with them for life. Standing at 30 metres high on the edge of the Simspon Desert, the Big Red sand dune is a stage for Birdsville Big Red Bash. The sky is spectacular in Birdsville, painted with the most unique sunrises and sunsets but also millions of bright stars to light the night. The Big Red Bash, the most remote music festival in the world, is set to take place on 4 to 6 July. The Big Red Bash kicks off this weekend with the Big Red Run, which is Australia's first and only 250-kilometre multiday race. This year's Big Red Bash has attracted artists of the calibre of Missy Higgins, Lee Kernaghan, Troy Cassar-Daley, The McClymonts and The Wolfe Brothers, just to name a few of the iconic Aussie artists hitting the stage. Last year, more than 7,000 people made the trip to Birdsville for the Big Red Run and the Big Red Bash. These iconic events also complement the iconic Birdsville Races, which attract thousands in the first week of September every year. The Big Red Bash enhances the sense of community in the outback and Birdsville and could not happen without the tireless work of Greg Donovan and his 100-plus team of volunteers who make this event such a success. Do yourself a favour, go to Birdsville and stop into the many welcoming country towns to say g'day, have a meal and stay the night. Workplace Relations 20 13:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo John Setka, the Victorian secretary of the construction union; Michael O'Connor, the national secretary of the CFMEU; Sally McManus, the secretary of the ACTU; and RBA governor Philip Lowe—what do they all have in common? They have all said that workers must demand a greater share of the pie. They have all said that workers must demand a greater share of the economy's profits through wage gains. So why are this government and the members opposite proceeding to cut penalty rates? Why are this government and this government minister refusing to back Labor in our policy to protect take-home pay? The governor said, 'The crisis really is in real wage growth,' so why are this government and these MPs refusing to back Labor's plan to stop the cuts in penalty rates? In 11 days, 700,000 workers will have their penalty rates cut, yet this government is doing nothing to support these workers. Join the RBA governor, join the leaders of the union movement and join Labor to protect the take-home pay of all these low-paid workers. When will this government stand up for the low-paid and stop the real crisis going on, which is the fact that we have wages growth going downwards? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo will resume her seat. The member for Forrest will resume her seat. We are about to suspend just for a few minutes to get our photo taken. Sitting suspended from 13:57 to 13:59 The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 20 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS United Kingdom: Attacks 20 13:59 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Australia's heartfelt sympathy and resolute solidarity is with the people of the United Kingdom with whom we stand today, as we always have and always will, as steadfast allies in freedom's cause. We condemn the terrorist attack in which a vehicle was used as a weapon to run down worshippers outside the Finsbury Park Mosque in London. Our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones. We continue to see vehicles used as a vector for terrorist attacks. Overnight in Paris, an explosive loaded car rammed a police van on the Champs-Elysees in what is being described as a botched suicide attack. Fortunately only the perpetrator was killed. Extremism and hatred must be resisted, confronted, defied and defeated in all of their forms. The Metropolitan Police have described the Finsbury Park attack as a clear attack on Muslims. As Prime Minister Theresa May said last night, 'Terrorism attempts to break the precious bonds of solidarity and citizenship that we share.' We stand with the UK, resolutely defiant, against terrorism in all its forms. We are not halfway through 2017, but for the United Kingdom this year has already been marked by terror and tragedy. In March, Australians woke to news of a terrorist attack in Westminster—an attack on parliament, police and civilians—and it is less than a month since the United Kingdom was rocked by the horrific Islamist terror attack on Manchester arena, where 22 innocent young people were murdered and children and young children specifically targeted. Just over a fortnight ago, we saw a terrorist attack on London Bridge where eight people were killed, including two young Australians—Sara Zelenak and Kirsty Boden, who bravely ran towards the danger in an effort to help others. Last week we saw an inferno engulf the Grenfell Tower in which at least 79 people are either dead or missing presumed dead. That tragic event has, again, highlighted the need for all high-rise buildings to comply with Australia's national construction code, and I have today written to the premiers and chief ministers asking them to set out the extent of the use of combustible cladding products and the actions they are taking to ensure compliance with the code. The people of the United Kingdom have become too familiar with adversity but they are resilient. As the British High Commissioner to Australia Menna Rawlings said following the London Bridge attacks, 'People will continue to live their daily lives because we all know if we do not go to the pubs, the bars, restaurants and the concerts then that is what the terrorists want. We will absolutely retain our values and you will see people out and about on the streets in coming days.' Australians should be reassured that our agencies are working relentlessly and tirelessly to keep Australians safe. We are very alert to the vulnerabilities of places of mass gathering, crowded places and the risk of attacks of the kind we have seen. We already have robust arrangements in Australia to protect them but there is room to do more and a need to do more. The government is, as honourable members know from my earlier national security statement, working closely with other jurisdictions and with our international counterparts on this matter, and next month a national strategy for protecting places of mass gathering and crowded places will be finalised. This is being done in collaboration with the security and police agencies of other jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand, and of course local government and property owners and owners of those places and locations. Our top priority is to keep Australians safe. At COAG this month, all jurisdictions agreed to strengthen our parole and bail laws and to comprehensively review all of our laws and practices, directed at ensuring we continue to protect Australians from violent extremism. 14:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for his words. All of us in this place condemn this horrific attack and its perpetrator. We all offer whatever comfort and sympathy we can to the injured and the frightened. We send our condolences to a family mourning the loss of a loved one. And we should all be clear—very clear—about one thing: this attack was not revenge, it was not retribution; this was terrorism, this was violence aimed at the innocent, designed to spread fear and incite hatred. Despite the injuries it inflicted and the pain it caused, the attack failed. It failed because of the people of London and Britain, whose resilience, sadly, has been tried far too often in recent days and weeks. It failed because the people of London and Britain are bigger, are braver, are better than the extremists who seek to test them and divide them. So far as we know, everyone injured in this attack was a Muslim, but every one of them was also an ordinary British citizen. Every one of them was a person of faith on their way home from evening prayers, standing outside the Muslim Welfare House, which, along with Finsbury Park Mosque, had helped to lead local commemorations to mark the one-year anniversary of MP Jo Cox's death at a moving ceremony 48 hours before an assuming hire van rammed the innocent crowd. The general secretary of the Finsbury Park Mosque said: Both extremists do not represent us, do not represent our communities, do not represent our faiths. They are tiny minority, a bunch of murderers who only represent hatred, division and racism. In the aftermath, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said it well: … Muslims will today be fasting and tonight praying and thinking once again of the heroic actions taken by our emergency services and ordinary bystanders. For Australians, Finsbury Park is perhaps best known for being the home of the Arsenal Football Club. On match days, the streets and, indeed, the pubs are chock-a-block with boisterous fans on the way to Emirates Stadium. Many of them, young and old, wear jerseys with the No. 11. It is for Mesut Ozil. Mesut Ozil, for those of you who do not follow the English Premier League, is a practising Muslim. He is a German national champion of Turkish descent. He is a creative playmaker for Arsenal, one of a growing number of Muslim players making their mark in the Premier League. In January this year, against Burnley, he and teammate Shkodran Mustafi both paused to pray before kick-off. In July, next month, he will be on a plane coming to Australia, where Arsenal will play friendly games against Sydney FC and Western Sydney Wanderers, and he is most welcome, as are the rest of his team. And when the new season starts off in August, I have no doubt that Arsenal fans of all faiths and none will be back at the stadium. They will be singing and chanting, strolling the streets. They are more interested in seeing their team than in worrying about the terrorists. Tonight I am sure the worshippers at Finsbury Park will return to their prayers, because this is what democracies are about. Despite all of our arguments, it is what free peoples and free nations do in the face of fear. We do not hide. We do not change. We do not vilify classes of minorities. We live our lives. We carry on. We are proud of our own skin and we see no need to change. We keep the faith in our life, and our values will overcome all of the adversities. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As a mark of respect for the deceased and the injured, I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Schools 21 14:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his schools policy is a train wreck? Public schools hate it, Catholic schools hate it and his government's own members despise it. Will the Prime Minister please put his schools policy out of its misery, withdraw the legislation and go back to the drawing board for a better schools policy? 14:10 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the Leader of the Opposition. He just claimed that our schools policy was hated. Well, it has many admirers. One of them is the State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia President, Pat Byrne. Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills! Mr TURNBULL 885 She has called on the Labor Party to support the bill. She said the legislation 'should be considered if it compels states to meet their funding obligations'. She talks about the importance of backing our reforms. She recognises that they make a very significant improvement in equity and transparency. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 And, of course, she is joined by Dianne Foggo, past president of the Australian Education Union, who wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and me. She said, 'It is on the principle of needs based funding into the future that the Turnbull government's bills must be supported. One of my proudest and most humbling honours has been to be made a life member of the AEU and to be a former federal president. I have fought long and hard about making my views public and I do not look forward to the opprobrium I will probably face; however, I cannot, in all conscience, stay silent when there is an opportunity to change the current school-funding regime for a better one.' Then, of course, we have seen support from across the independent schools system. We have seen support from Martin Hanscamp, the executive officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools. We have seen Pam Betts, from Brisbane Catholic Education, saying, 'We thank the federal government for its continuing support.' The reality is, Labor knows full well that what we have delivered with our schools funding package is a funding package that focuses not on union officials, not on politicians, not on bureaucrats; it focuses on the children. It focuses on getting fair and transparent funding for our children— Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 and ensuring that right across the board—whether you are at a state school, a Catholic school or an independent school—the funding is fair, it is transparent and it is needs based. That is what Gonski recommended. Labor failed to deliver it. They delivered a corruption of 27 secret and conflicting deals. We have delivered the fair outcome that Gonski recommended. And Labor should back it. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the member for Tangney, the member for Wills has been warned. I am sure he did not hear it. The member for Moreton has been warned and the member for Goldstein is now warned as well. Citizenship 22 14:13 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what the government is doing to ensure that Australian values of freedom and mutual respect are at the heart of the citizenship process? 14:13 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. Our success cannot be taken for granted. It is based on shared values of democracy, the rule of law, freedom, mutual respect and equality between men and women. Those values are accessible to every Australian whatever their cultural, racial or religious background—as it should be—but we must not take that for granted. And at the heart of our success is Australian citizenship. There is no office more important in a democracy than that of citizen, and we should treasure and honour our citizenship. I am very disappointed that the Labor Party want to continue to treat Australian citizenship as the outcome of an administrative process of form filling. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Isaacs! Mr TURNBULL 885 They object to the proposition that Australian citizens should speak English. They know, as well as everyone here does, that the road to success—to getting ahead and to getting on in business, work, school and socially in Australia—is to have a good command of English. So having competent English is an absolutely reasonable requirement. And it is as recommended, indeed, by the Productivity Commission. Labor also object to the proposition that you should have lived here as the permanent resident for four years before you apply for citizenship. Mr Gosling interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Solomon is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 That is less than the residence time in the United States. It is much less than the time in Germany. We have not taken the process of citizenship seriously enough in the past. There is an opportunity now to affirm our faith in citizenship and affirm our faith in society. The member for Watson sneers and says, 'Citizenship has nothing to do with security.' That is what he said. Does this member seriously imagine for one minute that an integrated society and a harmonious society, one based on shared values and mutual respect, has nothing to do with security? It is the very foundation of it. It is why we are a harmonious society. We have the opportunity to reaffirm those values, to reaffirm our citizenship and to require that those who seek to become Australian citizens share our values. They are values that unite us and values that define us. Labor should support us. Mr Watts interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The member for Gellibrand will cease interjecting. There were so many unruly interjections during that answer, I decided to let the Prime Minister continue. The members for Lyons, Kingston, Whitlam and many others—I am not going to waste the time of the House going through them all; you know who you are—if you interject any more, you will be thrown out immediately under standing order 94(a). Do not expect any warning. Schools 23 14:17 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's newspapers report, 'Confidence in Libs lost'. Catholics have officially declared war on government. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules on props. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG When Catholics schools have declared war on this Liberal government over its $4.6 billion cut to children in Catholic schools, isn't it time for the Prime Minister to drop his cuts for good, to go back to the drawing board, to start again and to replace this failure of a government schools policy. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member talks about Labor's schools policy, and they talk about all of the funny money—the fantasy money—that they promised. They knew that they did not have the money there in the dying days of the Gillard government. They made all these promises. They never paid for it. They do not know how to pay for it. They conned Australians with 27 secret deals that produced the absolute antithesis of what David Gonski recommended. What they did was produce a situation where funding was not needs based because it varied from school to school in different systems in different states regardless of need. They did it in a manner that was utterly inconsistent. So the same school in one state would get different funding to one in another. It was one separate deal after another. What Gonski called for—and he was right—was national, consistent, transparent, needs-based funding. That is what we have delivered. Every part of the Australian education sector—the public sector, the Catholic sector, the independents—will receive more funding over the decade; in total $18.6 billion. That is real money; that is paid for; that is funded. That is the difference. Labor fantasised. We got into the businesses of financing. Fantasies, promises and illusions without the resources are just a hallucination. That is what Labor delivered—a hallucination that set out to deceive Australian students. We are delivering. The member for Grayndler was there waxing eloquent and full of criticism. Let us see what the author of the Gonski panel, the leader, said about our policy. … I'm … pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation. …   …   … … I'm … pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future. Ken Boston, another member of the review, said: There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle … …   …   … It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate. Kathryn Greiner, another member of the Gonski review, said: This is the first time a government in this country has drawn a line in the sand, removed the funding anomalies and got everybody on the same page. …   …   … Gonski 2.0 delivers what the Gonski report wanted: an accountable, transparent, equitable, sector-blind funding formula. That is our commitment—fairness, needs based, transparent, consistent. That is what Gonski recommended. That is what our children deserve. That is what Labor denied them. Citizenship 24 14:21 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to strengthen the integrity of Australian citizenship? What are the benefits of a well-managed national security agenda? 14:21 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson As all Australians know and what is very clear to all on this side—in particular, to those members who have been interested in this debate for a long period of time—citizenship is an institution that forms a bedrock of our society and this government, the Turnbull government, is acting to strengthen its integrity. We have announced a series of reforms designed to make it easier for people to become Australian citizens, to abide by Australian laws and to abide by Australian values. It is easier because we have allowed people to put themselves on a course, knowing full well that if they do not abide by Australian laws and if they do not abide by Australian values they will not become Australian citizens. We have said that we want people to be able to speak a competent level of English language, and we want that to improve over a course of four years so that people can contribute more—not just in the workplace but so that they can do better at school and so that they can integrate more effectively into Australian society. Do not take our word for it. I will read to you part of a letter sent to me by the Premier of Queensland, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, in March of this year. She said, 'The Queensland government also recognises the importance of English language proficiency in supporting successful settlement.' This is not some crazy right-wing cause; this is mainstream thinking. The fact is that the majority of the Australian public want to provide support to people to be able to improve their English language proficiency so that they can do better at work, so that they can do better in schools and so that they can, more easily, integrate into Australian society. That is the agenda of this government. We are not going to back down, because we have spoken, over the course of the last couple of years, to the Australian public about their ideas, in this space, and they fully support the agenda of the government in this regard. We have also announced a number of other measures, including increasing the period of permanent residency in the run-up to citizenship from one year to four years. In Germany it is eight years; in the United States and the United Kingdom it is four and five years. The fact is, over the course of those four years, people can have the ability to demonstrate that they have integrated into Australian society, that they have abided by the laws and values of this country and that they can become Australian citizens. It is the case that the Labor Party is divided on this, as they are on border protection. I have watched this movie before—where the leadership of the Labor Party cannot rein in the left of their party. We have seen it again and again and again. We saw it on border protection. We are seeing it in relation to citizenship. And, whilst the Leader of the Opposition might, in his heart of hearts, support what we are doing, the left wing of the Labor Party have completely and utterly monstered him when it comes to this issue. (Time expired) Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Bruce then left the chamber. Schools 24 14:25 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his first answer. Is the Prime Minister aware that the State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia has issued a statement denying they support the government's school funding legislation, saying: … the legislation in its current form should be opposed in the Federal Parliament. The Prime Minister has been making up data— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right. I have asked the member for Sydney to resume her seat. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the House is warned. I could not hear the second half of the question. The member for Sydney will repeat the question from the beginning. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister and it refers to his first answer. Is the Prime Minister aware that the State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia has issued a statement denying that they support the government's school funding legislation, saying: … the legislation in its current form should be opposed in the Federal Parliament. The Prime Minister has been caught out making up data. Is he now making up endorsements? 14:26 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must be looking at a different reference point to me because I am reading here from a newspaper report today which quotes the State School Teachers' Union of WA President, Pat Byrne, conceding that Western Australian schools would get a better deal under Gonski 2.0 than under the current system, with funding for public schools in the state to increase 6.8 per cent a year over the next decade compared with 4.7 per cent under the status quo. The issue for the honourable member is her own consistency. She has campaigned for years for needs based funding. She has cited David Gonski for years. She has railed against the coalition and said that we do not accept the Gonski reforms. She said that she 'gave a Gonski' and we did not. Now we have a school funding proposal which is endorsed by David Gonski and the members of his panel, and we have David Gonski's vision of national, transparent and consistent needs based funding endorsed—and that is the difference. We are delivering on that commitment. Labor has abandoned needs based funding and it is standing in the way of Australian schools getting $18.6 billion of additional funding over the next decade—and getting it in a manner that is fair, getting it in a manner that is transparent, getting it in a manner that is needs based, and then moving on to the next stage of Gonski's work, which is to look at how we can ensure that our students get the best value in terms of quality teaching and educational outcomes out of that funding. That is what we should be focused on. I recognise the Labor Party wants to play politics with this. I recognise there are many players with many vested interests, but I can say this to the opposition to be very clear: the only vested interest we have are the children of Australia. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is seeking leave to table a document? Ms Plibersek 83M I am. It is the media statement correcting the report in The West Australian. The SPEAKER 00APG Leave is not granted. The member for Sydney will resume her seat. Just before I call the Independents for a question, if they have one today—that might work for us both, Member for Kennedy. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:29 The SPEAKER 00APG I am pleased to inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery today the 11th Australian Political Exchange Council delegation from the Philippines. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 25 14:29 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Prime Minister, since deregulation and corporatisation, electricity price increases have escalated from one per cent a year to 17 per cent a year, and NEMMCO claims green charges exceed 20 per cent. Could you play a Billy Slater-JT role: implementing the bipartisan 'triangle of forever power', Hell's Gate, biofuels from algae, Big Kennedy wind and solar, Kidston solar pumped storage, exempted from the NEMMCO—4,000 megawatts of the world's cheapest electricity, with zero emissions and a Zorro-like rescue to prosperity for Mount Isa Mines copper— (Time expired) 14:30 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question, and I thank him for his enthusiasm for an all-of-the-above approach to energy, which is absolutely consistent with the government's approach founded on economics and engineering. The honourable member understands, as we all do, that families and businesses need affordable and reliable power. Anything less than that will rapidly de-industrialise Australia, deter investment, put thousands of Australians out of work and make the cost of living unsustainable. We are committed to taking a technology-neutral, all-of-the-above approach to the energy challenges we face, founded on economics and engineering. The honourable member has outlined a number of very interesting projects in his electorate. For the Kennedy Energy Park, ARENA is providing $18 million out of a project cost of $120 million. Stage 1 begins with a proof-of-concept project of up to 40 megawatts of solar plus 40 megawatts of wind, and the proponents say their ultimate plan is to construct up to 1,300 megawatts of renewable energy generation. ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are also in very detailed discussions with a company called Genex that has built a solar farm at the old Kidston mine site. It is a very interesting project. They are going to use the pits and one of the dams from the old mine site for pumped hydro. They will use excess energy from the solar farm to pump water up into a higher reservoir and then run it down through a turbine. It is a much smaller version, I suppose, of the Snowy Hydro concept or, indeed, the Cultana project. These are all—and there will be others—very, very interesting, promising opportunities. That is why it is critical for us—all Australians and government—to have a technology-neutral, all-of-the-above approach. There are many ways of securing our energy future, but you need a plan. That has been the big difference between our side of politics and Labor. We saw what happened in South Australia. There was a huge wind resource—terrific! There were lots of wind farms—wonderful! But there was no storage. What that meant was that you could have all of your electricity provided by your windmills one minute and, then, zero. And there was no planning. It is exactly what Labor did with gas, as we all know. Labor allowed gas exports from Queensland—terrific! But they forgot about the domestic market. Engineering and economics are the key, and there are great opportunities in Kennedy. Defence Industry 26 14:33 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Would the minister update the House on what the government is doing to increase our intelligence gathering capacity to support the Australian Defence Force in keeping Australians safe? 14:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Grey for his question. I can tell him that two days ago the government announced a $500 million investment to improve Australia's space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. This investment will allow the ADF, the Australian Defence Force, to access commercial satellites by getting images faster, more comprehensively and of higher quality. This $500 million increase in capability will support the government's commitment to border protection, intelligence gathering, surveillance, humanitarian missions and Navy operations. It is just another part of our $195 billion commitment to our military build-up in Australia, the largest peacetime military build-up in Australia's history. Much of it will be spent here in Australia, building our satellite capabilities as part of the Turnbull government's commitment to ensuring that the enormous $195 billion Defence heft is pushed behind jobs, investment and businesses here in Australia. This $500 million investment in satellites and technology is about growing that very high-tech advanced manufacturing capability here in this country. It is part of this government's commitment to the security of Australians. Over the last few weeks we have heard a lot about that. In fact, since the Abbott government and now the Turnbull government were elected in 2013, this government, this side of politics has been genuinely committed to security at every turn, whether it has been the border protection policies of first the Treasurer and now the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, stopping the people-smuggling trade, stopping that danger to our country; whether it has been the commitment to cybersecurity protection that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security, outlined yesterday, protecting Australians in terms of cybersecurity; whether it has been the commitment of funds to the Australian Federal Police and counter-terror measures, funds removed by the Labor Party when they were in office and recommitted to by this government since we were elected; or whether it was altering the rules of engagement in Syria and Iraq so that our ADF can take out our opponents wherever they are when they are undertaking activities that are not in our interests. The most recent actions taken by this government to protect Australians to ensure we have the entire suite of measures at our disposal are the changes to citizenship laws to ensure that everyone who becomes an Australian citizen is as committed to the defence and security of this nation as this government is. Labor have squibbed it. They have squibbed it yet again on a vital national security issue. The Leader of the Opposition has put the unity of his party, keeping the Left in the tent ahead of the national security of Australians— (Time expired) Workplace Relations 26 14:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has said: The crisis really is in real wage growth. When there is a crisis in real wage growth, with real wages going backwards, why in just 11 days time is the Prime Minister giving millionaires a tax cut at the same time as supporting a pay cut for ordinary workers? How come on 1 July millionaires get more take-home pay and 700,000 ordinary workers get less take-home pay? 14:37 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Low wages growth is an issue—it is. We are very aware of it. That is why we are supporting Australian business. The Labor Party used to know. In fact, I am amazed the member for McMahon stood up and asked that question. He actually wrote a book about it. He wrote a book in which he said the way to deliver higher wages for Australians is to cut Australian business taxes. He said company tax should be 25 per cent. He could see the light then. It was all so clear, but now it has been clouded. I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition has come across his vision and clouded his clarity of thought when he recognised that, if you want to get higher wages, you need more investment. You need business to have confidence to invest and employ, and the proven way of doing that is to lower business taxes. It is what he recommended, it is what Paul Keating did, it is what the Leader of the Opposition used to recommend. Labor used to understand that you need to get business moving in order to get wages moving, and yet every policy they have is calculated to put a brake on investment and on business. There is not one pro-business measure in their whole policy. They are going to roll back the tax cuts for small and medium businesses that have already been legislated and they certainly would not give any more. They have been opposed to the incentives that business need. We recognise that Australian business needs confidence; it needs the confidence to invest. Labor used to know it; they have forgotten it now. All they have to offer Australian business is higher taxes and higher debt. What a double that is: higher taxes and even more debt to put onto the shoulders of children and grandchildren and generations to come. Labor has forgotten about business, and it has forgotten about the companies, large and small, that employ nearly 90 per cent of Australians. Until they remember that, until they back business as they should, Australian workers will be let down by the so-called party of the workers. Energy 27 14:40 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of reliable and affordable energy supply for our economy? What steps is the government taking to put downward pressure on energy costs for all Australians? 14:40 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She knows the Turnbull government is on the side of Australians and Australian businesses who want more reliable, more affordable energy. That is what the Turnbull government is doing. We are on the side of Australians and Australian businesses that want to see downward pressure on rising electricity prices. That is why, in the budget this year, we announced five key things that we will be doing to put downward pressure on rising electricity prices. The first of those was added to today by the Prime Minister and the energy minister. We are going to secure our gas for domestic use. We will stop large energy and gas companies exporting Australian energy gas offshore when it is needed here in Australia to put downward pressure on electricity prices in this country. We put $90 million in the budget to promote gas supply in to this country. We will restrict those gas exports as we have announced in further detail today. We have said we are going to give consumers, that is households and businesses, a fairer go when it comes to energy prices on both gas and electricity. I have tasked the competition watchdog, the ACCC, to investigate the competition and the retail pricing behaviour of large energy companies who are putting up the power prices on gas and electricity for Australian businesses and Australian consumers. We are investigating those practices, and that will inform our further steps in that area. We are improving the regulations to make our energy markets more transparent and more efficient. Today, we have said we are abolishing the limited merits review process, which has been a key factor in driving up energy costs with generation capacity and increasing the costs. The merits review process has enabled that to happen and forced up those prices. We are investing in new generation technology, transmission and storage capacity. The Snowy 2.0 scheme will add some 2,000 megawatt hours capacity, and we are getting on with that job. More than that, we are already in negotiations with the New South Wales and Victorian governments to take on the full responsibility for Snowy. We will continue those negotiations to ensure that the funds that are provided in that sale will go into important infrastructure spending in both New South Wales and Victoria. We are investing in low-emissions technologies, with some $3 billion through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The Turnbull government is on the side of Australians who want to see downward pressure on electricity prices. We are not interested in the ideology wars that those opposite want to engage in—who want to restrict the options and the opportunities for this government to put downward pressure on electricity prices. They need to end the ideology wars and join the government in putting downward pressure on electricity prices. (Time expired) Schools 27 14:43 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell My question is to the Prime Minister. Catholic educators and parents from the dioceses of Broken Bay are in the public gallery today. The dioceses of Broken Bay have calculated that under the government's $22 billion cut to schools they will lose around $30 million across 44 schools in 2018 alone. Has the Prime Minister had any representations from the member for Robertson about these cuts in her electorate? 14:44 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The good news for the member for Dobell is that with 44 schools and over 28,000 students under the— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will leave under 94(a). The member for McEwen then left the chamber— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Under the Turnbull government's plan, the schools will, on average, be $7.1 million better off. Gorokan High School will be $9.4 million better off; Wyong High School will be $7 million better off; Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Primary School at Shelly Beach will be $9.3 million better off; and St Cecilia's Catholic Primary School, with 300 students, will be $6.5 million better off. The Catholic schools system will be better off under the Turnbull government's plan, to the tune of $3.4 billion over the next 10 years. That is why it has been welcomed across the board, together with independent and government schools. Right across the country, over 9,000 schools will be better off—an additional $18.6 billion and a 75 per cent increase. The Leader of the Opposition, who has always called for a needs-based funding model, is now turning his back on the students of Australia. Water 28 14:45 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how investment in water infrastructure is underpinning the record growth in Australia's irrigated agricultural sector? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of threats to growth in this sector and the thousands of Australians it employs? 14:46 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question and I note the great work that the honourable member does in his electorate. I note that, from the moment he started, one of the first recommendations he made was for further water infrastructure. There was a $120 million Sunraysia modernisation project in the Mallee which the member was instrumental in getting together. That has been of such real benefit—delivering new infrastructure to make the area more efficient and delivering more of that record agricultural output for the nation. I also note that the member is a farmer and had a record harvest in the last season. But it is not just that it is a record harvest; the fact is that, when they store that harvest, they get the 33 1/3 per cent write-off of the infrastructure required to store it—new grain sheds and new silos. This shows the government working with farmers to get a better outcome—like 100 per cent write-off on water infrastructure and 100 per cent write-off on fencing. It is vitally important that we understand how important water infrastructure is for our nation. Back in 1980 there was around 5.5 megalitres per person and today we are around four. If we do not substantially start building water infrastructure, it will go down to as low as 2.6 by 2061. So, whether you like it or not, our nation has to go towards building water infrastructure, because we know that it is a source of wealth. That is why we put $2½ billion on the table to build this water infrastructure. In his budget-in-reply speech, we looked forward to the Leader of the Opposition discussing how he would build water infrastructure—but, of course, they are not. In fact, they have made a promise to take money out of the water infrastructure fund. They have made a promise to start taking money away from the Australian requirement and the Australian dream to build new water infrastructure. That is no more evident than in the seat of Capricornia and the seat of Flynn, where at Rookwood Weir we have $130 million on the table after doing the business plan—and the Labor Party have no interest. The Labor Party have no interest in Central Queensland whatsoever. I do not think they have any interest in Urannah Dam. They have no interest in the Hell's Gate dam, they have no interest in Nullinga Dam and they have no interest in Emu Swamp Dam. They have no interest in any form of water infrastructure. We hoped that they might have some interest in assisting moving this great agricultural product around by building the inland rail, but they have no interest in that either. They have no interest in that whatsoever. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D The member for Grayndler can come up and make a interjection now if he wishes, saying that you are going to build the inland rail— The SPEAKER 00APG No, he can't, Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will continue his answer or resume his seat. Mr JOYCE E5D But, of course, they are not. The problem is that about the only question the member for Grayndler gets these days is an interjection. That is about as close as he gets. We want to make sure we continue to build on this record turnaround in agricultural production, and the member for Mallee is doing precisely that. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 28 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:49 The SPEAKER 00APG I want to take the opportunity to inform the House we have present in the gallery a visiting member of the Iraqi parliament, Dr Farah Al-Saraj. On behalf of the House I would like to warmly welcome him. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 29 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Schools 29 14:49 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. In an eleventh hour meeting last night, the Catholic Education Commission warned the education minister that this Liberal government would wear its cuts to Catholic schools 'like an albatross around its neck'. It said: In the 50 years we have been dealing with government, we have never had a government not engage with us on major changes to policy. Isn't it time that the Prime Minister dropped his cuts for good, instead of just postponing them from one party room meeting to the next? 14:50 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The funding under our plan for Catholic schools nationally will increase on average per student by 3½ per cent over 10 years. The 2017 per student funding on average will be $8,839 and in 2027 it will be $12,493. In New South Wales, which was the subject of an earlier question, the average annual per student increase over the decade will be 3.6 per cent, rising from $8,767 today to $12,522 in 2027. Those are the facts. As far as the schools in the Broken Bay diocese are concerned, let me be very clear: the federal government's funding goes to the Catholic education office in New South Wales in one lump sum. It is entirely a matter for the Catholic education authorities as to how they distribute it amongst their own schools. That is the fact. What the Commonwealth is doing in the current needs-based funding model is estimating or allocating funds to systems based on an assessment of the needs of each school so that it can be consistent across the board. But in a large system like the Catholic system the money will come in a lump sum—it has never been given to the Broken Bay diocese by the Commonwealth; it has always been given to the Catholic system in New South Wales. If the Catholic system in New South Wales wants to allocate money in a different way to that which it was derived through the SES system used by the Commonwealth, that is a matter for them. They are completely free to do so—and that is the fact. That is the fact of the matter: the discretion of the Catholic education office is absolutely unchanged. Funding is rising. The proposition is that schools in one part of a state's Catholic system would get less money, then it follows that schools somewhere else must be getting more. You cannot have funding going up by so much every year and then all schools losing. The reality is that funding is increasing and it is up to the Catholic education authorities to allocate it as they see fit. That is the fact. Energy 29 14:53 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House and describe the action being taken by the government to ensure an affordable supply of energy for hardworking families and Australians? How does this compare with alternative approaches that would hurt both families and small businesses in my electorate? 14:53 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I know that she is committed to lowering the power prices for the businesses and the households across her electorate. We know that the Turnbull government today has announced a significant move to abolish limited merits review. If this had been abolished previously, customers would have been better off to the tune of $6.5 billion. We tried to abolish it through the COAG process, but were blocked by the states. This unilateral action will lead to lower electricity prices. We have also taken major steps to restrict gas exports after the Labor Party gave a green light to export two-thirds of what we produce, and that obviously led to an increase in electricity prices. The Prime Minister's announcements today have been warmly welcomed by a large number of stakeholders. Energy Consumers Australia has put out a press release titled 'Energy consumers welcome the significant leap forward on energy'—'We are pleased to see the government put downward pressure on network prices and taking steps to increase gas supply for the domestic market.' The Grattan Institute has said, 'Today's decision to support the elimination of limited merits review on network pricing will positively impact electricity prices.' Manufacturers in Australia have welcomed the Turnbull government's intervention in the gas market to protect jobs and urge the state governments to encourage their own gas development, which currently they are not doing. So the measures announced today, on top of the previous measures to get the ACCC to investigate the retail pricing system and network, and the work we are doing through the COAG Energy Council to reduce the costs of the transportation of gas, are all very important. I am asked about those opposite. The Labor Party's track record includes the doubling of electricity prices when they were in office. The Leader of the Opposition turns his back, but he was part of and central to a government that led to a doubling of electricity prices. We got the cash for clunkers, we got the citizens assembly, we got the pink batts and we got a $15 billion carbon tax. That was the price of Labor's folly on electricity. Now they have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which has been described by the Business Council of Australia as unnecessary and risky, and they are giving cover to Labor states that are blocking the development of their gas reserves, which would be important to reducing electricity prices across the country. The member for Port Adelaide said that what happened in South Australia was a hiccup. We on this side of the House say that we must do better. We need to lower electricity prices and get more stability in the system. Today's announcements are a very positive step forward. Schools 30 14:56 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when speaking about the government's $22 billion cuts to schools, Senator Back warned, 'Please don't make me vote against the government in my last week in the Senate'? Isn't it the case that any changes the Prime Minister wants to make to his school cut package have nothing to do with the children and everything to do with appeasing the members for Warringah, Menzies and Dawson, Senator Back, Senator Abetz and Senator Hanson-Young? 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Every element of our school funding package is focused on the needs of Australian children. The member for Sydney may shake her head, but David Gonski says it is and Ken Boston says it is. One school leader after another recognises that transparent, consistent, needs based funding is what we have delivered. It is focused on the needs of the children. That is a commitment to ensuring that we get the funding we need. We are spending $18.6 billion over the next 10 years, but we are doing more. We are going forward with another Gonski review to ensure that we identify what measures will ensure that we get the best use of that funding to get the best teaching and the best educational outcomes. We have been spending more on schools, but results have not been improving. That is something we have got to address. The money is there, the commitment is there and the needs based funding is there. Labor's politics will not distract us from delivering for Australian children. Our children deserve better. We are delivering the needs based funding that they deserve. Labor should deliver support for that because for years they masqueraded as supporters of needs based funding—and the member for Sydney more than any of them. They did that for years and now, as ever, whenever there is an intersection between politics and principle, Labor goes for politics. Our children deserve better. Energy 30 14:59 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of affordable and reliable energy for the Australian wine industry? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would threaten Australian winemakers' ability to produce and export wine? 14:59 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for her question, because she, like others on this side of the House, in the coalition, is passionate about trade policy. It stands, frankly, in stark contrast to the Labor Party. We are 295 days into this parliament, there have been 62 question times and I am yet to get a single question from the shadow minister for trade. I am yet to get a single question from the member for Blaxland. In fact, he is so out of practice that he tried to do one last week when I was not here, and he stuffed it up. You should at least give him a sporting chance to get up on his feet on trade policy every now and then. But this side of the House is passionate about trade policy. The reason we are passionate about trade policy is that we understand the direct connection between export markets boosting Australia's economic growth and driving job opportunities. In fact, since the coalition came to power, since we concluded the three North Asian powerhouse free trade agreements, with China, Japan and Korea, we have been paving the way for Aussie wine producers like those from the member's electorate, from the famous Margaret River, to be able to boost their exports into those important export markets. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 We have seen, for example, the value of Australian wine exports has grown by more than 120 per cent since these agreements came into effect. In fact, Australia's total wine exports to those markets are worth nearly $600 million. Just over five years ago, before the agreements were in place, we sold around $230 million worth of wine into China. Now we sell more than $500 million worth of wine into China. In their submission to the Finkel review, the Winemakers' Federation of Australia noted that electricity accounts for some 70 per cent of energy use at wine production sites and can account for as much as half of the total cost of production. So this side, the Turnbull government, the coalition side, is focused on reducing energy prices, on ensuring stability, on ensuring reliability, and that side of the chamber is doing the exact opposite, because that side of the chamber, under this Leader of the Opposition, is obsessed with ideology and obsessed with protecting his position and making sure that 'Red Bill' there is not challenged by the member for Grayndler. We see it time and time again, where Labor's policy— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will not refer to members in that way. I have made it very clear. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 We see it time and time again— The SPEAKER 00APG No. The minister will refer to members by their correct titles and he will withdraw. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Red Bill? The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. We are going to the next question. Schools 31 15:02 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's policy to cut $22 billion from schools is a complete and absolute shambles. Public schools hate it. The Catholic schools hate it. The government's own members despise it. Isn't it time for the government just to drop the $22 billion cut? Why not go back to the drawing board over the winter break and bring back something in the next session, because this is not going so well, is it, Prime Minister? 15:03 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The Leader of the Opposition should know better about the Turnbull government's school funding plan, because there are 54 schools—every school—and over 30,000 school students in the member for Maribyrnong's electorate that will benefit. There will be an average of $7.2 million extra for schools in the Leader of the Opposition's electorate. St Albans Secondary College will get a $13 million increase over 10 years. Rosehill Secondary College will get a $10 million increase over 10 years. St Christopher's School, a Catholic school, will get an over $12 million increase over 10 years. And Catholic Regional College will get an over $13 million increase over 10 years—Catholic. The Leader of the Opposition should know: the numbers tell a pretty powerful story. Regional Development: Energy 31 15:04 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to ensure regional Australia has a strong economic future? Why is unreliable and expensive energy a threat to the prosperity of our regional communities? 15:04 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. I congratulate him because he is always on the side of his community; he is always standing up for his community. He is getting on with the job of delivering the infrastructure that his kids and grandkids in his community will thank him for in the future. He is delivering projects like the $10 million for the Cairns Performing Arts Centre. He is delivering mobile phone blackspot improvements in areas like Cape Tribulation. We have an investment program right across Australia: the $75 billion the Turnbull-Joyce government is delivering right across Australia. The Cape York Region Package is delivering jobs for Indigenous communities. There is the Northern Australia Roads Program with road upgrades, benefiting towns from Townsville to Torrens Creek to Mount Garnet—right through the member for Leichhardt's electorate. We are also seeing projects like beef roads, which is actually connecting regional communities to their markets. The Bruce Highway project will save lives and deliver much-needed improvements right along the length of the Bruce Highway. It is all about good infrastructure creating jobs and creating new opportunities, and connecting regional Australians in their communities and to world markets. We are committed to delivering a stronger, safer and better regional Australia where everyone can get ahead. I was asked at the outset about what threats there might be. At the outset, I said the member for Leichhardt is always on the side of his electorate. In politics you often have to pick a side. On this side of the House, we are on the side of the blue-collar workers. We are on the side of regional families. We are on the side of small business. The threats to jobs and the threats to energy security in regional Australia all come from the other side of the House; they all come from Labor. Regional communities rely on affordable, reliable energy. Our households and our businesses rely on that. I would ask those opposite and I would ask the member for Grayndler in particular: why is the opposition caving in to the Greens when it comes to energy policy? The member for Grayndler has been interjecting all through my answer, but he knows that Labor has lost its way. That is why he is running for the leadership himself. He knows that the current leader will say anything and he will do anything. He will discard previous loyalties just to keep his job. The Leader of the Opposition actually changed his footy team. Under this headline, 'Leader of the Opposition the shape-shifter', it says: "You know, he changed footy teams quite late …" …   …   … "He changed from South Melbourne to Collingwood late," says a Labor Right mate over his coffee cup, "I don't know why." …   …   … "I do remember on numerous occasions saying, 'Mate, if you want to become Prime Minister of this country you can't stay with the Sydney Swans.'" Member for Wannon, I am not sure you ever changed footy teams; you have been a Tigers man for life. Member for Riverina, you have been a Hawthorn man for life. The member for Kooyong has been a Carlton man for life. You have to pick a side and you have to stick with it. On this side, the Turnbull-Joyce government have picked a side. We are backing the blue-collar workers. We are backing reliable, affordable energy and not the extreme green ideologies, which have captured the other side of the chamber. Schools 32 15:07 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister claimed funding for students with disabilities in Tasmania would not be cut by one-third or $12 million in 2018. Given an answer to a question on notice provided by the department of education confirms that cut, does the Prime Minister now want to own up to the fact that he is cutting $12 million from students with disabilities in Tasmania in 2018? 15:08 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The Commonwealth has provided $1.6 billion to support children with a disability in schools this year, up from $1.1 billion in 2014. Under the Turnbull government's reforms, funding for students with disabilities will grow by 5.9 per cent on average each and every year. It is estimated that $21 billion will be provided for students with a disability over the next 10 years. Again, the reality is that under the Turnbull government's school funding program, all schools will benefit across the independent sector, the Catholic sector and the government sector. The member for Sydney should know that in her own electorate there are 40 schools with 14,000 students. Alexandria Park Community School will benefit by $5 million— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney on a point of order? Ms Plibersek 83M Alexandria Park Community School is a fantastic school but— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the member for Sydney will resume her seat. