2017-06-22 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 22 June 2017

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

 

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 7423 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG Before we deal with the first item of business, I have a statement I would like to make to the House, and the President of the Senate is making the same or equivalent statement to the Senate. Members will recall the statement I made to the House on 10 October last year regarding the records of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. The commission was established in May 1986 to investigate whether any conduct of the late Justice Lionel Keith Murphy, a senator for New South Wales from 1962 until 1975 and a judge of the High Court of Australia from 1975 until 1986, had been such as to amount to 'proved misbehaviour' within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution. The commission's inquiry was brought to an end in September 1986 when it became known that Justice Murphy was suffering a terminal illness. The parliament enacted the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Act of 1986, dividing the records into two categories: 'class A documents' comprising records relating to Justice Murphy's conduct; and 'class B documents' consisting of all other commission records including those relating to the interpretation of section 72 of the Constitution. The act strictly prohibited access to the class A documents for 30 years, that being until 26 September 2016, and after that date required that the Presiding Officers determine the access or otherwise of the documents. The class B documents could be accessed at any time by written approval of the Presiding Officers. On 13 December 2016, the President of the Senate and I, taking into account the advice of our officials, authorised publication of the class B records of the commission. These records were duly published on the parliament's website on 19 December 2016. In my statement to the House last year, I announced that the President and I had authorised the Clerks of the Senate and the House, and a small number of other officials from our departments, to examine the commission's class A records and advise us how the records might be handled from now on. The independence of this process was important to us. Neither the President nor I personally reviewed the documents prior to making any decisions about granting or withholding wider access to them. I said in October that the process would be thorough and may take some time, and that we would await advice on the contents of the records before determining a way forward. The President and I have now made a decision in relation to the class A documents. In making our decision, following this independent advice, we have taken into account the following matters: (a) that the records contain a significant amount of personal information relating to Justice Murphy and other persons; (b) that the information potentially pertains to illegal behaviour; (c) the time that has elapsed since the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry; and (d) the decision taken by the Parliament in 1986. In relation to the last matter, that is, the decision taken by the 34th Parliament when dealing with the class A documents, we note two key issues: First, the parliament by way of legislation preserved the documents for thirty years and did not order the destruction of them in 1986; Second, the parliament, significantly, did not provide for an automatic release after thirty years, but strictly empowered the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives to make a decision about the release, or otherwise, of the documents. Then Senator Gareth Evans, who was at that time the Minister for Resources and Energy and who led the debate for the Hawke government in the Senate, acknowledged that there would be legitimate historical interest in the records in the future. During debate on the bill in the Senate on 21 August 1986, Senator Evans told the Senate that: It is appropriate that basic archival rules apply … and that in 30 years time the basic ground rules for Commonwealth documentation generally apply, subject to such exemptions as apply to this sort of material, which can properly be administered by the Presiding Officers. The President and I have approached this important decision in exactly this spirit. It is important to recognise that the records of the commission reflect an incomplete process, insofar as it could not fulfil its ultimate purpose of formulating and reporting to the parliament its conclusions regarding the conduct of Justice Murphy. Of course the privacy or reputation of all people impacted by the documents was a factor that was carefully considered in deciding whether or not to release the records. However, these concerns had to be weighed against the considerable public interest in having access to information relating to important concerns about the integrity of the High Court and, more broadly, about serious issues of public governance and accountability at the time of the commission's investigations. In seeking to serve this public interest, the President and I took into account the fact that the general and specific nature of the allegations relating to Justice Murphy and others are widely known and, after 30 years, are historical in nature. We also took into account the nonpartisan, focused and highly credible nature of the investigative processes employed by the commission, which is reflected in the character of its records. At the time it was wound up, the commission had provided Justice Murphy with a number of specific allegations to which he had been invited to respond, but the judge's unfortunate prognosis meant that a response was never to be received. I now advise the House that the President and I have decided to approve the publication of the class A documents. Now that we have made our decision public, the President and I will request that the clerks of both houses, where possible and appropriate, advise persons named in the records, and the closest living relatives or legal representatives of deceased persons, of the forthcoming publication of the class A documents. To enable sufficient time for this to happen, we have ordered that the class A documents be scanned and published in electronic form on Monday July 24th at 10.00am. A small amount of personal information, including signatures and addresses of unrelated persons, will be redacted from the published versions. In concluding my remarks, I wish to reiterate the deep sense of responsibility that the President of the Senate and I have felt in executing the task that was bequeathed to us by the 34th Parliament. I thank the House. BILLS 7425 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 7425