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I just want to point out to the House that in the member for Sydney's electorate, the schools will, on average, be $2.5 million better off as a result of the Turnbull government's plan. Alexandria Park Community School, in the member for Sydney's electorate, will be $5 million better off over the next 10 years, and St Mary's Cathedral College, a Catholic school, will have a $10 million increase over the next 10 years. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the next question— Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If the member for Lingiari just stops interjecting, we might be able to move on with the next question. I say to the member for Sydney, as I have many times—and this is the last time I am going to say it—if any member rises on a point of order, they need to state the point of order, not enter into a debate. The member for Sydney is very lucky she is still here for her matter of public importance that is coming up. Budget 32 15:10 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the implementation of the government's budget? How is the government delivering in the parliament to meet our commitments to the Australian people? 15:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Berowra for his question. He will be pleased to know that the government is getting on with the job of legislating the budget. Just last night, the Major Bank Levy Bill passed the other place, and it becomes law on 1 July. Major banks will be paying that six basis-point levy, and that will be recognising the significant support from the taxpayers that provide those banks with a very special place in our banking and financial system. The Labor Party tried to slow it down. They tried to run the banks' case on this, but they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to support it out of embarrassment. But it was this government that took action to ensure there was a fair and proper levy on Australia's major banks. On top of that, it is this government that has introduced legislation for the GST for low-value goods being imported from other countries, and that will be passed this week. Those opposite, the Labor Party, tried to frustrate it. Once again, they had to put it back 12 months, because they want multinationals to be able to sell their goods in this country and not pay tax on them. Those on this side of the House know that you have to take real action on multinational tax reform. That is why, on 1 July this year, our diverted profits tax will come into being. That will mean that multinationals that try to shift profits offshore will not just have to pay the ordinary tax, they will have to pay a 40 per cent tax on those profits they try to shift. We all know that those opposite, the Labor Party, voted against multinational anti-avoidance laws in this parliament—those laws the tax office described as a game changer when it comes to multinationals actually ensuring they pay their fair share of tax in this country. This year, $2.9 billion has already been raised in liabilities as a result of that measure. But the Labor Party voted against it—they voted against multinationals paying their fair share of tax in this country. On top of that, we have the digital services tax coming in, which ensures that large multinational companies that are selling digital services into this country will be taxed on the GST, as they should be. It is not just that. On top of that, from 1 July the instant asset write-off, that important provision for small businesses, extends for a further 12 months. That is for companies not up to $2 million, but up to $10 million in turnover. And companies up to $25 million in turnover will get a tax cut on 1 July, because of the leadership and actions of the Turnbull government. We know the Labor Party want to reverse the small business tax cuts, because they have been running around this place, spending the enterprise tax plan reversal on everything under the sun. 'It's going to retire the deficit', 'It's going to pay for schools', 'It's going to pay for hospitals'—but you cannot spend money more than once. The shadow Treasurer said today—I will save it for tomorrow! (Time expired) Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 33 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:14 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms ROWLAND 159771 I do. The SPEAKER 00APG The member may proceed. Ms ROWLAND 159771 On Thursday, 15 June, in question time, the Minister representing the Minister for Communications referred to a media statement I issued on 14 June, and stated in relation to me: She criticised Senator Fifield, the minister, for referring to the fact that 1,400 jobs at Network Ten are at risk. And: It is about 1,400 jobs at Network Ten that are at risk. The minister's statements are false. My media release referred to the 1,400 job losses at Telstra, which were announced by the company on the 14 June. I also expressly stated that the minister was not responsible for these job losses at Telstra. My media release stated: Today it was also announced that 1,400 Telstra workers would lose their jobs as a result of decisions by the company. You don't see Labor blaming the Communications Minister for this outcome. I realise that the two entities both start with a T, but they are two different things. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 33 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 55 of 2016-17, entitled Effectiveness of the governance of the Northern Land Council: Northern Land Council; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:15 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the Hon. Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to be upfront with the Australian people about its $22 billion cut to schools. 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— 15:16 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thought the member for Menzies might join us, and he is belatedly standing and agreeing that this is a matter of definite public importance, because future funding for our schools—government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools—is in chaos as we speak now. It takes something close to a miracle to unite advocates of the public system, representing about 70 per cent of schools in this country, with advocates of the Catholic system, representing about 20 per cent of schools in this country—together, 90 per cent of schools in this country—against this funding model. And today we hear from representatives of the independent schools that they are looking at withdrawing their support for this model too. Why is it? It is because this government has delivered only chaos to parents, to teachers and to the members of their own backbench, who have been fed dodgy data in order to get their support in the Liberal Party room. We have seen the minister selectively releasing dodgy figures, dribbling them out day after day to try and get the support of his backbench for a funding package that, in the government's own document, cuts $22.3 billion from the schools over the decade. It gets very complicated when you have competing numbers out there, but, if we cannot trust the government's own briefing to journalists on the day this package was announced, then we cannot trust anything that comes afterward. This document says: Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a savings of … $22.3 billion over 10 years … That sounds like a cut to me. We also see the government telling one thing to parents and one thing to the party room, to the backbench, and then trying to slide out selective data on the weekend to try and get the Greens party room over the line to support this funding package. They think that, by releasing figures that show a $4.6 billion cut from Catholic schools, they are going to get the Greens over the line. Whoopsie! Own goal! They did not really think about the Catholics on their backbench who are a bit upset about the fact. The leaking of the Department of Education figures by the government, for the brilliant tactical reason of getting the Greens over the line, has actually meant chaos on their own backbench and insurrection in their own party room. We have had the member for Menzies saying: To do a deal with the Greens seems madness to me, that we're hell-bent on driving our own base away in return for votes from the Greens in which we'll never be rewarded at the ballot box. We have had an unnamed Liberal MP saying: It leaves me with a very sour taste in my mouth. I'm wondering if Minister Birmingham deliberately misled the partyroom when he gave his briefing. We have had another unnamed Liberal MP saying that it 'made a travesty of the party room process' and: If the consequences of this policy are far more dire for the Catholic and Independent sector than originally briefed than we need to be told. Of course, we have seen a lot in the media the last couple of days from the Catholic sector and from independent schools, but from the very beginning public school advocates have been against this bill because the worst affected are the public schools, who will see billions of dollars of cuts. The Australian Education Union has said, 'Turnbull's education cuts are disaster for our kids.' And here is an unusual person for me to be quoting: Rob Stokes, the education minister from New South Wales, who says: We recognise that budgeting is a difficult process, and every Government has to consider its priorities. As a Government we prioritised education, school education, because we see its benefits across every other area of government service. So the Federal Government really needs to consider what its priorities are in the way that the New South Wales Government already has. The Catholic sector have lost confidence. They have made that very clear. They have said they will make the Liberals wear this like an albatross around their necks every day to the next election. Public schools never had confidence in this funding package and we now hear that independent schools are also worried. We heard a little leak from the cabinet room this morning. There is full-scale leaking from the Liberal Party room this morning. The leak we heard from the Liberal Party room this morning was: 'It's okay; Minister Birmingham's got it all in hand. He's going to do a deal with the Catholics and we're going to work this out.' But here we have a statement from the National Catholic Education Commission saying: Following our meeting with Minister Birmingham yesterday, there has been speculation about a compromise having been offered. At 2.45 pm, that has not happened. We have heard nothing. Accordingly, our position continues to be that this legislation should be withdrawn and all sectors invited to contribute to the redesign of a school funding model that will enjoy the support of Catholic, government and independent schools. The reason that you have unity from educators and parents opposing this $22 billion cut is that they know that their children will miss out on the individual attention, the special supports, the one-on-one attention and the extra help with literacy, numeracy, maths, science, coding and languages—all of the things that the early years of needs-based funding have allowed. Parents know that this means gifted and talented kids will not be extended. They know it means kids who have a learning difficulty will not have that addressed. Over the next two years alone, New South Wales public schools will lose $846 million while The King's School in Sydney gets a $19 million increase over the decade. Does that sound like it is needs based to you? Victorian public schools will lose $630 million while Geelong Grammar gets a $16 million increase. Does that sound needs based to you? Queensland public schools will lose $730 million over the next two years alone, while Churchie gets an increase of $17 million. Does that sound needs based to you? South Australian schools, mostly public schools, will lose $265 million, while Scotch College in Adelaide gets an almost $10 million increase. Tasmanian public schools will lose $68 million, while the Friends' School in Hobart gets a $19 million increase over the decade. Does that sound needs based to anyone in this room? It is not needs-based funding and it is not sector-blind funding when it is funding model that entrenches the unfairness. It entrenches the unfairness because government schools will only ever be offered 20 per cent of their fair funding level by those opposite. That means Northern Territory public schools will actually go backwards, from 23 per cent to 20 per cent. We also know that it is not needs-based funding when the Northern Territory public schools are the worst affected and the Tasmanian public schools are the second worst affected. The unfairness is entrenched in the model, where public schools get only 20 per cent of their fair funding level and non-government schools get 80 per cent of their fair funding level. We see the impact on low-fee Catholic schools around this country. I have to say that the parents who are here from the Broken Bay Diocese today have done a marvellous job of standing up for their kids. They know that for the little Catholic schools that are charging $1,500, $2,000 or $3,000 a year in fees their funding goes backward to the tune of millions of dollars. In this diocese, we are talking about $30 million cut in one year from 44 schools while some of the wealthiest schools in the country actually get an increase under this funding model. How is it fair and how is it needs based when a little Catholic school on the Central Coast faces a fee increase of thousands of dollars and a school like the King's School that is already charging almost $30,000 a year in fees actually gets a funding increase? On what planet is this needs-based funding? Despite everything the Prime Minister likes to claim, this is not what the Gonski review panel recommended. The review panel recommended that states and territories work together to get every child in every school in every sector in every state to their fair funding level. This does not do this. This sends some children in some schools backwards, including some the most disadvantaged children in this country. The low-fee Catholic schools, the Northern Territory public schools and the Tasmanian public schools go backward, and some of the wealthiest schools get a funding increase. 15:26 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson It is my pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance in relation to education. Many members would recall that we have been here debating this issue for a number of weeks now. Unfortunately, from the other side there is very little new material being added to the debate. I would say that we are at the point that we need to move forward now and concentrate on what is important to the mums and dads of Australia—that is, a quality outcome in education for their children. As a mother of three children, I can certainly say that when I talk to the mums and dads at the schools that my children go to, or have been to, and at the schools in my electorate, what the mums and dads are keen to talk about is a quality education and a quality outcome—how their kids get the best possible education so that they are well placed to go on and take up the jobs of the future. That, unfortunately, is what is absent from this debate from those opposite. I would like to, firstly, deal with some of the questionable statistics and dollar figures that the opposition has put up in this debate on a number of occasions, and make the record abundantly clear, yet again, that there certainly are no cuts. I have just been reminded of the ABC Fact Check. The fact that was checked was whether the government had cut $22 billion from schools. There is a lot of information in here which I do encourage people to go and read. There is a very nice photograph above the word 'misleading'. If I turn to the verdict, the first line says: Ms Plibersek's claim is misleading: the Government is not cutting $22 billion from schools. What I would say to those opposite is: there are some very key facts in terms of the numbers here that we all need to be mindful of when looking overall at whether or not this is a good deal and a good outcome for our students and for our schools. Under our proposal, funding for schools will grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. That is a 75 per cent increase. It is 4.1 per cent growth per student. It is a significant amount of money that is being put into the system. Under our plan, schools will be $18.6 billion better off. The annual per-student funding increase over the next 10 years will be 5.1 per cent for the government sector, 3.5 per cent for the Catholic sector and 4.1 per cent for the independent sector. There is a very positive outcome overall for schools and, of course, as a result of that, for our students. What I would say to those opposite is that we need to focus on what is important going forward in education, and that is, clearly, focusing on the fact that, whilst funding is important, it is what we do with the funding that is in fact more important. I have to give an accolade to my senior minister, the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, because what he has had to do is develop and negotiate a pathway through some very, very difficult funding arrangements that were put in place by the previous Labor government. What we inherited was actually a mess. Senator Birmingham has, very methodically and very deliberately, gone through a process of looking at what needs to be fixed to make sure that what we have going forward is fairer, simpler and more sustainable for all of our Australian schools. I have heard the member for Sydney say several times, 'How is it fair?' Let me ask those opposite: how is it fair that states and territories were treated differently by Labor depending on what deal they could negotiate? Why is that fair? How is that fair? How is it fair that we cannot, in this parliament, focus on what is important, which is certainly quality outcomes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Lyons is out of his place and is disorderly. Mrs ANDREWS 230886 Now, I do talk about quality a lot, and it is fair to say that I am compensating for the lack of focus on the other side for a quality education outcome, but it is desperately important and it is, quite frankly, something that we all should be focusing on. What we see day after day—now week after week—is the same old rhetoric from those opposite. They want to talk about schools, they do not want to talk about other parts of education and they are totally ignoring the vocational education and training sector, which is really a very strong focus of this government going forward because, once again, we have to deal with the nonsense that gets put by the opposition about the facts in vocational education and skills. The point I am making here is that education is not just about schools; education covers many factors. It covers early childhood education, schools, vocational education and higher education. Schools are certainly a very important part of that. I think it is probably fair to say that schools are the linchpin of the education sector. When we talk about schools, funding and education, we have to look at what the outcomes are going to be from our schools to make sure that we are equipping our students for the jobs of the future. I have said on many occasions in this place that what is important is to make sure that we are equipping our students for the jobs of the future. I hope that at some stage those opposite actually do put forward an MPI that talks more broadly about quality education and more broadly about vocational education and skills. I would be delighted to participate in that. I only have a couple of minutes left in this debate and I would like to read onto the transcript a few of the, effectively, third-party endorsements for the plans that we have put up. I will start with David Gonski and comments that he made in a media conference on 2 May. He said: … I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation. …   …   … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future. Dr Ken Boston, Gonski review member and certainly a leading education policymaker, said Australia is on the cusp of, and I quote, 'a new deal of historic national importance'. He went on to say: There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle … He also said: It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate. We also have some very interesting comments here from Kathryn Greiner, and it is interesting because she was also a Gonski review member. She was quoted in TheSydney Morning Herald on 13 June as having said: I agree 100 per cent with what Ken said—it would be a disaster for Australian education if this doesn't pass. This is the first time a government in this country has drawn a line in the sand, removed the funding anomalies and got everyone on the same page. Gonski 2.0 delivers what the Gonski report wanted: an accountable, transparent, equitable, sector-blind funding formula. And, of course, there are many more, but I would actually like to finish with this quote from Martin Hanscamp, the executive officer at the Australian Association of Christian Schools: 'AACS would like to express its profound support for the bold schools funding policy. We have two schools in the group of 24 and their hits are not insubstantial. However, rather than join the line of critics from those affected who have responded from their self-interest perspective, we would like to loudly applaud a policy approach that is good for all schools and sectors and, as has been said, provides an opportunity to put an end to the ridiculous school funding wars. We are sending in this short and strong message because we do not want good policy swamped by the loud voices of those who are negatively impacted. We are one of those. We have a further six schools also above SRS, and our collective of Christian schools across Australia want to stand and applaud what we see as good policy action.' (Time expired) 15:36 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin In this debate there is an important set of voices missing from the government perspective: the voices of schools, students and school communities. The government will not talk about them—and is that surprising? They hide behind these other voices because they will not make the arguments. On this side of the House, we see this debate very, very differently. When we talk about schools, we are talking about our kids, their future and the future of all of us. That is why this debate about schools funding matters so much to us. For the Prime Minister, it may be a game. When he talks about schools and he talks about it being needs based, it is his needs—the needs of his political leadership, his political fortunes. For us, we are concerned about the needs of our children and, indeed, Australia's prospects. So it is no surprise that the assistant minister did not want to talk about schools. It is hard to blame her for that, but she must be accountable for the government, which she is part of, that is short-changing Australian students and, in particular, short-changing those most in need: those students in government schools in the Northern Territory and Tasmania. But, with this ridiculous formula, this ridiculous, baseless commitment to cap the Commonwealth investment in state school funding at 20 per cent of the fair funding standard, it is also foreclosing on the future of every kid in a government school in Australia. That formula is something that is nowhere to be seen in Gonski. It is not sustainable, and it is short-changing our kids' future. But she did lay down a challenge, and on this side we are prepared to respond to that challenge. Minister, we will talk about every aspect of education across the life for this parliament. We will hold the government to account for its lack of certainty when it comes to high-quality early years education and the contemptuous way in which it has treated early years educators. We will stand up for public TAFE as the cornerstone of the skills agenda that is fit for the future. Every day we will come in here and hold the government to account for $3.8 billion of cuts to higher education and, also, a ridiculous additional imposition of higher fees and higher repayment levels that will deter too many people from participating in higher education. But, in relation to schools, we look at the government and we remind them what Gonski was all about. What the Gonski panel said at the time was that every Australian school child deserves to be supported to a fair funding standard. That is the first point. The second point is that getting there is a shared responsibility of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and schooling sectors. Whatever else this so-called Gonski 2.0 package is, it fails that test. In fact, it does not even approach that test. Everything the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham say walks around those critical issues. All the Prime Minister is doing is looking for people to hide behind on the one hand and people to blame on the other. He is about as far from being a leader as it is possible to be. This bill, which has passed this House and, hopefully, will be rejected in the Senate, is an exercise in how not to do public policy on any level, but particularly when the stakes are so high. There has been his continuous failure to consult anyone affected. The minister has attended I think four ministerial councils since his appointment. He has failed to put a proposal before any one of them. I remind the ministers at the table that the point of the school funding reform was a shared effort to reach a fair funding model. There has been no effort at sharing, no cooperative vision and no shared understanding. In fact, what they have put before us is a comprehensive abandonment of national responsibility for schooling in Australia. Instead, the Prime Minister hides behind weasel words and human shields. How appalling was it when, in question time today, he defamed Pat Byrne from the WA teachers union? He did not have the decency to apologise when he was proven wrong. He is completely unworthy of the office that he holds. Again, when the government were asked about disability loadings in Tasmania they failed to talk about disability and they failed to talk about Tasmania. How contemptuous can they be? This is why they do not talk about school communities, teachers and our kids. The government talks about ending the school funding wars. This is a message for government members and school communities around Australia: we will not end the school funding wars by surrendering. We are fighting for our kids' future because that is fundamental for Australia's future. We are fighting for the real Gonski, a vision for needs based sector-blind funding, which is everything this proposal is not. 15:41 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane In an effort to be as unequivocal and as brief as I possibly can: this MPI claim is incorrect. Minister Andrews was absolutely right just before when she pointed out that ABC Fact Check has already looked at this question. It states: RMIT ABC Fact Check takes a deep dive into the figures. The verdict Ms Plibersek's claim is misleading: the Government is not cutting $22 billion from schools. Commonwealth budgets set out spending over a four year period. According to the … budget handed down on May 9, Commonwealth schools funding will continue to rise every year. I could almost stop there. That is all the Australian people need to know. The plain fact is that this MPI claim is completely misleading. It is utterly false. Labor are misleading. That is the quote from the ABC Fact Check. Members opposite have proven time and time again in this parliament their tenuous grip on reality, let alone facts and figures, when it conflicts with their own political interests. There might just be for once a member over there who can still slightly detect reality, even when it is not convenient to them, so for their benefit I will continue. There is no cut. There are funding increases. Schools will receive more money next year compared to this year, and their funding goes up for each and every one of the next 10 years under our plan. Let us cut to the heart of this. Labor's alleged cuts are compared to fantasy figures. They are not compared to the actual spending figures this year, last year or next year. They are not compared to actual numbers contained in the budget passed by this parliament. They are trying to compare our plans to a set of numbers that Labor once promised in the death throes of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. They never funded those promises. They never had any idea how to fund their crazy promises in that crazy period, and they are not even committed to delivering that funding now. As the Prime Minister said today in question time, Labor are comparing fantasy figures that are not locked in anywhere. They are perpetrating a massive fraud, 'a hallucination'. The only fact Labor really knows is that this MPI topic really has little to do with education funding and much more to do with their politics. If it was all about whether funding should be higher, funding should be equitable, funding should be needs based or funding should be transparent, our historic reforms would have been legislated by now, because that is what our reforms deliver and that is why David Gonski has endorsed them. Labor has been exposed. For years they mindlessly mouthed and repeated the name Gonski, but now they do not dare speak his name. Neither of the two former speakers did. It is almost quite funny and comical. David Gonski has become the Voldemort of the Australian Labor Party: he who shall not be named. David Gonski does not practise the dark arts, nor does he lurk in the halls of this Parliament House looking, searching, for the shadow education minister. And if he were here he probably would just want to chat with the member for Sydney. He probably would just want to know why the sudden change of mind, why all these backflips and why these Labor politicians and union leaders are tying themselves into pretzels compared to the former positions that they very recently held. There is no $22 billion cut. We are increasing funding by $18.6 billion, in fact, compared to current funding levels. But don't take my word for Labor's hypocrisy, don't just take the word of the ABC's Fact Check, take The Sydney Morning Herald's Matthew Knott. He said: 'The Labor Party is in a position that has grown increasingly absurd as the debate has progressed.' Or here is Pete Goss, school education program director at the Grattan Institute, on Labor and the unions' complete misrepresentation of the facts: Having won the philosophical war on needs-based funding of schools, the union is now in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If the amendment fails this week, government schools will get less money, not more. Or how about this salient editorial from the Fin Review, which says: 'The true saga of education under Labor is one of extravagant promises, lost opportunities and overblown rhetoric.' 15:46 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I am thrilled today to rise on this MPI because everyone in this place knows how important I think school education is. I am very pleased too because I had a question for question time that I did not get to ask—because the Prime Minister finished question time. So I suppose I could posit it now; perhaps the member for Brisbane might help me in answering this. The member for Menzies called for the government to give the details of the funding model to the party room because the crossbenchers have them but the party room do not have them. So my question is now to the member for Brisbane: have you seen the detail? We would like to call on the government to bring it in here. I would like to see the detail, and so would all of the parents of kids in schools in my electorate of Lalor. Every parent across Lalor would like to see the government's numbers. They have seen the fantasy numbers; now they would like to see the ones they are shopping around the crossbench. It is important for the member for Brisbane to understand that apparently there is a quote from Senator Roberts, from One Nation, that says: 'We like the fact that this proposal from the federal government will reduce spending.' The crossbench know it is a reduction, the gallery know it is a $22.3 billion cut, but those opposite on the backbench have been kept in the dark. They might want to go and spend some time with Voldemort. On the day this policy was announced, the Prime Minister said to the press gallery, 'I will end the funding wars in education.' We all heard the man. Well, hasn't he had a lesson! This is the biggest funding war we have seen in 50 years. You could not divide the sectors any more. You could not be any more anti David Gonski's vision if you tried. He has the Catholics wanting to tear out his throat, he has the public sector wanting to tear out his throat and now, today, we think the independent sector are going to want to tear out his throat. He has restarted the funding wars. He has absolutely set the dogs loose. And now these funding wars are being played out in his own party room. This man is a genius, isn't he? As the member for Sydney said, 'This is some special kind of genius.' Of course, we all know that our Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham are the smartest people in the room—just ask them. They are right. Despite teachers saying they are wrong, despite principals saying they are wrong, despite leaders of sectors across this nation saying they are wrong, despite state governments saying they are wrong—even those of their own colour—despite parents saying they are wrong, they continue to march in here and tell us that they are right. Honest to goodness, you could not read about this. I have stood here for four years now, and when Minister Pyne was in charge of education he would stand at that dispatch box and say, 'Money doesn't matter,' and, 'Labor's dishonest because it promised funding beyond the forward estimates.' Remember those? Guess what? Those across the other side of the chamber are promising funding out to 2027. I think that might be beyond the forward estimates. Now, I do need to include a report card for Minister Birmingham. Teachers across the country are writing reports this week, so I am sure they will all enjoy listening to this. My message to Senator Birmingham is really simple: you should spend more time bringing people together; you should spend less time playing favourites; you would get along much better in the classroom if you united people rather than divided them. That is my assessment of Minister Birmingham's social education. All kids have to learn to collaborate, and the key to collaboration is bringing people together. Of course, that is what we on this side did. The former Labor government saw a major problem and they put their heads together and said, 'How can we solve this problem? How can we ensure a needs-based funding model for every child in every school? How can we bring everybody together around an idea?' And they delivered it. It is a pity some members opposite have not read that review. They keep quoting the man who wrote it, but they forget to read it. The other point that I have to make before I finish is that there is only one party in this parliament that does not want to punish one sector in comparison to another. There is only one party that wants to bring in needs-based, sector-blind funding, and that is— (Time expired) 15:51 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Sydney for providing government members with the opportunity to put on the record, yet again, the Turnbull coalition government's record level of funding for schools—the highest amount provided by any government thus far, and only set to grow in coming years—as well as our genuine, needs-based Gonski funding. The matter for discussion today is an absurdly misleading piece of propaganda from those opposite. Every government member who has spoken on our education funding has repeated that there are no cuts to schools funding. This is a blatant attempt by those opposite to confuse and mislead the Australian public. Funding to schools nationwide is set to increase by $18.6 billion, and Labor is opposing this funding increase. Shame! I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is a pure fiction to proclaim that funding changes are a cut when the original proposal by Labor when they were formerly in government was, in fact, unfunded and therefore meant nothing. The ABC and RMIT fact checked this, noting that the claim that the government had cut $22 billion from schools was misleading. The fact that the opposition continues to bring this misleading news before the parliament is a shame, particularly for schoolchildren. It is therefore the opposition's failure to be up-front with the Australian people about funding for schools that should be the centre of debate and the point of this discussion. What we have done is remove 27 different funding agreements and put in their place one uniform agreement which ensures fairer needs-based funding for our education sector. We have brought in transparency and consistency. The pushback from Labor on our needs-based Gonski reforms is hypocritical, to the point where they do not want the public to see that, in fact, all Australian students are treated equitably, based on fairness and quality. This is an attempt to hide the fact that their promises are without real substance. Furthermore, today I want to focus in particular on some of the comments that have been made by those on the Gonski panel. David Gonski himself said: … I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation. …   …   … … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future. Also, Dr Ken Boston said that Australia is on the cusp of 'a new deal of historic national importance', in that there are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle, and that it will be 'a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate'. These quotes are from members of the Gonski panel. I thought I would also mention the changes for Catholic schools and the benefits that our Gonski 2.0 changes will bring. The Catholic sector is perceived to be the most adversely affected. However, in Dunkley all nine Catholic schools, not just government schools but also independent schools as well, will receive an increase in funding. The Catholic schools in my electorate will have their funding increased per student by about 40 per cent over the next decade—a total funding increase of over $101 million over the next period up to 2027. I recently met with representatives from five of the nine Catholic schools in my electorate of Dunkley to discuss their concerns and address the campaign of misinformation spread by those opposite. The principals of St Francis Xavier's, St John's, St Augustine's, St Thomas More's and John Paul College met with me in person and together we spoke by phone to the minister for education for over 45 minutes on the questions that they had. The minister answered each and every question in great detail that the principals raised and the meeting was received very well. The minister and I continue to work with all schools in Dunkley to ensure that the information they receive is accurate and complete, and not the political spin that has come out recently from those opposite. I note in particular the Victorian Catholic school funding goes from $8,825 average per student in 2017 to $12,249 in 2027. There is an average annual growth in per student funding to Victorian Catholic schools of 3.5 per cent from 2017 to 2021. Currently, Victorian Catholic schools receive block funding by the Catholic Education Commission in Victoria. There will continue to be block funding so Catholic schools can distribute these funds equitably as they want to. I encourage those opposite to support our education bill and our changes. 15:57 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton School funding needs to be seen with a couple of facts which I will put on the table. The first thing we need to understand is that the number of students going to schools over the next 10 years will increase. So, of course, there will be an increase in funding—something that those opposite hide behind as if that is the only thing we need to understand. When we spoke of education funding before the 2013 election, there seemed to be one ticket and the former shadow education minister said, 'We will support the sector-blind, needs based funding model.' After that, the coalition government retreated from that model, and we have seen that in their own document, where the Turnbull government have outlined that they will cut $22 billion from school funding. I taught English for 11 years, not maths, but my understanding is—and I will take my advice from the member for Fenner—that if you take $30 billion with one hand and then give $22 billion back with the other, that is actually not a funding increase. My understanding is that this is just a misrepresentation by those opposite. What does it mean? What will it mean for Australian families? A $22 billion cut to education is equivalent to a cut of $2.4 million for every school in Australia over the next decade. That is on average; I understand you need to drill down to find the details. But it does not take much drilling to understand why 90 per cent of the schools in Australia—those represented by state school bodies and Catholic school bodies—are upset about the Turnbull government's funding model. It is faux Gonski 2.0 that does not actually deliver sector-blind, needs based funding, which was what the original expert panel was all about. In the media today, we see that the Catholic schools have said they have absolutely no confidence in Prime Minister Turnbull's school funding policy. When you betray the contract that the Howard government had with middle-class and aspiring Catholics, you know you are in deep trouble! We know that it is unfair that there are funding cuts for public schools while many private schools get multimillion dollar increases. This is going back a decade or so to the old funding models that did deliver fairness. Remember, Gonski approached it as a banker and through the eyes of an economist, and looked for productivity gains rather than, with respect to my colleagues, as a bleeding heart teacher. He saw it as an economic gain for Australia. He saw that the investment in needs-based funding would deliver the best outcome for the Australian economy. This is the Turnbull government's schools policy, where private schools get 80 per cent of their version of fair funding, while public schools get just 20 per cent. We know it is particularly unfair for the Northern Territory and a couple of other areas. I point out to those opposite, who keep going on about 27 secret deals, that we are a federation. We have this thing called the Constitution, and that means we do not just hand money straight over to the Catholics or the Lutherans or whoever. We have to go through a proper constitutional process. I do know that it is unfair that, in the state of Queensland, public schools will lose $730 million under the Turnbull government's schools policy. We know that those opposite have been caught out. We know that by listening to what Senator Back, Senator Abetz, the member for Menzies in Victoria and many others are saying about this. This is a disaster, a slow motion train wreck, with the Prime Minister wearing the engineer's cap. It is a disaster. We need to get it right. Dare I say it, we got this right six years ago. We had this battle and were on the road to getting an egalitarian outcome for Australia, where we get the smartest people getting the best chance in life, where parents who are prepared to invest extra in choice are not punished for that and where, no matter what the sign is above the school gate, the kids will get the best possible chance in life. Sadly, the Turnbull government's schools policy is not fair; it is not sector blind; it is not needs based; it is a disaster. We will keep fighting for every child in every school so that they have an opportunity to reach their educational— (Time expired) 16:02 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Here we are again. In this parliament alone, the member for Sydney has proposed seven MPIs, moved two private member's motions and one censure motion and asked umpteen questions— Ms Keay 262273 Still not fixed! Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Members on my left, I have been very tolerant so far. Any more interjections and I will be removing you under 94(a). I am particularly speaking to the member for Braddon. Mr LEESER 109556 The shadow minister has asked umpteen questions on notice all about education funding, but she has had nothing to say about skills, teacher quality, school standards and student performance. I admit education funding is an important topic, but surely there are other important topics as well. The member for Sydney seems to be obsessed with inputs and not at all about outputs, and that must be the focus of any debate about education policy more generally. If she were right about some of the inputs, she would not be constantly being pulled up by ABC Fact Check. A number of my colleagues have mentioned that, in relation to these claims about $22 billion, the ABC—that noted right-wing organisation!—has said that she is 'misleading', that the government is not cutting $22 billion from schools. But that is not the first time they have called her out on this. Back in 2014, Fact Check found that what she was mouthing involved 'rubbery figures'. So there is a long history of Labor lying about school funding. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record the incredible benefits of school funding that the government is putting forward for my electorate of Berowra. Total federal funding for all schools in my electorate amounts to $1.12 billion over the next decade, and that supports 51 government, Catholic and independent primary and secondary schools and over 26,000 students who attend Berowra schools. Over the next decade, 35 government schools in my electorate will receive more than $514 million in funding. Hornsby South Public School will get more than $16 million in funding; Hornsby Heights Public School will get more than $11.8 million in funding; Hornsby North Public School will get more than $22.8 million; Asquith Boys High School will get more than $21.5 million; Mount Colah Public School, more than $12.5 million; Mount Kuring-gai Public School, more than $5 million; Berowra Public School, almost $11 million; Wideview Public School, more than $11 million; Murray Farm Public School, more than $25 million; Beecroft Public School, more than $22 million; Cheltenham Girls High School, more than $40.6 million; Cherrybrook Public School, almost $22 million; Normanhurst West Public School, more than $13.7 million; Pennant Hills High School, almost $36 million; Pennant Hills Public School, more than $15 million; West Pennant Hills Public School, more than $17.8 million; Thornleigh West Public School, more than $15 million; Annangrove Public School, more than $2½ million dollars; Glenhaven Public School, more than $11½ million; Kenthurst Public School, almost $6½ million; Hillside Public School, more than $1.2 million; Dural Public School, more than $11.7 million; Middle Dural Public School, almost $1 million; Galston High School, more than $25 million; Galston Public School, more than $7½ million; Cowan Public School, more than $2 million; Brooklyn Public School, more than $2.8 million; Wisemans Ferry Public School, more than $2 million; Maroota Public School, more than $1.6 million; Cherrybrook Technology High School, the largest high school in the state, more than $64 million; Oakhill Drive Public School, more than $19 million; Clarke Road School, more than $6.4 million; John Purchase Public School, more than $18 million; Glenorie Public School, more than $7.6 million; and Arcadia Public School, more than $2½ million. The 11 independent schools will receive more than $467 million in Commonwealth funding: Arden Anglican School, more than $35 million; Lorien Novalis School for Rudolf Steiner Education, almost $22 million; Mount St Benedict College, more than $73 million; Oakhill College, more than $117 million; Pacific Hills Christian School, more than $72½ million; the Warrah village Rudolf Steiner school, almost $8½ million; Tangara School for Girls, more than $29.6 million; The Hills Grammar School, more than $48 million; Northholm Grammar School, more than $28.2 million; Berowra Christian Community School, more than $6.2 million; and Redfield College, more than $7 million. Over $137 million will be contributed to the Catholic education system on behalf of the four systemic schools in my electorate: St Agatha's Catholic Primary School at Pennant Hills, St Bernard's Catholic Primary School at Berowra, St Madeleine's Primary School and Marian Catholic College, both at Kenthurst. This government is delivering record levels of funding for Australian students in a manner which is fair, needs based and endorsed by David Gonski. 16:07 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay It is interesting to follow the member for Berowra because what he talks about is the government's failure to be transparent with the people of this country, and they have been pretty shameful thus far, so on school funding I am not surprised—although, so has their competence and their ability to be fair. In an extraordinary decision to reduce school funding by $22 billion, this government is condemning thousands and thousands of schoolchildren around this country to a lower educational outcome. They are being neither transparent nor fair about what they are planning to do, and I note the comments of those education experts in the media. Many of them, who are conservative commentators, say funding in schools does not matter. The interjection from the minister at the table earlier said that funding did not actually matter. I note the comments of those people, so I am going to speak really slowly and I am going to try and reduce the number of syllables and ask them this: they say school funding does not matter, so, if it is not about the dollars and not about the outcomes that are linked to being well-funded and well-resourced, what do you expect our teachers to do with thin air? What outcomes can you achieve with less money? This government wants to give The Kings School, a very elite private school where parents are paying $28,000 per year, a funding increase of $19 million—and they tell me funding does not matter. Why are parents paying $28,000 a year to send their children there? Yet it wants to cut opportunities for kids in my Western Sydney community by $23 million, in every one of the 43 public schools I proudly represent. In the Cranebrook area, kids are facing more than $2.5 million of cuts—schools in the area that have high needs and low means; students facing complex issues, where kids need investment. This is not The King's School. These are schools like so many others around the country whose electorates support diverse communities. Next year, the number of students with disability who need support will jump and, to respond to this, the Turnbull government is increasing funding by a tiny 3.1 per cent. On average, that means that, under the Turnbull government's policy, support for students with a disability will plummet by 50 per cent per student. One of those students will be my son. He is doing well in his public school because of the investment in his education, because of the additional support that funding brings. It is not thin air he receives as support, but aid time, programs and one-on-one support. So many kids with a disability have done better because of the support they have received. This will have a positive economic outcome when they are employable post-school and when they are not claiming a disability support pension. The government seems so hell-bent on demeaning anybody who needs that pension. Backing in needs-based education funding also supports the vital work of the NDIS. We all know this government cares so much about the NDIS! They were all here championing the need for everyone to contribute. Yet, here we are: they are actively undermining it by cutting needs-based funding. Where is the commonsense on the part of this government to understand the link between supporting kids with a disability through the NDIS and early intervention, and then following that support into the school system where it is critical that those children who require learning support are able to access it? That is what needs based is about. The government would not have a clue. They do not get it. They would rather offer their big business mates a $65 billion tax handout on the backs of schoolkids across this country. They come in here and, in their Dorothy Dixers at question time, ask, hilariously—it is great entertainment for us, by the way, guys: 'Are you aware of any alternative approaches?' Well, I do have some alternatives. As I am helpful, I would like to offer to the government and to all of the Dorothys on the back bench some of these alternatives. Alternative option 1: get out of the way and let a Labor government fund our schools properly. Alternative option 2: locate a dictionary and look up the meaning of 'fair'. Alternative option 3: do not give big businesses a $65 billion tax handout on the backs of the children that the Prime Minister says he cares a lot about but rarely acts on. I already have 99 problems in my electorate with fairness. We suck up a lot when it comes to the government and their disgusting choices, but now they are attacking schoolchildren to save $22 billion out of the budget by cutting education funding. Yet, millionaires are getting a tax cut. The Prime Minister cares less about the children of this country and more about his big business mates. 16:11 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson The future of education is certainly a matter of public importance. But it is simply absurd to suggest, as the member for Sydney and others opposite here today have done, that this government has not been upfront about real, needs-based funding for our schools. The fact is: under this government, funding for schools will grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. This equates to 4.1 per cent growth per student, as we have heard all the way through this debate. This is not a cut; this is an increase. This is not Monopoly money, as members opposite would like to play with; this is real money. It is certainly an increase from what has already been delivered for schools in my electorate and, indeed, around the country. For members opposite, the fact of the matter is: a cut is not a cut if it was not funded in the first place. It is just a fiction. So let's stop the fiction, the rhetoric and the ideological posturing that is not delivering a single extra cent of real money into real schools for real students in my electorate on the Central Coast. Let's talk about the facts. The fact remains that, in my electorate of Robertson, all 48 schools will be receiving significant increases in funding because of our needs-based funding model—an additional $3.11 million over the next 10 years. This is great news for each and every one of these schools and their 23½ thousand students. It is great news for parents on the Central Coast who do want to see a level playing field when it comes to funding. It is great news for all of us on this side of the House who believe that the government should ensure that funding is fair, such that a student with the same needs in the same educational sector receives the same level of federal support regardless of where they live. What does this mean in practice? Let's pull together a few examples, as members on this side of the House have done in this debate, and look at the schools funding estimator. In my electorate, for example, funding will increase over the next 10 years to: Brisbane Water Secondary College at Woy Woy by $14.928 million; Kincumber Public School by $3.18 million; Henry Kendall High School by $6.591 million; Gosford High School by $8.546 million; Terrigal High School by $8.755 million. If I have a look at some of the non-government schools in my electorate, for instance: St Philip's Christian College at Narara—my old school—$11.617 million; and Green Point Christian, College $24.489 million. So, on my reading, it does sound pretty fair, and these reforms are certainly very transparent. In fact—and this is probably another fact that members opposite do not like—every parent, teacher and student can now find out how their school will be better off by using the new online school funding estimator. This is an estimator that gives our local principals and teachers the information they need to make long-term plans for their school. It is all part of our commitment to real, needs based funding that is fair, consistent and transparent. This week in parliament I have been speaking with parents of Catholic school students and with local stakeholders about these changes and what they mean for the Catholic sector. I have told parents in my electorate the facts: that, in the 10 years to 2027, for instance, St Joseph's Catholic College at East Gosford will receive funding increases of more than $17.8 million, St John the Baptist at Woy Woy more than $9 million, Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic primary school in Terrigal more than $8 million, Holy Cross Catholic primary school at Kincumber more than $6 million, and St Patrick's Catholic primary school at East Gosford more than $6 million. This does not sound like a cut to me. In fact, Catholic schools in New South Wales as a whole will see an increase in their funding of more than 47 per cent over that same 10-year period and a 43 per cent increase to schools in the Broken Bay diocese. To be clear: I support Catholic and independent education wholeheartedly, as I do the public state school system. As the daughter of an independent school principal from a low-fee-paying school in a demographic that draws parents who value choice and faith in education but who also make significant sacrifices to ensure that their children are afforded that choice, as my own parents did, I understand what these low-fee, independent and Catholic schools mean to our local community and the families whose children attend them. This is another fact that members opposite are ignoring: that the Commonwealth will continue to provide a single block of funding to the New South Wales Catholic school system for them to distribute as they see fit, as they currently do and as they will continue to be able to do. It is time to end these special deals and this ideologically-driven warfare where the people who miss out are those we purport to care about—our children. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order. The time for this discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 43 COMMITTEES Human Rights Committee 43 Report 43 16:17 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 6 of 2017. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—In accordance with the committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 the committee examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. A key purpose of the scrutiny report is to provide parliament with a credible analysis about the human rights implications of legislation. The report is therefore a technical examination and does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures. The committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation. It is served by an external legal adviser to the committee and secretariat staff. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports. Like all parliamentarians, committee members are free to engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party, conscience, belief or outlook. Scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation. The majority of new bills considered in this report—eight—were assessed as promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. These eight bills are therefore listed as raising no human rights concerns. The committee is also seeking further information from legislation proponents in relation to two bills. The committee requests additional information where a statement of compatibility has not adequately addressed human rights matters. These matters are outlined in chapter 1 of the committee's report. One key theme that has emerged in this report relates to the human rights implications of coercive evidence gathering powers that are not subject to privilege against self-incrimination. The committee has also concluded its examination of three bills following correspondence with the relevant minister. The committee's comments for concluding matters are outlined in chapter 2 of the committee's report. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 6of 2017 to the chamber. BILLS 44 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017 44

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017

Second Reading 44 16:20 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I am pleased tonight to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Social Security (Administration) Act to enable a two-year continuation of the income management element of Cape York welfare reform in the communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge. The Cape York Welfare Reform is an initiative of the Cape York Partnership, an Indigenous organisation that has led a wide-ranging reform agenda in Cape York. Although not part of the Cape York welfare reform partnership, this bill also applies to the community of Doomadgee. The Commonwealth government announced in the 2017-18 budget that it will extend income management in all five locations for two years, until 30 June 2017, so this bill extends by two years the income management component of Cape York Welfare Reform. Labor will support this bill following consultations with local communities and also following a short Senate inquiry that Labor insisted on so that parliament was able to receive submissions from local stakeholders in the Cape. The feedback from local groups is that income management in Cape York is working and having a positive impact on local communities. I want to detail some of those views for the House tonight. The BBN Aboriginal Corporation in Mossman Gorge says: There is a board base of support in Mossman Gorge for the direction of the reform journey that we have been on and need to stay on. Welfare Reform has supported good progress but still there is still a lot to be done. In their submission, the Coen Regional Aboriginal Corporation states: Giving local people real power to hold other community members to account through the FRC— the Family Responsibilities Commission— gets our 100% support. They note: Coen now has the best school attendance of any Indigenous community school in Queensland and we are the only one that can beat the Queensland Average School Attendance. The Aurukun Shire Council wrote: The FRC must stay strong for our people. In Aurukun we have been down a hard road but we need to keep on going to make more positive changes. The Hope Vale Aboriginal Shire Council, in their submission, stated: In Hope Vale the FRC has done some very good work since 2008, especially in terms of school attendance ... The FRC and Cape York Welfare Reform have made big, transformational changes to our community and this is very clear to people that knew this place beforehand and now. The Cape York Institute made clear: Income Management applied through the FRC model gives Indigenous people the power and authority to help their own community members build basic capability to understand their primary obligations to their children and their community, and their obligation to use welfare payments to pay the rent and electricity, and to provide food and clothing for the household. Further, they note: A number of people, particularly women stay on Income Management because it protects them from humbugging. This is not a sign of further dependency, but a sign of people wanting to meet their basic responsibilities using the best methods available to them. The Cape York Institute also expressed concern that the advances made as a result of income management in the region would be lost if the system were to abruptly end on 30 June 2017. That last point is an important one. The existing arrangements are due to expire on 30 June, and the manner in which the government has handled this legislation is, I would have to say, disappointing. Unfortunately, the legislation has been rushed through by the government, allowing only a very short Senate inquiry. The government really should have introduced this legislation into the parliament some months ago so as to enable a much more thorough consultative process. The government knew that this legislation would need to get through the parliament before 1 July, and yet here we are in this last week and they expect it to go through the House and the Senate. The last evaluation of the Cape York welfare reform was released in 2012. I was the Minister for Indigenous Affairs at the time, and I remember it very well. It is time that there was an updated evaluation, and that really should have been done before this extension. So tonight I am calling on the government to make sure that there is a proper independent evaluation done in the next two years so we do not have to have a repeat of this debate that we are having right now. Nonetheless, we are satisfied that the continuation of income management does have the support of the leadership of the local communities, and we will support this bill today. I just want to comment very briefly on our broader position on income management. We believe in community driven approaches to deal with chronic alcohol abuse. Any legislation that extends income management in a particular jurisdiction must be driven and supported by the local community, as it is in these places. We understand—and this is a very important point—that the vast majority of social security recipients are more than capable of managing their own personal finances and doing so responsibly. However, where individual communities believe that income management can make a positive difference, we will certainly discuss it with them. Labor's position on income management is very straightforward: we do not believe that it should be rolled out nationally and we certainly do not believe that it should be imposed on those communities that do not want it. I have personally spoken with the mayors in each of the communities in the areas affected by the legislation. I have listened to them, and they certainly do believe that income management is a positive thing for their communities and, as I say, they support its continuation. I was actually the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the previous Labor government, responsible for working with these Aboriginal leaders in the Cape to deliver these very changes. The Cape York partnership work is of course based on the principles set out in Noel Pearson's 2005 Cape York Agenda. This Cape York welfare reform agenda aims to support people in the communities that we have talked about in this bill to take responsibility for the welfare of their families and their community. The primary aim is to ensure that their children are safe, fed and well educated. One of the really interesting things about this reform has been the creation of the Family Responsibilities Commission. This was established under Queensland legislation back in 2008. As the Family Responsibilities Commission submission sets out: Local Commissioners are Elders or respected community members who encourage individuals appearing before the Commission to take the necessary steps to make lasting changes which will benefit their health, wellbeing, home and community life. I just want to take a brief quote from their submission. They say: The Local Commissioners have continued to grow in local authority since 2008 with the majority of conferences being conducted in the four Welfare Reform Communities without the presence of the Commissioner or his Deputy Commissioner in the financial year to date. All Commissioners have equal authority in the decision-making process. Decisions made at conference are made fairly and with the best interests of the client and their family in mind. The authority of the FRC is the strength of its Local Commissioners, with decisions in conference involving community members (FRC clients) being made by their own Indigenous leaders. Having met many of the commissioners in these local communities over the years, I do want to say a very special thank you to each of the local commissioners in the four Cape York communities and to Commissioner David Glasgow for their extraordinary work over the period since 2008. As we have noted, the primary objective of the commission, as set out in the FRC Act, is to hold conferences with community members to encourage individuals and families to engage in socially responsible standards of behaviour while promoting the interests, rights and wellbeing of children and other vulnerable people living in the community. The way it works is that the commission sits down with a community member who is a Social Security recipient living in one of these four areas and works to make sure that their lives can be improved. The FRC can direct that part of an individual's income support payment can be managed by Centrelink to pay for the priority needs of their family. The percentage of payment income managed varies between 60, 75 or 90 per cent. Since the Cape York Welfare Reform began back in July 2008, the four communities have seen improved school attendance, care and protection of children and community safety. The 2012 evaluation of the Cape York Welfare Reform did find that progress has been made at what they call 'the foundational level' in stabilising social circumstances and fostering behavioural change, particularly in the areas of sending children to school, caring for children and increasing individual responsibility. I would say again, though, that a new evaluation is long overdue. This data now from 2012 is quite old. I do want to say, particularly at a personal level, that this is still a very new and very different approach and it does deserve detailed examination. I do hope that we will see the government properly fund an independent evaluation. I do thank the various local communities for making submissions to the Senate inquiry at very late notice; they have been important in making sure that both the House and the Senate do understand that the communities themselves support the continuation of income management in Cape York. Labor will support this bill, and I commend it to the House. 16:33 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Income management supports 25,033 vulnerable people in locations across Australia, including individuals referred by child protection authorities. A high proportion of income-managed participants are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This schedule amends the Social Security (Administration) Act to extend the completion date to 1 July 2019. This change will enable income management to continue in four Cape York Welfare Reform communities for a further two years, as well as Doomadgee. The Family Responsibilities Commission, the FRC, which is established under Queensland government legislation, is a key part of the Cape York Welfare Reform. The Cape York Welfare Reform is an initiative of the Cape York Partnership, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisation which has led a wide-ranging reform agenda in Cape York. In 2008 Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge signed up to the Cape York Welfare Reform project in partnership with the Cape York Institute, federal and Queensland governments. Doomadgee also signed up, although it is not formally part of the Cape York Welfare Reform partnership. The Coen Regional Aboriginal Corporation has said that: Giving local people real power to hold other community members to account through the FRC gets our 100% support. The Aurukun Shire Council has said: 'The FRC must stay strong for our people. In Aurukun, we have been down a hard road, but we need to keep on going to make more positive changes.' The aim of income management was to end passive welfare, restore communal and family harmony and create more vibrant and prosperous communities. The trial focused on achieving gains in social responsibility, education, economic opportunity and home ownership. In the 2017-18 budget, the federal government announced that it will extend income management in all five locations for two years until 30 June 2019. This will allow for further progress towards positive change within local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. At this point, I must make it very clear that, whilst Labor supports this bill, it is imperative we acknowledge the absolute importance of proper consultation with local communities. Labor understands that walking alongside and working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a respectful manner is the only approach that will deliver success in the implementation and rollout of programs of this nature. 'Do not do to us or for us without us' is a good motto to follow. Any legislation that impacts on income management in any jurisdiction must be driven and supported by the members of the local community. It would be fair to say that the vast majority of social security recipients are more than capable of managing their personal finances. However, where individual communities believe that income management is and can make a positive difference for the people in the community, we must work with that community in order to ensure the best possible outcomes. Labor's position on income management is very simple. We do not believe that it should be rolled out on a national scale as we do not believe that it should be imposed upon communities that do not want to participate. I recently attended the Indigenous workers' conference held in Townsville, which commemorated the anniversary of the 1957 Palm Island strike, where seven very courageous man working on Palm Island led a strike against the appalling living conditions and the discriminatory treatment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on the island. This strike took place because the petition to the superintendent demanding improved wages, health services, housing and working conditions was ignored. Although poor conditions were a major cause of the strike, the trigger was the superintendent's decision to deport local Albie Geia, who had allegedly disobeyed an overseer. Geia refused to leave Palm Island, united the community and declared the strike on 10 June 1957. The conference was open to the public to provide an opportunity to educate the broader community about the many challenges the people of Palm Island and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have endured over time and still face today. I joined the ACTU secretary, Sally McManus; mayor of Palm Island, Councillor Alf Lacey; and HESTA general manager of business development and policy, Mary Delahunty, on a panel where we discussed what needs to be done to progress community equity and employment into the future for Palm Island. These men were never paid properly. They did not get sick leave. They did not get holiday pay. They did not have an opportunity to save for their retirement. These hardworking men did not have an inheritance to leave their children. They worked their whole lives with nothing to show for their labour. And, what is even worse, they were taken forcibly from their homeland. If supporting this bill opens the door to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who wish to engage in an income management program that will mean that communities can build their capacity to achieve real employment opportunities, if it means that communities get an opportunity to build a prosperous future for all members, it is a good initiative. If it means that we will never see the opportunities for a strike like the 1957 strike on Palm Island to happen again, it is a good initiative. What is very clear is that our first nation people are very tired of being told what to do and what is good for them. Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders are willing to work together with governments, organisations and departments on the challenges and barriers that their communities face each and every day. Labor has respected this request, and it was Labor that insisted a Senate inquiry be established that enabled the Senate to receive submissions from local stakeholders in the Cape York region. The shadow minister, the honourable Jenny Macklin, has spoken with all the mayors, and they are very supportive of this extension. The Cape York Partnership's work is based on the principles set out in Noel Pearson's 2005 Cape York Agenda. The Cape York welfare reform agenda aims to support people in the communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge to take responsibility for the wellbeing of their families and their community. The primary aim is to ensure that children are safe, fed and educated. The Family Responsibilities Commission was established under Queensland legislation in 2008. As the FRC submission to the inquiry sets out: Local Commissioners are Elders or respected community members who encourage individuals appearing before the Commission to take the necessary steps to make lasting changes which will benefit their health, wellbeing, home and community life. The commission commenced operation on 1 July 2008 and conferencing began on 12 August 2008, with the first sitting being held in Coen. The primary objective of the commission, as set out in the FRC Act, is to hold conferences with community members and to encourage individuals and families to engage in socially responsible standards of behaviour whilst promoting the interests, rights and wellbeing of children and other vulnerable persons living in the community. The commission may work with a community member who is a social security recipient living in an area prescribed by regulation as a welfare reform community if the person or their partner is in receipt of certain welfare payments. The FRC can direct part of an individual's income support payments to be managed by Centrelink to pay for the priority needs of that family. The percentage of payment income managed varies between 60, 75 and 90 per cent. Since Cape York welfare reform began in July 2008, the four communities have seen improved school attendance, care and protection of children, and community safety. A 2012 evaluation of Cape York welfare reform found that progress has been made at the foundational level in stabilising social circumstances and fostering behavioural change, particularly in the areas of sending children to school, caring for children and increasing individual responsibility. I reiterate that the most recent evaluation of income management was in Cape York in 2012. A further evaluation is overdue and I urge the government to ensure that a full evaluation occurs within the period of the extension. We thank the various local community groups for making submissions to the Senate inquiry at such very late notice. Those submissions have played a very important role in showing the community's support for the continuation of income management in Cape York. Extending income management for two years ensures continuity of support for vulnerable participants and will also allow the government time to work through future directions for welfare quarantining. The amendment is compatible with human rights. Income management will advance the protection of human rights by ensuring that income support payments are spent in the best interests of the welfare payment recipients and their dependants, as decided by them. Income management will be successful if it includes a focus on education at all levels within the community. Efforts must be made to ensure that jobs are made available in communities where regular fly in, fly out workers are delivering services, especially at the entry level. If organisations that deliver services in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities took an active role in developing a reconciliation action plan, purposeful roles would be identified for local community members. Developing a quality reconciliation action plan is a journey, and a journey that is best undertaken in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Employment is a human right and the dignity of work cannot be underestimated for any human being. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in communities must have hope like any other child—hope that they too can live a life of purpose, choice, meaning and citizenship. 16:43 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I listened to the last two speakers from the Labor Party side. The Labor Party will stand in infamy on the issue of Aboriginal affairs. John Howard quoted the great architect in Great Britain who built the magnificent cathedral, amongst many other things. When asked, 'What do you want written on your tomb?' he said, 'My epitaph is this cathedral.' I am probably doing a little bit of skiting here, but this morning I saw a number of the councillors from the regional shire councils of Queensland, down here for their annual conference. I saw a group of five whitefellas and two blackfellas, and they were just talking like ordinary people. That would have been unthinkable 35 or 40 years ago. When I was given the portfolio and given directions by our federal president to fix up 'the Aboriginal thing', as he called it, in Queensland, he said he would stand behind me—it wasn't all honourable; remember, I'm scared of land rights! They wanted to put the fires out in Queensland, where there was great confrontation between the government and the First Australian people, and that was how I ended up in the portfolio. It was sort of like bringing the gunslinger to town. I was the gunslinger, and I think I was a gunslinger who was going to be shot; that was my opinion at the time. The first thing that I could see was that the whitefellas were running the whole show. I went to Yarrabah, which is the biggest First Australians community in Australia, with 4½ to 5 thousand people, and met the 22 people that made all the decisions in Yarrabah, and every single one of them was a whitefella. Some of the architects of self-management—Roy Gray, Alfie Neal, Mickey Cornley—some of these blokes would say, 'It hasn't been good; it hasn't turned out as well.' I said to them, 'If I came to this place and saw 22 decision makers and they were all whitefellas, and now I come to this place and I see that 21 decision makers are blackfellas, that is really what it is all about!' Whilst the ALP lives in infamy—when they got control of the state government in 1990 they immediately reversed almost everything. They put great impositions upon the councils, which meant they had to get whitefellas to come in and become CEOs. The First Australians, my brother cousins, lacked experience in these sorts of things—administration, handling of finances and education—and to a large extent the 28,000 people concerned, it could be argued, did not have the ability to run their own affairs. Of course, in the five years that I was minister, they proved that they could. There was not a single adverse report from the Auditor-General throughout that five-year period. In other words, every single community—they were not running perfectly and their books were not perfect, but there was no money going astray and the services were being delivered. We kept a whitefella in there, and he was there as an auditor. He was there to audit the service delivery—water supply, sewerage, upkeep on the roads—and also to audit the money. He was to go over once a fortnight to the community council and audit the operations. He was there also as an adviser, if they wanted to ask advice, and he had a written direction from myself that if he appeared anywhere near those council officers, except for that half-day audit, he would be sacked instantaneously. I sent that direction for him: 'You're not in the driver's seat anymore; you're just checking that the driver's driving on the right-hand side of the road. That's all we're doing here.' You have to understand that these people were now parcelling out $30 million. They had to deliver these services, and they did it. They did it to a point where this morning I could see those people speaking as equals, which was something that was unthinkable 30 years ago. When I introduced all the legislation in Queensland—as the media would have it, 'the most radical legislation in Australian history was coming out of the most conservative government in Australian history', which is probably a reasonable call—I said that, to those people that did not see the horror of what was but could see the brief small pinpoint of light of what might be today, we pay tribute. I saw the outcome this morning. The Courier Mail had a front page article of what they call the 'cattle leases'—a bit of comic humour. My son went to a number of meetings and they kept talking about cattle leases, and he said: 'There's no cattle leases. That's our argument. You haven't given pastoral leases out.' They said, 'Mate, it's not cattle leases'. They refer to the nearly 1,000 leases that went through under the administration that God gave me the great privilege of being responsible for. I cannot think of a single initiative that I took during that period of time that came from me. Let me dwell on the housing for a moment. A person came in today—a blackfella mate of mine—and he said he just reckons you're so terrific. And he said something about the housing. What happened in the housing was, there was a bloke called Greg Wallace, a black bloke from Hope Vale—Noelie Pearson and Mattie Bowen's home town—and Greg got them working for the dole. It was the first time 60 Minutes has ever done a repeat program. There was such an enormous positive reaction throughout Australia that these people were voluntarily working for the dole. They did not feel that they should take the money. That is really the essence of the legislation that is coming forward today. They should not take that money without working. They voluntarily started working for the dole, and it spread into all the other community areas. Gerhardt Pearson, Noelie's brother, rang me up and he said: 'Bobby, why don't we use the Work for the Dole labour to build the houses?' I said, 'That's a fantastic idea', in sharp contrast to the ALP people who have held these portfolios. I rang up Gerry Hand, and he said: 'Great idea! Let's just do it.' So we did it. I had enough money to build about 400 homes. We built nearly 2,000 homes because, instead of flying whitefellas in—paying the fare in and the fare out; providing them with accommodation; providing them with food and serviced rooms, which cost a fortune; paying them a living-away-from-home allowance—we did not pay any of those things. Not only did we not pay any of those things but half the award was being met from the dole payments. The architects were Eric Law and Lester Rosendale. Lester died a couple of years ago. But they were truly great men. They could foresee something that other people could not. The leadership there was responsible for each of these decisions. I happened to be lucky enough—God was good—and I happened to be there at the time and was able to play a key role in making sure these things happened. While I am saying we did it, it was not easy. The Premier, I think, rang up the state president some eight times—something like that—to have me sacked. But then the Premier reverted—and I say this in tribute to Joh Bejelke-Petersen—and that same Lester Rosendale, his father said, 'You know, we founded Hope Vale.' This is the place where Noel Pearson and Matty Bowen, one of the greatest fullbacks in rugby league history, came from. It is where I think the first Australian Lutheran priest came out of. That was George Rosendale, who is one of the Rosendales. They had so many firsts. They had the first Australian member of parliament—Eric Deeral came from there as well. George Rosendale told me how this was established. Joh Bjelke-Petersen got the land for it—140,000 hectares—and Joh and he camped out for three months together on horseback. They picked out the site for the town and cleared the main street with hand axes. He said: 'Whilst it sounds like we did a lot of work, we had a hell of a lot of fun—fishing, shooting and running around together. It was good fun.' In the later years Bjelke-Petersen changed completely and became the crusader of the reforms that we were putting through. Most of all I had to confront why no-one had jobs. They had the highest crime rate, the highest suicide rates and the highest mothering rates at Yarrabah. Why was my home town of Cloncurry, with 50 per cent or more of First Australian descent—I often claim to be First Australian myself—not like that? Foremen in main roads were blackfellas. Engine drivers in the railway were blackfellas. They were in all the senior positions in the town. A couple of the blackfellas' kids from Cloncurry went away to become doctors. The football teams were often led by First Australians. So why was it so different in Yarrabah? For those who like reading books I strongly recommend Hernando De Soto's The Mystery of Capital. I was reading Robert Ardrey's The Territorial Imperative at the time, which also impacted upon me. I could clearly see that the one thing we needed was a title deed. I will illustrate what I am talking about here. We have to go into these welfare cards to deal with the symptoms, but what is the problem? The problem is that in Cloncurry you could go down to the river, as I did, and take up 15 acres of vacant crown land and become a landowner. With that title deed I could borrow money off the bank. Doomadgee is one of our top centres. The rugby league team there won the premiership for a number of years. A man came up—and I will not use his name without his permission—and said, 'Bob, I have got one of those blocks.' I said, 'Is it one of those 30,000-acre blocks?' He said yes. This is in a 40-inch rainfall area. He said he wanted to get cattle. I asked if he had been to see the banks. He said, 'Of course I went to see the bank.' He had a couple of trucks working at the mines. I asked, 'What did they say?' He said, 'They said, "No go, mate. We want security. We want mortgageability. We want a title deed."' Another bloke there—and he did not like me a lot—got up at a council meeting and said: 'I don't need any title deeds. I have got 1,000 head of cattle together. They are my cattle. I'm a Gungalida man.' I said, 'Since you are stupid enough to stand up in a public place and shoot your mouth off, I would say that the lawyers will be ringing you up this afternoon.' I went out of there to lunch with the most prominent family in Doomadgee and before I had sat down he said, 'Did you hear that bloke who said he owned all the cattle? No, they don't own cattle. They are my cattle. I'm a Gungalida man.' They cannot go out there and work because they cannot get a return for it because you have got no security of ownership of land. Therein lies the problem. We issued 800 deeds. There have been none issued in the 29 years since. It is a disgrace and a reflection upon the ALP. Mal Brough was a great exception to the rule. 16:59 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017 will amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to allow the income management element of Cape York Welfare Reform to continue for two additional years until 30 June 2019. This applies to the Cape York Welfare Reform communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge and Doomadgee. Income management ensures that welfare payments are spent on priority needs, with an aim of reducing social harm and driving positive social change. There are currently 196 people in these communities who are on income management. Income management in Cape York is the only income management measure with a legislated sunset date. Current legislation allows for all other income management measures to continue beyond 30 June 2017. This bill will align income management in Cape York and Doomadgee with the end date of the broader income management program, which currently supports tens of thousands of vulnerable people across Australia. The extension of income management in all existing locations will ensure continuity of support for participants while government works through future directions for welfare quarantine. Ceasing this program without a mechanism to replace it could place vulnerable people—in particular, women and children—at risk and lead to increased levels of violence, hospitalisation and abuse. The proposed approach to the extension of income management in Cape York was discussed with the Queensland government and the Cape York Partnership, which agreed this was the best approach and met the needs of Cape York Welfare Reform at this time. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 50 17:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017, Medicare Guarantee (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017, Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2016, Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Integrity) Bill 2017, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Fee Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2017, National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017, National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 50

Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017

Medicare Guarantee (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017

Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2016

Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Integrity) Bill 2017

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Fee Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2017