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

First Reading 7425 Second Reading 7425 09:39 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. With this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, the government is embarking on a comprehensive reform of Australia's working-age welfare payments; making the system simpler, more sustainable, and focussed on supporting people from welfare into employment. Introduction The bill introduces a new, single jobseeker payment, which will replace or consolidate seven existing payments in order to simplify the working-age payment system. It will also strengthen welfare conditionality for jobseekers with drug and alcohol abuse issues and better encourage and support them to pursue treatment. The bill also sees a streamlining of administrative processes and the introduction of a new targeted compliance framework which will better identify and support vulnerable people and ensure that wilfully noncompliant jobseekers face appropriate penalties. The bill demonstrates that the government is completely committed to improving the integrity of the welfare system and ensuring that recipients receive the necessary support and incentives to address barriers to employment, to look for work and to take a suitable job when it is available. This will benefit not just the jobseekers themselves but also their families, the wider community and the Australian economy. Jobseeker payment measures From 20 March 2020, this bill will introduce a new, single jobseeker payment, which will replace seven existing payments as the main payment for people of working age. Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension, bereavement allowance, and widow B pension will cease from 20 March 2020. Existing bereavement allowance recipients will continue to receive bereavement allowance for the remainder of their bereavement period following 20 March 2020, but there will be no new grants of bereavement allowance from 20 March 2020. Widow allowance will close to new entrants from 1 January 2018 and will cease on 1 January 2022, when all recipients have moved to the age pension. Partner allowance will also cease on 1 January 2022 when all recipients have moved to the age pension. These multiple working-age payments are a product of many years of ad hoc changes and dated policy decisions, which have created a system that is difficult to understand, navigate and administer. Creating a new jobseeker payment will ensure a single set of rules and rates for people of working age with the capacity to work. It will also firmly entrench long-term employment as the desired outcome for working-age Australians who receive income support. Under these changes, approximately 800,000 existing Newstart allowance recipients are expected to transfer to the new jobseeker payment in 2020. A further 20,000 recipients of other working-age income support payments are expected to progressively transition to the jobseeker payment, or other payments such as the age pension or carer payment where eligible. The eligibility rules and payment rates for the jobseeker payment will be based primarily on the existing rules and rates for Newstart allowance. Eligibility will be broadened to include access for people who are temporarily sick or injured and unable to return to their work or study, rather than having to shift onto a different payment. Bereavement provisions will also apply within the new jobseeker payment for people who would have otherwise claimed a bereavement allowance. Bereaved jobseeker payment recipients and claimants will receive a triple upfront payment, acknowledging the high upfront costs associated with losing a partner or spouse. Recipients will also receive temporary exemptions from mutual obligations requirements during their time of grief. Bereaved people will also be exempt from a number of conditions that would normally apply to jobseekers; ensuring that they get access to the payment when they need it the most. Transitional arrangements will be put in place for wife pension recipients who move to the jobseeker payment to ensure that their nominal rate of payment is not reduced as result of these changes. Replacing seven existing payments with one working-age payment is a critical step in reforming our welfare system and will firmly entrench long-term employment as the desired outcome for Australians who enter the welfare system in a moment of need. The simplification of working-age payments is based on the blueprint provided by Patrick McClure after the significant work done by him and his reference group on welfare reform. Amend the activity test for persons aged 55 to 59 This bill will also strengthen the employment focus of mutual obligations and better connect mature age jobseekers with the labour market, while still recognising that volunteering can be a valuable stepping stone into paid work. Changes will be made to current activity test arrangements, to help ensure Newstart allowance and special benefit recipients aged 55 to 59 years experience greater workforce participation and increase their chances of finding work. Presently, Newstart allowance and special benefit recipients aged 55 or over can satisfy the activity test and meet their annual activity requirements through 30 hours per fortnight of approved voluntary work, paid work or a combination of both. Whilst volunteering obviously has a range of benefits, participation in paid work and reduced reliance on income support should be the ultimate goal for jobseekers. Under this measure, from 20 September 2018, Newstart allowance and special benefit recipients aged between 55 and 59 years of age will have satisfied the activity test if they are engaged in at least 30 hours per fortnight of paid work, or a combination of paid work and up to a maximum of 15 hours of voluntary work. The 2017-18 budget included changes to mutual obligations requirements for jobseekers in other age groups. This includes aligning activity requirements for jobseekers aged between 30 and 49 years of age with those for jobseekers aged under 30 and introducing annual activity requirements for jobseekers aged between 60 and the age pension age. Changes to participation requirements for these other age groups can be achieved through jobactive guidelines alone. No legislative amendment is required. The Australian government is also complementing these changes by investing over $100 million to increase the skills and experience of mature age jobseekers from 1 July 2018. Faster connection to employment services The bill also supports the introduction of the Work First: faster connection to employment services measure. This measure makes changes to the RapidConnect arrangements to encourage jobseekers to connect more quickly with employment service providers (like jobactive and Transition to Work). From 1 January 2018, jobseekers subject to RapidConnect will have their Newstart allowance or youth allowance (other) payment commence from the date they attended their initial appointment with their employment service provider, instead of the date the recipient first contacted the Department of Human Services or lodged their claim. Transition to Work and jobactive providers will continue to be contractually required to have appointment times available for people to attend within two business days. If an appointment is not available or the jobseeker misses an appointment due to a reasonable cause, they will not be penalised. Connecting jobseekers more quickly with employment services will improve the jobseeker's chances of finding work faster. Removing intent to claim Through this bill, social security claimants will receive payments from the date they provide all material necessary for them to claim and to be assessed that is within their control, rather than from the date of first contact with the Department of Human Services. This measure will encourage social security claimants to provide the information required for their claim in a timely manner, in line with government and community expectations that individuals take personal responsibility for their own affairs. The measure will apply to all new claims for social security payments. It will not affect current recipients, unless they claim another payment. Substance misuse measures In addition, this bill introduces three measures designed to strengthen requirements for jobseekers who may have substance abuse issues and to provide improved pathways for them to pursue appropriate treatment. The community has a right to expect that taxpayer-funded welfare payments are not being used to fund drug and alcohol addiction and that jobseekers do all that they can reasonably do to find a job, including addressing any barriers which have prevented them from doing so. Data shows us that substance abuse is a more significant problem for people on welfare payments and is directly impacting the ability of many jobseekers to undertake activities to get them into employment: In 2013 the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that those who were unemployed were 2.4 times more likely to use drugs such as crystal methamphetamine than those who were employed. Last year there were 4,325 occasions when someone gave drug or alcohol dependency as a reason for not meeting their mutual obligation requirements. In September 2016, around 5,250 people were temporarily exempt from all mutual obligations due to a drug or alcohol dependency. While there are some existing mechanisms in place for identifying jobseekers with substance abuse issues and assisting them to seek treatment, the data clearly shows that much more needs to be done to help these individuals. The measures in this bill will provide better pathways for jobseekers who are having difficulties meeting their mutual obligation requirements because of drug or alcohol misuse so that they can pursue the treatment they need. Importantly, the measures in this bill are complemented by other measures that do not require legislation. This includes, for the first time, ensuring that all jobseekers are able to undertake drug or alcohol treatment as an approved activity in their job plan. This bill will also establish a modest two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance (other) from 1 January 2018. While drug testing is currently used in Australia by many employers and, of course, by police and law enforcement, and it has also been used overseas in relation to welfare recipients, there is little comparable evidence available to tell us whether this sort of intervention would be effective in the Australian welfare context. That is why this measure has been specifically designed as a trial—to build that evidence base and assess the value of drug testing as a way of identifying those for whom drug misuse is a barrier to work, and as a means of supporting them to undertake treatment. The trial will operate in three locations. The selection of these locations will be based on evidence and data about drug use in Australia to ensure the trial is targeted at supporting regions with a high incidence of drug use. The availability of treatment services and the ability to apply a welfare quarantining mechanism will also be key factors in determining trial locations. Under this trial, from 1 January 2018, people claiming Newstart allowance or youth allowance (other) in the trial locations will be required to acknowledge that they may be subject to drug testing as part of the claim process. Drug testing will coincide with Department of Human Services appointments and will be administered by a contracted third party drug-testing provider. There will be comprehensive rules set out in a legislative instrument relating to the trial locations, the illicit drugs tested for and the protocols for conducting the drug tests, including safeguards to ensure that testing is conducted appropriately and in accordance with relevant standards. This legislative instrument will provide the flexibility to ensure that the expert advice of the contracted testing provider and the drug and alcohol sector can be taken into account in developing these protocols and safeguards. There will be appropriate consequences for people who deliberately miss an appointment without a reasonable excuse or for people who refuse a drug test in order to avoid a possible positive result. Jobseekers who test positive to a drug test will have their payments placed on income management for 24 months. This is designed to restrict their access to cash and, therefore, limit their ability to use payments to fund further harmful drug use. Jobseekers who test positive will also be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days and may also be subject to further subsequent tests. This will help to identify those for whom drug misuse is an ongoing problem which may require treatment and which is creating a barrier to employment. Jobseekers who test positive to more than one drug test during the trial will be referred to a Department of Human Services contracted medical professional with experience in drug and alcohol treatment who will assess their particular circumstances and identify appropriate treatment or support options. If the report from the medical professional recommends treatment, the jobseeker will be required to participate in one or more treatment activities to address their substance abuse as part of their job plan. This could include, for example, activities such as rehabilitation, counselling or case management. This trial is not about penalising jobseekers with drug abuse issues. It is about finding new and better ways of identifying these jobseekers and ensuring they are referred to the support and treatment they need. This bill will also make changes to mutual obligation exemptions to better support and encourage jobseekers with substance misuse issues to remain actively engaged and pursue treatment. Currently, jobseekers can be granted an exemption on the basis of temporary incapacity due to drug or alcohol dependency. Exemptions can also be granted in other circumstances that may be related to drug or alcohol abuse. This allows jobseekers to be exempt from all mutual obligation requirements with no expectation that they will undertake appropriate activities to address the underlying problem—their substance abuse. This is why, from 1 January 2018, jobseekers will no longer be able to be exempt from their mutual obligation or participation requirements if the circumstances affecting their ability to meet their requirements is primarily due to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This measure reflects that jobseekers who do have substance dependency or misuse issues that prevent them from looking for work should be taking active steps to address their issues rather than being exempt from all requirements. It is estimated that around 11,000 exemptions per year will no longer be granted under this measure, noting that some jobseekers may currently get more than one exemption in a year related to their substance misuse. Jobseekers who are no longer eligible for an exemption will instead remain connected to their employment service provider and actively engaged in appropriate activities tailored to their particular circumstances and barriers to work, including their substance misuse issues. The government is investing $28.8 million to ensure that jobseekers receive this tailored support from their provider during the period they would previously have been exempt. This bill will also tighten the reasonable-excuse rules to provide an incentive for jobseekers who are having difficulty meeting their requirements due to drug or alcohol dependency to undertake treatment as part of their mutual obligation requirements. Jobseekers on income support negotiate a job plan with their employment service provider. It is based on their individual circumstances and capacity and is designed to help the jobseeker move towards supporting themselves through paid work. If jobseekers do not undertake the mutual obligations that are agreed to in their job plan, they can face financial penalties. To avoid unfairly penalising recipients, a penalty cannot legally be applied if the jobseeker has a reasonable excuse for failing to meet their requirements—that is, if jobseekers miss an appointment or cannot attend an activity for reasons beyond their control. Currently, though, there are rules which allow jobseekers to repeatedly use drug or alcohol dependency as a reasonable excuse without making any effort to address their circumstances. From 1 January 2018, the government will amend the reasonable-excuse criteria so that jobseekers will not be able to repeatedly use drug or alcohol dependency as a reasonable excuse unless they are seeking treatment, if it is available and appropriate. This measure targets those who are unable to meet their mutual obligation requirements due to drug or alcohol related reasons and will encourage those recipients into available treatment. Following a first instance of noncompliance due to drug or alcohol dependency, jobseekers will face no penalty but will be given the option of voluntarily undertaking treatment for their dependency (if that treatment is appropriate and available) or continuing with their normal mutual obligation requirements as managed by their employment services provider. For jobseekers who choose treatment, participating in this treatment will reduce or, in some circumstances, fully meet their mutual obligation requirements. If a jobseeker refuses to participate in available and appropriate treatment, they will no longer be able to continue to use their drug and alcohol conditions as a reasonable excuse for future noncompliance. If they again fail to meet their requirements due to drug or alcohol use, they may then face a financial penalty. This measure will provide stronger incentives and better support for jobseekers to pursue the treatment they need to overcome their substance dependency and move towards supporting themselves through paid work. Together, these measures recognise that supporting jobseekers to address their substance abuse issues through appropriate treatment is a critical first step on the path to employment. Targeted c ompliance f ramework This bill will create a simpler, fairer, more targeted and certainly more effective jobseeker compliance framework to ensure that all jobseekers are meeting their mutual obligation requirements. We know that almost two-thirds of jobseekers attend all appointments or miss only one, at most, in any six-month period, and that payment suspension is sufficient to ensure re-engagement in the majority of cases. At the other extreme, there is a small core of jobseekers who appear to be gaming the system by only attending appointments which reactivate suspended income support payments. Those jobseekers have no underlying reason for their persistent noncompliance. The current framework does not differentiate between these groups of jobseekers and, critically, it does not always provide the support necessary to those who need help to meet their requirements. The new targeted framework is designed to change the behaviour of non-genuine jobseekers, while supporting the majority of jobseekers who are absolutely genuine in their efforts to find work. Jobseekers who wilfully and repeatedly fail to comply with their agreed job plan requirements, with no underlying cause, will face real penalties, with graduated loss of income support payments, culminating in payment cancellation and a four-week non-payment period for the most recalcitrant jobseekers. Under the new framework, all jobseekers will commence in a demerits phase. Every time a jobseeker misses a requirement, their payment will be suspended then back paid when they re-engage. They will also accrue a demerit if they do not have a valid reason for their failure. If a jobseeker accrues four demerits within six months they will enter the three-strikes phase, where they will face stronger penalties, beginning with the loss of half their fortnightly payment the first time they miss a requirement without a reasonable excuse. They will lose all of their fortnightly payment the second time they do not meet a requirement and after a third failure they will face payment cancellation for four weeks. To ensure that genuine jobseekers who are simply having difficulty meeting their requirements do not enter the three-strikes phase, their provider will assess their capability and requirements after their third demerit and the Department of Human Services will also do so after their fourth. At either point, if a jobseeker is found to be unable to meet their requirements because of some underlying capability issue, those requirements will be adjusted, their demerits reset, and they will remain in the demerits phase. Once a jobseeker is in the three-strikes phase, they can still avoid any penalties by simply meeting all their requirements. Those who remain fully compliant for three months will return to the demerits phase and have their demerits reset to zero. This will provide a strong incentive for jobseekers to change their behaviour and to comply with their requirements. Jobseekers in either phase who refuse an offer of suitable work or fail to start in a suitable job without a reasonable excuse will have their payment cancelled and will then face a four-week non-payment period before they can receive payment. This penalty is identical to that imposed on jobseekers who have reached three strikes. It recognises the seriousness of refusing work and the importance of reducing reliance on welfare whenever reasonably possible. Jobseekers who voluntarily leave a suitable job or are dismissed due to misconduct will also face a four-week non-payment period. Waivers will no longer be available for refusing or failing to accept an offer of suitable employment, so that jobseekers who have proven time and again that they are unwilling to meet their requirements or accept work will actually serve a penalty. However, the penalty for these failures is reduced from eight weeks to four weeks to reflect the detrimental impact that long periods without payment can have. The new compliance framework will be considerably simpler than the current system. This will make it easier for jobseekers to understand the consequences of noncompliance and will reduce unnecessary red tape and administration for providers. No penalty will be applied to any jobseeker if they have a reasonable excuse for any failure to observe a mutual obligation. Before a jobseeker enters the three-strikes phase, they will be subject to capability interviews and assessments to identify any underlying issues that may be preventing them from meeting their requirements. Only those jobseekers who wilfully and systematically do not comply with requirements will reach the point of having their income support payments cancelled. A jobseeker can request that the Department of Human Services review a decision to apply a financial penalty and, if they are unhappy with any outcome, they can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Jobseekers will not be paid pending the outcome of the appeal and will be back paid in full if the appeal is successful. Streamline tax file number collection Under current arrangements, claimants for social security payments have 28 days to provide a tax file number to the Department of Human Services after a claim has been made. This bill will streamline administrative processes in the Department of Human Services by requiring individuals who make a claim for payment to provide their tax file number, and relevant third-party tax file numbers, as part of their claim. Applicants who do not have their tax file number on hand can choose to have the Department of Human Services obtain it from the Australian Taxation Office directly on their behalf. Information m anagement From 1 January 2018, the requirement for the Department of Human Services to obtain information twice (once for administrative purposes, like raising a social welfare payment debt, and then again to pursue criminal prosecution) will be streamlined under this bill to reduce the administrative burden of welfare fraud prosecution referrals. The need for the Department of Human Services to obtain admissible material by search warrants pursuant to section 3E of theCrimes Act 1914, will be significantly reduced. The Department of Human Services currently requests around 1,000 of these warrants annually. These amendments will reduce the significant burden not only on the Department of Human Services and the Australian Federal Police but also on the parties subject to the search warrants and the courts. Aligning social security and disability discrimination law The government fully supports the vital role the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 plays in protecting people with disability from unfair treatment and promoting equal rights, opportunity and access. Certain pieces of Commonwealth legislation are exempt from coverage of the Disability Discrimination Act. This includes the Social Security Act 1991, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The exemption of these acts enables pensions, allowances and benefits for people with disability to be appropriately targeted according to the purpose of the payment. The Social Security Act has been exempt since the Disability Discrimination Act was first introduced in 1992. At that time, the Social Security Act included a range of provisions that are now included in separate pieces of legislation—the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Social Security (International Arrangements) Act 1999. When the social security law was split into three separate acts, however, the Disability Discrimination Act was not updated to reflect this. This bill will address this inconsistency by also including the Social Security (Administration) Act and the Social Security (International Agreements) Act and relevant legislative instruments made under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 in the list of exempt legislation for the Disability Discrimination Act. This will ensure consistent treatment across social security law and similar legislation relating to pensions and allowances. Importantly, these changes will not affect the broader protections that the Disability Discrimination Act provides to people with disability. Conclusion The government is committed to building a fairer, more efficient and more effective welfare system that is focused on employment outcomes. This bill will deliver a simpler system for people receiving working-age payments; provide more encouragement for people transitioning to work; provide greater support for people along the path to employment; and provide stricter compliance to ensure the integrity of our welfare system is appropriately maintained. These changes will make the income support system stronger and more sustainable over the long term and will ensure that the welfare system continues to be supported by the broader community. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017 7434