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017

Returned from Senate 50 Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 51

Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 51 17:03 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I continue my remarks that I started before the debate ceased before question time. I was talking about the fact that these four-yearly reviews and removing this requirement within the Fair Work Act is something that has broad support. It is something that was suggested not just by those in industry—by the employers and industry groups—but also by our union movement. These four-yearly reviews that are part of our modern awards under the Fair Work Act are costly. They take up the resources not just of the parties but of the Fair Work Commission. What has been proposed instead is sensible. Parties can make an application to the Fair Work Commission to amend the modern awards. This is an approach that used to happen back before the Work Choices era and before the Fair Work Act. We are not saying that these awards are frozen in time. What we are saying is that when a party wishes to make a variation to their award they can do so by making an application. As I said, we had all this fanfare from the government when in opposition and in their first days in 2013 and 2014. They talked a lot about the about the need for workplace relations reform. They beat their chest a lot about having to make our workplaces more productive, and they ranted and raved about the need to stop the 'great wages explosion'. That was their justification for doing the Productivity Commission review into the Fair Work Act. It was only just recently that the Treasurer actually backed away from that rhetoric, saying that without significant reform in the Fair Work Act there would be a great wages explosion. In fact, the opposite has happened. As recently as yesterday the Governor of the Reserve Bank came out and said that we are in crisis when it comes to wages growth in this country, that wages growth is flat-lining and that, in real wages terms, we are going backwards. They are not the words of a radical unionist or the words of the Labor opposition; they are the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Actually, yesterday, in quite a remarkable turn of events, he called upon workers to essentially demand more of their share of profits. He said that workers should demand their fair share and cut of profits. Like the Reserve Bank governor, many in the union movement and many in business are advocating for the same. This is an example of how wrong the government got this one, by saying that without reform of the Fair Work Act there would be a wages explosion. Well, that did not happen. What also has not happened is great reform of the Fair Work Act. Since they came to office, we have seen tinkering like this. Whilst this measure is welcomed, it took a long time to get to this point. Whilst this measure will help with prioritising the resources and the focus of the Fair Work Act, it has taken a long time for us to get to this point. What is not in this bill, and why Labor has moved an amendment—something that this government should consider and bring on for a vote tonight—is the opportunity to protect penalty rates. We still have a chance. There are 11 days until the cut to penalty rates kicks in. What Labor has said, what workers have said and what a number of businesses and industry have said is that, when Fair Work makes a decision that is wrong and not in the interests of workers, of businesses or of the economy, we should change the rules. That is the role of this place. We are changing the rules today about how often we review modern awards. We are saying to the government, 'Let's also change the rules about take-home pay and call on the Fair Work Commission when considering variations to the modern award to not cut take-home pay.' On 1 July, 700,000 of our lowest paid workers in this country will have their penalty rates cut. We are talking about predominantly women who work in the pharmacy sector, predominantly women who work in the retail sector and predominantly women who work in hospitality. In these three industries, which are made up of predominantly women—women of different ages—workers are about to have their Sunday and public holiday penalty rates cut. For those on the government benches who do not know what that means, let me share a few examples. A retail worker who always works a Sunday will lose up to $6,000 a year in their take-home pay—$6,000 a year, or $77 a week. For people working in hospitality—the people who have come to see me in my electorate and who have seen other Labor MPs—it could be anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 if they regularly work the Sunday shift depending upon the hours that they work. These are not millionaires. They are not the millionaires this government will give a tax cut to—many of whom, like the Prime Minister, will get a tax cut of over $6,000—and the Prime Minister is doing nothing to stop the very low paid in our community receiving a pay cut of $6,000 the very next day. This is the crisis that we are in. These are the priorities of this government—ensuring that those at the very top end of the pay scale get tax cuts whilst those earning the smallest of wages are copping pay cuts. That is straight out what it is; it is a straight-out pay cut. That is where Labor is saying it is in the power of this place to make a decision today, tonight to stop that from happening. Stop forcing these families further into poverty. This is a straight pay cut with no compensation. Some in the government have argued that this has happened in other sectors. That is not true. When there have been trade-offs in relation to penalty rates, it is for a higher base rate. There is something called enterprise bargaining. All agreements under the enterprise bargaining scheme must reach the better-off-overall test. The commissioner must be satisfied that the better-off-overall test is reached. Yet, in this decision made by the Fair Work Commission there has been no effort for these workers to be better off overall. That particular part of enterprise bargaining does not actually apply to the modern award. So these workers are, purely and simply, going backwards. They will have a pay cut. So I call upon government members—those in the National Party and those in the Liberal Party—to do the right thing: cross the floor and vote with Labor on this. Support the wages and protect the wages and take-home pay of those earning the least in your electorate. It is the least you can do when you are giving yourself and all of the people on higher incomes in your electorate a tax cut. At least protect the pay of some of the lowest paid in your electorate by supporting Labor's amendments to this particular bill. In my role before I entered parliament, I worked a lot with people on the modern award. We have to be frank about the modern award. It is supposed to be a minimum safety net. But, as the cost of living continues to go up, in some sectors the modern award has fallen below the poverty line. This is why, I believe, the Governor of the Reserve Bank has spoken out and taken the extraordinary step of sounding more like a radical union official than Governor of the Reserve Bank. We do need to do more in this country to lift wages. The government needs to stop its attack on unions and its ideological pursuit of unions and workers. It is spending more time pursuing union organisers who have not filed the right paperwork, who have not shown a right of entry and who have sat and had a cup of tea with a mate on a workplace than what it is doing to address the real issues and the real crisis going on in Australian workplaces. It does not care—and it is doing very little—about the fact that real wages growth is going backward. It does not care—and it is doing very little—about the fact that people are not getting full-time jobs and that we are replacing well-paying, full-time jobs with insecure casual jobs. The explosion of labour hire is out of control. No longer is it about filling a temporary labour shortage. Today, it is replacing good, secure, full-time jobs, particularly in manufacturing, the clerical industry and traditional industries where we thought you were secure if you had a full-time job. I should note that, when it comes to the modern award, a lot of these matters are not in our modern awards any more. In our modern awards, they have been limited. It was quite a complex process to go through to get to the modern awards that we have. The whole system of Fair Work is supposed to be based upon the encouragement of enterprise bargaining. Yet, there are some weaknesses in our bargaining laws at the moment. We have not seen any reform around that. We have not seen the government come forward and say, 'Let's work on how we can improve bargaining.' Instead, we have seen a constant ideological attack on those who say exactly what the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said—that workers should demand more of a share of the profits in this country. The contribution by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer today in question time was just extraordinary. It demonstrated how out of touch they are with what is happening in our economy and what is happening in Australian workplaces. Labor supports the bill that is before us, but, more importantly, we call on all of the backbenchers, all of the government ministers and all of the government members, as well as the crossbenchers, to support the amendments that are before us. There is an opportunity to ensure that the workers in retail, hospitality and pharmacy will not have their pay cut—a minimum safety net pay cut. Some workers are relieved that their bosses have said, 'We're not going to cut your penalty rates,' but they are relying on goodwill and a handshake, not on a safety net and not an agreement, and that is not good enough. That is not income security; that is not job security. There is an opportunity, 11 days out from pay being cut, for this government to do the right thing and support Labor's amendments before the House. There is an opportunity to start to talk about how we will address the crisis in our economy when it comes to secure work and wages growth. I urge all of those opposite to support Labor's amendments. 17:16 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I speak in support and say amen to what the member for Bendigo said in relation to this issue. I rise to speak in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017, and I support the amendment by the member for Gorton, the shadow minister. We want to make sure the modern award system is up-to-date, modern and meets the needs of workers and industry alike. While we have legitimate concerns about aspects of this bill, we agree with the broad intent and we are going to support it with a view to fixing some drafting mistakes through amendments in the Senate. It is important to acknowledge that for many workers much more needs to be done, as the member for Bendigo pointed out. Procedural and technical changes are one thing, but they pale into insignificance when you consider that, in about 11 days, up to 700,000 Australians are going to have a pay cut. When cuts to weekend penalty rates are handed down on 2 July, those opposite will have been shamefully responsible. They have done nothing. This will be the largest pay cut that workers will have received in living memory. They could have stopped it. They sat silently and did nothing, sometimes complicit in urging it on. Sixty members of those opposite have supported the idea of pay cuts in their public comments. While we support the bill today, we will never stop fighting the appalling indifference of those opposite which has been displayed on many occasions publicly and with the votes they have cast in this place in relation to the workers of this country. Two of the three changes proposed by the bill before us today are in response to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission over 15 months ago, while the third relates to recommendations made by Justice Heerey just over a year ago. They include: the abolition of four-yearly reviews, as recommended by the Productivity Commission's report into workplace relations, and there are provisions which would allow the Fair Work Commission to overlook some very minor technical and procedural errors when approving enterprise agreements where those errors are not likely to disadvantage employees, and that responds to a recommendation of the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission report into Australia's workplace relations system was handed to the government by 30 November 2015 and was publicly released on 21 December 2015, just before Christmas—almost a year and a half ago. The Australian public could well be confused about the government's response in relation to that. There has been no formal government response to the report. The government sat silently on the issue before the election and has remained almost mute since. The only reason we are debating this bill today is the pressure brought by employer groups and unions to successfully push the government to do something about it. That is an all-too-familiar tale in relation to this particular government: indifference, lack of initiative, sitting idly and being dragged, kicking and screaming, to do something. This government seems to be a government paralysed by indecision. Even after all of that, there are legitimate fears that they have either not bothered to do anything properly or are incompetent to do anything at all. That is so characteristic of this particular government. The Fair Work Commission has responsibility for ensuring modern awards, along with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions. To do so, the commission has to be mindful of a range of factors, including the need to make sure the Australian award system is easy to understand, has simple language and is stable and sustainable to the Australian economy and the community. As a result, the four-yearly reviews of awards have been mandated as one of a couple of ways to make sure these objectives are met, the other being by way of application by employers or employees. Both employers and employees, along with the stakeholder groups who represent them, have joined in criticising this particular scheme and claiming that it is a cost to the resources of both parties, as well as the Fair Work Commission. In fact, the current four-yearly review has been underway for about three years and is not set to finish until the end of the year, which runs extremely close to the start of the next review, which is set to begin in the new year. Labor are not going to stand in the way of reforms that mean the Fair Work Commission can achieve its intended aims and outcomes. To that end, if the four-yearly review is not actually helping to achieve the modern award objectives due to its financially burdensome nature, we are going to support the legislation and amendments to fix that up. What we will not be doing is putting through legislation that is not properly considered and that will have unintended consequences. The government has made clear that, while the removal of the four-yearly review scraps the mechanisms for a comprehensive review of modern awards, the capacity for variations of modern awards by application will continue. It is imperative that modern awards be able to be reviewed to ensure they meet the modern award objective. It is equally important that this be achieved through a process which is fair and makes sure that there is a fair balance between employers and employees. While I was generally supportive of the object and the intent of the legislation, we wholeheartedly agree with the additional comments made by the Labor senators in the Senate legislative committee recommending further amendments, which Labor will move when the bill reaches the Senate. The bill, we think, should be amended to ensure the current four-yearly review process, described as 'award stage and common issues', can be completed; the current draft fails to make that clear. Secondly, we believe that the provisions in the bill which require that the Fair Work Commission be constituted by a full bench are simply onerous and should be removed as well. There is absolutely no need for a full bench to hear this type of thing when you are talking about technical changes. Such an action makes it more difficult, so it needs to be removed. The bill also gives the Fair Work Commission the power to approve an enterprise agreement which has generally been agreed to but for minor technical and procedural problems, provided the employees covered by the agreement are not likely to be disadvantaged by those errors. In this regard, technical errors can range from employers stapling additional pages to the back of forms to the use of company letterhead and incorrect phone numbers being used on notices. We support the intent of changing the act so that minor defects are corrected. The use of the word 'disadvantage' in the proposed section 118(2) does not reflect the intent of ensuring enterprise agreements are genuinely agreed to. 'Disadvantage' has a very specific technical meaning in the Fair Work Act and, from listening to those opposite during question time and also during speeches, I do not think they really understand what disadvantage really is—certainly disadvantage with respect to industrial relations or enterprise agreements and agreements between employers and employees to vary those agreements. Finally, in response to the recommendations of Justice Heerey's report, the bill applies the complaint-handling powers of the Minister for Employment and the President of the Fair Work Commission to Fair Work Commission members who formerly held office in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. There are some sensible changes enabling the parliament to establish a commission to investigate and report on alleged misbehaviour or incapacity of a Fair Work Commission member. These sensible changes, however, are victim to yet another government failure in leadership and taking on reforms. The Heerey recommendations flow from a report commissioned by the government in the wake of what I call the Michael Lawler saga. The Fair Work Commission plays an important role in industrial relations in this country and must be respected. Justice Heerey's report into this sorry saga was tabled in the Senate on 15 March last year, just over a year ago, and we are only now seeing the legislative response to that put forward. I can only assume the government has delayed putting this bill before the House for so long in the hope that enough time will pass to distance the Prime Minister from the issue. It is important to acknowledge—and I want to make this point today—that Justice Heerey's report vindicates the actions and conduct of the Fair Work Commission, particularly the manner in which the president of the commission dealt with that particularly challenging situation. But, for all the talk of protecting workers, the government has gone completely missing in action in relation to the amendment that has been put by the member for Gorton. It is very happy to launch attacks on the trade union movement and the trade union leaders who represent workers each and every day in workplaces. But, in just 11 days time, over 700,000 of Australia's lowest paid workers, many of them vulnerable and working in the retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmaceutical sectors, are going to be hit with a big wage cut of up to $77 a week. Many of the 6,317 retail workers and 3,086 food and accommodation workers in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland could be affected. For these people, penalty rates are anything but a luxury. They deserve reward for the sacrifice they make in terms of the time away from their families and friends as they head to work on a weekend. When it comes to paying the bills, they need this type of work. It is important to put food on their table, clothes on their children and petrol in their car, and to pay school fees and school expenses for their kids. The timing for such a cut could not be worse. The figures clearly bear out that Australian workers are receiving the lowest share of GDP since 1959. The ABS data shows that labour's share of GDP in the third quarter of last year was down from 54.2 per cent to 51.5 per cent. Profit's share of GDP went up from 24.5 per cent to 27.5 per cent. Last year, the annual percentage growth in company profits was 39.7 per cent, but wages were flatlining at 0.9 per cent. That information was released on 5 June this year. In the first three months of 2017, company profits were up six per cent but wages flatlined at 0.3 per cent. Income inequality is worse than it has ever been before, or at least in the last 75 years that we have been measuring it. In its last quarterly update, the Bureau of Statistics revealed that nearly 1.2 million Australians are underemployed, at a rate of 8.2 per cent. Australians are feeling the heat when it comes to cost-of-living pressures. The out-of-pocket cost of a GP appointment has risen across the board. In my home state of Queensland, it has gone up by an unbelievable 11 per cent since December 2014—an increase of $7.70 each time you take your kids to see the local GP. Energy costs are continuing to increase across the country. Thanks to the internal divisions of those opposite, costs will only get worse as they argue amongst themselves. Thanks to the government's budget, many low-paid workers will be hit with an increase in the Medicare levy. As a result, the tax bills of workers earning $30,000 or $40,000 a year will go up, while millionaires will get a tax cut from 1 July of $16,400. How can that be fair? It is simply not. Where are the LNP members in Queensland's regional and rural areas? Hospitality and pharmacy workers are absolutely critical in terms of the economy in country towns across Queensland. In the midst of all of this, the government has decided that now is an opportune time to begin slashing workers' pay. If those opposite were serious about doing anything to improve the lives of Australian workers, they would support Labor's bill and support this amendment to protect the take-home wages and pay of over 700,000 Australians. While they feel the need to give $65 billion of tax cuts to the biggest companies in Australia, apparently ordinary Australians deserve to do more with less money in their pay packets. We know that cuts to penalty rates will not end there. This is the thin edge of the wedge. We know that those opposite will support—as their friends in the business community will, also—cuts to penalty rates in other sectors of the economy. We know this because those opposite have spent years making the point that penalty rates, allegedly, according to them, are a thing of the past. Over 60 members of the government, including the Prime Minister himself, have called for penalty rates to be either cut or abolished altogether, while some have gone so far as to describe that as a gift to young people. While they might fight amongst themselves about the Finkel report or marriage equality, something that brings unity to those opposite is the idea of stripping away the pay and conditions of Australian workers. There is a total lack of regard for how tough people are doing it, particularly in regional and rural areas. Nurses, cleaners, paramedics, ambulance officers and people who work in pharmacy, hospitality and retail are all terrified. If you are not listed in those occupations and sectors which have been hit by the pay cut from July, you are worried sick that you will be next. If the government were genuine about doing something, they would stand up for these workers. They would put a line in the sand and stand up to support Labor's amendments in the Labor private member's bill. We will not oppose this bill progressing to the Senate, but we stand ready to amend it to make sure there are necessary changes once it gets there. It defies belief that those opposite will not support Labor's position in relation to that and stand up for workers. They are the voters and they are their constituents. They should stand up. They are elected to this place to stand up for their constituents, but they are not. A $77-a-week pay cut is simply not good enough. It is cruel and indifferent behaviour from those opposite. I call upon them to do the right thing. If those opposite truly want to implement significant reforms for working people and benefit working people, the solution is simple: support Labor's bill to protect take-home pay and support the amendment of the member for Gorton. Unfortunately, this government seems far more interested in handing out tax cuts to millionaires and multinationals than actually doing their jobs and standing up for low-paid and vulnerable workers across the board. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The original question was that the bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in a form that the amendment be agreed to. The question is now that the amendment be agreed to. I give the call to the most honourable member for Melbourne. 17:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 says it is about amending some aspects of the Fair Work Act to deal with minimum standards of appointment and to deal with so-called technicalities and problems that arise during the bargaining process. You would think, with a bill of that ambition, that we would pick up on some of the big issues facing this country and facing low-paid workers in this country, in particular. In just a few days time penalty rates will be cut. That will hit a number of people pretty hard. It will hit young people pretty hard. The burden is going to fall disproportionately on women. And it will hit those people who work at night or on weekends or public holidays—sometimes to make ends meet, to get themselves through university or TAFE, other times to make sure they have enough money to meet skyrocketing house prices and large mortgages. At a time when household debt is growing to record levels in this country, you would think that a bill that is, supposedly, about dealing with a fair set of minimum standards and conditions would address that. You would think that it might also address the situation of people working at Coles or Woolworths—or Hungry Jack's or McDonald's or KFC—who, in fact, have never seen a penalty rate in their working lives. That is because they work on weekends or at night and they are working under enterprise agreements that have been struck so that those workers get paid less than the hourly rate of pay set out in the award. You have people who might not work Monday to Friday but just come in on Saturday and Sunday. They might not get any alleged trade-off that happens during the Monday to Friday hours, but they are coming in and working on Saturday and Sunday—an 18-year-old working in McDonald's is getting paid less than what is set out in the award. You would think that a bill that says it is about making sure there is a fair minimum safety net of conditions would address that. This is a growing problem and it is a scandalous problem. It has taken some pretty dogged investigative journalists at Fairfax, and some people like Josh Cullinan and the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, to go and do the work and realise that right across the country people who are doing part-time work—that many parents would hope their kids would do—going off and working over the weekend or at night are getting paid less than the minimum award. You would think that if the government were concerned about what is happening to the minimum safety net they would come up with a proposal to address that. You would think the government, if they were concerned about a minimum safety net, might have listened to what the Reserve Bank governor had to say recently. Wages in some places in this country are, effectively, going backwards, with wage growth at record lows. People have seen the cost of living go up and power bills go up, with wholesale power prices having doubled under this government since they abolished the carbon price and sent a shudder of uncertainty throughout the industry and caused half the industry to go on an investment strike. You would think the government might say, 'Maybe we do need to have a look at whether the minimum wage is high enough in this country or whether our laws are making workers too scared to ask for the pay rises they are entitled to,' because that seems to be one of the things happening in this country. We could change our laws to help by lifting the minimum wage, by ensuring that penalty rate cuts do not go through and by ensuring that people working at Hungry Jack's or at Coles or Woolies get paid their proper legal minimums. We could fix all of those things, but the government is not doing that. This bill is supposedly about addressing minimum safety nets, but I looked through it to see what the government was going to do about the growing problem of insecure work. The fact is that there are so many people who will graduate, go out and look for a job, but find that the jobs that are available are increasingly part-time or casual or on a contract. The government might have looked at some of the Senate inquires before that have shown that there are people at our universities who are working there, who fronted up and told the inquiry they worked for 10 years at one university, in the same department, doing the same job, but they were never entitled to a day of sick pay throughout that whole 10 years; they were treated as casual for all of that time, on repeated, rolling contracts. What does that do to a person who is trying to start a family or buy a house? They know the job is going to be there, but they front up to the bank manager and say, 'Could you give us a loan?' and they say: 'No, sorry. You're classified as casual. You're on short-term contracts.' What about when you are trying to start a family and you want to know whether you can rely on your job, and you look at it and realise that you actually have next to no rights at all? This is even happening in our schools, with many teachers starting out and getting a one-year contract. For many teachers it happens throughout their lives. And it is not because the school might go out of business tomorrow. We are always going to have schools and are always going to educate our kids, so why on earth are teachers on short-term contracts, like university staff? Casualisation is growing throughout the country and people are feeling the pressure. Casualisation is up; debt is up; house prices are up; energy prices are up; but wages are going down, and we have to fix it. We have to do something about it, but this bill does nothing about that. It professes to be about addressing a safety net, but it does nothing about that. The government says it is just dealing with some technical issues that have arisen for some people when they have been bargaining, as is allowed for under the act. They say, 'Some technical issues have arisen, and we have to fix that.' I will tell you what else is happening when people are trying to bargain under the Fair Work Act at the moment. Employers are fronting up and saying, 'Well, you're trying to bargain for higher wages.' Some employers, including this government for the public servants, just say, 'We're not go to bargain with you at all unless you accept a very bad deal.' And there is nowhere you can go to get redress for that, so you find yourself three or four years into it with no pay rise at all, and the government has an effective pay cut, just through stalling the bargaining process. They are not interested in fixing that. Even people who have managed to get a good enterprise agreement in this country are not safe either. When their enterprise agreement expires, the quid pro quo, when these laws were first introduced, was, 'We're going to make you bargain and do the highwire act of having pretty much nothing in your award, and everything is going to be in your enterprise agreement.' The quid pro quo is that when your enterprise credit expires it remains in force until it is replaced by a new one, so you do not fall all the way down to the award. But now, under the act, employers are fronting up and saying, 'You're enterprise agreement has expired. Rather than let that minimum floor stay there until we negotiate a new one, we're going to go off to the commission and terminate your enterprise agreement to give us a leg up in the negotiations.' They know that if they terminate the agreement, workers fall all the way back to the award. As a result, you have people around the country who are facing potential pay cuts of 30 or 40 per cent, because the employers have said, 'We're just going to terminate your agreement, and then you will rely on our good graces for the wages and conditions you get after that.' It effectively puts a gun to people's heads, because then they are told they have not got their old agreement or the current agreement to rely on. They are falling back onto the very low level of the award, and they are told to accept the measly deal they are offered instead. That is something that could be fixed up. Mr Champion HW9 That is what is happening at Coles. Mr BANDT M3C I hear a Labor member interjecting about Coles. The member for Wakefield is sticking up for the dodgy deals that were done at Coles that mean that if you are working on weekends—and this is what I have heard from a lot of people in the industry—some people might be better off under the Fair Work Commission's decision because they never saw the penalty rates in the first place. Before Labor members interject, they ought to consider the facts, and the fact that worker after worker after worker is fronting up saying, 'I have been underpaid.' If the government was actually concerned about addressing matters to deal with bargaining and technical errors, they might look at the fact that this act severely limits the internationally recognised right to take industrial action and the right to strike. Talk about procedural errors! There are people who have tried to bargain to get better wages and conditions. Under this act, they have to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop—their notice of intention to have a bargaining period and then to take industrial action and then to go through the ballot process—only to have the whole thing pulled up on the basis of a technicality. It is very, very clear that the workers are saying, 'We want the ability to negotiate to have better wages and conditions,' and instead it gets pulled up on a technicality. Yet, there is the ILO, the International Labour Organization, and Australia is a member of the ILO—and that has not changed. So when it comes to that, what happens? The government does not say, 'We are clearly out of whack with our international obligations, so we better tidy up the act.' No, they turn a blind eye to that. The only technical errors that they are prepared to fix up are the ones that do not seem to benefit employees in any meaningful way. There is a suite of amendments that could be made to the Fair Work Act to actually improve job security, minimum wages and conditions and the right to organise and to bargain for the people of this country, and the government is turning a blind eye to that. During question time today, we heard the Prime Minister again saying, 'The answer is to give big companies a tax cut. Of course, we are concerned about people's low wages. The answer is to give big companies a tax cut.' Does anyone really think that when the big four banks, who make $30-odd billion profit between them a year, are given a tax cut and when that tax cut is a $7 billion hit to the budget that they are going to employ $7 billion worth of extra people? Come on! It is going to go straight into their pockets. Australians get this. They know that if you give the big companies in this country a tax cut, it is just going to help line the pockets of shareholders and profiteers, who are not the people who work in there. People know it intuitively. Over the last decade, the share of profits is growing and the share of wages is declining, of our national pie, and people are feeling it. They know that something is wrong, that something is rotten. There are things we could do to fix it up and the Fair Work Act does need amending. The Greens were very, very pleased to go to the last election as the only ones pointing out the hole in the Fair Work Act, saying, 'Your penalty rates could be cut under this.' We went to the election pointing it out and said, 'It needs to be fixed.' The government, of course, said 'Well, there's no way we're going to do that. We'll leave it up to the independent umpire.' But my jaw dropped when Labor in opposition said, 'We'll do the same thing.' Labor and the Liberals went to the election on a unity ticket on penalty rates, saying, 'We'll abide by the commission's decision.' Had Labor won the election, which probably would have been a better outcome than what we got, they would be cutting penalty rates right now. That was the position they took. When we wanted to legislate to protect penalty rates, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said, 'It might never happen. Aliens are more likely to land from space.' Well, we knew there was a problem in the Fair Work Act and we pointed to it and said, 'Fix it.' We pointed to the problem in the Fair Work Act and said, 'Fix it.' Labor decided to hide behind making a submission and instead of having the guts to change the law, they said, 'We'll go to the Fair Work Commission and make a submission.' That had no effect. But what members of parliament can do that no-one else can do is change the law. I am very, very pleased that Labor has now come in behind the Greens' position, and I will be very pleased to support the amendment that they are putting up, because, when we released our draft bill, there were 24 or 48 hours of silence before Labor decided that that would be a good idea and came up with their own. So I am pleased that Labor is doing that. But the test is really whether the government and members of its backbench are prepared to stand up and support it, because we have the opportunity to stop the penalty rate cuts coming into effect. We have got a couple of days left to do it. I urge the government—in particular, the members of the government backbench who say they are concerned about this—to do something about it, because we could actually fix it before this place rises and, if we did that, I think that the Australian people would thank us for it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his contribution, and I look forward to the member for Wakefield's contribution. 17:45 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am rather grim with the onerous burden you have put on me to perform! It is always interesting talking about industrial relations in this place because you are always amazed at how short people's memories are. I remember that, when I started out as a union organiser and I worked for the shop assistants' union—so the member for Melbourne will be interested to hear what I have to say—we had two awards. We had the retail industry award and the fast food award in South Australia. The fast food award in South Australia never had any penalty rates in it; it was always a flat rate award. So it is interesting to hear the member for Melbourne come in here and talk about agreements—talk about agreements at Coles or Hungry Jack's or McDonald's—with no historical analysis behind that. He does not look at the previous two decades of enterprise bargaining, does not look at the state awards system and does not look at the period where Australian workplace agreements were pretty much cutting out every single penalty rate in the retail industry. So it was not the Coles EBA versus some great award; it was the Coles EBA versus an award that was not being updated and was being systematically undermined by the Howard government. Now we have the Turnbull government doing the same thing with awards; we can see that in the penalty rates. So it was not the Coles agreement versus the award; it was the Coles agreement versus an Australian workplace agreement that cut out every single penalty rate. Workers around this country understand that, at that time, enterprise bargaining agreements were their one protection as to wages and conditions. We now have modern awards in place. But guess who put them in place? Guess whose advocacy put the modern awards in place in the retail industry and the fast food industry? Guess whose advocacy and submissions put those penalty rates in place? It was the shop assistants' union's, the SDA's, advocacy, because we knew exactly what it was to bargain in a situation where conditions were going south, where penalty rates were being removed in their entirety—through an act of legislation, I might add, which the member for Melbourne now tells us is the preferred way forward. So it was a union, the SDA, that put the modern award in place. And now we are being pilloried for it in the Fairfax press and by all these other Johnny-come-latelys. There is this fake union—this made-up union—that has been set up under the Corporations Act. So there are some people in this place with very, very short memories. I will be honest with you: I do not love enterprise bargaining. It is a tough situation. But the SDA was not the only union that had to operate in that sector. Many other unions had to go through difficult bargaining situations—and sometimes necessary bargaining situations—to ensure that the economy grew and wages grew. A whole lot of difficult decisions get made when you are sitting down and making enterprise bargaining agreements. No union in the country would not understand that situation. At Holden, when we had the global financial crisis, when we had a downturn in car manufacturing, the workers there made some very difficult choices related to their EBA, to stop people being made redundant. So let us not have this sort of student-union politics from the member from Melbourne—who, on many other issues on IR, talks pretty good sense. I agree with him about casualisation, particularly of teachers. My mum is a teacher. We are seeing graduate teachers and more experienced teachers constantly forced into the contract system, where they do not know where they are working from one term to the next. So I am not critical of everything the member for Melbourne has to say, but on enterprise bargaining he has a very short memory, and it is all driven by wedge politics. As I said before, there have been some pretty big changes in the enterprise bargaining system. I do not think those changes have quite been digested. Let's hear what Peter Sams, a Fair Work deputy president, said of the Coles agreement. He said the test was 'clearly not what was intended' by the Fair Work Act. He referred to the act's explanatory memorandum, which said that although each employee must be better off overall, the BOOT does not require the FWC to inquire into each employee's individual circumstances. There is a good reason for this, which is that when you do an enterprise bargaining agreement—surprise, surprise!—enterprises then change their methods of doing things. We have a situation now where we have night fillers aggrieved and thinking that they might be better off under the award. But, if they are put under the award, what is to stop Coles putting them on day shift and having a day fill? I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: nothing at all. I have seen that happen at supermarkets. When it got expensive at night they had people come in and fill during the day. So you have to be very careful in making comparisons. Enterprise bargaining does benefit employees. That is what it is meant to do. It is also meant to benefit firms. It is meant to make the whole place more efficient, and workers are supposed to share in those efficiencies, in that productivity. That is what enterprise bargaining is supposed to do. There is not a person in the Labor Party who does not believe that we should have a fair safety net that protects workers and, on the other side, an enterprise bargaining system that allows for real wage growth. It is important to remember that workers approve these agreements by ballot—that is, they vote for them. They have two weeks to consider it. They get a document that compares the EBA and the award and they look at things, decide whether they are better or worse off, and vote accordingly. And they have rejected agreements before, many times. We have seen agreements voted down on the basis that there might be a better deal next time round, and people are sent back to the bargaining table. I do fear, though, that some of these decisions coming out of the Fair Work Commission are going to make enterprise bargaining not workable, particularly if they are applying rules so haphazardly—that is, they are applying one rule to retail and different sets of rules to different agreements in other places. We can have this debate up hill and down dale. We have this weird alliance at the moment between the Greens and George Christensen, betting up on the shoppies, but I would remind them that the idea these agreements are sweetheart deals between big employers and the union is just nonsense. In South Australia we went out of our way to offer a template enterprise bargaining agreement to small business. We copped some criticism for it and we copped a heap of misinformation about it. But here is the rub: the union offered up this template deal to small business, through Business SA, which is the business organisation of choice in South Australia, and do you want to know how many employers took up that supposed sweetheart deal which did such a great job for employers? Mr Gosling 245392 One. Mr CHAMPION HW9 One big fat zero! So if it was such a great deal for employers, why wasn't there this rush of small businesses to get the same advantages as Coles and Woolworths? I will tell you why there was not such a big rush: because when you went and asked them, they said, 'No, no, no, it costs me too much money.' That is because workers got a penalty buyout. That is because workers got pay rises over and above the award. That is why. So these agreements are good. That is why workers vote for them, and that is why employers—often small employers—do not readily avail themselves of them. I think we have to be very careful when we talk about enterprise bargaining. The member for Melbourne, who has now left the chamber after giving all of us his missives, should think carefully about getting into the same car as George Christensen and the Nick Xenophon Team, both of whom in the past have wanted to cut penalty rates—they are no friends of workers. You have to be very careful in this business about who you side with. More generally, I think that some of the member for Melbourne's criticisms of this bill are quite sensible, and he is right: of all the things in the industrial relations world that we would be talking about and that should occupy this parliament's time, why would you come in here with these fairly piddling, almost administrative rounding errors, now greatly amended by the Labor Party? I wonder why you would do that when the greatest threat to workers at the moment is enterprise bargaining agreements being cancelled willy-nilly? You can talk about Coles, I suppose. There is a hearing on at the moment, so I will not offer my views, but there are a substantial number of Coles employees who face a decrease in their conditions. There are many other workers across the country who have the same problem. The CUB workers had an 180-day dispute when their employer terminated the agreement and tried to take them back to the award. It was hugely costly to CUB, in terms of their production, and hugely costly to those individuals who fought that battle. But they were fighting a battle on behalf of every employee who has an enterprise bargaining agreement. But not everybody has unions. Not everybody has someone to protect them. Coates Hire is an equipment hire business. We have all been to Coates Hire. I have been to Coates Hire and hired machinery that I used well—or I hope I used it well! I hear the member for Moreton laughing! The workers there are always very helpful and always very decent. They faced a pay cut of up to 40 per cent unless they agreed with the company's position to slash wages and conditions. Talk about having a gun aimed at your head! I will finish on that note. 17:58 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures Bill) 2017. I also thank the honourable senators on the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their inquiry into the provisions of the bill. The government has amended the bill in response to their recommendations. This bill implements sensible measures to fix clear issues with the operation of the Fair Work Act. The bill repeals the requirement for four-yearly reviews of modern awards. This measure is widely supported by both unions and employer groups. The Productivity Commission found that the current system is hugely resource-intensive for all involved. I think this finding comes as no surprise to any stakeholders who have endured long hours and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars during the current drawn-out process. This process is so important and expensive that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Council of Trade Unions saw fit to jointly write to the Minister for Employment, asking the government to abolish these reviews—we are on a unity ticket on this one. The $87 million in regulatory savings this achieves is an important step in reducing complexity in the workplace relations systems. To ensure an appropriate transition period, the bill will allow the current four-yearly review to conclude in a timely manner under the existing framework. Importantly, it will remove the requirement for a new review to commence in January 2018. This is something that is broadly supported by all stakeholders. The government has also moved amendments to clarify that the Fair Work Commission can complete any reviews that have commenced but have not concluded by 1 January 2018 in respect of large numbers of awards, known as 'common issues', such as the ACTU's claim for a family friendly work arrangements clause in all modern awards. This amendment acknowledges concerns raised by the Labor senators during the Senate inquiry. The bill makes another commonsense change to the Fair Work Act by allowing the Fair Work Commission to overlook minor procedural or technical errors when approving an enterprise agreement, as long as it is satisfied that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error. The inflexibility of the requirements for approving an enterprise agreement is well known. There are numerous examples of minor errors, like inadvertently providing an incorrect phone number on a notice of employee representational rights, unnecessarily holding up the approval of enterprise agreements that have already received a majority yes vote from employees. This inflexibility does not protect workers in any way—it just delays potential pay rises. There have been some inaccurate criticisms that this bill somehow removes safeguards or equates them to technicalities. To be clear, the bill does not undermine existing safeguards in the Fair Work Act that are designed to protect workers or equate these safeguards to mere technicalities. These safeguards remain, and the government expects that they continue to be strongly enforced. The government has further amendments to allow schedule 2 of the bill to apply to applications to approve enterprise agreements that were made to the Fair Work Commission before the commencement of the bill. This recommendation was made in response to the Fair Work Commission's submission to the Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry also heard concerns from Professor Andrew Stewart about the use of the word 'disadvantaged' in these provisions and that it may require clarification. The government has moved amendments to make clear that the term 'disadvantaged' relates to the employee's ability to genuinely agree to a proposed enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission has observed an increase in the number of potentially non-compliant notices of employee representational rights following a change to the Fair Work Regulations 2009, which specify the form of the notice, earlier this year. If schedule 2 were only to apply from commencement, the Fair Work Commission would need to reject these agreements. This amendment is sensible and appropriately addresses the concerns of the Senate inquiry and the Fair Work Commission. The bill balances common sense and flexibility in the agreement-making process. The bill protects existing safeguards provided to employees during bargaining by enabling the Fair Work Commission to approve an agreement despite a minor procedural or technical error only if it is satisfied that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged because of the error. Finally, the bill will also implement the sensible reforms suggested by the Hon. Peter Heerey AM QC following his inquiry into complaints about former Fair Work Commission Vice President Michael Lawler. There is currently no formal mechanism to inform the parliament's consideration of allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against Fair Work Commission members. The bill will allow parliament to take appropriate action by quickly establishing an inquiry into such matters and be well informed of any case for asking the Governor-General to terminate their appointment. These changes proposed by this bill are commonsense measures that will improve the practical operation of the workplace relations system. They reflect recommendations of two independent reviews. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The original question was that the bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as amendment that all words after 'That' be admitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 60 18:05 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet MB113 and the amendment (1) on sheet MB123 as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 I move government amendments (1) to (3) of sheet MB113 and (1) of sheet MB123 together as circulated: (1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 16 (after line 20), after the definition of Schedule1 commencement day in clause 25 of Schedule 1, insert: Schedule 2 commencement day means the day on which Schedule 2 to the amending Act commences. (2) Schedule 4, item 1, page 17 (after line 27), at the end of clause 26 of Schedule 1, add: Common issues (3) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (lines 12 to 17), omit clause 28 of Schedule 1, substitute: 28 Application of amendments—when employees have genuinely agreed to an enterprise agreement (1) The amendments of section 188 of this Act made by Schedule 2 to the amending Act apply in relation to an application made under section 185 of this Act for approval of an enterprise agreement if the application is made: (a) on or after the Schedule 2 commencement day; or (b) before the Schedule 2 commencement day, if circumstances covered by subclause (2) apply. (2) The circumstances covered by this subclause are: (a) on or before the Schedule 2 commencement day, the FWC had neither approved, nor refused to approve, the enterprise agreement; or (b) before the Schedule 2 commencement day:    (i) the FWC approved, or refused to approve, the enterprise agreement; and    (ii) an application was made under section 604 for an appeal against the decision to approve, or refuse to approve, the enterprise agreement; and    (iii) the FWC had not yet made a final decision on the appeal; or (c) all of the following apply:    (i) within 21 days before the Schedule 2 commencement day, the FWC approved, or refused to approve, the enterprise agreement;    (ii) immediately before the Schedule 2 commencement day, an application had not been made under section 604 for an appeal against the decision to approve, or refuse to approve, the enterprise agreement;    (iii) within 21 days after the FWC approved, or refused to approve, the enterprise agreement, an application is made under section 604 for an appeal against that decision. (1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 18), at the end of paragraph 188(2) (b), add ", in relation to the requirements mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) or (b) or the requirements of sections 173 and 174". Question agreed to. 18:06 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column headed "Provisions"), omit "2, 3 and 4", substitute "2, 3, 3A and 4". (2) Page 15 (after line 8), after Schedule 3, insert: Schedule 3A—Protecting take ‑home pay Fair Work Act 2009 1 Section 12 (definition of reduction in take ‑home pay) Repeal the definition, substitute: reduction in take ‑home pay: (a) in relation to the cessation of copied State awards—see subsection 768BR(3); and (b) in relation to the variation of modern awards—see subsection 135A(5). 2 Section 12 (definition of take ‑home pay) Repeal the definition, substitute: take ‑home pay: (a) in relation to the cessation of copied State awards—see subsection 768BR(2); and (b) in relation to the variation of modern awards—see subsection 135A(4). 3 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2 ‑3 Add: 135A Protecting take ‑home pay Object of this section (1) The object of this section is to ensure that no employee's, or prospective employee's, take‑home pay is reduced as a result of a variation of a modern award. FWC cannot reduce take ‑home pay (2) A modern award cannot be varied in a way that would, or would be likely to, reduce the take‑home pay of any employee covered by the award. Determinations reducing take ‑home pay of no effect (3) A determination of the FWC made on or after 22 February 2017 that would, or would be likely to, have the effect of reducing the take‑home pay of any employee covered by a modern award is of no effect. Definition of take ‑home pay (4) The take‑home pay of an employee covered by a modern award is the pay the employee actually receives, or would receive if increases in the modern award minimum wage were included in the employee's pay: (a) including wages and incentive‑based payments, and additional amounts such as allowances and overtime; but (b) disregarding the effect of any deductions that are made as permitted by section 324. Note: Deductions permitted by section 324 may (for example) include deductions under salary sacrificing arrangements. Definition of reduction in take ‑home pay (5) An employee covered by a modern award suffers a reduction in take‑home pay through a variation of the award if the amount of the employee's take‑home pay for working particular hours or for a particular quantity of work would be less after the variation than it would have been before. This bill goes to a series of matters, but the amendments moved by Labor will actually improve this bill because it will respond to the real dangers of people losing money on Sunday week. We are going to see up to 700,000 people lose money as a result of the decision by the Fair Work Commission to cut wages for hospitality and retail workers. We are going to see that happen if we, the parliament, do not enact legislation to prevent that from happening. This amendment, of course, is similar to the efforts by the opposition to remedy this problem—remedy and rectify a decision of the commission. Therefore, these amendments are very significant indeed. They are significant because it will stop those workers losing real income as a result of the decision of the commission. This is at a time, of course, when the government seeks to increase taxes on those same workers who actually receive less than $87,000 a year. So it is an important amendment. It is something that every member in this place should support because of the importance of the amendments to this bill. I might add, it is similar to a bill that was passed in the Senate on 30 March and yet has not passed this place. These are very important amendments. We call upon the parliament to support them. If the government supports the opposition amendments, as circulated, then we will see those workers who will be adversely affected not affected as a result of these changes to this bill. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I would seek your guidance with respect to the amendments as circulated by the member for Gorton, which appear to be in relation to penalty rates and take-home pay. In fact, the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 does not attach itself, impinge upon or have any bearing on penalty rates whatsoever. Therefore, as a substantive amendment to the bill, the amendments should not be ruled in order, and really is an attempt by the opposition to put a private members' bill, which they already have before the parliament, into a substantive bill in the House on another matter. The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear from the member for Gorton. The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear from the member for Gorton. Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 This is an amendment to the Fair Work Act and, in particular, it is to do with award modernisation. I reject the reasoning of the Leader of the House because this is an amendment to the Fair Work Act and, in particular, it goes to the award modernisation mechanisms within the Fair Work Act. This is about whether we will have constant reviews of the awards. Indeed, the penalty rates decision arose out of that process. In fact, the decision of the Fair Work Commission in relation to penalty rates arose precisely out of the provisions that are referred to in this bill. For that reason, it is entirely relevant that amendments are made to this bill in relation to penalty rates. The SPEAKER 00APG I am happy to hear from the Leader of the House again on the subject. I am familiarising myself with the amendments. Mr Pyne 9V5 Transparently, the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is a substantial amendment of its own to the Fair Work Act. The amendments circulated by the member for Gorton are basically a repeat of his private member's bill before the House, which has no bearing on this bill. What the opposition is trying to do is get around the requirement for them to have 76 votes—an absolute majority—in order to have their private member's bill dealt with. Bills of the government that are there on different subjects should not be used to try and get around the standing orders, which require an absolute majority for a suspension of standing orders in order to deal with private member's business. The same pertains to the member for Melbourne's amendment when he moves his. The SPEAKER 00APG I have listened to the Leader of the House and to the member for Gorton and, having just come back into the chair, obviously examined the bill and the amendments that are before the House. The Leader of the House makes the point that the shadow minister is seeking to essentially conduct private member's business during amendments on the bill. I understand the point, absolutely, that he is trying to make. There have been some private member's bills moved on this motion. I fact, I think even the member for Gorton has moved one such bill. The issue here is whether the amendments that are being moved relate to the subject matter of the bill that is before the house, not really whether the amendments themselves are very similar to a private member's bill. The member for Gorton is not seeking to bring on his private member's bill. I hope you will not mind me saying that he is clearly duplicating the intent of that, but he is doing it by way of an amendment. So what this really turns on is the bill itself, the short title of which is the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017; a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 and for related purposes. I think the amendment is in order on that basis, because it is not at odds with the title of the bill and there certainly are lots of scenarios where there are other measures and related purposes where there are amendments provided on that on that subject matter. It is not seeking to amend another act. I think, on that basis, the amendments are in order and I need to allow debate to continue on them. We are at the point where the member for Gorton has spoken. Mr Burke DYW Given that there has been some procedural discussion, I would simply say, in terms of the amendments, that, if these amendments are carried, the pay cut can be stopped. It is as simple as that. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments be agreed to. 18:15 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan Clearly these amendments are about the recent decision by the Fair Work Commission. We only need to look at the form on the other side of the House. They and their union bosses have done deals with the big end of town. They said at the time that they were prepared to abide by this decision. The Leader of the Opposition actually encouraged the Fair Work Commission to address the issue of penalty rates. He did not say, 'Address the issue and reduce them,' or 'Address the issue and increase them.' Who does that? He said, 'Address this issue.' So clearly the Labor Party again are doing this on instructions from their union bosses. They are doing this to play politics. They are not really interested in the little worker. The big end of town, the people like Woolworths and Coles who have employees, are already bound like issues like this, but these are the workers, the small businesses who want to stay open in competition with the big guys. The Labor Party are penalising the mums and dads, the small business owners, the backbone of the economy in Australia. I urge everyone to vote against these amendments. 18:16 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise to speak on the amendments being put forward by the member for Gorton to the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It is a broad church we have in the Liberal Party. The vast majority of the party, including me, is made up of small business owners. I had a payroll of in excess of 105 people. I was subjected to penalty rates. In their place, they work. The bill before the House speaks to trying to find a balance in relation to penalty rates on weekends. I believe the government has. We have looked at the double-time rate for Sunday and reduced that to the same penalty rate as for Saturday—time and a half. To come to this place and say that there are going to be 40 per cent cuts just does not stack up mathematically. We went to the last election saying that we supported jobs and growth. In order to create those jobs, we need to give business the opportunity to be able to hire people on a weekend. We need to enthuse and encourage those businesses that make a commercial decision not to open on the weekends because they just cannot afford it. It is not across all aspects. You would have seen today marching and protests in the street by the CFMEU, stating that they were protecting the right to penalty rates. This is the hospitality sector. This is the straight economics of a mum-and-dad coffee shop not being able to afford to open on a Sunday to trade because the cost of employing staff is subeconomic and they cannot turn a dollar. The amendment put forward by the honourable member for Gorton speaks in relation to the succession of copied state awards. Proposed section 135A, Protecting take-home pay, says: The object of this section is to ensure that no employee's, or prospective employee's, take-home pay is reduced as a result of a variation of a modern award. There are some thoughts around that space. The argument that is put forward by the other side is that, if someone who does not work during the week has their penalties traded away, and the only way that they can pick that up is by working on the weekends, should they be entitled to that double rate of pay and are they actually worse off? I approach this from a different angle, from the angle of creating greater employment opportunities through the business sector, through the hospitality sector—the coffee shops. Those who work for McDonald's or one of the other multinational fast food chains would be working on much less than the award, because those rates have been already negotiated wholeheartedly through award bargaining processes. The amendments also speak in relation to the FWC not reducing take-home pay and a modern award not being varied in a way that would or would be likely to reduce the take-home pay of an employee covered by that award. The member for Gorton has made some honourable contributions in this debate, but it is important to get these other remaining points out with the time that is remaining to me. On determinations and reducing take-home pay, the bill says: A determination of the FWC made on or after 22 February 2017 that would, or would be likely to, have the effect of reducing the take-home pay of any employee covered by a modern award is of no effect. On the definition of take-home pay, it says: The take-home pay of an employee covered by a modern award is the pay the employee actually receives, or would receive if increases in the modern award minimum wage were included in the employee’s pay: As a government we will seek to oppose the amendments put forward by the honourable member for Gorton. We will oppose the amendments for the reason that we have only just seen them and there is a bill before the House and we support that bill. 18:21 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Thank you for the unexpected opportunity, Mr Speaker. We are of course here because of another Labor stunt. We are here to talk about exactly what we want to talk about—that is, delivering for the people we represent in our area. As the member for Hinkler, I have to tell you that we recognise that the Fair Work Commission is independent. That is what the businesses in my electorate say to me. It is either independent or it is not. So I say to those opposite, given that in government Labor appointed the commissioners who made the decision: do you back the people you put in place? That is the question for them. Clearly, they do not trust their own appointments. But we really need to look at the absolute heart of this matter, and that is whether the small businesses in my electorate and other electorates around this country can actually afford to open and employ local people. When we look at the comparisons, it is pretty straightforward. A mum and dad small business, if they are open, they are doing this work with their family and, if they are not, I would suggest that there is the potential that they are doing the wrong thing and they are taking cash and splitting cash amongst the people who come in. I think that is fundamentally wrong and they should not be put in that position. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: they are out there competing with big business—big business who have done deals—and there are very simple examples. If we look at a comparison of a coffee shop in my electorate, they are out there competing with McDonald's. The difference between them and McDonald's is some $8 an hour on a Sunday. Those on this side of the House who have actually been in small business know the worry experienced about having to pay the rates and their wages every single payday. I know that it is has kept me awake of a night time on many occasions. I had a very simple view in business: we pay our people first, our bills second and ourselves last. I think that is a great concept to take into business. It is the way to ensure that you have longevity. But we are here talking about the amendments from those opposite. We want those mum and dad businesses to be in operation on a Sunday, out there providing their services, particularly to tourists in this country. As the Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, I can say that tourism is the absolute booming, shining star of our economy, along with agriculture. We are going incredibly well in tourism, but we need to provide the services that tourists require— Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— Mr PITT 148150 I hear an interjection about the exchange rate—and I acknowledge that. The exchange rate of course influences whether people come here. But they absolutely will not come to this country if the services they come to see and the services they expect to be provided, regardless of the day of the week, are not open. In my electorate, where the unemployment level is unacceptably high, we need to be able to provide more opportunities, particularly for our youth. I have a youth unemployment rate of some 24 per cent. That is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to the people I represent and, as a parent, I can tell you that it is unacceptable to most parents in my electorate. If there is an opportunity here to ensure that these businesses are open and that they are providing employment opportunities for the youth in our region, it absolutely should be supported. We intend to make sure that happens. As I have stated, the Fair Work Commission is independent. They have made an independent decision which, in my view, is in the best interests of those people trying to be open and competing with those who have done big deals with big unions to ensure that they are open. To be absolutely competitive with McDonald's or KFC they need to be paying rates which are close to or equivalent to what their competitors are paying. That is the nature of business. Our tourism numbers are going up and we need to ensure that our businesses are open. In fact, there are some substantial improvements around our tourism numbers—double-digit growth from countries like China, Japan, the United States and others. So we want to build the economy. To do that, we need to bring in more tourists and, of course, more investment. Can I just say, as an aside, that agriculture in recent days has announced a record production—some $62 billion. That has never happened before at the farm gate. I congratulate our producers and our small businesses, who are out there doing the hard work. Congratulations to them on record production for agriculture in this country at the farm gate. That, of course, means an increase in exports and an increase in money into our economy. It means that all our agricultural producers are going absolutely incredibly well. In my electorate, a thing that we consider to be important is that businesses are open; a thing that we consider to be important is the business of employing local people; and a thing that we consider to be important is that they are actually getting paid. There is a fundamental of mathematics, and it is this: two times nothing is still nothing. If you are not open on a Sunday then you are not employed. We want to ensure that those people have those opportunities right now in these businesses around hospitality, pharmacy and others. I have a tourism based electorate. Our economy relies on it and we require those businesses to be open and employing local people. 18:26 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I reject these amendments that have been proposed by the member for Gorton to the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This is actually a topic where I have some experience. For four years before coming to this place, I was the CEO of the National Retail Association. It participated strongly in some of those previous four-yearly reviews. I have to say that, fundamentally, these amendments that we are considering right now are really about the opposition—the Labor Party—backflipping on their previously strongly-held position that there should be an independent umpire which ascertains these key matters. Or should this be, ultimately, a decision for this parliament? That really comes down to a question like this on the details: do we here in the parliament think that we have the skills, the knowledge and the expertise to decide, for instance, that in the General Retail Industry Award or in the Fast Food Industry Award or in the Hair and Beauty Industry Award a particular person working at a particular level gets, say, $19.60 or $21.30 or some other amount at a key hour of the day in standard work hours? What should the loading be, specifically, once they have worked a full shift? What should it look like when they are doing some overtime? What uniform allowances might apply? What should the different loadings be if they work on, say, a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday? This is complicated stuff, and it is for that reason that these decisions were put into the hands of an independent umpire and independent expert by the opposition so many years ago. I do worry strongly about putting these sorts of decisions back into the hands of politicians, when I consider some of the skill sets, experiences and lack of diversity that exists in this place—particularly on the opposite side of the chamber. It is really important to have an independent umpire for matters like this, just as interest rate decisions, many decades ago, were taken out of the hands of this parliament and put into the hands of the independent experts of the Reserve Bank of Australia. That was done specifically to remove any suggestion of political interference. Decisions about employment awards and conditions fall into the same category. They are far too important to have any suggestion of political interference. It is done this way to ensure that outcomes not only are not political but are evidence based. The decision that those opposite are currently railing against was a decision where the Fair Work Commission took months—years, in fact—studying all of the evidence and hearing from thousands upon thousands of submissions, both written and verbal. They cross-examined witnesses. They considered expert reports that were commissioned by various parties. They carefully considered the views of both unions and employer organisations, along with many experts, to come up with that decision, and on balance they decided that, when they weighed up the competing interests, it was of net benefit to workers and to the economy as a whole to reduce penalty rates in four key awards, in exchange for the huge gains in employment that would be seen in those sectors. So, effectively, they performed the very difficult task of balancing the competing interests of existing workers in the workforce with those currently outside the workforce, the 400,000 or 500,000 unemployed people in this country who are looking for work and want to get a toehold in the job market and certainly deserve the dignity that they would be afforded if they could get such a job. 18:32 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Mr Speaker, I rise to talk on— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Berowra will resume his seat. The Leader of the House. 18:32 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Berowra for his willingness to speak—one of the best speeches he has given, dare I say! I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 71 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 73 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 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.

 18:42 The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business briefly on indulgence. 18:42 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I have simply been asked to report to the House that two of the Independents entered into a pairing arrangement because one of them was unable to be here for personal reasons. The member for Indi had intended to vote with the government and the member for Denison had intended to vote with the opposition. They asked me to report that to the House. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter is warned. I am just getting some attention! 18:44 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column headed "Provisions"), omit "3 and 4", substitute "3, 4 and 5". [protecting take ‑home pay for all workers] (2) Page 18 (after line 23), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 5—Protecting take ‑home pay for all workers Fair Work Act 2009 1 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2 ‑3 Add: 135A Protecting penalty rates (1) A penalty rate in a modern award cannot be varied to make the penalty rate lower than that in force under the award on 30 June 2017. (2) A determination of the FWC made on or after 22 February 2017 that would reduce a penalty rate in a modern award so that the penalty rate would be lower than that in force under the award on 30 June 2017 has no effect. 2 At the end of section 193 Add: Effect of removing or reducing penalty rates—award covered employees (8) Despite anything else in this section, an enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement does not pass the better off overall test under this section if: (a) a penalty rate under the relevant modern award for an award covered employee, or a prospective award covered employee, is removed or reduced under the agreement; and (b) because the employee usually works, or will usually work, on a day in relation to which a penalty rate is payable under the relevant modern award, the removal or reduction in the penalty rate disproportionately affects the employee as compared with employees who do not usually work on that day. Effect of removing or reducing penalty rates—prospective award covered employees (9) Despite anything else in this section, a greenfields agreement does not pass the better off overall test under this section if: (a) a penalty rate under the relevant modern award for a prospective award covered employee is removed or reduced under the agreement; and (b) because the employee will usually work on a day in relation to which a penalty rate is payable under the relevant modern award, the removal or reduction in the penalty rate will disproportionately affect the employee as compared with employees who will not usually work on that day. 3 Application of item 2 The amendment made by item 2 of this Schedule applies in relation to enterprise agreements made on or after the commencement of the item. If these amendments are enacted and change this bill, it will ensure that those workers will not lose real income on 1 July or, indeed, the day following—the Sunday. That will not happen. This will remedy and rectify an order of the Fair Work Commission as a result of the changes being proposed by these amendments. I have to say that these amendments reflect exactly the efforts by the member for Dawson— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance, yet again, because the House has just rejected the amendments moved by the member for Gorton, and the amendments he now seeks to move are almost precisely the same as the ones the House has just dealt with. As a consequence, I am at a loss to know how they can be in order for him to move them again. They are virtually the same. The SPEAKER 00APG On the point of order, I will hear from the member for Gorton. Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 Whilst they may be similar—to the effect of changing the order—they are an entirely different construction from those I moved earlier insofar as the change that would occur here would freeze the penalty rates not protect the net reduction to income. It is an entirely different thing, in relation to the first amendment. In relation to the second part of the amendments that I am seeking to move, that is entirely a different construction. Indeed, that is entirely different to what I sought to move earlier—namely, that goes to the arrangements of the better off overall test, the way in which workers will be treated because of bargaining and the way in which that test would apply to an agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission. These may be similar, but they are distinct— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton will resume his seat. Of course, he can jump many times in this—he was responding to the point of order and I think he is drifting back into his speech. I owe it to the House to rule on the point of order. The Leader of the House's point is there is a similarity, but, having examined the amendments, there are sufficient differences. There is material in this that is not in the amendments that the House has just dealt with, so the amendments are an order and the member for Gorton has the call. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 The fact is that the member for Dawson—the only member of the government at this point—has foreshadowed his concern about the effect of the Fair Work Commission decision and what it will mean for up to 700,000 workers in this country. Whilst we see these amendments as not being as good as the ones we earlier moved, in that there are some issues as to the way they will apply to certain provisions of the Fair Work Act— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The Leader of the House. 18:47 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move that the motion be put. Question agreed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:52]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 72 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 Christensen, GR Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 73 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 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.

 18:55 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne By leave—I move amendments (2), (4) and (6) together as circulated in my name: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column headed "Provisions"), omit "2,", substitute"2, 2A,". (4) Page 6 (after line 18), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A—Pay protection Fair Work Act 2009 1 Subsection 16(3) (note) Omit "base rate of pay", substitute "rate of pay". 2 At the end of section 18 Add: (3) The regulations may prescribe, or provide for the determination of, the full rate of pay, for the purpose of section 206, of an employee who is a pieceworker. If the regulations do so, the employee's full rate of pay, for the purpose of that section, is as prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. Note: Section 206 deals with an employee's rate of pay under an enterprise agreement. 3 Section 169 (paragraph relating to Division 6) Omit "base". 4 Division 6 of Part 2 ‑4 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Division 6—Rates of pay under enterprise agreements 5 Section 206 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 206 Rates of pay under an enterprise agreement must not be less than the modern award rate or the national minimum wage order rate etc. 6 Subsection 206(1) Omit "the base rate of pay" (wherever occurring), substitute "the full rate of pay". 7 Subsections 206(3) and (4) Repeal the subsections, substitute: If an employer is required to pay an employee the national minimum wage etc. (3) If: (a) an enterprise agreement applies to an employee; and (b) the employee is not covered by a modern award that is in operation; and (c) a national minimum wage order would, but for the agreement applying to the employee, require the employee's employer to pay the employee:    (i) a base rate of pay that at least equals the national minimum wage; or    (ii) a base rate of pay that at least equals the special national minimum wage; or    (iii) a casual loading that at least equals the casual loading for award/agreement free employees (as applied to the employee's base rate of pay); the base rate of pay and any casual loading payable to the employee under the enterprise agreement (the agreement rate) must not be less than the employee's base rate of pay and any casual loading that the employer would be required to pay the employee under the national minimum wage order. (4) If the agreement rate is less than the base rate of pay and any casual loading that the employer would be required to pay the employee under the national minimum wage order (the required rate/loading), the agreement has effect in relation to the employee as if the agreement rate were equal to the required rate/loading. 8 Section 282 Omit: (b) for an employee who is not covered by a modern award and to whom an enterprise agreement applies, the employee's base rate of pay under the agreement must not be less than the relevant national minimum wage or special national minimum wage (see subsection 206(3) (in Part 2‑4)). substitute: (b) for an employee who is not covered by a modern award and to whom an enterprise agreement applies, the employee's base rate of pay and any casual loading under the agreement must not be less than the relevant national minimum wage, special national minimum wage or casual loading (see subsection 206(3) (in Part 2‑4)). 9 Section 282 Omit: For an employee who is covered by a modern award and to whom an enterprise agreement applies, the employee's base rate of pay under the agreement must not be less than the base rate of pay that would have been payable to the employee if the award applied (see subsection 206(1) (in Part 2‑4)). substitute: For an employee who is covered by a modern award and to whom an enterprise agreement applies, the employee's full rate of pay under the agreement must not be less than the full rate of pay that would have been payable to the employee if the award applied (see subsection 206(1) (in Part 2‑4)). (6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (after line 17), after Division 3, insert: Division 3A—Amendments made by Schedule 2A to the amending Act 28A Application of amendments—enterprise agreements (1) The amendments made by Schedule 2A to the amending Act apply to enterprise agreements, whether made before, on or after the commencement of that Schedule. (2) However, the amendments made by that Schedule also have the effect they would have if they were, by express provision, confined to enterprise agreements made on or after the commencement of that Schedule. Note: If the amendments are confined to enterprise agreements made on or after the commencement of that Schedule, the law as in force before that commencement will continue to apply to enterprise agreements made before that commencement. Just for clarity, I will not be moving amendments (1), (3) and (5) simply because some of them are in similar terms to the amendments that we voted on. With respect to amendments (2), (4) and (6), this provides parliament with the opportunity to right a wrong which is that there are a number of people currently employed who do not get penalty rates at all because of the enterprise agreements that they are working under. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House? 18:56 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt As this is a bill about the repeal of four-yearly reviews and not about penalty rates, I therefore move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 71 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 73 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 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.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 73 19:04 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 73

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017

Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017

Second Reading 73 19:06 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017, which is the Turnbull government's second attempt at media reform in the now almost four years that the coalition government has been in office. I want to make it clear that, as Labor has publicly stated, Labor supports the majority of items that are in these bills. Labor supports both bills as long as the provisions relating to the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule are omitted. Labor's position on these issues has been crystal clear for some time now. Labor is committed to supporting the Australian media industry as well as the jobs and content it produces as the sector continues to adapt to the new media environment. At the same time, Labor is committed to safeguarding the public interest and our democracy and does not regard the existence of the internet in and of itself as a reasonable justification for the junking of fundamental public interest safeguards embodied in these provisions. Labor acknowledges the competitive pressures the broadcasting industry now faces. Australia needs a thriving media industry to promote a diversity of voices, jobs and quality news, information and entertainment. It is imperative that the sector remains viable and competitive in the modern media environment. That is why Labor supports the measures that industry needs most; indeed, the provisions that the sector has been telling us, for a long time, they need most: first of all, licence fee relief; also, repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule, which, as I have said in the past, Labor views as a fundamental piece of deregulation; and then relaxation of the anti-siphoning scheme and list. Labor also acknowledges the facts around media ownership diversity in this country and understands the proper role of government in promoting diversity through competition. It is for this reason that Labor opposes the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. To state a few facts, Australia's level of media ownership concentration is already one of the highest in the world. Traditional media—newspapers, commercial television and commercial radio—continues to be the main source of news and current affairs for Australians, particularly in regional areas. The majority of the top 10 news websites accessed by Australians are either directly or jointly owned by traditional media platforms—meaning that they are the same voices on different platforms. And the digital divide means that access to new media still remains out of reach for many Australians, giving the substantive levels of broadband connectivity particularly in rural and regional areas. While Labor acknowledges the increasing influence of new media in Australia, we do not mistake the entry of new voices online or the abundance of online content for diversity in terms of diversity of ownership of Australian media. It is a mistake to confuse the proliferation of content for diversity of ownership or opinion. As Professor Lesley Hitchins, an expert on broadcasting pluralism, cautions in her article, ' Media regulatory frameworks in the age of broadband: securing diversity': It is the case that the media ecosystem seems to be characterized by abundance – there are multiple ways in which news, information and opinion, and entertainment content can be accessed. Of course, very often one is simply receiving much the same content via these new platforms, as would be received via the traditional platforms. And so there is a need for caution to ensure that one is not misled by an illusion of diversity. Scarcity may be present despite the appearance of abundance. Similarly, as Paul Keating noted quite prophetically, the cross-media rules 'do not prevent any proprietor getting into new media' and dominant media owners do, in fact, control the most visited internet sites in Australia. Speaking of the cross-media rules, he said: The question now is whether digital technology, which enables all forms of content to be delivered in similar ways, makes these rules out of date. I think this argument is greatly over-stated by the government and the existing media owners. …   …   … …the rationale given by those who argue for the ditching of the cross-media rules – that convergence is turning all forms of media into one – is the most powerful reason for not making it easier to concentrate ownership. Again, to quote from Paul Keating in speech delivered in 2000: Public policy should be directed towards promoting diversity and preventing any further concentration of media power. The result might be some arguable economic inefficiencies around the edges, but the Australian polity will be healthier. The principal objective has to be diversity. And the only way to get it is competition. That alone. …   …   … The cross-media rules have never been an end in themselves, however. They were intended not to preserve a static media environment but to promote diversification; to facilitate dynamic change. Labor recognises that, in the absence of a coherent vision from this government for the Australian media industry or the policy and regulatory framework that governs it, the pragmatic course of action at this time is to support the majority of the measures in these bills. Even though Labor regards this government's second attempt at media reform to be inadequate and piecemeal, we will take what little sensible process we can. Turning to the media reform bill of 2016, the government's first attempt at media reform was their flawed Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 which stalled in the Senate last November because the government seriously did not know the difference between regulatory housekeeping and genuine holistic reform. When the Turnbull government announced the media reform bill over a year ago in Marsh 2016, they boasted that it was the most significant reforms to our media laws in a generation. This was a gross over-statement for several reasons. Firstly, that bill contained only three key measures, two of which were in the nature of regulatory tinkering and one of which was completely ill-conceived. Secondly, the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule was just a pedestrian section of regulatory housekeeping that could have been dealt with in any omnibus deregulation bill, given the usefulness of the rule had expired and it was largely redundant. Labor had indicated its support for the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule for some time. More than seven years ago in a Sydney Morning Herald article in April 2010, Senator Stephen Conroy was quoted as saying he thought the rule was outdated. He said: As we move into high-speed broadband and TV stations start streaming their content live, I just don't think that that 75 per cent reach rule can survive. The technological change is going to wash over the top. Conroy went on to announce the convergence review, which made sweeping recommendations for reform across the policy and regulatory framework. I know that I am repeating myself for the umpteenth time when I say that Labor has repeatedly indicated its support for the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. Labor wishes to express its disappointment that the government has dithered and delayed this important measure. Secondly, the amendments to local programming requirements for regional commercial television broadcasting licensees, obligations that follow a trigger event, were an extension of an existing scheme. Labor indicated its support for these measures last year. Thirdly, the proposed repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media rule was completely ill-conceived, given the very clear evidence that the rule should be retained, and given that simply removing safeguards does nothing to adapt our media regulation or our public interest safeguards to the 21st century. Turning to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017: now, on their second attempt with this bill, the government is in disarray in this policy area. The broadcasting reform bill rehashes the provisions of the flawed media reform bill, and throws in a few additional bits and pieces designed to scrape together support for the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. Despite having had almost four years to prepare the bills before the House today, and over six months since their last attempt at media reform, this government still has not worked through the detail of a number of very important measures to support the broadcasting industry which it announced on 6 May this year. Less than a week ago, as we understood it, the government had not, on the issue of additional restrictions for gambling advertising, worked out how they were going to legislate to introduce gambling advertising restrictions for live sport on online platforms. On the $30 million of funding to subscription television to support the broadcasting of women's and niche sports, they still have not worked out what outcomes or benefits they seek to achieve, saying that they had just started working on guidelines and principles, and they were still not clear on which sports might get the benefit of funding. Further, recent press reports of the long list of deals being considered to support passage of these bills are a testament to how problematic the proposed repeal of the two-out-of-three rule is. I will turn now to the arguments made by the government on this point. The main arguments proffered in support of its bills can be summarised in four parts. Firstly, the government's media reform package has the historic and unprecedented support of the entire Australian media industry, they argue. Secondly, they argue that Australia's broadcasters are facing an increasingly competitive commercial environment, with intense competition for audiences and advertising revenue from other media companies as well as global online and on-demand operators. Their third argument is that it is necessary to repeal the two-out-of-three rule in order that media companies can achieve the scale needed to compete in the global market. Fourthly, they argue that the regulatory framework is outdated and in need of reform. I will take each of these arguments in turn. Firstly, on the support of the Australian media industry: the bills before the parliament today give effect to a number of the measures the government announced in May to support the broadcasting sector. The bills are, overwhelmingly, pro-industry. It is not surprising, therefore, that the measures have the support of industry. Indeed, for a specifically convened media summit last month, chief executives from Australia's major commercial and subscription TV, newspaper and radio companies travelled to Parliament House to demonstrate their support for the measures announced by the government. There, industry support was lauded as an achievement of 'rare consensus' that is 'fragile', given the trade-offs made between fierce industry rivals. There is truth in this characterisation, particularly around highly contested sports rights. However, it is also true that a range of industry impacts are offset within the set of measures announced by the government. In addition to a number of deregulatory measures around ownership and control rules and antisiphoning, the bills save commercial broadcast licensees around $90 million per annum, with the abolition of license fees and the introduction of a new spectrum tax. The fact that the government's measures are unanimously supported by industry is notable but is not in itself a reason for parliament to support these bills without question. Media businesses answer to shareholders, not the Australian public. It is the role of the parliament to stand up for the public interest. Secondly, on the issue of the competition being faced by Australian broadcasters: one of the main arguments proffered by this government in support of its bills is that, because of the internet, because of global competition, we need to kill diversity to save diversity. To quote the minister's 6 May announcement: … Australia's broadcasters are facing an increasingly competitive commercial environment, with intense competition for audiences and advertising revenue from other media companies, including global online and on-demand operators. The competition for audiences and advertising dollars that comes with digitisation and fragmentation has been anticipated, discussed and now experienced for many years. These pressures did not arise overnight, but I understand that companies generally do not like competition. Even way back in the 1930s, Australian newspaper proprietors pressured the federal government to change the legislation that created the ABC2, in effect, to restrict the public broadcaster from collecting its own news. This history was outlined in a recent ABC piece by Stan Correy, entitled 'How the newspapers tried to kill an independent ABC news before it even began'. Today, our media companies complain about competition from the so-called global giants, including Google, Facebook and Netflix. It is simplistic to argue that it is us against them. In the contemporary media environment, Google and Facebook, search and social media, are part of the fabric now. I believe it was surprising to hear even the Prime Minister join the chorus of anti-Google sentiment at the media summit in Canberra recently. As Google MD, Jason Pellegrino, has observed—and I know that this has been a bone of contention between Google and some of the traditional proprietors—many Australian media companies are now in partnership with or in a symbiotic relationship with Google or YouTube or rely on search engines and social media for internet traffic to their own websites. I note that News Corp Australia's Michael Miller has argued in response to Pellegrino's claims, but what is clear is that the world has changed. The internet is not going away and companies that do not accept and adapt to that reality will not succeed. Consider the example of commercial radio in Australia. It is a medium that has done well to adapt in the new environment. Thirdly, I go to the notion that it is necessary to repeal the two-out-of-three rule in order that media companies can achieve the scale necessary to compete in the global market. To take a leaf out of Bernard Keane's book, this argument is that you have to kill diversity in Australia in order to save diversity. What getting rid of the two-out-of-three rule means is that there will be greater consolidation of Australian media companies. With that, it is almost inevitable that media companies will consolidate and cut costs by merging and that there will be fewer journalists, fewer views, less information and more power for media proprietors. Abandoning the cross-media rules carries the danger of intensifying vertical integration and concentration without doing anything corresponding to benefit horizontal diversification, and then what? After a few mergers, what then? No-one has scripted the next scene. The government's package is a bandaid for industry. It offers almost nothing for consumers and citizens and undermines diversity. It does not address the real problems, the real policy problems within the current framework, or offer options for a new framework. Ultimately, industry, citizens and consumers will suffer for this government's ineptitude in this regard. On the fact that the regulatory framework is out of date and in need of reform, Labor repeatedly called on the government from the outset to undertake a holistic, evidence based set of reforms, but what did the government do by way of response? Six months after the report of the Senate inquiry into the media reform bill was published last November, the Minister for Communications announced a series of reactive and surface-level deals cobbled together—a package of political trade-offs that do little to secure public interest outcomes in the contemporary media environment. Did the minister address any of the issues noted by his own independent regulator, the ACMA, in its 'Broken concepts', 'Enduring concepts' and 'Connected citizens' papers? He did not. Did he pick up on any of the ideas in the speech from the acting chair of the ACMA where he outlined several ideas for promoting media diversity? He did not. The acting chairman of the ACMA, Richard Bean, delivered a speech on media diversity in November last year, two days after the Senate inquiry reported on the media reform bill and a few weeks before the media reform bill passed this House. In summary, the acting chair articulated that the fundamental problem with the current regulatory framework goes deep. The current Broadcasting Services Act was constructed around notions of influence and licence areas. He noted that current trends need to be understood and that he thinks we have something to learn from our colleagues in the UK when it comes to regulatory approaches. The acting chair concluded by saying: That the regulator should be empowered to, and resourced, to gather a sound evidence base on which to assess risks and detriment, and respond proportionately when required. Any responses must have built-in flexibility and adaptability, rather than attempting to preemptively establish a revised media regulatory framework that appears to be, or even is, appropriate for today’s circumstances, but which cannot be expected to remain appropriate for 20 years. Just as other jurisdictions are recognising, we need a more nuanced way of assessing media influence and diversity of views and content that takes account of the dynamic digital media environment and the real consumption patterns of and impacts on citizens. The challenges of delivering the objectives of promoting diversity and managing influence provide an opportunity for a fundamental rethink of our whole media regulatory construct. None of the ACMA chair's ideas have been taken up in the context of this package. Similarly, Labor has called from the outset for holistic, evidence based reform, and those calls have gone unheeded. In their four years in office, this government could have had a holistic review of the evidence four times over. This government's latest media reform package is surface-level and piecemeal when considered in the context of the true media reform that is actually needed. To bear out that fact, I note that from shortly after the election last year, when asked what Labor's approach to media reform would be, I suggested two things that this government would want to look at. Firstly, that Labor agrees with the need for deregulation where it is necessary, and that should be done swiftly. In the context of the outdated impact of the 75 per cent reach rule, the reality is that Labor would have been prepared to waive that repeal through. Indeed, this government had the opportunity in November last year. When we sat and divided on the media reform bill 2016, we provided the opportunity to this government to waive through repeal of the reach rule and to allow the addition of those local content obligations in the event of a trigger having occurred. Those went unheeded. The second point that was made from the outset was that we have not had in this country a detailed, holistic, independent review of the broadcasting landscape since the review of the Productivity Commission in the year 2000. What I put at that time was that we needed to have a sound evidence base on which to look at the whole puzzle and to not just take out bits and pieces, tinker with them and put them back, thinking that would have no impact on the ecosystem. That was not only a simplistic view but a flawed view. That went not only totally unheeded by this minister but absolutely dismissed. Some of the words he used at the time were: 'All the facts are already known.' We saw even yesterday the release of the USO report undertaken by the Productivity Commission—a substantial piece of work which Labor has welcomed and which industry has said needed to be done. It has put forward a series of, in some ways, quite radical ideas. Also, it calls on policymakers to look at issues of transparency, where the rest of the telecommunications environment and the communications environment fit together, how rural and regional areas will benefit and what the best use of scarce resources is in order to achieve the universal service obligation. It was around July or August last year when I was calling for this. That inquiry could have been completed by now. We could have had a sound evidence base on which to conduct a real review and on which to have real reform coming before this parliament. That, unfortunately, now eludes us. There are a couple of other issues that are particularly worth noting. The first is that this bill imposes restrictions on gambling advertising in live sporting events across all platforms. As I said, this will be implemented by codes of practice for broadcast platforms and by legislation for other platforms. I have noted, through the Senate estimates process that was conducted recently, that— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 77 ADJOURNMENT Brand Electorate 77 19:30 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I would like, this evening, to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about my electorate in Brand in the southern metropolitan area of Perth. Brand incorporates the cities of Kwinana and Rockingham, which are made up of many communities that come together to create great places to live, work and play. These communities are made up of energetic, engaged and committed people that make Kwinana and Rockingham the fantastic places that they are to live today. I, like my colleagues in this place, am most fortunate in this job in that I get to visit groups, organisations and facilities where I can meet and talk with the volunteers, the hard workers and the big thinkers who put in the hard yards for the benefits of many throughout the community. It is inspiring to witness the depths of commitment that exist in the schools across Rockingham and Kwinana, where the passion for education and participation runs deep. Rockingham Beach Primary School principal Jacqui O'Donnell exemplifies this passion and ability, being one of only three principals from across Australia to be selected as a Harvard scholar. Heading off to Boston in July, the principal of my old primary school will be engaged in a program of learning where educators from around the world will hear about the great work being done at this little public primary school in Rockingham, nestled, as it is, between the beautiful Lake Richmond and the calm waters of Rockingham's Palm Beach. In turn, Principal O'Donnell will learn about and share in educational best practices from around the world that will benefit Rockingham Beach Primary School. These learnings will no doubt benefit the whole of the WA public school system into the future as educators and leaders like Jacqui O'Donnell move through the system along the course of their careers. This prestigious scholarship is a fantastic celebration of the school community and is one that the community should, rightly, be very proud of. In Medina, in the City of Kwinana, Brittney, Carmel Kickett and Wendy Oliver are just some of the team at the Moorditj Koort Aboriginal Health and Wellness Centre, and they are doing a fantastic job offering culturally sensitive services in health and wellbeing to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. This not-for-profit community-controlled centre is working to improve the delivery of health services by strengthening the relationship between health providers and the local community. The team's commitment to community is more than formal health provision. This year's Moorditj Koort NAIDOC ball is promising to be a stellar affair of good food, good company and great entertainment. I only wish I could be there myself. Moorditj Koort means 'good heart' in the local Noongar language, and the team works to achieve this physically and emotionally. The success of Moorditj Koort is built on more than just the work of people merely fulfilling their jobs; it is built on the enthusiasm and commitment of a dedicated team of people who want to improve the outcomes and the possibilities for people in their community. It is no secret that I have a passion for sport, mainly hockey and also footy. It is a passion that has given me some of the best times and strongest friendships of my life. The tireless work of an army of volunteer coaches, managers, groundskeepers, administrators, umpires, parents and sports lovers means that every weekend, and many weekdays, hundreds of children and young people get to participate and play in teams and in sports that they love. I am constantly impressed by the sporting talents demonstrated by young athletes across Brand. When presenting those dedicated young people with Local Sporting Champions certificates, the diversity, sporting ability and enthusiasm on display are always impressive. The sporting communities across the cities of Kwinana and Rockingham are important hubs that continue to grow as the suburbs grow. From the Secret Harbour Surf Lifesaving Club to the Rockingham Rams Football Club, from the Baldivis Archery Club to the Kwinana Bowling Club and from Peel's Riding for the Disabled to the myriad of others in-between, the depth and commitment to community through sport is one that the electorate of Brand can be proud of. Our whole community is all the stronger thanks to the work of those tireless volunteers who help those who are doing it tough. Jill and the team at the Rockingham Coastal District Care Centre are a godsend to those who are homeless or in dire financial straits. Julie-Anne, Tegan and the rest of the gang at The CREW provide a safe and welcoming space for people living on the streets so that they can enjoy a hot meal, a warm shower and countless other services that we all take for granted. Recently, I dropped into the Country Women's Association Safety Bay Belles Craft Market at their lovely little building on Watts Road in Safety Bay. Like many people, I have a copy of my navy blue CWA cookbook, which has the basics. It is handy to have a book that gives you some hints on catering for many. I admit I adapted 'catering for a shearing party of 25' for my own garden party once! The recent Safety Bay Belles Craft Market raised money for the Lucy Saw Centre, an important part of the local community which provides emergency support and shelter for women affected by family and domestic violence. The Lucy Saw Centre provides a refuge and safe place to stay for women and their children. It also provides an outreach program and counselling. I wish the centre all the best in the future. It does a marvellous job for the women of the community. Auckram, Mr Ben, Hankinson, Ms Jenny, Page Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 78 19:35 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Ben Auckram is a local boy who is in year 7 at Trinity Catholic College in Lismore. Ben has spina bifida, resulting in him spending most of his young life in a wheelchair, and he has never really participated in sports, due to his disability. Fifteen months ago, Ben, along with his parents, made a life-changing decision which would benefit his health and increase muscle tone in his body. The decision was to take up swimming. It was at that time he joined the Lismore Workers Swim Team, and since then there has been no holding him back. Ben trains four afternoons a week with his local coach, Peter Harvey, as well as competing in swim meets most weekends at various levels. His most recent success was at a national competition in Brisbane which was held in April, at which Ben broke the Australian record for his event. The event was 400 metres freestyle, 13 years S7 multiclass swimmers. Ben's parents, Keron and Tony, as well as big brother, Jack, are Ben's biggest supporters, and they could not be prouder. Congratulations, Ben, you are an inspiration. On 5 June a much loved, valued and respected member of our community, Jenny Hankinson, passed away unexpectedly. Throughout her life, Jenny was a dedicated emergency services volunteer who contributed much to our community. Jenny had an unwavering devotion to the Rural Fire Service and passed away alongside her RFS crewmates while conducting routine maintenance at the Casino air base. Despite the extraordinary efforts of her crew, Anthony, Mark and Lyndsay, along with Ambulance Service paramedics and hospital teams, Jenny could not be saved. Jenny's daughter Laurel praised the extraordinary efforts of her mother's crew. She said that, if it were not for them, doctors could not have saved Jenny's organs, which are now providing life and hope to at least five other families. Even in death, Jenny is still giving to benefit others, and she would have wanted nothing else. Jenny is also the mother-in-law of Laurel and Kevin and Chris and Fiona and a devoted 'Jen' to Matthew. She will be sadly missed by many friends and colleagues. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to Jenny's family, friends and fellow RFS members—in particular, the Northern Rivers Aviation Support Brigade and the Alstonville/Wollongbar Brigade, of which she was a member. The June long weekend is a time when local people are recognised for their commitment to our society and community. In this year's Queen's Birthday Honours list, several valued members of my community received various awards. John Murray, from Woolgoolga, was awarded an Emergency Service Medal for his 15 years commitment to the Woolgoolga Marine Rescue unit. He is also the unit commander. Robert Cox, from Corindi Beach, and Alan Tucker, from Grafton, both received the Australian Fire Service Medal, for their outstanding service to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. The Hon. John Hannaford, from Woolgoolga, received an Order of Australia Medal for his significant service to the Parliament of New South Wales, law reform and the community. Gwyneth Austen, from Red Rock, was also awarded an Order of Australia Medal, for her services to the community of Red Rock, which include being a founding member and secretary of the preservation association since 1985. John Barnes, from Alstonville, also received an OAM, for his services to the Northern Rivers community. He has been an active member of the Alstonville Rotary Club and the New Italy Museum. John also was instrumental in coordinating the redevelopment of the Private Bugden VC Memorial in Alstonville back in 1996, and he has even written a book about the young local soldier who earned the highest honour medal in the defence forces, the Victoria Cross. John has also been a partner in local business Richmond Waste, providing innovation in the recycling industry. Also recognised with an Order of Australia was Dr John Kramer, from Woolgoolga, for his services over many decades as a much loved GP in the region. And Ian Robinson received his OAM posthumously, for his committed service to the parliaments of both Australia and New South Wales. Commander Rod Fayle received an Order of Australia Medal for his significant contributions to the macadamia-growing industry. Before that, he had served as a submarine commander in the Royal Australian Navy. Lastly, I would like to congratulate Jenny Dowell on receiving her OAM for her commitment to the local government and community of Lismore. She was a much admired and loved mayor for eight years. My congratulations and thanks to them all. Energy 78 19:40 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy When the government fell in Queensland in 1990, Queensland had the cheapest electricity charges in the world. We all get up here and quote facts and figures, and we can make them work in our favour, but proof positive was the fact that we got the aluminium industry. They were going to Canada, but we had cheaper power than Canada—in spite of their hydro-electricity—and so they came to Queensland. We had a reserved resource policy. The ALP government that replaced us abolished the reserved resource policy completely, then deregulated the electricity industry. Two and a half thousand members of the ETU lost their jobs, and the ALP lost government, in the worst crash in the political history of the state. In a piece of monumental stupidity, the Liberals then promised, 'If you vote for us, we'll sell what's left of the people's assets.' They had the wonderful reward of selling the electricity industry and then watching prices soar through the roof. It is said in this place again and again that the greenies are responsible for the increase in electricity charges. That is simply not correct. If you look at the NEMMCO figures, it is a 20 per cent increase as a result of environmental impositions. The graphs are there for Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. You can pick them up in the library, but I do not need them to tell me that the increase every year was one per cent. That is all—one per cent. That was until we hit the imposition of national competition policy upon the people of Queensland, Victoria and South Australia—I have not got the figures for New South Wales—and then it ascends through the roof. It goes up nearly 300 per cent under the free market system. There would not be a Labor leader in this nation's history before Ben Chifley who would not turn in their graves to see the Labor Party selling off the assets that they, as Labor governments in Queensland, built. The alternative is wind. We have great privilege. God is good. We look out the back windows of my house, which is all glass, and we can see on some days nearly 30 varieties of birds. It is a great joy to see the birds—and the kangaroos down in the paddock hopping around. There are something like two million birds a year chopped up in these windmills that they are building. If you like seeing birds chopped up, I suppose it is a real good idea to have wind power! Having said that, the proposal that I talked about today—the 'triangle of power'—is the third-highest tableland in Australia. There is Kosciuszko, then there is Mount Bartle Frere and then there is the area north of Hughenden, where the big Kennedy project is going in, for 2,000 megawatts of electricity. There are only 40,000 megawatts in the whole grid system of Australia. As for solar, people do not understand that silicon is the second-hardest metal on earth—nothing scratches silicon except diamond—so you have to crunch it up and pulverise it down into a powder to process it into superpure silicon. There are not many people here—I do not think there is anyone here, actually—who have ever worked in the mining industry. I have worked as a labourer in a lead smelter and worked my own mines as a mine owner. You break the silicon up in a ball mill, and this costs an awful lot of money. A spiral separator costs nothing. The third process, in all probability, is electromagnets. As that name would indicate, it needs one hell of a lot of power. You need electricity to work an electromagnet to pick up the iron in the material. Then you send a huge electric current across two carbon rods, you pull the carbon rods apart and, a la hourglass, you melt the silicon. I think the most ignorant person here would see how much energy is needed to produce those photovoltaic— (Time expired) Petrie Electorate: Bracken Ridge 79 19:45 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I have been thinking a little bit about Bracken Ridge, the suburb where I grew up. I spoke a little last week about the history of Redcliffe after a visit to the Redcliffe Museum with my sons. It was an excellent trip down memory lane, and I want to congratulate the Redcliffe Historical Society, which is celebrating 50 years, for capturing life on the peninsula since its modern beginnings. It reminded me of my childhood—great mates and carefree days spent pretty much running amok in Bracken Ridge, as you do. Bracken Ridge was my first home. It is just across the bridge from my electorate office and is a place with which I feel fortunate to retain strong ties. As the member for Petrie, I have the privilege of representing the people of Bracken Ridge. It is a relatively young community, with the median age sitting shy of the nation's average. It is home to lots of young families who seek the city's outskirts for a range of reasons, including being in Brisbane City Council with a little more space, a bit further out from the heart of the city, with a little less hustle than you get right in the centre and with the charm and support of the community fibre. Just 18 kilometres north of Brisbane's CBD, Bracken Ridge was gazetted as a suburb in 1962. Prior to that, it was known as Bald Hills, another great suburb in the Petrie electorate. 2016 marked 150 years since the Scottish moved in, with the first record of settlers dating back to 1866—with, of course, Indigenous people before that. Among the first families were the Fergusons, whose family tree includes Kristine Herron, who has devoted countless hours to compiling a comprehensive history of the area. I know Kristine well. She was a local real estate agent and businesswoman in Bracken Ridge, and she has done incredible work on the history of Bracken Ridge. I sincerely thank her. You might like to look up her Facebook page, 'Memories of Bracken Ridge'. Her research contributes the most comprehensive bank of information on Bracken Ridge that I am aware of, and it is a fascinating insight into what was my first home. My memories of growing up in Bracken Ridge are something that I treasure. I grew up in Toolang Street, and I remember walking down to the shops there with my mate Ivan, who lived across the road, or down to McPherson Park. In 1979 I walked past the Bracken Ridge Scout Hall, and there was a judo class going on there, and I started to do judo back in 1979 at the Bracken Ridge Scout Hall. It is still there, going strong. We managed to get them some solar panels for their roof. I remember racing billycarts down Wangarah Street. We used to call Wangarah Street the killer hill because my mate's sister Natalie fell off and injured her face. She is looking good now; don't worry. I remember gardening with Dad. We would often dig up horseshoes and things out of the garden. I remember the Santa sleighs and the old milk bottles, when the milkman used to come around and you would leave 50c out the front for your milk. I remember burning rubbish with Dad in the incinerator in the backyard, when it did not matter; you could put ash over your neighbour's clothes. I remember cricket on the front lawn; I remember hitting fours straight into Mrs Gardner's house, and she would come out and go off at us. They were good, carefree days in Bracken Ridge. I moved to Talgai Street, and I remember training in the local hills, running up different hills there and doing lots of training there. So I have fond memories, particularly of Christmas, when the Christmas beetles would come out and you would get this great Christmas smell. The Bracken Ridge Tavern these days is pretty flash and, thanks to the passion and hard work of owners Jenny and Michael White, it is one of the last independent taverns or pubs in Australia. It is a place where you can get a feed and be in good company. The tavern recently hosted the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business for a small business forum, but in the old days they had people like Wickety Wak and they used to run a public bar called the Rum Jungle down there; that was pretty rough. These days, of course, we have local sushi, and there is a McDonald's and a whole lot of other things in Bracken Ridge. But it really is a great suburb. I remember the circus at the park next door to Bracken Ridge; the elephants were in the park and they would go across to the creek and have a bath and all the rest of it. Those were the days, right? Memories of Bracken Ridge! But, seriously: Bracken Ridge is home to 733 businesses that put food on the tables for the workers they employ. I am proud to be part of this federal government that is supporting those businesses and investing in the community I call home. When we talk here in the House may we never forget: it is not about political point-scoring; it is about the people, and I represent the people of Bracken Ridge. Solomon Electorate: Employment 80 19:50 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Canberra is a nice place; I do not mind it at all—not at the moment, maybe; it is quite chilly. But maybe I am just a bit sensitive to that, being from the Top End. There are nice days here, when the sun comes out and the fog burns off, and I must say that the ACT is definitely my second favourite mainland territory! No guesses as to which is my favourite: the great Northern Territory. But, while people in Canberra crack out the beanies and scarves, up in the Top End people are cruising around in double-pluggers and board shorts, enjoying the dry season. This weekend, whilst people down here in Canberra will have their beanies on and their crocheted scarves and so forth, I hope to be heading out to the MUF Festival in Darwin, which is the Mandorah Ukulele and Folk Festival at Wagait Beach. You have to catch the ferry out across Darwin Harbour to Wagait Beach. I am very much looking forward to it. I truly do say this with all due respect to my colleagues the member for Fenner and the member for Canberra: I do not know how people can compare the 'Berra, here, with our Top End barra. They are very different places. Despite this, there has been a shift of jobs, away from our Northern Territory. When I was speaking with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory the other night, he was going through the different federal agencies where there has been a movement of federal public servants away from Darwin, including the ATO and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. We have also heard complaints that when you lose public servants out of the Territory then, unfortunately, there is also a loss of service, and our constituents have brought a lot of those occasions to our attention. This loss of jobs and loss of services for Territorians is very unfair. The ACT has about 37 per cent of the total federal public servant jobs in Australia. In contrast, the Northern Territory has a paltry 1.4 per cent of the total Australian Public Service jobs. At the moment, the Territory is experiencing a loss of jobs. The latest figures for population growth show that it is at about 0.3 per cent in the Territory, in contrast to the ACT, where it was at about 1.5, and Victoria, at about 2.1. So there is a slower rate of population growth in the Northern Territory, and this is partially due to the shift of government jobs away from the Territory. The Deputy Prime Minister likes to make a lot of noise about decentralisation and how we need to be getting jobs out of Canberra to regional areas. I just want to know: where is the Territory in this decentralisation plan? What are Darwin and Palmerston getting out of this move to decentralise? I can tell you: all that we have seen are cuts to federal public servants in the Territory. We have heard a lot about 'jobs and growth', 'jobs and growth', but all that we have seen are these moves like the ones in the budget as to the AEC jobs: to get rid of them altogether or to move some to the eastern seaboard. This lack of vision for the development of the Northern Territory is unfortunately inhibiting growth in tourism, inhibiting the growth of our businesses, and we still have seen not one dollar out the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The single mention that Darwin had in the budget was the axing of those jobs from the Australian Electoral Commission and its Indigenous Electoral Participation program. This, for the Territory that has the lowest enrolment in the country, leaves us Territorians scratching our heads, and we would very much appreciate any new jobs of a federal department into the Territory. Swan Electorate: Infrastructure 81 19:55 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on an infrastructure project within the electorate of Swan, and that is the Forrestfield Airport Link, which is being funded by a GST top-up payment. As a proud Western Australian, the issue of GST is a sore point, but it is a national point. As we are transitioning from the investment phase of the mining boom, WA's economy is still hurting and the current rate of GST we receive is a major issue in the electorate. The system is flawed, and I am sure we can all agree that no member envisaged that the distribution of GST in Australia would drop so low that any state would be getting around 34 cents in the dollar in return of GST. That is why I stand on this side of the House, where our Treasurer has announced that the Productivity Commission is to conduct a review into how the GST distribution among states and territories has impacted and will continue to impact national productivity and growth. This was all initiated by the Prime Minister and the Western Australian coalition members. The Treasurer was also a strong supporter, as were many other interstate MPs. I understand the commission is due to report back to the government in January. In the interim, the federal government is continuing to support Western Australia through GST top-up payments. I have been a consistent advocate in ensuring WA receives its fair share and, over three successive budgets, I have been pleased to see the Turnbull government's GST top-up payments to WA go directly to projects within the electorate of Swan. In the 2015-16 budget, a GST top-up payment of $499 million was allocated for the Roe Highway/Berkshire Road grade separation in High Wycombe, which is in the Swan electorate. In this year's budget, the Treasurer announced a GST top-up payment to WA of $226 million as part of the Western Australian Infrastructure Package. The coalition government's investment in the infrastructure package includes $760.1 million towards priority new road projects to address safety and congestion at key locations in Perth and in regional WA more broadly. The package will provide a major boost to WA's local economy, with around 6,000 jobs expected to be supported as a result of the new projects. Included in this package is $68.8 million for the grade separation of Roe Highway/Kalamunda Road in the High Wycombe area. I have mentioned previously in this chamber how important an investment this is within Swan, as the Roe-Kalamunda is currently ranked as No. 1 for crashes by Main Roads over the five-year reporting period. Also included is $28 million going towards the Manning Road, which I have spoken about in this chamber before. But it is the 2016-17 budget announcement of $490 million, which was allocated to the Forrestfield Airport Link that I would like to draw to the chamber's attention. The link includes three new train stations being built with fast connections to the city in Belmont, Perth Airport and Forrestfield—all in my electorate of Swan. This infrastructure will deliver the people of Perth a 20-minute trip to the CBD, a trip which is otherwise a 40-minute drive. Perth Airport has cemented its position as the fourth busiest airport in Australia so, as you can imagine, this infrastructure has become a priority project for the great state of WA. Now, this was a Liberal initiative—a Liberal initiative that has received funding because of the consistent advocacy of coalition members, both state and federal, and an initiative that has been able to eventuate because of the GST top-up payments allocated by the federal coalition government. But the kicker is that the new state Labor government has now claimed or rebranded, if you prefer, the Forrestfield Airport Link as part of their Metronet project. To top it off, they are now claiming that the project might not be completed by 2020, which is an outrageous claim, given the work has already begun. In fact the new state Minister for Transport Rita Saffioti has said: The State Government will monitor the project schedule closely to ensure milestones are reached. She also said: I have been advised there is a risk that might not be possible. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are talking about another Labor government that has been literally handed a popular project on a silver platter worth $490 million—mind you—rebranded it as their own and yet has publicly admitted it is still incapable of delivering it within the scheduled time line. This project is expected to create 2000 jobs during the construction phase alone—that is, 2000 jobs that are needed in WA. So the honeymoon phase of the McGowan government is over. After eight years of the Barnett government delivering major infrastructure in our state, the people of Western Australia expect the best and they deserve to have the Forrestfield Airport Link delivered as part of the Metronet within the original time line. If the state Labor government wants to rebrand it as Metronet, that is fine, but so long as the people of Western Australia and Swan realise it was the coalition state and federal governments that initiated it and previously funded it. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 82 NOTICES