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017

First Reading 7434 Second Reading 7434 10:06 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017, which I am introducing today, will, together with the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017, improve the provision of superfast broadband in Australia. The bill implements key measures of the government's response to the Independent Cost-Benefit Analysis and Review of Regulation carried out by a panel of experts chaired by Dr Michael Vertigan AC. It will improve the supply of superfast broadband by: making carrier separation rules for superfast residential networks more effective but also more flexible, giving carriers greater scope to invest in superfast networks and compete; introducing new statutory infrastructure provider (or SIP) obligations on NBN Co (and others) to support the ongoing delivery of superfast broadband services; and establishing the Regional Broadband Scheme (or RBS) to provide for the sustainable funding of NBN Co satellite and fixed wireless services for regional areas. Improving carrier separation rules In 2011, the former government introduced carrier separation rules to require new superfast broadband networks, other than the National Broadband Network, that service residential and small business customers to supply a basic wholesale service on a non-discriminatory basis and be wholesale-only (that is, structurally separated). This bill reforms these rules to bolster competition at both the wholesale and retail level while also resetting the default wholesale-only requirements to make them more effective. The key changes to the rules are these. First, the bill removes the rules from networks servicing small businesses. This creates greater flexibility for carriers to supply superfast broadband to small businesses, enabling small business to benefit from greater competition in this market. Second, carriers other than NBN Co and Telstra will be able to operate both network and retail businesses on a functionally separated (that is, at arms-length) basis subject to the approval of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC. Networks operating on a functionally separated basis will need to meet core requirements. These include the operation of separate wholesale and retail business units, with separate workers, accounts and IT systems, as well as the non-discriminatory provision of services and the protection of customer information. This approach will enable carriers to harness the efficiency benefits of integrated operations while allowing other providers to share those benefits through non-discriminatory access to networks. Third, the bill allows the ACCC to exempt small start-up networks from the separation rules to encourage entry into the market and the growth of new providers. Fourth, all services supplied on networks that are wholesale-only or functionally separated will be subject to clear non-discrimination obligations. Finally, the bill improves the enforcement regime to make it more effective. This includes giving the ACCC a wider range of enforcement tools and allowing for private enforcement. Statutory i nfrastructure provider (SIP) regime The current statement of expectations issued to NBN Co requires it to roll out the National Broadband Network. However, there is no statutory obligation requiring NBN Co to connect any premises to its network and service them on an ongoing basis. This bill addresses this by establishing a statutory infrastructure provider, or SIP, regime so that all premises in Australia can have access to superfast broadband. This will provide certainty and clarity for all parties: NBN Co, its customers and, most importantly, consumers. Under the arrangements, NBN Co will become the SIP for areas as it rolls out its network and will be the default SIP for all of Australia once it has completed the National Broadband Network. This is appropriate given that NBN Co will ultimately replace Telstra as the principal fixed-line operator in Australia. Other carriers will also be able to be SIPs where appropriate. The Productivity Commission, in its report on its review of the universal service obligation (USO), saw the SIP regime as a key part of its recommended approach to the USO and recommended it be implemented as a priority. The bill methodically sets out how to identify the SIP, the obligations of the SIP, and the processes to be followed when a SIP does not or cannot meet the SIP obligation. There will be a central register of SIPs so industry and consumers can find out who the SIP in an area is. In doing this, the government is putting the customer experience front and centre in this legislative package. SIPs must connect premises on reasonable request from a retail provider and supply wholesale services that support a peak download speed of at least 25 megabits per second and a peak upload speed of at least five megabits per second. This is consistent with the speeds set out in NBN Co's statement of expectations. SIPs must also supply wholesale services that retail providers can use to support voice calls on fixed-line and fixed wireless networks. The bill provides two clear targets that NBN Co, as a SIP, must take all reasonable endeavours to meet. First, NBN Co must ensure that 90 per cent of premises in its fixed-line footprint can receive peak download speeds of at least 50 megabits per second and peak upload speeds of at least 10 megabits per second. Second, NBN Co's fixed-line networks must be capable of being connected to at least 92 per cent of premises in Australia. These targets again reflect the current NBN Co statement of expectations and the government's commitment that people in Australia have ready, affordable access to superfast broadband into the future. Consumers will for the first time have clear information on why any request for a connection has been refused and by whom, assisting them in seeking redress. The bill also gives the Minister for Communications reserve powers to set standards, rules and benchmarks that SIPs must comply with (or in the case of benchmarks, meet or exceed). These could include timeframes for connecting premises and rectifying faults, rules about how premises are to be connected and how complaints must be addressed. The minister will also be able to make service provider rules dealing with consumer issues like the handballing of disputes between wholesale and retail providers if required. By providing certainty that premises can be connected to superfast networks and consumers at those premises can receive superfast broadband, the SIP arrangements provide a solid core around which a new forward-looking consumer protection architecture for the future NBN environment can be developed and implemented. Regional Broadband Scheme (RBS) The bill, together with the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017, establishes the Regional Broadband Scheme to provide sustainable funding for the provision of superfast broadband services to regional, rural and remote Australians. Providing quality broadband services to regional Australia is a major challenge, and a very expensive one. Modelling by the Bureau of Communications and Arts Research has estimated NBN Co's fixed wireless and satellite networks are expected to lose around $9.8 billion over 30 years. Currently these losses are funded entirely from an opaque internal cross-subsidy from NBN Co's profitable fixed-line networks. The Regional Broadband Scheme makes this cross-subsidy transparent and requires all fixed-line broadband carriers to contribute equitably to the cost of providing regional broadband services. Under the Regional Broadband Scheme all carriers would contribute around $7.10 per month per premises where a broadband service is provided over their fixed-line networks. It is intended that the charge would apply to all premises serviced by fibre to the premises (FTTP), fibre to the node (FTTN), fibre to the basement (FTTB), fibre to the curb (FTTC) and hybrid-fibre coaxial (HFC) networks. Once the NBN rollout is complete, it is expected that NBN Co will have around 95 per cent of the fixed-line market, which means it will continue funding the bulk of the cost for providing broadband to regional Australia. Customers on NBN Co's networks will not experience price rises as the charge is already embedded in NBN Co's pricing. For the remaining carriers, it will be up to these networks to decide whether some or all of the charge is passed on. The bills also include a concession period for smaller carriers that exempts the first 25,000 residential and small business premises for five years. The government is well aware that broadband technology is constantly evolving and new technologies may emerge at any time. The government is committed to reviewing the Regional Broadband Scheme on a regular basis to ensure the funding base remains appropriate. The bill includes a requirement to conduct a review within four years of the scheme commencing. Once established the Regional Broadband Scheme will provide certainty for regional Australians that their essential broadband services will be maintained and upgraded into the future. Conclusion The bill makes important changes to the broadband regulatory framework to strengthen the provision of superfast broadband infrastructure across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote Australia. The changes put the customer experience front and centre by ensuring consumers can benefit from greater wholesale and retail competition, access superfast broadband under the statutory infrastructure provider obligation and are supported by sustainable funding arrangements for essential broadband services in regional, rural and remote Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017 7437

Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017

First Reading 7437 Second Reading 7437 10:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017, which I am introducing today, will, together with schedule 4 of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017, establish the Regional Broadband Scheme to ensure there are sustainable funding arrangements in place to provide essential broadband services to regional, rural and remote Australians. The bill would impose, from 1 July 2018, a monthly charge on carriers in relation to each premises connected to their network that has an active fixed-line superfast broadband service during the month. The charge would have two components: a base component and an administrative cost component. The bill would set the initial base component amount at $7.09, which is then subject to indexation. The bill also sets the administrative cost component for the first five years. The money collected from the base component of the charge would be used to fund the losses NBN Co incurs in constructing and operating its fixed wireless and satellite networks, replacing the company's opaque internal cross-subsidy from its fixed-line networks. The money collected from the administrative cost component would fund the enforcement and administration costs of the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) associated with the scheme. The bill also sets out the arrangements to enable the minister, by disallowable legislative instrument, to adjust the base component and the administrative cost components. This will ensure the monthly charge amount reflects the size of the fixed line broadband market and the net losses incurred by NBN Co in respect of its fixed wireless and satellite networks. The bill would require the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to give advice to the minister in relation to resetting the base and administrative cost components at least once every five years. The minister must have regard to this advice when deciding whether to adjust the charge amount. The administrative arrangements for the Regional Broadband Scheme, including arrangements for the annual (in arrears) assessment and collection of the charge, and associated reporting arrangements are set out in schedule 4 of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill. Once established, the Regional Broadband Scheme will provide certainty for regional Australians that their essential broadband services will be available into the future. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017 7438

Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017

First Reading 7438 Second Reading 7438 10:21 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017 continues the Australian government's effort to tidy up the Commonwealth's statute book with the repeal of four spent and redundant Commonwealth acts within the Education and Training portfolio. The four acts being repealed are: the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001; the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005; the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005; and the Skilling Australia's Workforce (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005. The Australian Research Council (or ARC) invests in excellent fundamental and applied research that helps improve the quality of people's lives, supports Australian industries and businesses and ensures our nation remains at the cutting edge of research, innovation and global competitiveness. The government's investment through the ARC is significant in a wide variety of fundamental and applied research projects, growing Australia's research capacity and infrastructure. On 5 June 2017, the government announced 120 new research projects across Australia with $170.6 million to tackle problems from fire safety to the country's ageing population, literacy and numeracy levels in schoolkids and coral reef conservation. However, the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001, which the bill repeals, is no longer relevant to the ARC because its primary legislative purpose is obsolete and non-operational. The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005 established Australian technical colleges to enable year 11 and 12 students to undertake a school based new apprenticeship and to undertake academic studies leading to successful completion of the year 12 certificate which would complement their trade training. By the end of 2009, these colleges had been integrated into the broader education and training system of jurisdictions and the act is now redundant. The Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005 governed financial grants to the states and territories to support the national training system for the years from 2005 to 2008. As a vehicle for payments it has been superseded. Since 2009, payments have been made under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 via the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development. The bill also repeals the Skilling Australia's Workforce (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005 which effected the winding up of the Australian National Training Authority and the transfer of its functions to the then Department of Education, Science and Training more than a decade ago. Each of the acts being repealed has served its purpose and is now obsolete. Users of Commonwealth legislation should not have to sift through outdated, unnecessary regulations to determine whether they still apply. Allowing spent and redundant acts or provisions to remain in force on the Commonwealth's statute book only makes it harder for businesses, community organisations, and individuals to find the regulations that are current and that matter to them. Proper housekeeping is part of every government's responsibility to ensure that the legislation on the statute book continues to remain 'fit for purpose'. Bills like this demonstrate this government's continuing commitment to make steady and consistent progress to reduce red tape by repealing redundant and unnecessary legislation that has outlived its purpose. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017 7439

Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017

First Reading 7439 Second Reading 7440 10:26 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017 amends 13 pieces of Commonwealth legislation to harmonise relevant provisions with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013(the PGPA Act) and the Commonwealth's broader resource management framework. The bill ensures improved consistency between other acts and the PGPA Act that aims to put in place the legislative underpinnings of an integrated system that promotes high standards of governance, performance and accountability. Under this simplified financial framework, officials within Commonwealth entities will have the flexibility and incentives to adopt appropriate systems and processes that help them to achieve diverse policy and statutory objectives efficiently and effectively. They will also be held to high standards of accountability through a more explicit framework for monitoring and evaluating performance. This bill makes amendments to: consistently prescribe listed entities for the purposes of the PGPA Act within entities' enabling legislation; repeal provisions covering issues now provided for by the PGPA Act, such as disclosure of interests and annual reporting requirements; and update references in legislation from the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to the PGPA Act. The bill also contains minor amendments to legislation consequential to the sale of Medibank Private Limited in 2014. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 7440

Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017

First Reading 7440 Second Reading 7440 10:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 amends eight acts and makes consequential amendments to four other acts across the Commonwealth to support the implementation of the government's smaller government agenda by abolishing seven Commonwealth bodies: the Central Trades Committee; the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council; the Product Stewardship Advisory Group; the Advisory Group of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority; the Plant Breeder' s Rights Advisory Committee; the Development Allowance Authority; and the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. The bill follows on from a series of government decisions relating to the abolition of a number of bodies announced in earlier tranches of the smaller government agenda. One of the key commitments of the government is to reduce the size of government and to ensure that government services are as efficient and well targeted as possible. Decisions to abolish unnecessary advisory bodies and boards, agencies and statutory bodies were initially implemented following the 2014-15 budget. These decisions were followed by a number of smaller government initiatives announced as part of subsequent budgets. Consistent with the smaller government agenda the Australian government governance policy came into effect on 15 December 2014. This policy was designed to prevent the creation of unnecessary bureaucratic structures and ensure government structures are streamlined further over time. This policy also requires sunset or review dates to be set for new Commonwealth bodies. The smaller government agenda forms part of the government's methodical ongoing effort to deliver a smaller and more rational government footprint. While many of the decisions taken under the smaller government agenda preserve the delivery of the range of services they seek to ensure that overly bureaucratic structures are simplified wherever and whenever possible. This has meant consolidating functions in government departments or smaller bodies into larger entities to enhance lines of accountability. By the time of the 2016-17 budget the smaller government agenda had announced savings of an estimated $1.5 billion. The 2017-18 budget also focused on transforming the way services are delivered and how government operates to create a smaller, smarter and more productive, sustainable public sector, better positioned to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing environment and the continued need for fiscal discipline. Since 2013, initiatives such as the smaller government agenda, contestability, Operation Tetris, and the efficiency dividends have generated efficiencies of around $7.6 billion in savings. The size of the general government sector (the GGS) has also reduced. The bill continues to deliver on the government's comprehensive package of smaller government reforms, designed to cut waste and duplication, whilst improving the efficiency and focus of the Commonwealth public service. The bill has been prepared in consultation with affected Commonwealth entities and where relevant state consultations have also taken place. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017 7442

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017

First Reading 7442 Second Reading 7442 10:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, I introduce a bill to implement two government initiatives. Schedule 1 of this bill, introduces changes to address integrity concerns with the wine equalisation tax rebate and better target support to small Australian wine producers as originally intended. The changes in this bill are part of the continuing efforts of the government to strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system. The wine equalisation tax rebate supports the Australian wine industry by providing wine producers with access to a tax rebate on sales of eligible wine. Through consultation, industry told us that the wine equalisation tax rebate has encouraged some businesses to alter their structures to maximise rebate claims and has been the target of rorting. These behaviours have contributed to distortions in the wine market, and necessitated urgent reform. To that end, Schedule 1 of this bill introduces a number of integrity measures, and lowers the rebate cap, to ensure the rebate is benefiting its intended recipients. The rebate cap will be reduced from $500,000 to $350,000 on 1 July 2018, and remain at that level ongoing. The lower cap will better target the rebate to smaller wine producers. To strengthen integrity, eligibility for the rebate will be changed. A wine producer will need to own at least 85 per cent of the grapes used to make the wine throughout the winemaking process. This will address schemes where the rebate is being claimed multiple times on the same parcel of wine. Wine producers will be required to sell wine packaged in a container not exceeding five litres and branded with a registered trademark. Containers for traditional cider and pear cider, which can also access the rebate, must not exceed 51 litres. Transitional eligibility arrangements will apply to allow producers sufficient time to adjust to the changes. Claims will also be better linked to the payment of the wine equalisation tax to address schemes where the rebate is being claimed on wine that is ultimately sold for export. Schedule 1 of this bill will better target the rebate to wine producers with proven investment in the industry, regional areas and brands and reduce distortions in the wine industry, putting the industry in a stronger long-term position. The measures contained in this bill are just a part of the government's efforts to support a strong and sustainable Australian wine industry. The government is also providing $50 million over four years to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority to promote Australian wine. In addition, the government is introducing a wine tourism and cellar door grant program in 2018-19, to allow producers who exceed their cap to access a grant of up to $100,000 for their cellar door sales. Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997to provide income tax relief to superannuation funds who are transferring the account balances of their members as they transition to the MySuper rules. The MySuper reforms introduced new, low-cost superannuation products with a simple set of features to allow members to more easily compare between products and to ensure that members do not pay for any features they do not need or use. Superannuation funds have been able to provide MySuper products since 1 July 2013. As part of the transition to the new rules, funds are required to transfer the existing balances of their default members to MySuper compliant products by 1 July 2017. When superannuation funds are transferring these balances and the assets which support these balances, tax liabilities could arise on the transfer. This tax payable would reduce the balance of the member. This outcome would work against the rationale of the MySuper rules. Transition to the low-cost products should improve retirement outcomes for members, not leave them with an unavoidable tax bill which reduces their account balances. Tax relief is currently available for those superannuation funds that transfer their default members to a different fund. An asset rollover is available, which defers the income tax which would otherwise be payable on the transfer. However, this tax relief has not been available where the member transfers to a MySuper product with their existing superannuation provider. This measure will extend the tax relief, providing an asset rollover for mandatory transfer of balances and assets to MySuper products within the same superannuation fund. This will ensure equity between those members which provide to a new fund provider, and those that take up new products with their existing provider. It also makes sure that members' balances are not negatively impacted by tax liabilities when their balances are moved, working to maximise their retirement savings. Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 7443 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 7443 Reference 7443 10:39 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian War Memorial, Treloar E Large Technology Objects Store Project, Mitchell, ACT. The Australian War Memorial is proposing to construct a single-level storage facility on the Commonwealth-owned site at Mitchell in the Australian Capital Territory to accommodate the planned acquisition of large technology objects. The Treloar collections storage facility at Mitchell is an essential asset and is the Australian War Memorial's conservation facility and store for large pieces of military equipment, including aircraft, vehicles, boats, missiles and guns. There is an immediate requirement for increased collection storage as there is a significant planned handover of collections from the Department of Defence once additional storage capacity is available. These include a P-3 Orion, C-130 Hercules, F/A-18 Classic Hornet, and Seahawk and Squirrel naval helicopters which are due to be retired in the coming decade. It is quite a collection. The project will provide approximately 5,288 square metres of total floor space. No internal fitout is proposed. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $16.1 million, excluding GST, and includes provision for contingencies, cost escalation and associated professional fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in January 2018 and be completed by December 2018. I commend the motion to the House, and I know I have the approval of the assistant shadow Treasurer. Question agreed to. Reference 7444 10:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Explosive Ordnance Logistics Reform Program Project. The Department of Defence is proposing to provide explosive ordnance logistics infrastructure right across Australia. Defence's explosive ordnance logistics network is a key enabler to capabilities of the Australian Defence Force and provides direct support to the Navy, Army and Air Force. The project will provide new infrastructure for the explosive ordnance network, including storage, processing and administrative facilities. The proposed facilities will modernise and align the capacity of the network within the ADF's current operational tempo. The estimated cost of the project is approximately $230.9 million, excluding GST. This includes the construction costs, management design fees, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and an escalation allowance. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2018 and to be completed by late 2020 in all areas. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 7444 10:44 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: JP2008 Phase 5B2 Wideband Satellite Capability—Satellite Ground Station—East Facilities Project. The Department of Defence is proposing to construct facilities to support a satellite ground station at Kapooka Military Area near Wagga Wagga in New South Wales in the fine electorate of Riverina. The project will provide facilities to enable anchoring of enhanced wideband satellite communications. The proposed works will involve the construction of a transmission building, foundations for three satellite dishes and associated supporting infrastructure and engineering services. The proposed site is an open field inside the southern boundary of the Kapooka Military Area, and the facility will be serviced by a small number of maintenance personnel and operated remotely. The capital investment in the infrastructure will bring economic benefits to the local economy during construction and throughout its ongoing sustainment. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $34 million excluding GST. This includes the construction costs, professional service fees, management fees, contingencies and an allowance for escalation. The Kapooka army base in Wagga Wagga is the unmistakable home of the Australian soldier. The Army Recruit Training Centre within Blamey Barracks was originally established in 1951 as the 1st Recruit Training Battalion and is now a world-class training establishment for soldiers who join the Australian Army. In fact, other than those admitted through the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, the basic training of every recruit—each and every one of them—to the Australian Army happens at Kapooka. The significance of the Defence family to Wagga Wagga cannot be overstated, and to see those soldiers march out on their graduation parades is always a pleasure. I know the work of army leadership, including Kapooka's new commandant, Mick Garraway, is something my community and the whole nation appreciates. This motion today builds on that future. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction of the satellite ground station is scheduled to commence in mid-2018 and is expected to be completed by late 2019. I commend this important motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 7445 10:47 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Cerberus redevelopment, Western Port Bay, Victoria. The Department of Defence proposes to remediate and upgrade facilities and engineering infrastructure at HMAS Cerberus to better support Navy and Australian Defence Force training operations and base support services functions. HMAS Cerberus, located at Crib Point in Victoria, is the principal and largest training establishment of the Royal Australian Navy, with approximately 6,000 training places annually over 300 courses, with an average of 1,100 trainees on courses at any one time throughout the year. The project will provide opportunities to improve current site environmental conditions by addressing inefficiencies in engineering services. The project will have a positive social and economic benefit for the region, with the total number of personnel directly engaged by the project estimated at 1,100 over the proposed delivery time frame. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $463.1 million excluding GST. This includes the construction costs, management and design fees, furniture, information and communications technology, fitting and equipment, contingencies and an allowance for escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in late 2017 and be completed in mid-2025. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 7445 10:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: IP Australia Accommodation Project: Building Refresh, Discovery House, Woden, ACT. IP Australia is proposing to renew its tenancy, undertake a building refresh and introduce enhanced amenities at its head office in Discovery House, Woden, in the Australian Capital Territory. The building refresh will provide a new, modern fit-out, and create an efficient, adaptable and sustainable workplace designed to support flexible work practices, provide a childcare facility and achieve the whole-of-government occupational density target of 14 square metres of office space per occupied work point. It is anticipated that at the conclusion of the works, 2,000 square metres of surplus office space will become available to sublet to another government agency. The estimated cost to deliver this project is $39.7 million, excluding GST. This includes all capital construction works, fixtures, fittings and furniture, design, project management and consultancy costs. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in 2018 and be completed by December 2019. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 7446 REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 10:50 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner As required by the resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 29 March 2017 and 20 June 2017. COMMITTEES 7446 COMMITTEES Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 7446 Report 7446 10:51 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled, Report 462: Commonwealth infrastructure spending: Inquiry based on Auditor-General's reports 14 (2015-16) and 38 (2016-17). I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HILL 86256 by leave—This important inquiry examined Commonwealth infrastructure spending, including the findings and recommendations of the Auditor-General's reports on the approval that administration of funding contributed towards two major road projects. These were not insignificant sums of money. The first was East West Link in Melbourne; the second was WestConnex in Sydney. The Commonwealth contributed $1.5 billion in payments towards the construction of each of the projects, as well as a concessional loan of up to $2 billion to WestConnex. The committee noted the importance of the assessment processes undertaken by Infrastructure Australia, and that the government acted in contravention of its own election policy, as full business cases were not provided or assessed before funds were committed and paid. The government's decision—and it was the government's decision—to depart from full Infrastructure Australia assessments reduced the evidence basis for decision-making and also meant that key documents relevant to administrative activities were unavailable at key points in the process. The committee concluded that this approach is best avoided given the scale of public funding and risks involved in infrastructure projects. It was put in plain English that the government should follow its own election commitments. Advice was provided by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to inform funding decisions for the projects. It advised the government of incomplete documentation, assessments, matching payments to funding needs and risk of advanced payments, and deficiencies were identified. The committee recommended that future advice to ministers, firstly, should explicitly outline whether the requirements of land transport legislation had been met when recommending they approve projects. They, simply, were not met in some instances. Secondly, and importantly, it recommended that advice to ministers should identify any additional costs and risks to taxpayers, such as additional interest charges that may arise when advanced payments are proposed. With regard to advanced payments, the committee noted that payments totalling $2 billion were made to the East West link and WestConnex projects in advance of project need. That is rather polite bureaucratic code for saying the government shoved $2 billion out the door on 30 June, 2014. It also noted that this provided 'budget presentation benefits'—and they are the audit office's words—in the form of a larger budget deficit in 2013-14, and resulted in extra interest costs of around $70 million. I quote from the committee's report, which was signed off by government members. It states: The Committee was not presented with any material that it considers provides a proper basis for these advance payments and the Committee noted the payments were not required to progress either project at that time. The Government’s decision to make these payments resulted in significant extra costs to the taxpayer in terms of interest costs on borrowings. These costs were estimated as being around $70 million at the time the … audits were completed … And since then the wasted money will have run well over $100 million. The committee noted that such advance payments are undesirable. The committee also examined how funding conditions may be enforced for infrastructure projects. The committee recommended that the department review its approach to drafting these instruments to limit risks to the Commonwealth. The committee also recommended that Treasury review the operation of funding recovery provisions in the Federal Financial Relations Act, particularly around the uncertainty about recovering interest that may have been accrued by states and territories on advance payments. The report also noted that this problem does not arise if you do not make advance payments that are not needed. A significant concern also to the committee in this inquiry was the lack of consideration given by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to a large range of relevant issues when formulating a concessional loan of $2 billion for the WestConnex project. The committee was also concerned that the department agreed on key terms and conditions of the loan quite soon after the funding decision and, with only one exception, in advance of engaging advisers. This approach limited the department's capacity to identify risks and negotiate favourable terms. The committee made one loan related recommendation—to require loan proponents to identify alternative funding strategies and to justify in their advice why a Commonwealth loan would be the best funding option. The remainder of these learnings are addressed in the recommendation made by the Auditor-General in his WestConnex audit project. The committee recommended that the Auditor-General consider an audit of whether these learnings had been applied to a subsequent loan made to the Sunshine Coast Airport expansion project. That of course is a matter for the Auditor-General, given his independence, but we think that would be worthwhile. Moving towards the end, the management of milestones also remains an area of focus for the committee across a range of government grant payments, including those related to infrastructure projects. The committee noted that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development did not effectively manage milestones for the WestConnex project. There is a pattern here. Some milestones were agreed to after milestone events had occurred and others were amended before payment when milestones were not met. So you enter into a payment schedule and you enter into milestones but when the milestones are not met you change the milestones so you can still push the money out the door, even when it is not needed by the project. Again it runs up Commonwealth debt and wastes interest. The committee noted that reducing deliverables simply to meet existing payment dates could weaken future incentives for funding recipients, state governments, to meet agreed milestones and could also heighten the Commonwealth's risk exposure if payments are made too far in advance of need and delivery. The committee considered that the department should identify a strong rationale for any changes and clearly record any new information; however, the committee reinforced through a recommendation the broader principle that the department should only make significant payments when they are required by a project and meet agreed milestones. In closing I want to emphasise one final point that is very important for us as parliamentarians. The committee noted: There is significant room for improvements in reporting so that the Parliament is able to look at expenditure figures with confidence and know whether construction has actually occurred. The report also states: … the ANAO’s advice that the reporting of expenditure usually reflects the amount of Commonwealth funding passed on to states/territories and paid on to their related agencies. …    …   … The practical result of this is that when very significant sums of public money are publicly reported to the Commonwealth Parliament as having been ‘spent’— and we hear in question time the minister say, 'We have spent that'— it does not necessarily mean that any actual works have been undertaken, or that transport or economic stimulus objectives have been achieved. So when we hear the word 'spent' it just means that money has been paid to the states. The committee, therefore, recommended that the department conduct a system review to improve reporting. In conclusion, I would like to extend my thanks to all members of the committee for their consideration of this inquiry and their ongoing efforts in scrutinising the efficiency and accountability of government administered programs. I commend the report to the House and I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 7449 10:59 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Report 7449 11:00 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce While we are on a roll, I am going to rock this House. I present the executive minutes on report Nos 451, 452, 456, 457 and 458 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Publications Committee 7449 Report 7449 11:00 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Apologies for my tardiness in presenting this. I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. Report—by leave—agreed to. BILLS 7449 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017 7449