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Turnbull Government, Longman Electorate: Pensions and Benefits 84 16:00 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman What a strange and bizarrely mismatched government Prime Minister Turnbull has knocked together. He has the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Josh Frydenberg, who is quite literally living and breathing coal. We have the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, who wants to stop immigration at any and all cost. And just last week the Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, made very clear his sheer and utter disdain for people on income support. Mr Deputy Speaker, by now I am sure you have read the news and the reports where Minister Tudge recognised Caboolture as the suburb with the highest volume of welfare noncompliance in Australia. As the member for Longman, in which this really fantastic suburb of Caboolture falls, I take great offence at this. Many of the family and friends of people who live in Caboolture, just over the highway in Deception Bay, I am sure take great offence at that as well, as they were mentioned. If his intention were only petty name-calling, I would not take such issue on this, because the people of Longman are pretty strong. We can take that. We have been called names before. But it is the honourable member's dishonourable intentions that make this such a shameful statement. For starters, what benefit comes to the public from this announcement? Absolutely none. And what were the solutions to this issue put forward by this government? Where were the jobs that the people in our area have been pleading with this government to create since long before the 2016 election? Remember the 'jobs and growth' promise that this government gave people in Caboolture? Instead, the government is cutting $637 million from TAFE and apprenticeships, the very services that would help local jobseekers find work. You have to ask the question: who actually benefits from an announcement like this? You already know the answer: only this government. It is only this government, which constantly demonises vulnerable people who need support, while at the same time it throws billions of dollars of support at big business. I am sure you can see the double standard there. I do not deny that there are some people who may be doing the wrong thing. I do not deny that at all. But the overwhelming majority are adhering to or, in many cases, exceeding the requirements of the support that they receive. The whole point of this announcement was to demonise 100 per cent of support recipients, despite 95 per cent of them actually doing the right thing. The whole point of this announcement was to try and shift the public's anger. You see, this government believes that, if the public are angry at those who are receiving some income support, they might not notice this Prime Minister throwing money at huge corporations. They might not notice that the Prime Minister is turning his back on a royal commission into banks, and they may not notice that the Prime Minister is cutting workers' take-home pay after 1 July. Well, the public do notice. The public do notice, and they will not forget. (Time expired) Brabant, Dr John, Carevan Foundation 84 16:03 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to pay tribute to one of my constituents from Albury, a man behind one of Australia's most inspiring community based charity efforts. Local orthodontist Dr John Brabant—who just happened to straighten my teeth when I was in my 20s—just happened to read a story in his local newspaper about eight years ago. The article highlighted the rising numbers of homeless in the Albury-Wodonga region. It challenged local readers, suggesting that it might be easier for them to ignore the problem and turn away rather than care to make a difference. John took up the challenge. As he puts it: 'It was like an epiphany. That was what I had to do, and I went out and did it.' John Brabant founded a still-growing organisation known as Carevan, a mobile food van set up to move through Albury-Wodonga to help those who needed a hand to get a decent feed. It was not an easy start. The original caravan, decked out and ready to serve its first meals to the needy, was destroyed by fire in 2010. News of the setback reached local businesses and social groups, who then all jumped in behind John's idea and came up with a new van within days. As the saying goes, from little things big things grow. John's Carevan Foundation has built from one man's vision to now work alongside other local groups and is accessible to any agency, group or organisation committed to the fight against homelessness and for the reduction of poverty. We now see thousands of people benefiting from the concept, with John's idea spreading to serve the nearby community of Wangaratta in north-east Victoria and into New South Wales, including another city in my electorate, Griffith. Griffith's Carevan was established in 2014. Carevans are also located at Blacktown in Sydney and in Armidale, and they will soon be in Tamworth. John Brabant's vision is certainly starting to take hold, but there is more to tell. As a dental specialist he also saw the opportunity to improve the dental hygiene of the people and families he was helping. From this idea the Sun Smiles oral health program was born in 2012, with the aim of improving oral health literacy, oral hygiene skills and access to preventative dental care for primary school children. It has also spread from a localised campaign across Albury-Wodonga to Bendigo, Wangaratta and Western Sydney, to enable future improvements in every child's oral health. I remember visiting one such school in Western Sydney with my colleague, the member for Reid. On the Queen's Birthday, Dr Brabant was awarded an Order of Australia for services to people who are homeless and to dentistry. He hopes the honour bestowed on him will now open doors to even greater support for Carevan, particularly from new partnerships with government. Each van requires an annual budget of $80,000 to $100,000 and relies almost entirely on local sponsorship and donations. John was one of six people in Farrer to be bestowed with a Queen's Birthday honour, and was certainly a worthy recipient. As well, this was a wonderful indication of all the good things people do to care for others. (Time expired) Building and Construction Industry 85 Capricornia Electorate: Infrastructure 85 16:09 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia This coming weekend I will be heading back to the Sarina Range, just west of Mackay, to meet with a community that is literally broken, though not in spirit. Cyclone Debbie left the townships around the Sarina Range completely isolated from their work, their schools and their access to services. Three months on, there does not appear to be a light at the end of this very long tunnel. Here is the current situation. The people who have to travel to Mackay for work have had their travel time doubled to nearly three hours a day. Some have opted to stay in Mackay rather than travel the dangerous Koumala range at night, adding additional cost to an already tight budget. Added to the stress, there is no after-school care or child care available to working parents. As the Koumala route is not suitable for school buses, the students are now learning out of a makeshift temporary school, isolated from extracurricular activities and their classmates. Residents have a raised number of concerns about the conditions and safety of the Koumala range road, the only alternative access. Businesses are also suffering. This is a beautiful part of the world. Until the Queensland government gets on with restoring access, visitors will not becoming either, putting even more strain on this tight-knit community. Understandably, the people whose lives have been interrupted indefinitely just want answers. The Sarina Range may not be as big as Brisbane and it may not be as strategically important to the Palaszczuk government, but the residents deserve better. The federal government has approved category B funding to restore the road, so I urge the minister to prioritise this project. If you can find $2 billion to spend on a rail line for inner-city Brisbane, surely you can fast track these urgent repairs. My office has made numerous attempts to get updates from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. Requests for information are referred to the minister, who only wants to discuss this issue with his Labor colleagues. They took two months to get the road assessment done, citing concerns for the safety of their own crews. Where is the same concern for the people of Sarina? We know that the work required is not going to be cheap, and we know that safety is important, but, please, get your priorities right. We are still waiting for answers and so are the people from the Sarina Range. Workplace Relations 86 16:12 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I have spoken in the House before, raising my concerns that the government continues to support cutting penalty rates and cutting workers' pay packets. It shows that the government is so unfair and out of touch. The fact is that while, under this Prime Minister, on 1 July millionaires will get a tax cut of over $16,000, the very next day nearly 700,000 workers will have their penalty rates cut. This really shows where the government's priorities are and how harsh their choices are. The penalty rates cuts will be devastating throughout the nation, but they will hit especially hard in regional and rural areas and will be particularly detrimental to women, which is what I want to discuss today. In my electorate of Richmond, retail is the second-biggest industry, employing more than 7,000 workers, with hospitality the third-biggest, employing more than 6,000—so any cuts to penalty rates will really hit hard. Women will be disproportionately impacted because they tend to work predominantly in those professions where the cuts will and can occur. In Australia, women make up 55 per cent of workers on the General Retail Industry Award, 54 per cent on the Fast Food Industry Award and 77 per cent on the Pharmacy Industry Award. In addition, the government has refused to rule out cuts to the Hair and Beauty Industry Award, 87 per cent of whose workers are women. Within these industries the reduction in penalty rates will have a severely disproportionate effect on women and their pay packets, and it will create issues beyond the basic detriment to take-home pay. Women will undeniably be more adversely affected than men. The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work has released data showing that when the number of women working part-time is taken into account the gender pay gap increases from 17 per cent to 33 per cent. Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work Jim Stanford said it was impossible to separate the impact of the pure gender pay gap from the impact of women's concentration in part-time work. Women are more likely to work in a part-time capacity and also be reliant on the award, and the inclusion of penalty rates really does help them meet basic household expenses. It is patently unfair to penalise women by taking away penalty rates and affecting take-home pay, which could see them lose up to $77 a week. Penalty rates cuts mean that workers will now have less money to spend in the local economy—in shops, restaurants and other businesses—because they will have less disposable income. That is especially damaging in regional areas. We know that the Prime Minister and his government have actively campaigned for these cuts to penalty rates. I again call on the government to do the right thing and support Labor's Fair Work amendment bill and protect the penalty rates of low-paid workers, especially women. We in Labor want to stop these cuts. We know that those on the other side do not want to stop them, that they do want to see the cuts go ahead. They will be responsible for it. In the regions and the rural parts of Australia it will be the Nationals that will be held responsible for their continued support for cutting penalty rates. They are refusing to support workers in their communities. As I said, many people in regional areas rely on those penalty rates, particularly women. Those people in those communities know that it is only Labor that will defend their penalty rates and only Labor that will defend their take-home pay. And it is also only Labor that is committed to closing the gender pay gap because, particularly in this case, women will be disproportionately and adversely affected by the cuts in penalty rates. Maranoa Electorate: Jumpers and Jazz in July 87 16:15 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa In my rural electorate of Maranoa, a town is not just some dot on the map where you live; it is a place you call home, raise a family, and form connections and relationships with people around you. This community bond is one true element that presents in every town in Maranoa. In Warwick on the Southern Downs, a group of very dedicated people came together with an odd idea of dressing trees for the winter. What they did not know was that 14 years later their Jumpers and Jazz in July festival would turn into a premier event not just for the Southern Downs but for all of Southern Queensland. The Jumpers and Jazz in July festival has developed the yarn bombing of Warwick's deciduous trees into a remarkable exhibition that attracts tens of thousands of visitors to the town every year. This year's much anticipated theme is 'meander'. Warwick CBD is transformed into a living gallery with more than 100 handmade artworks installed on the bare winter trees. Inspirational and charming, yarn bombing warms the hearts of visitors even on a cold winter's day in July. Visitors enjoy live outdoor and indoor jazz performances by some of Queensland's most popular jazz musicians to the backdrop of colourful knitted art and cosy winter fires. Highlights include clever winter coated trees, yarn bomb surprises around every corner, art and craft markets, multiple art and textile exhibitions in traditional and unusual spaces, and the exceptional and inspirational talents of international and local artists on display. Personally I am glad to make it home for this one. Jumpers and Jazz celebrates community, and this event is supported by many wonderful and dedicated volunteers. In Maranoa, we are very community minded. We are proud of the history of lending a hand, with many of us volunteering in services like church based groups, local sporting and youth clubs, emergency services and everything in between to overcome challenges and to bring people together. I would also like to mention that many of my local service clubs and Lions clubs will soon host their annual change-over dinners to welcome in their new leadership teams. Their work is invaluable, particularly in smaller rural and regional towns. Although I am sadly unable to make all of these events, I wish members new and old all the very best for the year ahead and I thank them for their steadfast dedication to preserving the spirit of volunteering to our country. Volunteers are the backbone of our community and rural communities are where you will feel at home and supported. I thank all of my local service clubs and members for their tireless work in our community and wish Jumpers and Jazz in July festival all the very best. Broadband 87 16:17 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Since being elected to this place in July of last year, my electorate office has been constantly inundated with calls from constituents about the National Broadband Network. The issues are diverse; however, they often centre around the fact that constituents feel as though they are being offered a subpar service under the NBN. In light of this, I recently took the liberty of hosting a NBN forum to provide local residents with a bit of insight into the NBN and to enable them to voice their concerns. I want to take this opportunity to thank our shadow minister for communications, Michelle Rowland MP, for being my special guest at the forum and for providing my local constituents with the opportunity to tap into her vast wealth of knowledge about the NBN and about telecommunications. Michelle gave an informative presentation at the event and fielded numerous questions about the failings of the NBN under this current government. There was standing room only. I have previously hosted forums in my electorate on the NDIS and I plan to host further meetings on other federal government concerns later this year. However, what struck me about my most recent forum was the passion and indeed the vitriol when some of my local constituents spoke about their experiences of dealing with the NBN. It was disgraceful. The National Broadband Network is Australia's largest infrastructure project and was intended to ensure that Australians from all walks of life had access to a first-class internet connection, no matter where they lived. However, my constituents in Macarthur have been sorely let down by Malcolm Turnbull under whose stewardship Australia has plunged to 50th in the global ranking on internet speeds. Aside from poor speeds, countless local residents are still unable to find out from the government about when they will have access to the network in the first place. A number of my constituents who reside in these so-called 'black spots' have now been told that there is no specific time frame for when they will be connected to the NBN, despite the fact that many of their neighbours will already be connected. NBN's statement of expectations itself states that the NBN: … should be guided by the following goals: service quality and continuity for consumers; … and achievement of rollout objectives as cost-effectively and seamlessly as possible. It is a joke! I put these questions to the chamber: where is the quality and continuity of service for many of my constituents and for many of the other members' constituents who have had their phone lines disconnected without any warning? Where is the quality of their internet connection? Where is the quality of the service they are being offered? By this blatant failure to meet its own objectives, the coalition government has let down the Australian people. The Abbott and Turnbull governments have failed in their delivery thus far of a scheme which was set to be groundbreaking and revolutionary for all Australians. Malcolm Turnbull has failed in delivering the NBN, as well as failing in many other things. He promised it would cost $29 billion; now it is set to cost nearly $50 billion. My constituents are fed up, and so am I. (Time expired) Tangney Electorate: Sporting Organisations 88 16:21 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I rise to highlight the volunteer efforts of two local sporting organisations in my electorate—the Willetton Bowling Club and the Willetton Basketball Association. Volunteers at these clubs offer so much back to my local community: in time, coaching, umpiring, committee work, friendship and fundraising. They are committed to their fellow members, promoting their sport and introducing bowls and basketball to new players. Being active in sporting and social clubs is vital to maintaining physical, mental and social health. This is something I am passionate about. Recently, I was so pleased to officially open the new synthetic green and lighting at the Willetton Bowling Club. Willetton Bowling Club is one of the clubs that I visited early during the campaign. One of the things that impressed me about this organisation was its large thermometer, hanging prominently on the wall for everyone who visited to see. The thermometer was showing how much money they were raising for the redevelopment of their club. It showed the fundraising efforts by the club members and their visitors for the synthetic green. The thermometer showed that the Willetton Bowling Club was making every effort to achieve its goals. But when it comes to large investments in infrastructure it is appropriate for local, state and federal governments to help get these big and expensive projects built. The new synthetic green is thanks to the shared efforts of the federal government and the members and volunteers of the Willetton Bowling Club. The Turnbull government delivered $250,000 and club members contributed $50,000 of their own local fundraising for the installation of the new synthetic green. The federal government and club also shared the costs of new lighting. Just next door to the Willetton Bowling Club is the Willetton basketball stadium. Rarely a day goes by in Tangney that I do not meet a mum or dad, or a young person, telling me just how much this club does for the local community—in fact, our local community, south of the river in Perth. The Willetton Basketball Association is driven by a dedicated team of volunteers who do everything they can for more than a thousand volunteers, 300 teams and 3,500 players, who use the courts quite literally from dawn until dusk, seven days a week. But the current four-court stadium is stretched beyond capacity, with over 150 young kids on the waiting list to play team sport. But they cannot because of a lack of infrastructure. The association wants to build four more indoor courts, new change rooms, meeting rooms, hall space, offices and a space for services, such as a physio. But the project has a $10.5 million price tag, and while the Willetton Basketball Association has fundraised some $800,000—a remarkable effort—this project, fairly, needs the assistance of government. I am all about government co-investing in people and organisations that do everything they can to help themselves. A federal funding consideration for this project is very important in the very near future. I look forward to working with the Prime Minister and other ministers to find the federal contribution to this project. (Time expired) Blair Electorate: Agricultural Shows 88 16:24 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair As any member here from a regional or rural electorate will tell you, nothing brings out country pride and local sense of commitment more than a country show. I am fortunate in the electorate of Blair to have seven country shows, each in a country town except for that of the city of Ipswich. Each of these are home to a dedicated and passionate volunteer team who do a fantastic job in promoting their area. As usual, I held a mobile office at each of the country shows, and I was treated to great hospitality. Whether it is poultry or produce, cattle or, indeed, craft, you can see it all at country shows. The show season kicked off with the Kilcoy Show, led this year by Senior Vice-President Alistair MacDonald, known to his friends and others as 'Macca', and by David Dunn, who seems to be the Treasurer of everything up there in the Kilcoy region. Next up was the Marburg Show, led by President Rob Krause with a committee including Secretary Stephanie Knight and others. Marburg is a small country town of just over 500 people in rural Ipswich. The biggest of our shows is the annual Ipswich Show, led by Marcia Cruickshank and assisted by Vice-President Darren Zanow. The show has been going since 1873. The Ipswich Show is a three-day event which sees tens of thousands of people coming through the gates, with the Ipswich City Council estimating a contribution to the local economy of $13 million. I want to thank all of the 40 Labor volunteers who were there with me at my mobile office. We gave out 1,800 Shayne Neumann show bags, and I am glad I held the mobile office with the state members for Ipswich and Ipswich West. The Esk Show also was held this year, organised by President Michael Jess and his lovely wife Sally, who is the secretary. Again, it was a resounding success. Esk is a most picturesque town. There was also the show at Toogoolawah, led by a committee made up of Vern Doyle, Jonella Dargusch and others. They always put in a great effort to promote their fantastic town. Last week, we had the Lowood Show, opened by the Governor of Queensland, Paul de Jersey, who himself is a Lowood lad. The committee is led by President Noel Kammholz and the 'Lion of Lowood', as I call her, Janine Schulz, who is fantastic at getting grants. I was very pleased to open the upgrade to one of the buildings funded under the National Stronger Regions Fund. Next week, we will have the Rosewood Show for another year, and I look forward to catching up with Secretary Kate Lenihan and seeing the hard work they do. The entire Rosewood community always gets behind the show. I thank all the volunteers and also the show societies, who open up their showgrounds to provide facilities and resources for local sporting clubs and community groups and step up in times of great need such as flooding and natural disasters which have affected the electorate of Blair. With this in mind, I extend my congratulations to all the Blair country shows, their organising committees and all the wonderful volunteers on another great show season. Wide Bay: Media 89 16:27 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay In regional communities, local newspaper editors and journalists, radio and television reporters, and community radio hosts hold a very special position of trust, with people relying on them to keep them informed about what is happening. The media landscape has seen a change in the way in which people receive news, so media reforms will help guard the viability of local media organisations, which face increasing global competition in the digital landscape. The coalition government's media reforms comprise abolishing the 75 per cent reach rule, abolishing the two-out-of-three cross-media rule and introducing higher local content obligations on regional commercial television licensees who change their control or ownership arrangements. With the incredibly diverse range of media perspectives available at the click of a button, protections such as the 75 per cent reach rule and the two-out-of-three rule simply no longer make sense. Obligations to increase local content programming will benefit media consumers in regional areas like my electorate of Wide Bay. My electorate is lucky to have three regional daily newspapers, an array of weekly and community newspapers, commercial and community radio stations, the ABC and two commercial television networks, Channel 7 and WIN. During the 2013 flood disaster, huge parts of Wide Bay were isolated by water. Without locally produced new sources, there would have been no relevant news at all. The Gympie Times and the Fraser Coast Chronicle were essential sources of information via their media platforms. As an emergency service worker during the floods, I collaborated with local media to keep the community both safe and informed. With more than 600 homes and businesses inundated and the majority of major roads cut, no metropolitan media were able to advise people which roads were open, what height the water would reach or where to get help. The responsibility fell to the local media, working closely with emergency services. These are the very voices that media reform must protect. Even in less perilous times, these smaller news sources are the only place where people can turn for that quintessential local news—council coverage, nearby events and matters of importance in their own local main street. They hold our local politicians to account, and as Don Chipp said—and, as a politician myself, I know how important it is—we need to 'keep the bastards honest'. The coalition government's media reform will ensure the viability of these local voices into the future, allowing established media operators the flexibility— (Time expired) Macquarie Electorate: Ebenezer Church, Macquarie Electorate: Winter Magic Festival 89 16:30 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie At the weekend, I got to do something that no other member of this place has done. I was at the 208th anniversary of a church, the oldest surviving church in Australia, Ebenezer Church. Established in 1809, this sandstone building was originally a nonconformist church and then became the first Presbyterian church in the country. The history is this: a group of families arrived on the Coromandel in Sydney in 1802. These families—Davison, Hall, Howe, Johnston, Johnstone, Mein, Stubbs and Turnbull—came to the new colony with a request to be settled together. Their wish was granted by Governor King and they moved to their 100-acre land grants at Portland Head, Ebenezer on the Hawkesbury River in early1803. They were joined by seven other families—Arndell, Bushell, Grono, Cavanough, Jacklin, Suddis and Jones—and met regularly on Sundays for services on Mount Ebenezer in the homes of settlers. These settlers were people of various denominations, but they came together as one congregation. In 1808, at a special meeting in the home of Dr Thomas Arndell, each family pledged itself to the building of a church and a school. They raised the 400 pounds themselves without government assistance and the land was donated. Built of locally obtained materials like sandstones, cedar wood and hardwood, it was constructed in 1809. The building still stands and Sunday's celebrations of the 208 years reflected the strong community commitment to the historic church. I should also note that work has been put into maintaining the church, including by a descendant of two of the original founders, John and Ann Turnbull. The Prime Minister made significant contributions some years ago to help repair the leaking roof. Peter Worland, the executive director, Uniting, spoke to the congregation and challenged them to work to help the most vulnerable in our society. Congratulations to all of those who were involved in the day, including Reverend Rodel Palma, Reverend Geoff Stevenson, church secretary Ted Brill, and people like Jennifer Turnbull and Dawn Case. I want to make special mention of the wonderful homemade refreshments. I had the best sponge cake I have tasted in a very long time. It was a privilege to be part of a wonderful celebration of the Hawkesbury's history. I would like to talk about an upcoming event in my electorate of Macquarie, the Winter Magic Festival in Katoomba on Saturday. This festival attracts tens of thousands of people to Katoomba. It is always a cold day, but the atmosphere is always very sunny. The main streets are closed. It is packed with stalls. The 11.30 parade is a display of community, from local kids through to disability groups and political activists. It is a diverse cross-section put together by volunteers. They deserve congratulations for the work they have done to make Saturday's event happen. I look forward to being there. Robertson Electorate: 5 Lands Walk 90 16:33 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson This Saturday thousands of families and residents from the Central Coast will come together for the 11th annual 5 Lands Walk. The walk celebrates our Indigenous heritage and multicultural community. It is rightly becoming one of the biggest tourism events of the year for the Central Coast. It is not hard to see why, with the food, entertainment and workshops. It is a great family day out and I am looking forward to, once again, sharing some of the walk with my children, Oscar and Mollie-Joy. There is a real sense of connection that is cultivated by those of us who do the walk along the five lands, which is all about connecting people to people and people to place. The 10-kilometre route follows the spectacular coastline, through the five lands beginning at Macmasters Beach, heading down to Copacabana, over the headland to Avoca Beach, further on to North Avoca, and over to the end at Terrigal Beach. With each new land, there is a new cultural festival featuring Indigenous dance and Greek, Chinese, African, Irish and Latino festivities. The festival also has an amazing array of food, craft workshops, artwork, sculptures and entertainment. This year, walkers will be treated to nearly 40 local artists playing along the route as well as performances from our local schools. The event started in 2006 and was inspired by Italy's Cinque Terre. It aims to connect the community in a new and unique way. Now, more than a decade on, it is safe to say that this event really does bring our local community together. Last year the 5 Lands Walk saw a record 18,000 people attending, and I have no doubt that this year will build on last year's success. For the Darkinjung people, the original custodians of our land on the Central Coast, this time of year marks the arrival of their totem animal, the humpback whale. With nearly 15,000 whales passing our beaches during the winter migration, whale watching is a spectacular and special part of the festival. I will never forget taking part in the walk with my children a few years ago and seeing how the opening ceremony at Macmasters Beach was interrupted by the incredible sight of a whale breaching the surface of the water. Stories like this are from just one of many in the community who have fond memories of their time at this outstanding event. The walk is a celebration of our incredible region—a journey through and with the communities of the Central Coast, showing all that they have to offer. The incredible location is just one of the reasons this event is such a success year after year. The other, of course, is our local community—our local communities that help fund the event, our local 700 volunteers who made the day possible and, of course, those people who take part every year in the walk. I would like to pay tribute to the dedicated team who work tirelessly to make this event the special day that it always is. To Lyndsay Cunningham, Con Ryan, Tony Powell, Pauline Wright, each and every volunteer and, of course, every member of the community who takes part: thank you for all you do. Burt Electorate 90 16:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt For too long now the people in the seat of Burt have had to put up with being talked down to, criticised and abused. The areas of Armadale and Gosnells in particular have had to put up with a negative outward perception of our suburbs and community. Growing up in Armadale, I know how my area is looked at by those who think they come from somewhere better or that somehow they are better people. I know firsthand the negative effect on self-esteem and aspiration of everyone around you talking you down because of the area you are from. I do not say this with rose-coloured glasses. We have real issues: high unemployment, high crime rates, intergenerational and complex social issues, bushfires and underinvestment in essential infrastructure for our growing suburbs by successive Liberal governments. These are the issues that got me into politics to give a real voice to these issues and to bring real change. We need to be talking about the great parts of our community, the great community spirit, the fierceness in adversity, the natural beauty—the things that bring us together and make us better. We need to create hope. We need to change the story about Armadale and Gosnells. Last month I had the pleasure of launching the Youth Partnership Project's Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership report, Change the story. The report speaks of this proof-of-concept project demonstrating how a targeted, intensive, collaborative and place-based approach with a purposefully resourced backbone leadership organisation can better support the outcomes for young people with complex needs, diverting them away from crime and imprisonment into study, employment and becoming productive members of our community. I am now proud to say that this project has even received additional funding from the new WA state Labor government. What a contrast to the approach of this Turnbull Liberal government! The last thing we need is this elitist, snobbish, Turnbull Liberal federal government trying to run us down—not just the residents of my electorate of Burt but cities and towns around the country where people that are not as well off as the member for Wentworth, the Point Piper Prime Minister. The Minister for Human Services, responsible for Centrelink, selectively leaked a list of 30 suburbs of Centrelink noncompliance hotspots. Some in the media, no doubt at the behest of the minister or his office, have even had the gall to refer to these suburbs as 'bludger hotspots'. This is a disgraceful new approach to dealing with welfare compliance from the Turnbull government, choosing to name and shame entire suburbs of hardworking Australians. Armadale ranked only 22nd nationally, with 188 cases, and Gosnells has even less, with 172 cases, representing less than one per cent of their labour force and only a tiny fraction of their total populations. What sort of hotspot is that? Minister Tudge should be ashamed of his actions in talking down all of the people in Armadale and Gosnells. The hardworking people there deserve a better reputation than they have, and the federal government doing things like this only makes it worse. Worst of all is the cutting of jobs at Centrelink so that the phone lists have exploded and people cannot even call to comply with the requirements they have. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I must admit, I enjoyed the year I played football at Armadale. It was very pleasant. Turnbull Government 91 16:39 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan Tomorrow is game 2 of this year's State of Origin battle, and indeed tomorrow morning we will see a parliamentary touch football game along similar lines; however, when it comes to the parliamentary chamber, the teams line up quite differently. On our side we are led by the member for Wentworth, the JT of federal politics: already well on his way to the tryline, determined not to be sidelined by interference and interactions not central to the game, determined to score for the Australian people. The coalition scrum is, of course, spearheaded by none other than the member for New England, our Greg Inglis: relentlessly determined, always focused on the goal, plays straight down the centre, nothing diminishes his passion to win. Joining him in the scrum is the member for Cook, the Cameron Smith of the team: always forward in the front lines, winning the hard yards and doing the heavy lifting. And hovering around the scrum, fleet of foot, weaving in and around, is the playmaker, the member for Sturt: ready for whatever comes his way, his safe hands handling anything thrown in his direction and passing it on with style. He is the Cooper Cronk of our side or, as a result of his South Australian upbringing, the team rover. And backing up—the player with style, the player with flair, the talented Billy Slater of the team—who else but the member for Curtin? Just send the ball in her direction and she can deliver a torpedo punt at any time, to any player, anywhere on the field. I do know that I have merged football codes, but I wanted to acknowledge the AFL upbringing of the last two players. We then look at the opposition team. Their leader, the member for Maribyrnong, ruthlessly stormed through the ranks by ankle tapping key players on his own side. Having achieved the captaincy, he now keeps changing position, so much so that his team does not know what the game plan is from one moment to the next. However, the member for Grayndler, the anchor of their scrum, the people's choice, their Jarryd Hayne, is still hanging in there, implacable in defence, refusing to give an inch. He hopes to achieve his personal trifecta. He had a first-game win in State of Origin—sorry but he can only have one of those; his beloved Rabbitohs came back last Saturday; and now the captaincy is in his grasp—just one more dropped ball by his captain and the team will be backing him in. Then there is the member for McMahon, the opposition's Brett Hodgson, sadly lacking the speed and skill for a leadership role, always in danger of having his passes intercepted or of being dragged across the line. The coalition's game has form. We have the best team, we have the strongest team, and the goal is in sight. The coalition will not let the opposition block our attempt to deliver what the packed stadium of Australians wants. The coalition are the only team that can hold on to the ball, score and convert their try. Go Queenslander! Lindsay Electorate 92 16:42 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I did not know that I was coming into the comedy club this afternoon, but that speech from the member for Ryan reminds me of something I saw—which actually was quite funny—down in Melbourne one time. Perhaps more effort on the coalition side could be directed not to their football team but to focusing on what is actually important, which is getting their school funding sorted out. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to talk about some of the great things that are happening in my electorate on the back of the amazing people I have the absolute privilege and honour to represent. I wanted to come in here today and mention a bloke called Allen Cullen, who I have known for many, many years. He was recently awarded an OAM for his service to our community. Allen was the principal of our local SSP, Kurrambee, and a teacher for over 50 years. I am absolutely certain that he appreciates the value of needs based funding more than anybody in this place. For many years I thought Allen was still the principal, and I was quite surprised to learn that he was no longer the principal but had stayed at the school as a casual teacher and had become the president of Little By Little, which is the charity set up to support the school's needs and provide the resources they do not get. I would point out that they are going to face a $166,000 funding cut under this new school funding model. Mr Cullinan also played a crucial part in making sure trampolining became, for the first time, an official Olympic sport, at the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. In the week we were not here in parliament, I had the pleasure of visiting Lorraine Stacke and her team at the Nepean Family History Society. Lorraine has been a local historian for many years and has written a book on the history of Penrith. I suggest that that would be compelling reading for anybody in this House, particularly the member for Reid. He might want to look at the great things that are happening out there in Penrith, given that he likes to talk down my area quite frequently. Lorraine Stacke and her team keep great records of local families and land grants as well as other amazing historical data. I have also been able to pay a visit to our local seniors and pensioners group, headed up by Grace Brinkley, the president, where I had the absolute pleasure of being their guest speaker. Nobody fell asleep on the day, so I take that as a win. These were hardworking pensioners who were relying on the government for help in their retirement as a way of being thanked for the work that they have done in our community over a great number of years. On the way out of there, a very sprightly young woman passed me, and she said, 'Just don't ever get old, love.' As she passed, she said, 'I'm only 98.' I was quite surprised to see how very fit she still was at 98. To the volunteers of the Zonta Club of Nepean Valley, with Lily Cowen— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Ms HUSAR 263328 Zonta. The member for Goldstein is very excited by my Zonta Club, with Lily Cowen, supporting domestic violence and birthing kits— (Time expired) Victoria: Crime 92 16:45 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise this afternoon to speak about an issue of increasing concern to my constituents in Menzies, namely the increasing levels of crime occurring throughout Melbourne and indeed throughout Victoria. If you look at the latest data that is available, the latest crime statistics show that murder is up by 19 per cent; attempted murder is up by 141 per cent; common assaults are up by 34 per cent; rape has increased by 14 per cent; aggravated robbery by 33 per cent; and aggravated burglaries by 66 per cent. No wonder that—as the member for La Trobe knows from his area and his background and experience—this is causing quite considerable concern to people not just in my electorate but indeed right throughout the community in Melbourne and in the state of Victoria. I have spoken in this place before about the inadequacies of bail laws in Victoria. Under the law in Victoria, there is a presumption that a person will be granted bail. The expression used in the legislation is that 'bail shall be granted', so, when someone comes before a bail justice, the presumption is not that they may get bail, not that they may apply for bail; the presumption is that they shall be granted bail unless there are some extenuating circumstances and that does not occur. In the case of people who have been involved in gang activities, for example, of which we have seen a spate in recent years in Victoria, people like that, frankly, should not be granted bail, because what is happening is that they simply return to the community and return to the lawless activities that they have been engaged in in the past. I want to commend the opposition in Victoria for their three-point plan to fix the bail system. That constitutes, firstly, introducing the presumption of remand for those charged with violent offences, community expectation being that people accused of violent offences should not be put straight back onto our streets. Secondly, it would introduce a 'one strike and you're out' policy for anybody breaching bail. If you are on bail and you violate the conditions of the bail, you forfeit that privilege and face remand. For far too long in Victoria, breaching bail has carried no consequences. Thirdly, there is reinstatement of the offence of breaching bail by juveniles, which was a change that weakened the bail system in 2016. These three measures taken together would improve public safety for the residents of Victoria. Dobell Electorate: Schools Kitchen Garden Classroom Competition 93 16:48 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell From little things big things grow, and that is exactly what I hope will happen in Toukley Public School this year, because Isabelle from Toukley Public School is the winner of my schools Kitchen Garden Classroom competition. Isabelle's fantastic entry has earned her school a 12-month membership of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Classroom and a set of the tropical and subtropical syllabus, kindly donated by the Stephanie Alexander kitchen garden program. Second prize, an educators pack, is awarded to Jack from Chittaway Bay Public School. Third prize goes to Ana from Brooke Avenue Public School, who has won for her school a 'getting started' pack. And 'highly commended' goes to Amanda from Tacoma Public School. I launched the schools Kitchen Garden Classroom competition to promote kitchen gardens as an educational tool for schoolchildren to build their gardening skills and to learn of the importance of fresh and healthy food. Students in my electorate were asked to write, in 250 words or less, how a school kitchen garden would help them learn. The quality of the entries was outstanding. Students showed a real flair for creative writing and gardening. After much deliberation, the judges have settled on these winners, and I am delighted to announce their success in the national parliament today. Congratulations to Isabelle, Jack, Ana and Amanda. I cannot wait to visit your schools and see what is planned for your gardens. I am very pleased to support the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Classroom program, which encourages a love of gardening and enjoyment of fresh, healthy foods, which are so vital to nourishing and maintaining physical health and wellbeing. I wish to thank the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Foundation for its generous support of this local initiative. I would also like to thank the principal, Mrs Dillon, students and staff from Tacoma Public school, whose Leafy Leaders program planted the seed that led to this competition. Hopefully, big things will grow in the years ahead. I have met with Central Coast Council and they are backing this program, which I want to see rolled out in schools and community centres across the Central Coast. When children discover a love of digging, watering, planting and growing their own fruit and vegetables, the benefits last a lifetime. I commend the program to all members, thank all those students who participated with so many letters and drawings for the competition and, again, congratulate the winners in the first Dobell Kitchen Garden Classroom Competition. Thank you so much. I look forward to visiting you and your schools very soon. Goldstein Electorate: Community Groups 93 16:51 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein As Goldstein's representative, I want to put on the official record some issues that have been raised with me by three community organisations within my electorate: firstly, the Grandmothers Against Detention of Refugee Children; secondly, the Bayside Refugee Advocacy and Support Association; and thirdly, the Bayside Climate Change Action Group. The grandmothers regularly raise the situation of asylum seekers in onshore and offshore detention with me, including by protesting at the front of the Goldstein office on 9 June, when about 30 of them appeared. I was very happy to receive them and I always enjoy their company. They are always polite and respectful and engage with people who are interested in the issues. It is a great privilege to have people who are so concerned about the plight of other humans and their circumstances. Thank you, grandmothers. But their overwhelming message is that they want all children out of detention. As you know, that is a topic very close to my heart. Similarly, we have had the Bayside Refugee Advocacy and Support Association, who have raised with me their ongoing concerns around the issues affecting people in offshore and onshore detention to the point where it has led me, at times, to go and visit detention centres, including the Maribyrnong detention centre at the end of last year. The clear point of BRASA is to ensure that everybody is treated with dignity and respect, and I respect their role and contribution in our community in discussing these important issues and hope they continue to do so. The Bayside Climate Change Action Group have been in regular contact with me, raising various concerns. One of the things I do like about BCCAG, even though I may have some disagreements with them from time to time, is that they always engage constructively. In fact, in a recent email to me, they wrote that they believe very strongly that there is a growing understanding in the community of the magnitude of climate change risk and they are feeling that the government must show leadership in facing these challenges as well as meet its commitments to reduce emissions. That is what we are seeking to do. We do recognise the 'imperative need for energy security and a wish to present ideas on how that can be achieved while promoting environmentally conducive outcomes to investment in renewable energy'. That is what we are also seeking to achieve as a government. The Bayside Climate Change Action Group welcomes moves by the government to place the matter of energy security on the national agenda—which has been very welcome. They agree that energy security does need attention at a time when coal-fired power stations are being replaced by intermittent renewables and that other factors, including the role of distributed energy and distributed energy storage, the need for utility-scale energy storage and the roles of demand-side management and risk management also need to be factored in. That is one of the things—as I said, they are very constructive. They have also regularly raised with me their views on the Queensland Carmichael mine and the use of the concessional loan for the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility to build a complementary railway line. Like all of these groups, I would like to thank them for their contribution. Fowler Electorate: Saints Raphael, Nicholas and Irene Greek Orthodox Church 94 16:54 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler From simple and humble beginnings, meeting in a room provided by Liverpool Hospital, a small group of Greek immigrants with big dreams and a willingness to work hard laid the foundations for the very vibrant Greek Orthodox community in the Liverpool region. Recently I had the honour of attending the 50th anniversary of Saints Raphael, Nicholas and Irene Greek Orthodox Church and Parish in Liverpool. His Excellency Archbishop Stylianos, the Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of Australia, attended, along with members of parliament, community leaders and a few hundred parishioners of the Greek Orthodox Church. The event also commemorated 50 years since the ordination of parish priest Father Christos Vergos and also marked his retirement. Father Chris was ordained two weeks before the establishment of the new parish in Liverpool, so his involvement has not only been in serving the spiritual needs of the Greek community but also in building a parish from the ground up. Father Chris is well known in the region, not just among the Greek community, through his charitable works and care of people. This is a man that has made a genuine difference for the better in our community. The anniversary dinner was also an opportunity for me to acknowledge the great contribution Australian Greeks have made to this nation. The Australian Greek community have shaped the very fabric of our nation through their spirit and the values of their Hellenic ancestry. They have worked hard to build their dreams of a better life for themselves and their families and have contributed in all areas of community life. The success of Father Chris's work in promoting the Greek language and, indeed, the Greek heritage amongst younger people will stand as a lasting tribute to his ministry. On behalf of the community, I thank Father Chris and his wife, Sophia, for their years of service and wish them all the best in their retirement. I also take this opportunity to welcome Father Dimitrios Papaikonomou, who will take over as the parish priest of Saints Raphael, Nicholas and Irene, and his family. Clearly Father Dimitrios has very big shoes to fill, but I am sure that, with the support of his family and the Greek community of Liverpool, he will continue in the same caring way as Father Christos Vergos has for the last 50 years. I would like to thank the parish president, John Rekouniotis, and the directors for their kind invitation and for allowing me to participate in this milestone event in our community. La Trobe Electorate: Queen's Birthday Awards 94 16:57 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to congratulate Queen's Birthday honours recipients in La Trobe. Congratulations to Denis Cunningham AM, from Belgrave, on his work as an enduring and extensive educator who has filled executive roles with national and international language-teaching organisations. He has produced multiple publications, presentations and articles in English and French on language teaching, distance education, open learning, continuity, profiling, Linguapax, language rights, policy, cultural diversity, associations and French topics in 28 countries. Congratulations to Marilyn Rowe AM, from Olinda, on her significant service to the performing arts, particularly to ballet, as an artistic director, administrator, internationally acclaimed performer and competition jurist. During Mrs Rowe's career, she performed with the Bolshoi Ballet, the Vilnius Ballet Company and the Riga Ballet Company and played leading roles in The Merry Widow in 1985 and A Galaxy of Stars in 1986. Congratulations to Emeritus Professor Dorothy Scott OAM, from Emerald, on her significant service to the community, particularly to child protection and wellbeing, as an advocate for children's rights reform, and to education. Her list of services is so extensive that unfortunately I will not have time to cover them all today, but on top of all that she was heavily involved with the Ian Potter Foundation, the Myer Foundation, the Sidney Myer Fund, the ANZ Trustees advisory panel and the Tasmanian Early Years Foundation. Congratulations to Geoffrey Fitzpatrick OAM, from Sassafras, on his lifetime of service to industrial and interior design. He was involved with so many organisations and educational institutions in many different capacities, including the Design Institute of Australia, where he was a Hall of Fame inductee in 2005; the Victorian Council; the Australian Design Alliance; the Independent Designers Association of Australia; and the Advisory Committee on Design, Victorian Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development. Finally, congratulations to a friend of mine, former Councillor Karin Orpen OAM, from Ferntree Gully, on her service to local government and to the community of Ferntree Gully. These services include being mayor of Knox for an incredible three times and also serving for 19 years as a councillor. She has been involved with the City of Knox District Scouts, the Victorian Local Governance Association, the Knox Historical Society, the Ferntree Gully Cemetery Trust, the Knox and District Woodworkers Club and has supported the Upper Gully and Ferntree Gully CFAs. She has been a justice of the peace since 2007. She has been a great contributor to residents of Ferntree Gully. I would like to congratulate all of the recipients of Queen's Birthday honours, including Donalea Patman, who I have mentioned before. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 95 CONDOLENCES Colvin, Mr Mark 95 17:00 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to join with other members of this parliament in expressing my condolences to Mark Colvin's mother and to his family. I did not know Mark Colvin, other than being a follower of his on Twitter, which I guess made a lot of people feel like they knew Mark Colvin, but I have some friends who knew him well. I know that they would be very pleased to have some very good tributes paid to Mark Colvin in this parliament to mark his passing and to acknowledge his life and the contribution he made. I could not possibly write a tribute as fine as the tribute that James Jeffrey wrote on 12 May 2017, and I wanted to read some of it in the parliament today in case members missed the tribute that James wrote. I am going to quote it quite extensively, and I think that that is probably enough from me, to repeat James's words, because I do not think you could really get better than them. He said: I must have walked a million miles in my local Bunnings ­because of Mark Colvin. It's like he could sense when I was in there and therefore free to chat. It tended to be in the doldrums of a Sunday afternoon and my phone would buzz in my pocket—something important or trivial or amusing or splendidly random had crossed his mind, and he had to share it. "Hello mate," he'd say, and we'd be off. I'd give up any pretence of looking for what I'd come for and would meander up and down the aisles, trolley in one hand, phone in the other. And it was glorious. Sometimes it was serious, sometimes not, sometimes both. I'd always pick up new knowledge and, as if to keep things in balance, lose a bit of hearing as his laugh boomed in my ear. Our conversation sometimes wandered the world or history, sometimes stayed very local. Sometimes we dug deep, sometimes skated happily across the surface. Then eventually, we'd say goodbye—and suddenly I'd realise I was still in Bunnings. I first met Mark briefly at some event, but it was on Twitter—that corner of the internet that feels like it was designed with him in mind—that our paths started to cross. I was in awe of him, so I was beside myself when he took a shine to my writing. We met at a cafe around the corner from his house and we never looked back. A love of words brought us together, but there was so much we revelled in: Eastern Europe, Iran, comedy, music, good writing and, with almost equal enthusiasm, bad writing. (Just last weekend he was eager to alert me to the latest output of one scribe who regularly baffled us into a state of hysterical disbelief. His text contained just one word: the writer's surname.) Just to deviate from the text slightly, I will leave it to members to work out which writer that might have been. To go on to quote James's article, his tribute: Many were on the receiving end of Mark's magic, and Twitter expanded his reach. He was so generous—not least with young journalists—and he'd sweep up everyone in his enthusiasm, his wisdom, his great tidal waves of encouragement. James goes on to talk about Mark's ability to swear, and I certainly—I have never heard the words that appeared in this article before. They are completely new to me. That is probably pretty impressive given how old I am and my extensive range of swearing, of course, but these are words that are new to me. I do not propose to read them into the record, but please go and look for yourself in James's tribute to Mark Colvin if you are an aficionado of bad language, of cussing—not that I am suggesting that you are, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker! I want to go on to quote the following part of this article, and then I will sit down and let people use their own words. James wrote: Mark may have been a man of profound depths, but boy was he gleeful splashing through the shallows. Then, just after another round of silliness, he'd turn around and give you what felt like half the universe. When he asked me to read some chapters of the manuscript that became his memoir Light and Shadow, I lost myself in a bigger world. His. He was brave, he was stoic. Injustice and hypocrisy made him angry. A bowl of fresh raspberries sorted him out. As did his special place in the water. Last Christmas he texted from his mother's place in the country: "Here the dam is full and I swim around the island in the evening. Bucolic peace." And James writes: Mark loved my family, and even extended that affection to our pets. He was very much a dog person (I keep thinking about his boxer Chops waiting for the boss to come home), but he got his hands on one of my pythons and looked like a happy little boy. He was one of the finest people I've ever known, and becoming his friend has been one of the great joys of my life. He left one last tweet to be sent out once he was gone: "It’s all been bloody marvellous." But for now, I'm clinging to the last message he sent me. It was on Wednesday and I promised to come see him the moment I got back to Sydney. He replied with the simplest expression of love: "XXXX". I know that there were people across this country who were gravely saddened by the too-soon loss of Mark Colvin. I know there are people in the media who are very saddened. It is an honour to pay some small tribute of my own and to read this beautiful tribute from James Jeffrey into the record today. 17:06 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra It is a privilege to make a statement about Mark Colvin. I did not know Mark Colvin. I had the privilege of saying hello to him once. But I would like to talk about four aspects of Mark Colvin: his family, his kidney, a remarkable lecture I saw him give and his quite extraordinary voice, which was one of the great sounds of the ABC and one of the great sounds of Australia. Mark Colvin comes from a family of public service. His father, John Colvin, was a British spy and diplomat. Mark Colvin wrote, not that long ago, a significant memoir about his father and the difficult relationship that they had, particularly around the way his father seemed to act for much of his life, the sorts of behaviours that a former spy would show: a lot of secrecy in his life and a lot of half-discussions, as it were. He was also of interest to people in this place as the great-great-nephew of Stanley Melbourne Bruce, a former Prime Minister of Australia, a man who was, sadly, more noted for wearing spats and losing his seat in the federal election while he was Prime Minister than for his many achievements. In recent years, Mark Colvin tried to help correct the record and present a more balanced view of SM Bruce, particularly through exhibitions in national institutions—in this place, at Old Parliament House and at other places. Colvin was 15 when his 'Uncle S', as he used to call Bruce, died. The two of them would often talk about sport. They would talk about figures that he did not know that much about at the time, about when SM Bruce served in the war cabinet and stood up to Churchill, about some of his amazing friendship with Kemal Ataturk—given that both of them had served at Gallipoli and were leading their countries at a proximate time—and about many arguments with Billy Hughes, whose portrait, of course, appears in this Chamber. Colvin said of SM Bruce: He wasn't some perfect politician, he wasn't somebody who necessarily would have fit in very well into modern day Australia, but he was a much, much more interesting figure than some people have dismissed him as. Mark Colvin is also the brother-in-law of Ambassador Mark Higgie, Australia's current ambassador to the EU, NATO, Belgium and Luxembourg. Some colleagues will remember that he is also a former senior international adviser to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, so he has an intergenerational connection with this place. I want to talk a little bit about Mark Colvin's kidney. Mark Colvin was probably the most famous kidney transplant recipient in Australia. He developed a disease which affected his kidneys as a journalist in Africa in the 1980s. He had met a remarkable woman called Mary-Ellen Field. Mary-Ellen Field was a great friend of my predecessor, Philip Ruddock. She had been a victim of the News of the World hacking scandal. She had done some work for Elle Macpherson, and News of the World had hacked into Elle Macpherson's phone equipment and so on, and Mary-Ellen had copped the blame for this. Mark Colvin took up her story and championed Mary-Ellen Field. Mary-Ellen was so taken with Mark that, when he needed a kidney, she volunteered to donate her own. They were not related. There was no particular reason to do so, but anybody who has met Mary-Ellen will know what a remarkable person she is and what an extraordinary relationship the two of them had. In fact, the story of Mark Colvin's kidney was made into a play by Tommy Murphy. I am very proud to have been on the board of playwriting australia, which develops Australia's great playwrights; playwriting australia was one of the organisations that were involved in the dramaturgy of bringing this uniquely Australian story to the stage earlier this year. I wanted to talk about Mark Colvin as a lecturer and as an innovator in the media. There are very few lectures that you will ever hear in your lifetime where you think, 'This is so remarkable, both in its presentation and in its content, that I just don't want it to end.' There have only been three or four for me: Dyson Heyden's Quadrant lecture; Jonathan Sacks's Beckett lecture; and Bruce Ackerman's Holmes lectures that I got to hear at Harvard—although I disagreed with Bruce Ackerman's perspective on American constitutional law. Mark Colvin's Andrew Olle lecture is up there with those for me. Mark Colvin's Andrew Olle lecture in 2012 was about the digitisation tsunami. Although Mark Colvin had a voice that made him sound as establishment as a deep-button leather couch, he was very much at the forefront of mixing up both the old media and the new media. He was an enormous user of Twitter through the @Colvinius account that he put together. Who better, then, to talk about what the digitisation tsunami would be like? What was remarkable about his lecture is that, obviously, he was not very well at the time. He came to the stage and sat on a bar stool to deliver this lecture. It went for about 45 minutes, but it was extraordinary in its observations and extraordinary in the way in which he delivered it with some considerable passion. I would just like to read a short passage about the digitisation tsunami and then refer to four points he made about the way which one should use modern technology: The digitisation tsunami has finally hit, and that means that mainstream media in Australia and around the world face of not one, but several crises at the same time. There is a crisis of consensus, with journalists find it increasingly difficult to find a common ground from which to write. There is a crisis of authority, in which institutions that have tended to hand down pronouncements like stone tablets from the mountaintop now often find themselves subject to disagreement, abuse or even ridicule. And there is a crisis of credibility, as, Wizard of Oz- like, the curtain is pulled away from so-called authorities like News Corp and the BBC to reveal the sometimes despicable reality. Looming over all, though, is the fourth crisis, the biggest of all - the crisis of finance. How, in the age of creative destruction brought on by digitisation, can we make journalism pay? He went on to look at all four of those issues in the lecture. I thought, given that he was such a great user of technology, that it would be worthwhile noting some of the lessons that he had learned—four lessons that he had learned from his time on Twitter. The first lesson that he noted was that one should be a crowdsourcer. That can mean using the crowd for anything from checking a date to asking people to help scour through large government documents. Secondly: Be a presence on social media, giving as much as you. Don't just plug your own stuff: encourage conversation and join in others' discussions. Use Twitter as a rolling news wire, but subject it to the verification tools developed by journalists over decades. Thirdly: Admit you can be wrong, but correct yourself as soon as possible. And fourthly: … if you're an institution, admit that you're not monolithic. You're a collection of individuals, as good and as fallible as those individuals and the culture you create around them. The digitisation tsunami has been very disruptive to journalists and to news organisations around the world. Colvin ended on an optimistic note, without saying, in any sense, that he could predict the future. He said: All I can give you is my profound conviction that good journalism - journalism of integrity - is a social good and an essential part of democracy, and we have to do everything we can to try to preserve it. I think he was absolutely right about that. The final point I wanted to make was about his extraordinary voice and what an extraordinary presence that was in the lives of so many Australians. For me, it was sitting in the car and driving to a function or driving home, listening to his voice interviewing people on PM and compering stories. As an interviewer, he was firm without being aggressive. He was able to extract facts from the interviewee—from the subject—and he was able to present things in an authoritative style, with his civilised, cultured, educated and modulated voice that became a feature of so many Australian families and Australian lives as they tuned into PM of an afternoon, either at five or six o'clock and listened to his pronouncements. Australia will miss Mark Colvin and the wonderful contribution he made to journalism in this country. To his family, may I say that I hope his memory is a blessing. 17:14 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise today on indulgence to offer some personal reflections on the departure from this world on 11 May 2017 of someone I never met, someone I did not know, and someone who would never have heard my name. Yet I heard the voice of Mark Colvin telling me 'Goodnight' on most weeknights for the past 10 years. Whether it was while driving, in my office, at home or sometimes later on a podcast, I have been an avid listener of the brilliant PM show on the ABC and, therefore, Mark Colvin for so many years. PM and the remarkable medium of radio, and now the podcast, allowed Mark Colvin to continue his career as a broadcaster beyond his already remarkable career as a foreign correspondent. Over 20 years of hosting PM, Mark Colvin—along with teams of producers, technicians, journalists and ABC staff—delivered to all of us lovers of radio our evening update of national news, current affairs, international issues and global concerns. It was the voice of Mark Colvin that brought the program together and gave us a window on the world and the gift of familiarity and trust. Across May and April on successive Sundays when I had the chance, I had read much of his memoirs, Light and Shadow, in our upstairs room while sharing a large beanbag with one of my dogs. It is a terrific memoir—one of those works where you feel compelled to read out passages to passing loved ones, beautifully written passages that tell the story of a life so extensively and enthusiastically lived and so generously shared with all of us listeners and readers. I finished reading Mark Colvin's book about 10 days before he left this earth, and I must say I was very sad to hear of his death. Just the night before I had been speaking about him and the magic of broadcasters in general with one of his friends, James Jeffrey, and I thank James for his wonderful tribute that the member for Griffith told us about earlier this afternoon. Since the day I heard of his death I have been reflecting on broadcasters who have fed my addiction to radio and now, more latterly, to podcasts. I think of the great Wally Foreman, a Western Australian broadcaster who I would regularly spend Saturday mornings listening to as he would talk me and thousands of others through a cricket game or a footy match. I think of Eoin Cameron, once also a member of this place, who was a greatly loved breakfast broadcaster and generally a curmudgeon of Western Australia. Both are sorely missed in my home state. In Perth, thousands of people turned up to Wally Foreman's memorial service. Hundreds turned up to the funeral of Eoin Cameron. In Sydney, many hundreds of friends and listeners—as well as family, of course—paid their respects at the memorial service for Mark Colvin, and many, many more listened over the web. When I listened to these memorial services myself, I was thinking how strange it was that a radio voice would mean so much to me and to so many other people who do not know the person who offers it. I was reminded of another radio broadcaster that I met once—sadly, only once. Older people across WA often ask me if I am related to Catherine King, MBE. I let them know that I am only related to her through marriage, and that Catherine King is my husband's grandmother. The people I chat with tell me how they remember her show on the ABC from many years ago, how they or their mum or their relatives would always listen to the women's sessions and how they liked the friendly voice and easy familiarity of Catherine. I must admit that, at the time, I could never understand why this woman was so significant to them—after all, it was just radio; it was not like the famousness of television or the movies. I had not appreciated how great and personal a connection a listener has with a radio broadcaster, to a voice and a personality a listener lets into their life on a regular basis. After the loss of broadcasters I have listened to for years, and now with the loss of that king of current affairs, Australia's window to the world and the host of the brilliant and dependable PM, Mark Colvin, I now know better. I can understand why so many people ask me after a Catherine King. She was their friend on the radio. Now I have lost my friend on the radio, as well. My sincere condolences to the family, loved ones, friends and colleagues of Mark Colvin, of which there are so many. My very sincere condolences to those of you who knew him and loved him. Mark Colvin left his mark on this country, and has made a tremendous contribution to journalism and broadcasting in Australia. I did not know him, but he was my radio friend. He was the radio friend of many thousands of people and, on behalf of all of his radio friends, I know we will miss him greatly. Vale Mark Colvin. 17:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Mark Colvin was born in London to an Australian-born mother, Anne, and a British father—the naval officer, diplomat, secret agent and historian, John Colvin. His father's work took him overseas, so the young Mark Colvin was sent to boarding schools, including Summer Fields prep, near Oxford, and Westminster School, in London. He did not enjoy his time at boarding school, which he later described as barbaric. After his parents divorced, when he was 11, Mark and his younger sister lived with their mother, while their father moved into a nearby flat. But even then Mark did not find out his father was a high-ranking member of MI6, and could not ascertain from his father the full details, even when his father passed away in 2003. In his memoir, Light and Shadow: Memoirs of a Spy's Son, he goes into some of those details. He reflected, too, in an interview with his son, William Colvin, about the impact that his upbringing had on him. He said to his son: 'I always tried to be a good dad to you and take you to lots of places.' He was determined not to send his own children to boarding school, despite being a foreign correspondent, but was determined to go to the theatre and to cook meals and to be what he called 'as much of a present dad as possible.' Words that I am sure all of us in this place who are struggling to combine work and parenting feel most acutely. Mark Colvin got a cadetship at the ABC in 1974, joined 2JJ in 1975 and then was promoted to foreign correspondent at the age of 28. He served in a range of different contexts. It was when he was working on covering the Ethiopian famine that he won a gold medal at the New York Film Festival for his report The Forgotten Famine and was nominated for an international Emmy. His foreign reporting came with costs. In covering the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, Mark Colvin contracted a rare autoimmune disease, Wegener's granulomatosis, which caused him severe pain. His friend Leigh Sales described him as a Stoic, somebody who did not talk about his physical ailments because, as he put it to her: 'It's just so boring, Sales. There are so many more interesting things I'd rather discuss.' I love that Stoic approach to life, that pain is something to be endured and it is just better to get on with living life. He was within two weeks of dying in 2011 when a British woman, Mary-Ellen Field, who he had come to know through the News of the World phone-hacking case, reached out to him and offered him a kidney donation. He tried to put her off but eventually relented, and that gave us six more years of the wonderful Mark Colvin as well as a play, Mark Colvin's Kidney, staged at the Belvoir Street Theatre. Ms Field reflected on the donation just days before his death, saying she had spoken to Mark Colvin and he had told her how much he loved her and that she 'mustn't cry, because he needed me to be strong.' 'It was the best thing I have ever done,' she said, which is one of those extraordinary reminders that those moments of generosity when we feel like we are giving can sometimes be moments when we are gaining so much. I met Mark Colvin once, at a conference, and was struck as so many people were by his mellifluous tones, by his interest in so many ideas and by his lack of dogmatism. I think Leigh Sales put it so nicely in her book On Doubt, where she said she does not trust zealots, people who do not even countenance for a moment that they might be wrong. Mark Colvin was not one of those people. He was interested and interesting. I remember engaging with him on Twitter on the issue of paying for organ donations and some of this fascinating research showing that it is only Iran that does not have transplant waiting lists, because it is one of the few countries that pays for organ donations. A piece of economic research and Mark Colvin was straight onto it and engaged and interested. He had, too, such a terrific sense of humour. As Leigh Sales writes: I once told him that I wanted to brighten up his hospital room with some beautiful images and so I texted him three photographs of flowers and one of Gerard Henderson. He told me he thought he'd cracked a rib laughing so hard. Michael Janda tells the story that he was doing a live finance report on PM with Mark Colvin and read out: … "gold is worth (whatever the number was) US dollars a barrel." I quickly corrected myself to say "an ounce", and continued to the end of the report. Then Mark Colvin did the back announce: And that's our finance reporter Michael Janda, who buys his gold by the barrel. Mark Colvin was somebody with whom we shared the stories of the day. We knew that he was not just a scribe but that he was engaged in the important issues of the day. He was instrumental in seeing the release of Australian journalist Peter Greste from an Egyptian prison, in campaigning on organ donation, in encouraging Australians to think of ourselves as being a part of the world. So much of PM is different from what you hear if you listen to, say, NPR in the United States. I lived for four years in the US and one of the joys of coming back to Australia was coming to a country where world news was not just five per cent at the end of the bulletin but could well take up the bulk of the bulletin if the things happening in the globe mattered to Australians and we needed to know about it. That was the way in which Mark Colvin operated, not a narrow parochialism but an engaged internationalism. I loved listening to the sound of his voice, as so many did. Having worked for Michael Kirby for a year—one of the other great Australians with mellifluous voices—I have got to say there is a real pleasure in sharing ideas with somebody whose voice comes from deep within their chest and whose ideas are rich and engaged. Former ABC managing director, Mark Scott, described Mark Colvin as a Renaissance man who always had the messiest car in the ABC car park—one of those reminders that sometimes a messy desk and a messy car can be a sign of a mind that is well engaged with the world. He was generous to young journalists, he was engaged with his audience and we will miss him a great deal. Like Andrew Olle, another ABC great taken from us too young, Mark Colvin shaped our world and shaped how we think about the globe for the better. He is survived by: his wife, Michelle McKenzie; his sons Nicolas and William; his mother, Anne; and his sister, Zoe. Rest in peace, Mark Colvin. We will miss you and we are so much better for having known you. 17:27 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Today I join with my colleagues to pay tribute to Mark Colvin but I will talk about the contribution he made to advocacy on organ and tissue donation. We have heard many excellent stories about his fine contribution to journalism, his significant contribution to journalism over decades and decades. We have heard many wonderful stories about the power of his voice, about the depth and creaminess of that voice which we would end our days listening to. It was a wonderful voice. He was an excellent journalist. He was an experienced journalist who had travelled the world, experienced the troubles of the world and returned here to Australia. We have heard so many stories on his contribution to journalism that I want to focus today instead of his contribution to the organ and tissue donation advocacy sector because his contribution was significant, as it was to journalism. Before I became the member for Canberra, I was an active member on the Gift of Life board, which was an organ and tissue donation awareness group that was set up here in Canberra to advocate and to raise awareness about the need for people to have a conversation with their loved ones, for people to actually sign the register and to raise awareness. In Australia, more than 80 per cent of Australians think that organ and tissue donation is a wonderful idea. They love the idea but they do not actually sign up and they do not actually have a conversation with their family, which is absolutely vital. Having been actively involved in this sector, I understand the fact that many Australians find it very confronting to talk about organ and tissue donation because it involves talking about someone's end of life. Many Australians find it difficult to talk about death. They find it difficult to talk about end of life management plans and pain management plans. Organ and tissue donation encompasses pain management and end of life management, as well as the extraction of organs and tissue, so it can be quite confronting for a lot of Australians. Mark Colvin was such a very strong advocate for it on a national basis. I did not share some of his views on ways to raise awareness and to lift our numbers, which pale compared to our colleagues in the US—from memory—and also Spain. Despite the fact that we have the world's best transplant health services here in the country, we still do not have the rates that we should have given the fact that, from survey results, Australians seem to support the concept of organ and tissue donation. He made a very fine contribution to raise awareness about that. It was his great commitment. It was a passion for him after he contracted the disease that we have heard about today when he visited Africa to cover the massacres in Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Congo. He said at that time: My own immune system went a bit mad and started attacking me. One of the results was long-term kidney damage. He was in hospital for six months and he was very ill back then. Mark Colvin began dialysis as a result of that dreadful disease that he caught in Africa. He began dialysis in 2010 after his kidney function dropped to just 10 per cent. That is a significant loss. The process of cleaning kidneys of toxins—as we know and as anyone who has been to a dialysis centre knows—is not only incredibly confronting but also incredibly time-consuming in the fact that you have to sit there for hours and hours each day to go through dialysis multiple times a week. There have been significant inroads made with portable dialysis machines where people can do it from their beds at home or as they are asleep at home, but the bulk of Australians still have to go to a dialysis centre and sit there for hours and hours each day many times a week to go through that dialysis process. It is deeply confronting. For anyone who has been to a dialysis centre, it is deeply confronting. You cannot come away without feeling absolutely broken-hearted for those people that are going through the dialysis, not just because of the pain that they are going through due to the fact that they have a particular disease but also because they are chained to this machine just to survive. As we know, it takes about five hours each day, but there is also the preparation, the travel time and also the recovery time. He described that process as an 'emotional rollercoaster' that had him feeling landlocked. He could not travel to see his friends in Melbourne or Brisbane and could not see his ageing mother here in Canberra. He said: There are things you'd like to do, go to Brisbane or see things like the Mona exhibition in Tassie, or go down to mum's place in the country for Christmas which I was able to do for two years running because I was able to get relief dialysis … She lives near Canberra but this Christmas there was no room in the relief dialysis place so I had to go down for literally one night, for the night of Christmas Day and drive straight back to Sydney the next day. You're completely geographically changed. That is what dialysis means. He spoke about it, as usual, in such an eloquent and powerful way. We have heard that he finally got a kidney transplant from one of his oldest friends, Mary-Ellen Field. There was a suggestion that his two boys could donate their kidneys, but that put fear into him. I have a quote here of him saying that. So he did get the kidney from Mary-Ellen Field, and 16 days after receiving his new kidney he was saying he had never felt better in years. As we know, we have had the tragic loss of this incredible journalist. He was a Renaissance man in many ways and a very, very strong advocate for organ and tissue donation. He had been an advocate for organ and tissue donation for many years. He said he made it his life's work to ensure everybody has a conversation about organ and tissue donation. In 2013 he was honoured for his contribution to the organ and tissue donation sector by the ACT Gift of Life Awards that were presented by the then ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher. With his colleagues Deb Masters and Sarah Ferguson and the rest of the Four Corners team, Mark Colvin received the Angus Fairbairn-Cody Award for media coverage for that significant contribution that was made with that very compelling, powerful and heartrending piece on Four Corners that was produced by those stellar journalists and producers. In closing, I just want to say to everyone who is listening that this is a man who, unfortunately, due to his career, his lust for life, his lust for adventure, his lust to deliver the story to show what was actually happening in the world and to show the reality of the world to Australians, contracted a disease that caused him to require a kidney transplant. As a result he became a very strong advocate for organ and tissue donation. In closing, I implore Australians: have the conversation with your family about your intentions to make organ and tissue donations. Families can overturn them. Even though you have the card and you have said you want to donate your organs and tissues, your families can overturn your wishes once you are gone, so you need to make it crystal clear that this is your intention. You need to sign up to the organ and tissue donation register. Most importantly, you need to have that conversation with your families so that they are clear that this is your desire when you are gone. One donor can transform 10 lives. In Mark Colvin's memory and out of respect for his mother, Anne; his wife, Michele; and his sons, Nicolas and William, I do implore Australians to donate life. Vale Mark Colvin. 17:37 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to pay tribute to Mark Colvin, who was a constituent of mine who lived in Lilyfield in the inner west of Sydney. Of all the tributes I read after the passing last month of Mark, I was most touched by a piece written by one of his colleagues, Stephen McDonnell, the ABC's former China correspondent. Stephen wrote: You would walk out of the office after PM had gone to air, and there he would be sitting next to a young reporter going through their story. Stephen wrote that Mark could be overheard going through the reporter's copy line by line. He would say: "You could've flipped the piece around; what about this question instead? You've buried this information; here you could be a bit cheeky." This description of Mark as a concerned mentor speaks volumes for the man. Journalists are a bit like politicians; it is a very competitive business. They are all chasing stories and always aiming to be first. Yet here was one of the best-known journalists in the country, finished a hectic work day but still happy to make time to share the benefit of his experience with a young journalist. This does not surprise me. He was indeed a very generous man. He was born in the UK in 1952. He moved to Australia aged 21 after studying literature at Oxford. He was certainly well read, and indeed, as others have said, he was a Renaissance man. He fell into journalism after stint as a builder's labourer. In his early years he worked as a cub reporter on Double J. But his talent was quickly recognised. He was promoted to the ABC's London bureau before he had turned 30. He worked in London and around the world reporting on all the iconic ABC programs, including AM, PM and Four Corners. He was the first host of The World Today when it began back in 1984. Of course, in his later years Australians knew him as the host of PM. So many of us would end our day driving home or on public transport listening to that very recognisable voice. Throughout the 1980s he covered the biggest stories of his time, including the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland and the break-up of the former Soviet Union. When he was stationed in Africa in 1984 he picked up a rare virus while covering the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda. The illness ended his career as a foreign correspondent and left him with health problems that continued for the rest of his life. Others have commented about his now famous kidney transplant, which is the subject of a play, titled Mark Colvin's Kidney that is running, and will continue to run. Mark was also someone who refused to look back. He was a keen music fan and, unlike many people as they get older, he moved with the times, keeping up with the musical trends of the day. With the same spirit he embraced social media. He was a keen Twitter user and described himself in his profile as: Lifetime Lance-Corporal in the Awkward Squad. So many people who use Twitter use it to attack others; Mark used it to pass on interesting information or to praise others, consistent with his generosity. Another close friend of Mark's was the former head of the Australian Security Intelligence Service, Nick Warner. He commented on Mark's passing: He never took sides, he was interested in presenting the facts, not pushing a particular line. Indeed, Mark Colvin was universally renowned for being fair, which for a journalist is the gold standard in career achievement. Mark died on 19 May. I express my condolences to his family, including his partner, Michelle McKenzie, who was a Leichhardt councillor on the former Leichhardt Council in my electorate in Leichhardt, and his sons, Nicholas and William. Vale Mark Colvin. 17:42 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to pay tribute to a giant of journalism Mark Colvin. He was one of Australia's most respected journalists. He was one of the ABC's most prominent and esteemed writers. His voice was familiar to people right across Australia as the voice of ABC radio current affairs program, PM. He had a brilliant mind, which was perfectly suited to analysing international affairs that were often complex and not always the easiest stories to write. Throughout his life Mark managed to capture the interest of, and was cherished by, his Australian audience. His early stories as a foreign correspondent in Africa were groundbreaking for Australian journalism. His dedication to the role took him into the heart of Africa to cover famine and disease, but also hope and strength in the face of adversity. His dedication to the profession had a personal toll as well. Following the Rwandan genocide, while covering the destitution that was rampant throughout the refugee camps in Zaire, he was diagnosed with a rare inflammation of the blood vessels. Throughout his experiences he raised the profile of the very worthy cause of organ donation. Mark was respected for his passion and his journalistic vigour. He had a wealth of knowledge on international affairs and policy. He would get the heart of every story. He was a serious journalist and he would demand an audience's attention for every story. Mark would have excelled in any field of endeavour and at any media outlet, but he chose journalism and he chose the ABC. I firmly believe that that choice took his career to the next level. We should all be thankful that he turned his hand to public interest journalism with our public national broadcaster. He was never pompous or self promoting. He was a revered voice of journalism. Over many years Mark Colvin became a household name and a name that was raised in conversation right across the nation. Mark Colvin exemplified substantive journalism in his time as a foreign correspondent and in his 20 years presenting PM. In his own words, Mark noted: I love PM because it has the space to explore a wide range of the day's issues in more details and with more depth than the soundbite sausage-machine. His professionalism and journalistic prowess were recognised not only by the public, but by scores of other journalists. His integrity shone through in the stories he covered. He is an example of a reminder of the importance of public interest journalism in uncovering stories that need to be told and in telling stories that Australians need to hear. I pay tribute to Mark Colvin for his vast contribution to Australian journalism spanning more than four decades. When Mark Colvin spoke, Australia listened. We are thankful for his service to Australian journalism and our society as a whole. Vale Mark Colvin. BUSINESS 102 BUSINESS Rearrangement 102 17:45 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 4, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 102 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 102 Report 102 17:46 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I seek leave to speak again on the report. Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 This report warrants a little airtime. It is a damning report by a government-controlled committee and, indeed, one of the parliament's oldest and most powerful committees. We have the ability to initiate our own inquiries with a strong tradition, in fact, of bipartisanship for over 110 years. Quite simply, this report slams the government's administration of the disability support pension. It is highly embarrassing for Minister Tudge and Minister Porter, as it again demonstrates their complete inability to manage their portfolios with fairness and integrity, and raises new questions about their futures. However, the politics of this does not really matter, and is not the point. This report contains a serious and thoughtful series of recommendations which I hope the government will pick up; I really do. If the government swallows its pride, reads the report and agrees to these sensible changes, then it will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who are on, or will apply for, the disability support pension—DSP—in coming years. The DSP provides support to permanently disabled Australians who are unable to work or are unable to work many hours and, on behalf of the committee, I thank everyone who took the time to submit. We do not usually get many submissions for this committee—it is an insider committee between senior bureaucrats and the Audit Office, if you like—but this time we were blown away because we got dozens and dozens of submissions from individuals as well as advocacy groups from around the country. I will touch on the headline recommendations. No. 1 is a full end-to-end review. In light of numerous concerns raised throughout the inquiry which remain unaddressed, the committee has recommended that DHS and DSS conduct 'a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the entire DSP program'. There have simply been too many problems and concerns identified to tolerate the government's piecemeal, shambolic approach—the stuff-ups we have heard of, the bits and pieces, the band-aiding other bits in the process and this ad hoc approach to evaluating the impact of major policy and program changes, which is responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars in public funding. Government MPs and senators signed up to this recommendation for a full and transparent review. There was a range of findings and, indeed, I think perhaps the strongest focus of the public hearings and submissions was around the targeting of the notorious DSP reviews that this government is conducting. The inquiry heard from many people who had been targeted—picked on—by the government's cruel, scattergun DSP reviews. We heard numerous reports from individuals and from agencies trying their best to represent these vulnerable people—Australians with severe and permanent intellectual, physical and psychological disabilities, with no capacity whatsoever to work. The case of Andrew Johnson in my electorate gained national media, which started much of this. Andrew is a profoundly disabled man who, I think, is in his early 30s and is living full-time in state residential care—he has lived in full-time care since he was a teenager. He is fed through a tube and is non-verbal, yet is being asked by Centrelink and the minister to prove his eligibility for the DSP with numerous medical appointments. So there is a clear recommendation in the report to improve the data sharing between federal governments and state and territory governments so that manifestly eligible and other severely disabled recipients like Andrew are excluded from the review. I asked DHS in the hearing, why can they not just rule out people like this—walk around, for example—in state care? They waffle, waffle, waffle—it is all so hard with the data. There was a clear failure to cross check basic data within Centrelink and with state and territory governments which would stop these pointless reviews, save public money on wasteful reviews and wasted Medicare bills. The Commonwealth government in Victoria pays rent assistance for these people. They could get that data off the system. They could send someone to walk around and tick them off a list and say, 'Well you are not going to get better, are you? Let's not send you for a DSP review.' But it was all too hard. It is not just bad administration though. The committee also found this is driven by government policy. Tens of thousands of these reviews are continuing in the budget just handed down by this government. The committee considers that better targeting of these reviews is a must by DHS. Of course if people do not meet the requirements for the DSP, they should not be paid. No-one disagrees with that. But DHS failed to provide adequate detail to the committee about its basis for targeting. The committee more shockingly heard recent evidence of recent data which shows only 1.6 per cent of recipients subject to the scattergun 2016-17 reviews have been moved off the DSP. The government was anticipating 10 per cent of people would be kicked off the DSP to achieve its budget saving. So this raises the real possibility that these poorly targeted, costly reviews are actually costing the taxpayer more than they save. These reviews pick on vulnerable Australians and run up the Medicare bill to prove the bleeding obvious so we recommended—government senators and MPs signed up to this—that DHS publicly report the results, costs and benefits of an evaluation of the government's DSP reviews. The question I ask is: will the minister commit to this with no waffle, no equivocation, just fess up and agree to it? We also asked if the government had considered the Medicare costs in devising these measures because they have to be included. Literally it costs hundreds of dollars to get specialist appointments to prove this stuff—'will not get better'. Have they done a cost-benefit assessment? The department admitted, well, yes there was a regulatory impact statement but then later the committee was told in supplementary answers that it was confidential and we cannot have it. The true cost to the government of undertaking the DSP reviews including the waste in Medicare to gather medical evidence remains a secret, and I call on the government to release the impact statement. What has the minister got to hide? The committee also received dozens of submissions and heard evidence of the fear and anxiety caused by letters arriving in the post giving people 21 days to submit evidence or lose their DSP. There is clear evidence that 21 days is very often an insufficient time line to get medical specialist reports. Who can get a medical specialist appointment within 21 days for complex neural and psychological disorders and satisfy Centrelink, particularly as the committee found, if you live in a regional and remote area where there are no specialists? So what does this mean? It takes longer to get a letter; it takes longer to get a specialist appointment. The department said, well, anyone can ask for an extension and they will get it. But this seems stupid. We had 42 million unanswered calls in the last year to Centrelink and tens of thousands of those are from people on the DSP, freaked out by these letters ringing the department to say, 'Please give me more time.' It seems a pretty simple way to cut the volumes of calls so the recommendation is that the government must consider increasing the time given for clients to provide documentation as 21 days is totally inadequate in thousands of cases. The most bizarre moment, if I could pick a most bizarre moment of the hearing, was when I asked what I thought was a clear, up-front let's-just-start-easy moment to a senior DHS official, a deputy secretary. I asked would the deputy secretary agree that Down Syndrome is not going to be cured? I thought this was an easy one. She said 'no'. No, she could not give me that assurance. I said, 'But surely you would agree it is not going to be cured?' She said, 'I would not be so arrogant; I am not a medical practitioner.' She was a bureaucrat so she could not say that Down Syndrome would not be cured. Everyone knows it is a genetic disorder, and we heard numerous reports of letters being sent—stupid letters—asking people to go to a medical doctor and prove that their Down Syndrome had not been cured. And so the committee made a recommendation to review the list of conditions which provide eligibility for the so-called 'manifest automatic grants of the DSP', particularly chromosomal disorders such as Down Syndrome, which obviously will not be cured. Down Syndrome Australia has strongly advocated for this, welcomed the report and agreed with the need for more targeting. Obviously a small percentage of people with Down Syndrome work and want to work and are supported to do so, but I have been told there is not one person with Down Syndrome in Australia working full-time in the open employment market through a competitive process. There must be a more efficient way to do this. The final point I want to make is about—there is a lot more, but time does not permit—significant concern regarding the government's latest changes to assessment processes for new applicants. People with some familiarity over the years with the system would remember the 'treating doctor's report'. It was very clear what you needed to provide: a very long complex report gave the right information. The government has changed that; now you just provide your raw medical evidence, and someone—who is not a medical practitioner but a bureaucrat or an allied health professional—will have a look at it and say yes or no. And it is only if you get recommended for the DSP that your case will then go to a medical doctor to try and knock a few more off. We heard of a range of problems that arose from this. To be fair, the system is only about 18 months old, verging on two years old, but we have made a clear recommendation—given the concerns we have heard about, including the wasted costs of pointless appeals, which just run up bureaucrats' time and lawyers' time, and traumatise people who then get the DSP—to just undertake a transparent review, with input from independent experts and stakeholders, of these changes. If it is working, then have the evidence out there and listen to the experts. If it is not, make some changes. We heard about poor communication, poor performance, deteriorating performance and increasing time lines. In closing, I would say that so much of the stress is because of the sustained and ongoing cuts to Centrelink and DHS by this government. The staff are doing the best they can, yet in this budget we saw the start of the privatisation of Centrelink, with 250 jobs going to an unnamed call centre and another 1,200 jobs— Government members interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 Read your budget papers. This must be stopped. 17:56 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I would like to commence by commending my colleague and friend, the member for Bruce, and also the Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, who conducted the inquiry into the Auditor-General's report, for the work that he did on that committee. The disability support pension is a vital part of our welfare safety net, to provide support for permanently disabled Australians who are unable to work or unable to work very many hours. Unfortunately, it has become a mountain too high to climb for many Australians. This report has highlighted many issues raised through the inquiry. I wholeheartedly support the committee's recommendation for a complete review of the administration of the disability support pension from go to whoa. It really is needed. This inquiry focused on the reviews of the DSP, the government's 'scattergun'—as we have heard—approach to try and get some people off the DSP and back to work. These reviews appear to have been very poorly targeted, very costly and not very successful. Only 1.6 per cent of people who were reviewed were actually moved off the DSP. What was the point? The problems go way beyond just the review process itself. There are problems with the way the DSP is assessed and administered that cause Australians no end of heartache. And it is not just the incredible amount of time it takes; it is the insurmountable hurdles that people have to jump to prove they are eligible. It is the apparent disregard for their welfare and for the medical expertise of their treating doctors. And it is heartbreaking, completely demoralising. My office has been helping several people trying to navigate the DSP process. Sometimes it is like hitting your head against a brick wall: it might be nice when you stop, but unfortunately these people cannot stop. They are desperate for help. We all understand there have to be evaluations and assessments and there have to be limits for eligibility, but these evaluations and assessments seem to be completely out of step with the reality of the lives many ordinary Australians seeking this important safety net are trying to lead. I will give you one example. My office has been helping a fellow called Alex. Alex can barely walk—and I mean that. He does not just have a limp. He needs to be helped to take even the smallest, slowest steps and he struggles to sit down and stand up again. He is 62, and until five years ago he was a bus driver. In his words, his knees are completely stuffed. In the past five years, he has had both knees replaced and required revision surgery because of complications. In his left knee, he has pain and stiffness because of, in the words of his doctor, the failure of the knee implant itself. In his right knee he has pain, stiffness and instability because of the failure of the knee implant, because of the massive and complicated infection that followed and because he has also endured upper limb deep vein thrombosis because of the intravenous catheter that was used to treat the infections. In his report his doctor writes that the symptoms in both knees are 'ongoing and permanent' and require Alex to take analgesics indefinitely. It advises that Alex is in need of help for domestic tasks, gardening, cleaning and cooking, and that these requirements will be lifelong. The doctor writes that there are no further surgeries planned for either knee despite the fact that there is a 25 per cent chance that one or both knees will fail again. If he does require additional surgeries they will be 'more complex, expensive and risky' as a result of previous failures. Alex is facing amputations. Currently, his doctor writes, he is not fit to work as a bus driver and not fit to perform any type of work at all. He writes, 'This will be ongoing and permanent.' It does not get much clearer than that. Alex's disabilities, caused by botched knee surgeries, failed implants and the subsequent complications have now been going on for five years, and they are not going away. The doctor does not plan to do any more surgery. Alex's injuries are ongoing and permanent. Yet does he qualify for the disability support pension? No, he does not qualify. Doctors do differ in opinion, and Alex accepts that. But the second doctor who assessed Alex for the DSP did so in a half-hour interview over the phone. That is right—on the phone. So this pain, this weakness, this stiffness and this instability that Alex now lives with, has lived with for five years and will live with forever was assessed in half an hour over the phone. For Alex, that was the most galling part—that the DSP assessors did not even conduct a face-to-face interview with him, let alone a thorough medical examination. Alex appealed the decision and was rejected again. My office has made a representation on his behalf to the Minister for Human Services and a departmental liaison officer reiterated the rejection. Here is the rationale for the rejection: although Alex's medical condition was 'considered to be permanently and fully diagnosed', it was not considered to be 'fully treated and stabilised'. Not fully treated and stabilised. This fellow, who has had both knees effectively replaced twice and has endured infections and complications that have left him barely able to walk and with very little likelihood of being able to endure any further surgeries has been deemed not fully treated and stabilised. It beggars belief. He is not the only one; it is a common story. It is the unholy trifecta or the catch-22—or potentially catch-33, if you like, seeing as there are three elements. To qualify for the DSP you have to have a permanent disability fully diagnosed and fully treated. Apparently, Alex has not been fully treated. This is after half an hour on the phone and contrary to what his treating doctor of several years has said. This report has highlighted some of the problems with the DSP, but it has barely scratched the surface. A complete review is sorely needed. We need to challenge the assumption that a half-hour phone interview is enough to diagnose a complex medical impairment. We need to challenge the assumption that 21 days is enough time to get a specialist's report when we patently know that it is not. It is just ridiculous. We need to challenge the assumption that a punitive scattergun approach to flushing out people who could be working when they are not is offensive, insulting and damaging to many ordinary Australians. It is not good enough that a treating doctor's report is replaced with a phone assessment by a bureaucrat—it really is not. It is not good enough that people already under stress are given review deadlines they have no hope of meeting because they simply cannot get to see a specialist. Data must be shared between federal and state departments so that manifestly eligible recipients are not targeted for reviews. This would save time, energy and the most precious budget. This government must not pick on vulnerable Australians and run up unnecessary medical bills and Medicare bills to prove the bleeding obvious. This government must better resource Centrelink so that fewer mistakes are made and fewer appeals are needed, and so that people have somewhere and someone they can actually go to for help and talk to. The delivery of the DSP must be done in a committed and transparent way and evaluations must not be ad hoc or over the top and on the hop. The committee heard evidence of DSP eligibility reviews being conducted on Australians with severe and permanent intellectual, physical and psychological disabilities with no capacity whatsoever to work. Imagine what that does to them and their loved ones. Labor supports efforts to help people with a disability find work and no-one wants to see the system rorted, but this government is going about it completely the wrong way. These reviews have been cruel and unfair. The whole process, actually, seems to be cruel and unfair and not particularly efficient, thoughtful or smart at all. Surely this can be run better. This is a terrible indictment of the minister. I endorse the committee's recommendation that the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services conduct a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the DSP. It is well overdue. 18:05 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I too rise to speak about this report. I commend my two colleagues the member for Bruce and the member for Paterson for their contributions in outlining some of the flaws in Centrelink eligibility for the DSP. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's inquiry into Commonwealth risk management was based on the Auditor-General's report Qualifying for the disability support pension. This report and its recommendations have been put together by a government committee, and I have to say, from what we have heard from the other speakers and from what I have heard and read in this report, it does not paint a pretty picture. But let's be honest: when you look at the Turnbull government's track record when it comes to Centrelink, it is not exactly glowing. Since the election, we have seen Minister Tudge and Minister Porter preside over one scandal after another—and I will go through them very quickly. There was the robo-debt fiasco, which is still continuing, the leaking of private information from Centrelink, the blowout in Centrelink call waiting times, continuing efforts, as we have heard, to cut pensioners' allowances, 5,000 jobs being cut from the DHS workforce and staff having gone three years without a pay rise. When you take away 5,000 people over the last few years from a department, the pressure on staff is enormous, and they do the best they can under the conditions that they are working in. This is a further damning report, which again raises questions about the competence of this government to manage Centrelink and the services provided to our most vulnerable citizens. Here we are, nitpicking with some of the most vulnerable people in this country, while at the same time we give glowing praise for a $65 billion tax cut to the top end of town. These are people who are the most vulnerable in our society—people who have severe disabilities, who have gone through workplace accidents or motor accidents and who have been born with ailments. These are the people we should be doing everything we can to assist and make their lives a little bit easier, not nitpicking and trying to get them off the system so we can save a few dollars. The disability support pension provides support to permanently disabled Australians who are unable to work or unable to work many hours. The DSP is a lifeline to people who are often facing enormously difficult situations. I have heard from many constituents in my electorate who are frustrated by the rejections and by having to jump through hoops, being made to feel like they have no need for the DSP; yet these people are ill. I have spoken to them and seen them. They are disabled and, in some cases, will never be able to work again. I will come back to these constituents in a minute. I highlight the fact that this inquiry raised a number of concerns. These concerns still remain unaddressed by the government. The committee recommended, for example, that the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services conduct a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the entire DSP program. Recent data showed that only 1.6 per cent of the recipients subject to the scattergun approach in the 2016 and 2017 reviews have been moved from the DSP. That is a minute little amount—1.6 per cent. This raises a question. It raises the possibility that poorly targeted, costly reviews are actually costing the taxpayer more than they are saving by doing this nitpicking with some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. The committee also found that the time to complete assessments and reviews has increased. I go back to the DHS cuts to the workforce. Obviously, this has an enormous effect on people and waiting times, leaving people hanging in uncertainty for lengthy times, for months on end in some cases. The report recommended reviewing the eligibility conditions for the DSP, particularly for the chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome, about which we heard from the member for Bruce, who spoke very well about it earlier. He was saying that a lot of these people will never, ever be able to work, and here we are putting pressure on people with Down syndrome. It also recommended improving data sharing between the federal departments and state and territory governments so that the eligible and other severely disabled recipients could be excluded from different reviews et cetera. It recommended undertaking 'a transparent review', including input from independent experts and stakeholders, of the government's recent changes to the DSP assessment process and also considering increasing the time given for clients under review to provide documentation. As we heard, 21 days has proven to be totally inadequate when it comes to doctors' reports, for example. Sometimes we see people waiting for three months before they see a specialist, let alone 21 days, and especially in the public system. These are some of the things that we have been hearing. I will highlight some of the cases in my electorate of how this system is failing vulnerable Australians. One of my constituents came to me very frustrated over having been rejected for a DSP despite suffering from a long-term chronic medical condition, including severe osteoarthritis in the hands and knees—he had a knee replacement—and a degenerative disease of the lumbar spine, amongst other ailments. Just looking at this gentleman, you could see that he was in excruciating pain. Despite medical practitioners confirming that he is unable to work as a result of these conditions and will never work—that was the medical practitioners' report—he was refused a DSP. My constituent thought that the entire process was unnecessarily long and challenging and has resulted in a great deal of stress, and the stress has added to his ill health. Another constituent came to me incredibly stressed and frustrated for his son. He came to see me on behalf of his son, who has been rejected for a DSP. His son was involved in an accident which left him with severe physical disabilities. In fact, at the time they thought he would never walk again. It has also contributed to his mental health issues. Advice provided by the treating hospital absolutely confirms that the problems with his back and leg are degenerative and permanent and will become worse over time. He is in excruciating pain. He is on painkillers. He is unable to work or stand for long periods, and he is on antidepressants as well. Despite overwhelming expert advice from medical doctors—not a bureaucrat—my constituent is not eligible for the DSP. He has been denied repeatedly. This is compounding the already significant health and psychological problems that he has. Another constituent came to me in desperation. Following a workplace injury, this constituent was unable to work and was confined to her home. This constituent was a waiter in a hotel. The trapdoor was left open. She turned around, walked back and went straight down into the cellar. She went into hospital and they operated on her spine—again, another one who basically did not walk for months and months. The interesting thing about this is that, going back a few years, this particular constituent was granted a DSP because of this workplace accident. Her husband then increased the bonuses or something with his workplace, earning more money; therefore she was cut off the DSP, which is fair enough, because the income was fairly high. He is now retired. There is no income. She has gone back, and they have refused her. After her being on a DSP, being eligible and on a pension, being considered to be severely disabled, now they are refusing to give her a pension and saying, 'Go out and look for work.' She can hardly walk, let alone work. Most of her time is spent managing her pain. This particular constituent went from being a strong, productive employee who had worked most of her life as a waiter in pubs around Adelaide to someone dealing with constant, unrelenting pain. This constituent, the second time round, did not qualify for the DSP. There are countless such stories, and I know that we on this side of the House will continue to fight for those vulnerable people—for people with disabilities, people who are at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to income and when it comes to their lives. We are very lucky to have our health, to be able to walk, to be able to work. There are people out there who, through no fault of their own—through accidents and ill health—do not have that ability. As I said, our duty as members of parliament is to look at how we can make people's lives better, not worse. What the current government are doing with these DSP guidelines is making people's lives much harder, adding to their health issues and adding to the problems they have. This should be stopped. Like the member for Bruce, I would like to see the impact statement. Why won't the government release the impact statement? If there is nothing to hide, they should show it to us. We need to do what we can. The government are a truly heartless government, and incompetent. 18:16 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I am probably more sad than anything else to be speaking to the motion on this report, which is before the chamber. I want to heartily endorse the comments made by my colleagues the member for Bruce, the member for Paterson and, just prior to me, the member for Hindmarsh in talking about how significant the issues raised in this report are. A truth that many of us should keep at the forefront of our minds is the sentiment—I do not remember the exact quote—that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. It is something I believe should lead the principles with which we—both those of us in this parliament and those who hold an executive position in the government—approach public service. This report tells us very clearly that there has been a significant failure—in particular, in this case, by the relevant ministers—to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our community. My colleagues outlined many examples of the difficulties and challenges these people are already dealing with in their lives, particularly those who have a disability—whether they were born with that disability; whether they acquired it through one of a variety of unfortunate circumstances, such as a car accident or a workplace accident; or whether it was the result of some form of illness or a required medical intervention that then had a traumatic impact on them. These people are already dealing with challenges in their lives, and they are seeking to have quality and dignity in their lives. They should have no doubt that in our community they have every right to expect dignity and respect. That means that when, as a government, we engage with people we should do it in a way that sustains dignity and respect, not in a way that not only takes away dignity and respect but adds to the trauma and difficulty they are experiencing in their lives. The report before this chamber, the report of the inquiry of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit into the Auditor-General's report 18 of 2015-16, titled Qualifying for the disability support pension, is sadly a very damning report—and, I might say, by a government controlled committee. It raises very serious questions for both the relevant ministers, Minister Tudge and Minister Porter, about how their departments' interactions with these very vulnerable people are managed and how both fairness and integrity are sustained in that process. We should not forget that the disability support pension is there because we expect it to provide support to people who are permanently disabled Australians, who are unable to work or unable to work for very many hours. There were numerous concerns raised throughout the inquiry, and they still remain unaddressed. The committee has recommended that both the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services conduct a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the entire DSP program. It is recommended that the DHS publicly report the results, the costs and benefits of the government's DSP evaluations. I think my colleague the member the Hindmarsh outlined that recent data shows that only 1.6 per cent of the recipients who have been subjected to what was a very scattergun review through 2016 have actually been moved off the DSP. And that does not measure the effects on so many others put through that process, who got through the process despite being under extraordinary pressure and having unreasonable demands on their time, on their resources to be able to do that—all for a saving of 1.6 per cent of recipient receipts. So this is a very significant report, and it should be given very, very serious consideration. The committee itself received dozens of submissions and heard significant amounts of evidence. I want to highlight some issues that I understand my colleague the member for Bruce has also outlined. Twenty-one days is an insufficient time frame to obtain medical specialist reports and provide documents. I do not know how many of those who devised such a time frame actually have experienced the reality of trying to get access to specialists—let us not even go into the out-of-pocket costs that you are now increasingly subjected to from that process as a result of some other changes made by this government—but 21 days was just an unreasonable and insufficient time. The reviews were also very poorly targeted, and the vulnerable Australians who were targeted by them consistently ran up Medicare bills—and, as I said, increasingly higher Medicare bills as we have seen the rollback of the support given to people financially as out-of-pocket costs go up. Communication was appalling. It resulted in wrong decisions, that, of course, then led to very costly, very time consuming and, I have to say, very stressful appeals having to be undertaken. There were the increases in the time taken to complete those assessments and reviews, and the failure to crosscheck basic data within Centrelink with the state and territory governments that would have stopped pointless reviews of profoundly disabled people living in 24-hour state-based residential care. There was a serious lack of publicly available data regarding DSP service delivery and performance, and an ad hoc approach to evaluating the effectiveness of significant program and policy changes. These are all really significant and important issues to be raised in terms of how we treat very vulnerable people. I just want to add in the time left to me that this is, sadly, a reflection of a broader approach by this government and these ministers towards people who need support in our community. I know there was some evidence around the robo-debt debacle that was also inflicted on many of these people and on people more broadly, and, as I understand it, is about to be rolled out onto a whole lot more very soon. In my area, I had representation from Kerrie from Mount Keira. She became a widow in 2013, and her three young children lost their father. Four weeks before Christmas, she received a letter saying she owed more than $4,000 for payments received in the 2013-14 financial year. She was very distressed because she had painstakingly, through her grief, done everything to ensure she was correctly claiming her payments following her husband's death. She was sent this letter in error, and had to spend many hours trying to get through to Centrelink while also working full time, studying and raising her children. It turns out it was an administrative malfunction in the Centrelink app that led to an overpayment as Centrelink had not processed the pay slips that Kerrie had provided. This led to the overpayment. The debt was subsequently halved. Murray of Warrawong was working as a part-time truck driver due to poor health. He reported his earnings as required and retained an accountant to lodge his tax returns to make sure he was doing the right thing. He was also sent a debt letter asking him to provide documentation. He had begun working full time part way through the year—a good thing, but he certainly paid the price. He had to take time off work and contact previous employers to get the required paperwork as he did not have his pay slips. He also received a second letter regarding the 2015-16 year. It took a 90-minute phone call to sort it out. He particularly said to me that, given the government is giving big business a tax cut, he felt this process made it even worse for him. Sue of Wollongong is a contract worker who correctly reported her earnings at the time and yet received a debt letter for more than $5,000 for a time when she had had three employers. Centrelink did not have her updated address, so, of course, she was one of those who ended up with a debt collector chasing her. She could obtain pay slips from two of the three employers, but the third had a problem with their system. I do not want to forget John from Warrawong who is a 62-year-old Santa. He also received a debt letter from the government. These people, each and every one, are just a sample of the people in my community who were doing the right thing and were treated with great disrespect by that appalling robo-debt debacle. (Time expired) 18:26 Mr HART 263070 Bass On 10 June 1908 the newly formed Commonwealth parliament passed the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act. The legislation was groundbreaking. Prior to that the elderly or infirm received no financial support and their care fell to family, religious and charitable institutions, or government asylums. Life in such institutions was often far from easy. From 1910 the invalid pension was available to people aged 16 and over who were not receiving the age pension and who were permanently incapacitated for work. Over the last century, Australia has seen a slow evolution of policy for people with a disability. That evolution took an important step in the 1980s. Ultimately, the informed consensus was that people with disability should be assisted to establish patterns of life that were close to, or the same as, those of society more generally. In 1983, Labor moved to adopt this principle with the result that public policy reflected a more inclusive approach to service provision, encompassing integration and access to mainstream services. The findings from the subsequent review in 1985 revealed that persons with disability wanted to more fully participate and be a part of the mainstream community. Labor accepts that we all look to belong and contribute to our society. In my first speech in the parliament I spoke about social isolation. I said: The long-term unemployed suffer in many ways which are difficult to comprehend … a person experiencing long-term unemployment is highly likely to lose their support networks, which are vital for their continued participation in community life. The evidence is overwhelming that all people want to contribute to the best of their ability, and this has been made evident in the culmination of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But this divisive government seeks to demonise the most vulnerable Australians in our society. In the name of ensuring administrative efficiency of the expenditure of the Commonwealth, this government has proceeded in a manner which cannot in any way be described as 'efficient' to demonise and marginalise those vulnerable and disabled within our community. As is stated in the executive summary of this report, the DSP is a complex program providing billions of dollars of support for hundreds of thousands of individuals each year, and has been operating for several decades. Effective risk management is therefore vital to ensure administrative efficiency, and that the budget pressures are balanced against the burdens placed on individual claimants and recipients. This report, however, raises new questions about the ability of this government to manage important portfolios with fairness and integrity. The relevant ministers responsible for the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services bear responsibility for yet more bungling and insensitivity with respect to these portfolios. The final report of the JCPAA inquiry into the Auditor-General's report, Qualifying for the disability support pension, is a damning report. It is so significant that the committee has recommended that it is necessary for there to be an end-to-end review of the administration of the disability support pension program, involving consultation and engagement with stakeholders. The review system appears to have been so poorly undertaken that the committee has recommended that the departments of social services and human services undertake and publicly report the outcomes from an evaluation of the reviews of recipients under 35 years of age. The committee was particularly critical of a failure to properly target those who were the subject of review. It is outrageous that it is even necessary for the committee to recommend the review of the list 1 conditions that provide eligibility for manifest grants of the disability support pension. The fact is that this committee found it necessary for particular attention to be given to the merits of including chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome, on list 1. It is necessary for me to elaborate as to the extent of the incompetence that has been uncovered and exposed as a part of the audit and the subsequent inquiry. The public inquiry highlighted that long-term recipients of the DSP, even, remarkably those who suffered— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 110 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Herbert Electorate: Mental Health 110 18:31 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I rise in this place to stand up for veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families in the electorate of Herbert. Herbert is the home to the largest Defence Force presence in Australia, and as such, owing to our great lifestyle and weather, we are also home to a large number of veterans, ex-service personnel and their families. I have lived in Townsville all of my life, apart from 3.5 years, and I have watched Lavarack Barracks grow from quite a small barracks to the huge facility that it is today. Lavarack celebrated its 50th birthday in the second half of last year. I have also watched the RAAF base grow over the years. It has been a fixture in our community since World War II. As a citizen of Townsville, I have seen the significant contribution that Defence personnel have made to our community across a range of areas. Both of my grandfathers served in the Australian Army in World War II. One of my grandfathers did not live past 54 years of age, as he suffered a heart attack and was found dead at work. My maternal grandfather was severely affected by PTSD, as it is now known, and he did not receive any help for this debilitating condition. As a result of my work over 15 years as the CEO of one of the largest mental health community organisations in north and west Queensland, I am very aware of the issues our veterans and ex-service personnel face. Throughout my time working in the community mental health sector I often thought with some sadness that my grandfather's life would have been so much better if he had received treatment and support to manage his PTSD. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:33 to 19:08 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Throughout my life working in the community mental health sector I often thought with some sadness that my grandfather's life would have been so much better if he had received treatment and support to manage his PTSD. Therefore, as the newly elected member for Herbert, I am passionate about standing up for our ADF members, veterans, ex-service personnel and their families. I am determined that the men and women who give so selflessly of themselves to ensure that we can experience the freedoms that we live each and every day get the support and services that they truly deserve. I am also determined that their families will also be supported, as they too make sacrifices on the home front for our freedoms. Let me share some facts about the veteran and ex-service population in my community. According to the 2017 Department of Veterans' Affairs statistics, my electorate of Herbert is home to 4,419 veterans, with an average age of 49.75 years. Add to this 1,238 dependants, and that is a total of 5,651 people. I will say it again: these men and women have selflessly put their lives on the line in order to protect the freedom and democracy that we experience in Australia today. In my electorate there are 1,813 special rate disability pensioners, with an average age of 61.74 years. There are 1,198 service pensioners, with an average age of 70.82 years. There is a Veterans' Entitlements Act pensioner population of 2,827, with an average age of 66.73 years. There are 1,521 gold card holders, with an average age of 69.4 years, and 1,784 white card holders, with an average age of 48.48 years, making a treatment population of 3,305, with an average age of 58.11. In order to ensure that I am getting a genuine and clearly articulated perspective from veterans, ex-service personnel and families, I have formed the Townsville Community Veterans Reference Group. This group is made up of currently serving personnel, a diverse range of veterans organisations, family representatives and mental health representatives, including from the Northern Queensland Primary Health Network. The reference group immediately commenced work on preparing for the Turnbull government's veterans suicide prevention trial. The group worked with the PHN to establish the steering group, which is chaired by Lieutenant General John Caligari (Retired), and developed the job description for the trial project officer. The steering committee participated in the recruitment of the project officer. The steering committee has been meeting and working in collaboration with NQPHN for a couple of months. This activity has been supported by the NQPHN, as the government was missing in action throughout this process. Last week I had the opportunity to ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs questions during consideration in detail about the Townsville trial. Sadly, the answers were not forthcoming. My major concern, given nearly a year has passed since the announcement and no funding has been delivered, is: will Townsville actually get a three-year trial funded for two years, or will the government extend the trial for a year and hand over the third year of funding? Another major issue that has been raised during discussion at the reference group meeting is the opportunity for veterans and ex-service personnel, male or female, to get a good, meaningful job. This is particularly important for the younger personnel. Dignity of work is a human right, and there is no substitute for the great feeling of having something to get out of bed for every day and contributing to the community in which you live. Meaning and purpose is so important in one's life. On 17 November the Prime Minister and Minister for Veterans' Affairs announced the formation of an industry advisory committee to address veterans employment. However, it was revealed in Senate estimates that the cornerstone of the Prime Minister's Veteran's Employment Program, the industry advisory committee, does not yet exist. It seems that 3½ months after the announcement there were no members on the advisory committee, showing once again that the Turnbull government is great at making announcements but the follow-through is just not there. To add insult to injury, the Turnbull government's Veteran's Employment Program confirmed in Senate estimates that there are no agreed targets to measure increased opportunities for veterans and service personnel in the jobs program. Without program targets it is not possible to measure and evaluate the outcomes or success of the program. Labor will always be supportive of measures that provide greater support for our veterans. Targets are crucial in order to evaluate the success of the program in terms of outcomes delivered. The government must also provide indicators and benchmarks for industry in order to ensure that funding for this program is aligned with veteran, ex-service personnel and community expectations. Instead, the responsibility has once again been passed on by the Turnbull government to industry. When will the government take responsibility and ownership for the announcements that they make? Veterans employment is a key part of a successful transition from life in the ADF to life in the community, and government must ensure that any funding is linked to measurable outcomes and targets. Once again, the defence groups in Townsville are leading the charge. The defence community and industry have come together and are working proactively and collaboratively on this very important issue, and they are well on their way to success. Veterans, ex-service personnel and their families deserve to know that there is a long-term commitment to safe transition from the ADF to community life and that the government is supporting that. Judging by the government's track record, this is not too good right now, but veterans, ex-service personnel and families can rest assured that Labor does value the work of our Defence personnel and we will pick up where this government has dropped the ball. I am fighting for veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families living in the electorate of Herbert because they deserve to have access to quality services and support in their time of need and the opportunity to achieve meaningful and purposeful employment. Veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families need to know that government announcements will translate into real dollars. I can assure them that Labor is committed and on their side. Our nation relies on these brave men and women and it is about time that this government reciprocated and offered them what they most certainly deserve—that is, quality services and support. Workplace Relations 111 19:15 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak on the falsehoods being peddled by those men and women opposite regarding penalty rates in this country. It must be good to go through life as carefree and unaccountable as those members opposite. The simple fact is that on this issue of penalty rates, Labor needs to be held to account and their unscrupulous warping of the facts deserves criticism. The hypocrisy of their own leader on this issue, who cut penalty rates for the workers he represented so that he could bolster his own electoral fortunes, is, quite frankly, breathtaking. The EBAs that Labor and the SDA help to cut are already doing more damage to young, vulnerable Australian workers' weekends rates than anything the Fair Work Commission has ever done. The facts are that any worker that is working solely weekends at Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's or Domino's is already worse off under their current EBA—this is what the unions have agreed to—than if they had been stuck with their current award. In some cases, we have heard that they are nearly $1,700 a year worse off. Those members opposite talk about fairness as if they owned the concept, but I am not sure how they can even get those words past their lips, such is the hypocrisy on this issue of penalty rates. The member for Wakefield, whom I heard speaking earlier today in the other place, has said that it was nonsense to suggest that the workers were sold out or that there were sweetheart deals struck between unions and big business. But I suggest to those opposite—and there are not many of us here—that there are the real facts and not the fake facts that they continue to peddle. In the Fair Work Commission just only a few days ago, Coles's lawyer Stuart Wood QC indicated that much of the Coles workforce—up to some 60 per cent—would be better off if they were paid minimum award rates, rather than what they are being paid from deals struck with the SDA. This admission comes as Coles tries to fight off a huge back pay claim for tens of thousands of its workers from Brisbane night fill worker Penny Vickers. In deals struck with SDA, workers at some of Australia's biggest employers, including Woolworths, Coles, McDonald's, Hungry Jack's and KFC are collectively being underpaid more than $300 million dollars a year. This equates to about 250,000 workers being underpaid through dozens of union enterprise agreements. The agreements show a clear pattern of hourly rates paid from a few cents to a few dollars an hour above the award, whilst their penalty rates are slashed or non-existent. This leaves workers worse off. Some workers at Coles were earning the princely sum of $15,000 a year. These are people who do not earn very much and these are the people that those opposite should be standing up for, and they are not. Those members opposite have absolutely no leg to stand on with this issue. It is absurd to suggest otherwise while they continue to support the SDA and take their members' money to fund attack acts. This is what those members opposite do not understand: when a union negotiates these deals with large employers like Coles or Woolworths, what they are doing is cutting the legs out from under the small-scale operators competing with them. A union-negotiated deal that allows a place like KFC to stay open on a Sunday without paying penalty rates means that they have a competitive advantage over the mum-and-dad stores across the road who are paying their staff the double time or whatever the relevant penalty rate may be at the time. This hypocrisy has, quite frankly, gone on long enough. The simple fact is that the union movement is gradually limping towards irrelevance. We see example after example of unions taking corrupting benefits—something this government has recently taken steps to curb. Research agency Roy Morgan released a report at the start of this year that estimates only 15 to 17 per cent of the Australian workforce is now a member of a union, which is a record low. A full 50 per cent of the Labor Party's candidates are chosen by the unions, and this, I believe, defies belief. How can you run in an election with 50 per cent of your candidates having ties to a movement that only represents 15 per cent of the population? The maths of that equation does not stand up to scrutiny. The Australian people do not enjoy being lectured to by hypocrites, and that is exactly what the modern union movement and its political arm, called the Labor Party, seek to do. Unions have eroded the trust that workers have placed in them because of secret payments, militant behaviour, and a perception that they no longer care about the average Australian worker. This does stand up to scrutiny. Unions do not represent the lowest paid workers in the country—not anymore. They have illustrated that regarding this penalty rate debate. In fact, they are barely representative of the construction sector. They no longer enjoy the support of public opinion, and they are overly represented by bureaucrats in the public sector. The largest percentage of union membership is made up of workers earning between $80,000 and $100,000—earnings well above the national average. These are hardly the struggling battlers the unions fraudulently claim to represent. What about the kids in Coles? Why don't they represent their interests more? This is the great falsehood of the union movement and of the Labor Party by extension. They claim to be representing the lowest paid workers in the country. They claim to be fighting for a fairer deal. But they are routinely selling out their own members for some other benefit. We hear loud criticism and condemnation from those opposite regarding the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates, but no criticism of their own unions' decision to sell out those 15-year-old Coles workers. The simple fact is that the current penalty rates system simply does not work. This is why Labor set up the Fair Work Commission and asked them to investigate this very issue. The problem is they did not like the umpire's decision, so now we have got a lot of criticism of our side and also of the Fair Work Commission by extension. This is notwithstanding that the Labor Party stacked the Fair Work Commission with their mates. But they did not get the right result, so that is why they are unhappy. But I understand, and those opposite also understand—we all understand in this place—that penalty rates are an integral part of our economy and they do allow young people, single parents, working holiday-makers, and many others to work jobs outside of normal hours and be paid extra for doing so. By rewarding people for working these abnormal hours, we are incentivising these industries, and we are ensuring that industries like the hospitality sector and the tourism sector have a bright and vibrant future. But we also need to balance that objective with the ability of these businesses to stay open and to remain competitive. I know this is perhaps hard for those opposite to grasp because they do not seem to stick up for regional towns and cities in Australia, but there is not always a lot of choice in regional towns and cities in Australia as to where you shop, and so, therefore, having a high penalty rate structure does impact those businesses, and that is who I care about. If those opposite thought more deeply about what regional Australia requires, then they may consider that we do actually have some valid arguments with respect to the penalty rates. I am going to wrap up to give my learned friend on the other side an opportunity to speak today. But what I would like to say is that I do want the other side to be held accountable on this issue, and I do not want them to continuously play these cynical political games with people's lives without being held to account, as we have seen them do time and time again. Citizenship 113 19:24 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I am very proud that the Labor Party has today announced that it will oppose the Turnbull government's proposed changes to the citizenship test. Let me be clear about this right from the start: this is not a proposal by a government about strengthening Australia's national security, despite the flim-flam words delivered by those opposite. This is not a proposal by the Turnbull government that implements a recommendation by ASIO, or the AFP or any of our security agencies. This is not a proposal by the Turnbull government that will prevent terrorism. Labor has shown absolute bipartisanship when it comes to legislation that strengthens Australia's national security, and we will always do so. It has been our position to support each tranche of national security legislation put forward by the Turnbull government or by the Abbott government, before he was rolled by Mr Turnbull. We have at times made suggestions for improvements to that legislation, but we have always done it in a bipartisan and supportive manner. Labor's position will be to continue to support any legislation that strengthens Australia's national security. But this legislation—this dog whistle attempt—does not concern issues of national security. It is a political wedge, a political tactic: cheap political tactics. Let's be clear: this legislation about citizenship will only apply to people who live here. It is not about preventing people entering; it will only apply to people who have been granted a permanent visa to live in Australia and who are living here now. It applies to people who are already living in our communities—to people who are already working in our hospitals, our schools and our service industries. These are people who are already experiencing the Australian way of life. This proposal will just mean that those people who are already living in our communities will have to wait longer, or may never be eligible, to become Australian citizens or to become fully immersed in the Australian way of life. This legislation will increase the English language requirements for citizenship to a competency equivalent of those entering university, the IELTS level 6. There are some Australian citizens, born in Australia, who have had English as their first language but who would struggle to pass that level of English competency—not to mention Indigenous Australians, obviously, where English is not their first language. There will be many migrants with English as their second language who will not be able to attain that level of English competency. And why do they need to? It is the arrogance of this Turnbull government to assume that everyone aspires to the level of a tertiary education. All this legislation will do is to create an isolated underclass of people living in Australia on permanent visas but who cannot attain citizenship because of an artificial education barrier imposed by this government. As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, since World War II, basically, only conversational English was required to become an Australian citizen, and seven million Australians have made that journey. They are people who have come from countries across the seas. And so when we analyse the purpose of a language test, it is only to make sure that the person can participate fully in their community through language. It has never been necessary to raise it to the academic standard for Australian citizens. That has never been the Australian way. It means that this piece of legislation will discriminate against members of our community because they do not meet a particular academic standard. That is the opposite of what the egalitarian Australia I believe in is. It discriminates against members of our community because they have not had the educational advantages that some of us have enjoyed, and that is not the Australia I believe in. Nor is discriminating against members of our community because English is their second language; that does not necessarily mean that they are not good Australians. This proposal by the Turnbull government, by Minister Dutton, is divisive and could erode the successful multicultural community that we now enjoy in Australia. Moreton, my electorate, is a very diverse multicultural community. We have a large Chinese community and also Taiwanese, Indian, former Yugoslavs, Pacific Islanders, Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Rwandans, Filipinos, South Africans, Indigenous Australians—obviously—New Zealanders, Fijians, Koreans and Vietnamese, to name but a few. And, of course, there is a very strong Greek community as well. In fact, my sons play for the Olympic Soccer Club. Many of those Greek migrants who came to Australia were not able to speak strong English when they became Australian citizens. It would be horrible to think that they would be excluded from that by this new piece of Turnbull legislation. The whole Moreton community that I represent is richer because of the contribution made by these ethnic communities and by the Indigenous communities. I am glad that I am raising my family in a diverse community. They go to diverse schools with a mix of people from all around the world—a mixture of faiths and backgrounds. Every member of our community deserves to feel valued, whether they were born here or migrated here. I know that this piece of legislation is a political stunt, rather than a message from our security agencies to make our community stronger. It was only a piece of legislation put forward by a Liberal senator from New South Wales and supported with information from a former Liberal MP. None of our security agencies have made this recommendation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, with the member for Moreton in continuation. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30