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017

Second Reading 7449 11:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 11:02 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017 will better align the corporate tax regime with a culture of business investment and development. Improving the tax system for businesses will allow them to grow, become more productive and create jobs. Increasing access to company losses will encourage entrepreneurship in the Australian economy by ensuring that businesses do not face tax penalties when seeking out new opportunities. The changes improve the competitiveness of our tax system and will particularly support businesses in the start-up phase. They often incur large losses in the early years as they develop new products and processes. The amendments to the rules on using past-year losses as a current-year tax deduction will allow these businesses to seek out new injections of capital to bring innovative products to market without losing these valuable tax deductions. The second important initiative in this bill is to amend the depreciation regime for intellectual property and other depreciable intangible assets to address tax distortions that can discourage the holding of these assets in Australia, hinder investment and reduce Australia's competitiveness as a place to do business. Currently these assets must be depreciated according to an effective tax life set by statute. This effective life can be much longer than the actual economic life of the asset, increasing the cost of holding these assets. By providing taxpayers with the choice to self-assess the effective life of these assets, the tax effective life of these assets will be better aligned with their economic life. These amendments remove negative tax concessions for innovation—innovation we are seeking to encourage. Investment decisions will not be distorted by tax considerations, leading to better commercial decisions. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM 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 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) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:14 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be read a second time.

The House divided. [11:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Third Reading 7453 11:19 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 7453

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017

Second Reading 7453 11:20 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon This bill makes changes to Australia's corporate insolvency system, announced as part of the government's so-called National Innovation and Science Agenda in 2015. The bill aims to introduce two reforms: firstly, the creation of a safe harbour from personal liability for trading whilst insolvent; and secondly, ipso facto clauses which may allow for termination or variation of contracts based on a company's financial position or the commencement of certain insolvency proceedings will become unenforceable during and after formal insolvency procedures. The Labor Party will not oppose the passage of this bill through the House and will say more about our approach in the other place. Firstly, in relation to safe harbour provisions, part 1 of the bill gives directors a safe harbour from civil insolvent trading provisions under section 588G of the Corporations Act. The general rule under section 588G is that a director of a company may be personally liable for debts incurred by the company if at the time the debt is incurred there are reasonable grounds to suspect the company is in fact insolvent. The concept of a safe harbour for directors in insolvency situations is not new. It is recognised that Australia has some of the strictest insolvency laws in the world—in my view, rightly so. It has been suggested, however, that this duty prevents trading whilst insolvent but can prevent directors from undertaking steps that could achieve better outcomes. As a matter of principle, everybody in this House would want to see as few companies as possible getting into such a situation that they could no longer trade. If there is a sensible situation in which companies that are technically insolvent can be continuing to trade with all the necessary protections in place for creditors and for employees, that is something which should be very seriously examined by the House and the Senate. In fact, this is not a new matter at all. It is a matter I have been familiar with since I first became shadow assistant Treasurer in 2006. When I was Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law in 2010, I asked the Treasury to release a discussion paper on the operation of Australia's insolvent trading laws in the context of attempts by business to rescue themselves outside of external administration. The paper outlined a number of possible options for reform. The paper went to whether we should retain the status quo, introduce a modified business judgement rule defence or give directors a moratorium from the duty not to trade whilst insolvent for the purposes of avoiding the company going into external administration. That was a good process and there was much feedback to the Treasury paper. More recently, this matter has been referred to the Productivity Commission, and the Productivity Commission has made certain recommendations. I do note, however, that this bill does not implement the Productivity Commission recommendations as they were made. In the context of the global financial crisis in which I released that paper it was very important to ensure that Australia's corporate insolvency laws were capable of meeting the challenges that arose from the GFC. But it is more than that; it is an ongoing issue. I do recognise the government is attempting to deal with genuine issues here. Specifically referring to informal workouts, we deemed it important that the insolvency laws complemented and assisted the conduct of informal workouts, recognising that the use of formal insolvency reorganisation procedures may not always be appropriate. The government's proposal here would facilitate more successful company restructures outside of an informal insolvency process, where doing so would achieve a better outcome for the company than immediately appointing an administrator or a liquidator. I have no in-principle objection to that concept. Our concerns, which we will pursue through a Senate inquiry, will go to the detail, and we will assess whether the government's model is the correct one. We will do that in good faith and in a genuine process. Under the safe harbour provision, directors will only be liable for debts incurred while the company was insolvent where it can be shown that they were not developing or taking a course of action at the time that could be reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company than proceeding with immediate administration or liquidation. As it is intended as a protection for competent directors who are acting honestly and diligently, safe harbour is only open to directors who have been ensuring that their company complies with its obligation to pay its employees—this is a particularly important matter for this side of the House—including superannuation, and meets its tax reporting obligations. The safe harbour would not be available when a company fails to meet its obligation to pay its employees, including superannuation; when a company fails to meet its tax reporting obligations; or when a person fails to provide an administrator or liquidator with certain required information, including the company's books. We do recognise and acknowledge the intent of this legislation to ensure that directors who honestly and diligently seek to turn around a business are not penalised from doing so, and nor should they be. When a struggling business is successfully turned around, it is good for everyone, especially employees and creditors. I note that this is supported by organisations such as the AICD and the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association. I have been briefed by the AICD. They have been to see me, and I have requested the AICD to brief some of my colleagues, most notably the shadow Assistant Treasurer and the member for Fenner, and also other honourable members. I am indebted to honourable members such as the member for Griffith and Senator Cameron in the other place, who I have consulted about these matters and who have provided very useful feedback to me. In relation to the safe harbour provision, as I have stressed, we understand the government's intent. We will not oppose the passage of this legislation through the House. In the Senate we will refer it to a Senate inquiry because I note there are divided views in the business community. I know that, for example, the Shareholders' Association has previously expressed grave concerns. From our point of view, we particularly want to explore the differences between the Productivity Commission-recommended model and the one that the government has embarked upon. We also want to understand the rationale for the government's proposed way forward when you consider the difference between an exemption model and a defence model. We would like to see that explored through a Senate inquiry, as to whether an exemption model or a defence model is the better way forward. These are matters that we will examine. I referred to the Shareholders' Association. I want to refer, in particular, to their statements in 2015—which I recognise were obviously way before this bill. As a matter of principle, they said, 'We've got serious doubts that a safe harbour would work.' They went on to explain some of the reasons—that it would just allow directors to delay taking decisions and delay the process, to the detriment of the shareholder. They may be correct or they may be incorrect, but I think these are legitimate issues to be explored. The opposition here is not opposing for the sake of opposing—indeed, at this point we are not opposing at all; we are simply saying that there are issues that we think would be worthy of examination and aeration through a Senate inquiry, and that is what we will do. We will respond to the issues raised in a Senate inquiry. There will be a genuine process of getting AICD and others before the Senate inquiry to have these issues examined. Of course, Treasury will be called to give evidence as well, so that will be a good process. The second part of the bill moves to ipso facto clauses. Part 2 of the bill sets out new provisions to stop the enforcement of ipso facto clauses that are triggered when a company enters into administration. An ipso facto clause creates a contractual right that allows one party to terminate or modify the operation of a contract upon the occurrence of some specific event. Currently, such rights may allow one party to terminate or modify the contract solely due to the financial position of the company, including insolvency, or due to the commencement of formal insolvency proceedings, such as on the appointment of an administrator. This type of termination can occur regardless of the counterparty's continued performance of its obligations under the contract. For example, if a company has a short-term lack of liquidity which leads the directors to appoint a voluntary administrator, an ipso facto clause might still allow a major supplier to cancel their contract. This may in turn deprive the business of the chance to continue to trade while they restructure—even though there has not otherwise been a breach of the contract—with a negative impact on the business, its employees and other creditors. The operation of the ipso facto provisions can reduce the scope for a successful restructure, destroy the enterprise value of a business entering formal administration or prevent the sale of a business as a going concern. These outcomes can also reduce or eliminate returns in liquidation, because they disrupt a business's contractual arrangements and destroy goodwill, potentially prejudicing other creditors and defeating the purpose of voluntary administration. The aim is to allow breathing space for a company to continue to trade during a formal restructure. This may also improve the position for directors of companies facing severe financial hardship when entering into early negotiation with their creditors about pursuing a restructure, including under the safe harbour provisions, as they will know that future entry into formal insolvency will not necessarily trigger an ipso facto clause. According to the government, this will assist in protecting asset values for the benefit of the company, its employees and its creditors, which in turn will assist to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and reduce the stigma of value. The counterparty will retain the right to terminate or amend an agreement with a debtor company for any other reason, such as breach involving non-payment or non-performance. The amendments will also apply prospectively to rights arising under the contracts, agreements or arrangements which are entered into after these amendments commence. The bill includes a broad regulation-making power to prescribe reasons to which the stay will apply. This included as an anti-avoidance mechanism to ensure that the government can respond to possible contracts or agreements that are drafted or prepared in a way to circumvent the provisions in the section. Regulations may also set our exceptions where the ipso facto stay is not intended to operate. This amendment will not stop parties from terminating a contract with a company for any other reason, such as a breach involving non-payment or non-performance. Again, the opposition can see the reasons that the government would bring this forward. We have no in-principle objection; however, we do reserve the right to see these matters aerated and examined in an inquiry in the other place to ensure the detail is to the satisfaction of the Senate and the parliament and can meet the support of the opposition. These are matters for which submissions should be called for and those who have any concerns can be allowed to have their say, and the opposition will take those concerns into account when finalising how we would vote in the other place. This bill provides the Labor Party with an opportunity to progress the debate around the matter of phoenixing and the illegitimate use of that type of corporate structure, which is continuing to be a significant problem. Phoenixing activity occurs when directors of a struggling business transfer its assets into a new company, generally owned by the same people, and then actively ensure that the struggling business fails. This is a scourge and more needs to be done to deal with it. The process allows them to avoid paying money owed to the failed company's creditors, which are often the company's employees, other small businesses and the Australian Taxation Office. I would have thought that the government would be more concerned about this than they have been. As long ago as 2012, which is quite a while ago, it is estimated that phoenixing activity cost $3.2 billion annually. Fraudulent phoenixing activity hurts employees, it hurts small business that are creditors, subcontractors and, importantly, the families of the workers affected. At the end of May, my colleagues, the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the member for Gorton, the shadow minister for small business and financial services, Senator Gallacher, and the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Fenner, announced our policy to protect employees and small business from dodgy phoenixing activity. Labor's policy would require all company directors to obtain a unique director identification number with a 100-point identification check; increasing penalties associated with phoenixing activity; introducing an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements; clarifying the availability of compensations orders against accessories; and consulting on targeted integrity measures based on the recommendations of the Melbourne Law School and Monash Business School phoenix research team recommendations. The Labor Party's policy here is just plain common sense. No director doing the right thing has anything to fear from a director identification number. In fact, the directors who are doing the right thing would and should welcome this as being a way to stop those con artists who are doing the wrong thing and weed them out for good. There is no legitimate defence for phoenixing. It is just wrong. Everybody loses, except those who are avoiding their debts to their employees, their creditors and the Australian people through the tax office. This is not a radical proposal, and in fact it is a proposal which has the support of the Productivity Commission. The Tax Justice Network, ACCI, the ACTU and indeed the Australian Institute of Company Directors all support it. There are not many policies which bring all those groups together. ACCI, the ACTU and the AICD and the Tax Justice Network are not generally of the same mind, but they all see the common sense of Labor's proposals. They all see that Labor has a commonsense answer to a big problem. There is one group which does not support this, and it is a rather influential group. They are called the government of Australia. The government of Australia are the only group who do not seem to see the problem here and refuse to act on the solution. It is about time the government did act on the solution, and they could do it in this bill. This is relevant to insolvency. They could say, 'We're going to deal with safe harbour. We're going to deal with ipso facto and we're going to introduce a director identification number.' This would make it so much easier to track those directors who are engaging in this activity, which is just plain morally wrong and should be stamped out. I move the following second reading amendment: That all 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 condemns the Government for its failure to implement a Director Identification Scheme to detect and deter fraudulent phoenix activity". I move this because it is appropriate and right that the parliament debate the government's failure to act on this at the same time as acting on the government's legislative agenda. It is right and appropriate that members have the opportunity to discuss the company director identification number, and we would welcome the feedback from members opposite to explain why they are opposed to such a commonsense, straightforward reform. They should explain why they do not support a company director notification number, which is supported by the company directors, as instituted through the Australian Institute of Company Directors. It is a good organisation who I enjoy interacting with but do not always agree with. They are always well thought out and considered in their approach, and they have looked at this and said, 'Yes, phoenixing is wrong. We should crack down on it. We should have an identification number. It is not red tape for directors doing the right thing. Directors doing the right thing have nothing to fear. In fact, they would welcome this reform.' We just hope the government takes the opportunity to reflect on the error of their approach here and adopt this policy. If they do not, an incoming Labor government will implement it, but it would be better that Australia did not need to wait for this commonsense reform. This is one thing which could sail through the parliament as bipartisan reform. We could pass it through both houses in a day, if that was what was required. But the government has just refused to act and has been asleep at the wheel on this issue. We will continue to pursue that and will continue to make the point that this is a necessary reform. In the meantime, we will not stand in the way of the passage of this bill through the House. We do recognise what is intended to be achieved here and we will examine it closely through a Senate inquiry. We will hear evidence from all those affected, and our vote in the Senate will be determined by our response to the evidence which we hear through that process. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? Mr Husic 91219 It is, and I reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, and to this the honourable member for McMahon has moved an amendment. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 11:39 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The address from the member for McMahon illustrates the very reason why the Labor Party cannot govern again in this country. Yet again, it demonstrates that their strategy is to publicly beat their hairy chests but then, behind closed doors, get trapped in analysis paralysis. There are two measures in this bill: one relates to safe harbour and the other relates to the ipso facto clause. On both measures, the member for McMahon says that the Labor Party agrees—in principle, agrees; understands and acknowledges the intent, and agrees. But the Labor Party wants to hold this up in the Senate and kick these measures—which, they have acknowledged, are needed in this fast-moving modern economy—down that time-honoured road. They want to kick the can down that road into analysis paralysis: 'Let us have another analysis of these potential measures'—despite the fact that they agree with them. The Labor Party cannot take action. But they will beat their chests. The chest beating that we heard from the member for McMahon today related to phoenixing practices. Yet again, the Labor Party stands up and says: 'We want action on this. We want action.' Then they are given an opportunity, through this bill, to take action on safe harbouring and the ipso facto clause, and they say, 'No, we want further analysis.' So it is on phoenixing, despite their chest beating—and I do agree with the member for McMahon about the dishonourable activity of some taking place, and I certainly have seen it in the construction industry, and I suspect that in the vocational education industry there have been examples in recent times. However, the government currently has a phoenixing task force that is putting together recommendations for action. Now the Labor Party have latched on to one issue—this singular issue of director IDs. That of course will be considered in due course, as the task force looks at its recommendations and the minister does also, subsequently. So here we have a big issue of phoenixing. The Labor Party only has one potential solution—that solution being duly considered. If the Labor Party wants to free-ride on the government's proposals that will come in due course on phoenixing, then fair enough—they are more than welcome to free-ride. But Labor should not put the government and the people of Australia in the same situation that they have put them in today where, when push comes to shove and a vote needs to be taken, they refuse to support, despite the fact that the member for McMahon has said, as to the two measures being considered in this bill, that the Labor Party agrees. The Labor Party should not put us in the same position when it comes to phoenixing, where they will say, 'We agree in principle, but we're too afraid to actually take action. Instead, we want to kick it down that time-honoured road again.' Let us now talk about these laws, which we hope to have introduced if the Labor Party can get over its analysis problem. In the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 the measures are, of course, part of the broader range of measures reflected in the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science announced in late 2015. Deputy Speaker, did you hear that I mentioned '2015'? We are in 2017, so that was two years ago. And still the Labor Party, despite agreeing, say they need more time to think, reflect and analyse. Extraordinary! The government's agenda was developed in recognition of the great challenges and opportunities facing Australia in a world where the pace of change has, over just a handful of years, become technologically turbocharged. The Prime Minister and the minister both recognised that, to keep up with and continue to be competitive with the most innovative economies and societies in the world, we had to recognise the extent of the behavioural transformation that is currently underway, driven by technology, and scale up to it across the board. Promoting innovation and supporting risk-taking are key initiatives to deliver that competitiveness because both are proven pathways to success. That has been the case for as long as humans have been enterprising, but it is especially true today in our highly competitive economy. To help promote and deepen our culture of innovation and indeed of risk taking, the National Innovation and Science Agenda has many measures. They include, for example, tax rebates of up to $200,000 for investors in start-ups. The failure rate of start-ups is startling at over 90 per cent, and the biggest stumbling block—at least one of the major stumbling blocks—for the vast majority is not so much the soundness of their idea, the fundamentals of their business plan, but, rather, a lack of capital. If more investors can be lured away from the more traditional targets, like real estate and the share market, many more start-ups are much more likely to be successful and create more jobs. Another key measure to promote innovation is the commitment of $500 million over four years towards restoring research funding. The CSIRO will have a $200 million innovation fund. The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy has a guaranteed $1.5 billion over a decade. There is $250 million to help private entities commercialise medical innovations, $520 million for the cyclotron and $294 million for the Square Kilometre Array telescope. These are measures recognising that cutting-edge science is, as it always has been, the cutting edge of business and the requirement for economic success for societies that build jobs and high standards of living, because they are out in front; they are the leaders of industry. The National Innovation and Science Agenda also seeks to address some issues that have developed over time in our law and practice and act as a brake on innovation and a brake on entrepreneurship. They hold back those who have the 'have a go' mentality that is so crucial when you are starting a business. Some of those measures in our system have developed over time into condemnation of failure rather than condemnation of breaking a law per se. Bankruptcy is a case in point. The historical constraint has been that, if declared bankrupt, you cannot start a new business for three years. The agenda suggests that one year is adequate. The majority of bankrupts do not leave a trail of ruin beyond their own finances. Many retain a determination to succeed and, with more experience and maybe better planning, and maybe better execution of plans, many ultimately do succeed. In the same vein of encouraging and not discouraging entrepreneurship, this bill seeks to set in place two measures—one that has become known as the 'safe harbour provision' and the other deals with ipso facto clauses. The so-called 'safe harbour provision' aims to remedy a problem that can and does emerge when directors of companies feel vulnerable to personal responsibility for debts they incur when their business might be technically insolvent, even as they genuinely attempt to restore stability. What this has meant is that, in many instances, directors will call in outside administrators, even when a company is absolutely salvageable, simply because they do not want to take the risk of raising debt for which they could become personally liable. It is a fine line, obviously. The constraint on raising debt when there is knowingly no hope of restoring the fortunes of a company clearly needs to stay, but the unnecessary loss of jobs and economic activity that can flow from an overly cautious director bringing a company to a halt prematurely because of an unpreparedness to confront the risk of liability, even if he or she believes the debt could actually help save the business, deserves to go, and that is what this bill will do. With appropriate safeguards, it gives credit for what can be established to be good-faith actions by directors, even if those good-faith actions ultimately fail to save the business. The bill also makes unenforceable, in certain circumstances, ipso facto clauses which currently allow the termination or variation of contracts during and after certain formal insolvency procedures are set in train, which can compound the impact that the reticence of directors to take good-faith steps to save their businesses can unleash. A supplier, for example, to a project that the threatened company is involved in can, when they learn there is a potential problem, pull the pin on contracts—a defensive measure to protect their own business or their own workers. That can lead to a sort of tailspin that makes the threat of insolvency a reality, when in fact the company might well be on the way to trading its way out of trouble. This does not preclude, of course, two parties to a contract seeing that contract terminated for other reasons. It does not preclude other breaches of contracts allowing for one party to pull the pin. But what it seeks to avoid is a situation where the struggles of a business are used as an excuse for suppliers and other stakeholders to run for the doors—thereby creating an even greater problem for the struggling business, until it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy—rather than encouraging businesses to trade their way out of problems when the business is still salvageable. The enterprise incentives in this bill complement other aspects of the government's Innovation and Science Agenda, which is all about redoubling our efforts to build the national economy. As such, they are in line with the demands, the requirements, of being successful in the high-speed and challenging operating environment of the 21st century. In this digital age, which has so rapidly transformed the manner and speed by which business is done, there are increasingly the commercially quick and the commercially dead. When the concept is there, when the will is there, when the market is there and when you can access the capital when it is required, you have to act quickly, because, if that concept is good enough, somebody else will be onto it before you can blink. Within this fast-moving environment, it is almost unforgivable that the Labor Party, through the previous speaker, the member for McMahon, have confirmed that, while they understand it, they get it, they see the need for these laws to be introduced, they refuse to have them pass through the lower house and the Senate. They recognise their importance, but again they will hold them up and kick the can down the road. The bill we have today is a necessary step in helping to foster a culture that gives our entrepreneurs a better chance, through research, through better financial backing and through more appropriate governance to encourage the 'have a go' spirit that is key to prospering in this very fast-moving 21st century. I ask that the Labor Party reconsider its position and do what the previous speaker said and knows is the right thing to do, and that is to allow passage of this bill through both the lower house and the Senate. 11:53 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner We have just heard an extraordinary contribution from the member for Fairfax, who has said that it is absolutely outrageous that the Senate is currently conducting an inquiry into this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017, despite the fact that the Senate inquiry is already underway. Submissions close next month. The inquiry will come down in August. Indeed, the inquiry will come down before the government has any intention of bringing this bill to the Senate. So there is no delay as a result of this inquiry. This is the final sitting day before the winter break. The Senate's inquiry is not delaying things. Then he talked about our second reading amendment, which calls on the government to act on dodgy phoenix directors, who are costing Australia $3 billion, perhaps more. When it comes to dodgy phoenix directors, does the member for Fairfax say that we need to take action now? No, he does not. Does he say that we need what the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Productivity Commission, the Tax Justice Network, the ACTU and every other sensible independent in the country say we need—a director identification number? No, he does not. He says, 'We've got a task force, we're looking into it and maybe at some stage we'll get around to dealing with dodgy phoenix directors.' We have to be serious about the scourge of dodgy phoenix directors. I expected the member for Fairfax to take five minutes, but he took his full time, so I had a chance to read his first speech. I know he has a medium-sized business background. He must, deep in his heart of hearts, care about the issue of dodgy phoenix directors, yet he is not willing to support Labor's sensible, carefully calibrated move to tackle phoenixing activity in Australia, and that is deeply disappointing for those of us on this side of the House. With the member for Gorton and Senator Gallagher, Labor announced in May our package for tackling dodgy phoenix activities in Australia. It addresses the fact that it is currently easier to become a company director than to open a bank account. It addresses the fact that, as tax commissioner Chris Jordan told Senator 'Wacka' Williams in a hearing, the tax commissioner could register Senator Williams as a director and he would not even know about it. It reflects the fact that media reports revealed last year that a member of this House was on the directors register not once but thrice. A member of this House appeared three times on the directors register with different birthdates. I will give the member the benefit of the doubt that this was an inadvertent error, but it does reflect the problems we have without a director identification number. If a member of this House can be three directors then surely it is easy for things to also go wrong. One expert says that the laws are currently so lax that you could almost register your dog as a director. I have a lovely dog—a keeshond called Texas—but I still would not register him as a company director. According to the experts, the laws are so lax that I almost could. That is why Labor supports a unique director identification number, with a 100-point ID check. This proposal is supported by a plethora of organisations. In addition to those I have already mentioned, there is the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, the Senate Economics References Committee and the Productivity Commission. We have also called on the government to increase penalties associated with phoenix activity, to introduce an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements, to clarify the availability of compensation orders against accessories, and to consult on targeted integrity measures based on recommendations from the Monash Business School-Melbourne Law School phoenix research team's recommendations. I commend those experts for the work that they have been doing. It is not as though this report has suddenly fallen into the government's lap in the last few days. This phoenix research project has been running for years now, and the government should have acted on dodgy phoenix directors, who are hurting workers, taxpayers and honest small businesses, which, according to the PwC report on the costs of phoenix activities, suffer the greatest harm from phoenix activities. The Labor Party's determination to crack down on phoenix activity shows again Labor leading the policy debate, as we have done with superannuation taxation concessions, with cigarette excise and with appropriate funding of community legal centres. We saw this week, with the GST low-value imports bill, parliament backing Labor's approach on a one-year delay and a Productivity Commission inquiry. Labor is again calling on the government to act on dodgy phoenix directors. It is not good enough to set up a task force and to say, 'Maybe sometime in the future we will deal with dodgy phoenix directors.' They are a scourge on the Australian economy, and there is a straightforward way to tackle it now. When the Australian Institute of Company Directors is joining with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, it is probably a sign that you have a sensible measure that enjoys support from across the political spectrum. The government needs to introduce legislation to this House to implement a director identification number. The government should also act on our other proposals because, in the case of the objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements—that is section 596AB(1), inserted into the Corporations Act in 2001—the Phoenix Research Team noted that that test has never been enforced because, without an objective test of reasonableness, it just is not possible to enforce it against dodgy directors. Clarifying the availability of compensation orders is vital, because it will provide additional tools to tackle dodgy directors. Doubling the base penalty for intentional disregard, doubling the penalty for failure to meet tax organisations, doubling the penalty for failure to withhold—all of these things are critical in making sure that directors do the right thing. On its face, the bill has some policy merit. It was announced as part of the government's 2015 National Innovation and Science Agenda, with the aim of allowing more opportunities for businesses to be turned around. Providing safe harbour and the new provisions to stop the enforcement of ipso facto clauses may well be the appropriate route to follow. The operation of ipso facto clauses could potentially destroy the ability of businesses to restructure the value of the business and prevent the sale of the business as a going concern. But it is vital that these changes do not adversely affect taxpayers and employees, and that is why Labor raises the issue of dodgy phoenix activity in our second reading amendment. These are issues which will be properly scrutinised by the Senate committee over the winter break. The reference was made on 15 June. Submissions close on 12 July, and the Senate Economics Legislation Committee will report by 8 August. The member for Fairfax is misleading the House when he suggests that there will be any delays as a result of the Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry will only improve the quality of this bill by subjecting it to the proper scrutiny that Australians, who are concerned about dodgy phoenix activity, want but who also want to see viable firms work through a restructure. Balancing those two concerns is absolutely what the Senate inquiry will do; that is why referring this bill in that way is the right approach. I call on the government once more: come to your senses, tackle dodgy phoenix activity and get on board with Labor's director identification number. It is the right thing to do. Do it now. 12:03 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to support the member for McMahon's second reading amendment because, of course, it is crucial that this nation acts to crack down on phoenixing by corporations and dodgy directors. When a corporation incurs debts that it cannot pay, winds itself up and then the next day the directors go off and start a new corporation in the same type of business, that has real effects on people's lives. It has effects on: the lives of employees who did not get their full entitlements as a consequence of this phoenixing behaviour; taxpayers, who often have to foot the bill through taxpayer-funded guarantee schemes; employment entitlements, including superannuation; and, of course, the small independent contractors and small-business suppliers, who have done business with the phoenixed company, who miss out on being paid what they are rightfully entitled to receive. Phoenixing is a scourge that needs to be addressed in this nation and, as usual, Labor is leading the way when it comes to public policy by announcing a policy of director identification numbers. The member for Fenner and others have worked on that policy. It is a policy that will assist us to make sure that directors are tracked so that there are not multiple records for the same person—with different dates of birth, for example—on the ASIC registry. It will help us as a nation crack down on this phoenixing behaviour that hurts taxpayers, hurts employees and hurts small-business suppliers to firms. I think it is very important that, when we consider this second reading amendment, the government takes heed and understands that this announcement by Labor has been widely accepted and widely approved of by the community—by everyone from the AICD to the ACTU. I also want to make some comments about the bill itself. As you would be well aware, the creation of a safe harbour shifts some of the risk that is presently borne by directors onto creditors because, of course, it makes for additional situations in which directors can oversee the incurring of debts which might, technically, create a situation of insolvency for the firm. The shifting of risk from directors onto creditors can absolutely be justified, if the overall consequence is a reduction in the amount of loss that has to be borne. In other words, if a measure like this can help firms trade through trouble thus saving jobs, saving livelihoods and saving firms, that is absolutely something that should be considered, but we must do so in a way that is thoughtful. We must do so in a way that says, 'Well, if we're shifting risk around, is there going to be an appropriate level of risk borne by the different interests in this situation? And, is there going to be a reduction in the overall amount of loss?' In other words, there is less loss to go around, if firms do not fail, which is absolutely a good thing and a positive thing. We need to be sure that that is going to be the outcome of such a measure, and we need to be sure that that way risk is distributed between directors and creditors is appropriate and fair. When we are dealing with this specific bill, this proposal for a safe harbour, we are really talking about creating a safe harbour in respect of a provision that prohibits insolvent trading by corporations. It is worth noting that the proceedings concerned are very rarely actually brought. The Productivity Commission dealt with this point before recommending a safe harbour defence when they said: … the spectre of action looms larger than the actual (likely) consequence. The rate of successful enforcement of insolvent trading actions is low. There were only 103 insolvent trading cases between the law's introduction in 1961 and 2004. The commission went on to say: While the court ordered that compensation be paid in three quarters of those cases, more serious sanctions were extremely rare. Only 15 per cent of cases involved criminal proceedings, and only two cases involved an order banning directors from managing companies. The commission went on to say: Since 2004, ASIC reports that they have commenced action for insolvent trading for circumstances involving five companies only between 2005 and 2011. And they noted some further criminal matters. Of course, this Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 is concerned with the civil proceedings under the insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Legislation, and it follows on from the Productivity Commission recommendation for the creation of a safe harbour defence. The Productivity Commission recommended that the Corporations Act should be amended to allow for a safe harbour defence to insolvent trading. It went on to suggest some conditions for the availability of the defence, saying that defence would only be available when directors of a company have made and documented a conscious decision to appoint a safe harbour advisor with a view to constructing a plan to turn around the company; the advisor was presented with proper books and records; the adviser had at least five years experience; the directors were able to demonstrate they had taken all reasonable steps to pursue restructuring; and the advice had to be proximate to the specific circumstance of financial difficulty, not a set of advice much earlier in relation to something else. There are some other components of the recommendation that are relevant, but readers can have a look at the report themselves. The concern I want to mention—hopefully, it will be something that can be ironed out in the very timely Senate inquiry that is being undertaken in relation to the bill—is that this bill does not actually fulfil the Productivity Commission's recommendation. The Productivity Commission recommended the creation of a defence. This bill does not create a safe harbour defence; instead, it creates a safe harbour exemption from the operation of the civil prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act against insolvent trading. It is also worth noting that there are a range of existing defences to the insolvent trading provisions and existing section 588H. These include that the director in question who is potentially able to be held liable for the insolvent trading 'had reasonable grounds to expect, and did expect, that the company was solvent'; had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe 'that a competent and reliable person was responsible' for providing the director with 'adequate information about whether the company was solvent' and that they were fulfilling their responsibility; and expected, on the basis of that advice and information, that the company was solvent; if, 'because of illness or for some other good reason', the director was not taking part in the management of the company; or 'the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the company from incurring the debt'. As one would expect, with all of these defences, it is a matter for the director to prove that they have the benefit of that defence. Once the insolvent trading is proved, the director then has to prove that one of these defences applies. That is how defences would be expected to work. Obviously, none of those defences covers the safe harbour we are discussing today, but it is certainly the case that the Productivity Commission recommended a new defence of safe harbour. Instead of doing that, this bill creates an exemption. Instead of having to prove that they have the benefit of the defence, the director just has an evidential burden, so their obligation is simply to bring 'evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist'. So they have to put out an affidavit or give evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists—the matter being, of course, action 'reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome'. That is from the explanatory memorandum. Once the evidence has been educed, it then falls to the person bringing the proceedings for insolvent trading—which would ordinarily be ASIC or possibly a liquidator—to prove that the director was not developing or taking a course of action that at the time was reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company. So what the decision to create an exemption rather than a defence has done is to make the proposed safe harbour much more favourable to directors than the Productivity Commission possibly had anticipated in making the recommendation. There may well be very good reasons for that. There may well be very good reasons to set this up as an exemption rather than as a defence, but I think it is reasonable to want to have those reasons explored through a Senate inquiry in relation to the bill. There are just a couple of other things I wanted to flag. Firstly, the protection for employee entitlements requires only substantial compliance and not full compliance unless there has been more than one failure over the preceding 12 months. It is also drafted in the present tense—it is about whether a company is paying employee entitlements. I am quite interested in making sure that would cover any situations where there might be outstanding employee entitlements which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, include superannuation. The consequences for the failure to pay superannuation obviously are long term, but there can be short-term serious consequences as well. For example, if your income protection is based on superannuation and your employer has not made the contributions you can be left uncovered by income protection, which can have terrible consequences if you suffer an illness or injury whilst you are not covered. I also wanted to mention the other slight distinction between what the Productivity Commission recommended and what this bill does. The Productivity Commission, as you will have gathered from the recommendation when I cited it, made the operation of the safe harbour fairly contingent on a range of things—contacting the adviser, et cetera. The bill that we have here seems to apply a much more general test about whether the person has started 'developing one or more courses of action' and 'reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company'. It then sets what the Productivity Commission would have seen to be conditions for having access to the safe harbour and instead just a range of indicia that might guide the court in determining whether one is meeting the general test of setting out to develop one or more courses of action that are reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome. Given there is some difference between the approach the government is taking and the recommendation of the Productivity Commission inquiry, I think it would be quite useful to hear what the Senate inquiry has to say and what the Senate report has to say about the design of this legislation. Everybody wants to get to a point where we have good, strong legislation that makes sure that the Corporations Act is not engendering overcautious behaviour on the part of directors, where directors are not constrained from doing what they need to be able to do to help their firm trade out of trouble in the interests of the firm, in the interests of shareholders, in the interests of employees and in the interests of unsecured creditors. We would all like to get to that position and, in principle, a safe harbour can be supported on that basis but we need to make sure that the detail is right. In relation to the possibility of insolvent trading, we are talking about a redistribution of the risk away from directors who presently bare a reasonable amount of risk because of the possibility of being pursued for insolvent trading towards people like independent contractors; small business suppliers ,who might be doing something that has been outsourced by the firm; cleaning contractors; and of course employees who at least have the benefit of getting the priority in the administration or have the benefit of having some protection in this bill. If we are going to be shifting risk around in that way then we want to be able to be satisfied and assured that there will be genuine benefits from doing so, that it will lead to fewer corporate insolvencies and fewer situations where firms have to be liquidated or have to go into administration. If we can work together to continue to pursue those calls, that will be a very useful thing. As I say, in principle, the safe harbour is something that can be very much supported on that basis. 12:16 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thank you, Deputy Speaker Vasta, and also my friend and colleague the member for Parramatta, who has kindly allowed me to sneak up the speaker list and contribute in this debate on a matter that has been a long time coming. This will not be a new matter for members of Australia's start-up community, who have for some time considered what is required to improve the strength of the community in Australia and the ability of new firms to emerge and be able to deal with the two things that confront the growth of start-ups, which is access to talent and access to capital. Access to talent, in many respects, is very broad insofar as it is not just the people that start-ups need to help grow the firm but the talent that sits around providing strategic advice at various stages of a start-up's growth and, importantly, through those difficult periods of enormous pressure—and when those pressures become existential as to whether a start-up will succeed or fail. There has been a lot of commentary and consideration about how to retain directors with expertise. Generally in this country, directors are worried about whether they should stay on with a fledgling firm or get out. There has been a lot of discussion about how we treat those situations and how to retain that talent, particularly at key times. As has been outlined by the opposition, there are a lot of things that this legislation has going for it. It was pointed to in the National Innovation and Science Agenda released back in December 2015, but, as an observation, it has taken a while to get this legislation here. There is a simple reason for that: this is very complex. What is being proposed is not an easy thing to do. As the shadow Treasurer has indicated, it is not our intention to stand in the way of this. You heard from the member for Griffith, who is also a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Innovation and Enterprise and who has a lot of interested in this as well. Out of her contribution to this debate, I acknowledge there are things that are definitely worthy of consideration, like safe harbours and the way they have been structured in this bill. Every time there is a winner in some laws that are put forward in this place, there is also someone who will not necessarily be as warm to what you are proposing—it is understandable. That is particularly the case in some of the arrangements here where, for want of a better term, there is 'forgiveness' to allow people to sidestep what would normally be their obligations to others who have provided service, particularly to fledgling firms. They are rightly extending support to a firm where they expect to be paid for that service and to have a return for that service. In some instances, forgiving debts, for instance, or creating that type of leeway through the various mechanisms that are provided for in this Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 means that there is one person who wins and there is another person who is not going to be so happy. I do not say that they are losers per se, because I do not think it is a finite process. If the firm are able to trade their way out of their problems through some of the measures that are foreseen in this bill, it may be the case that the other firms that are affected by this on the other side of the ledger will win longer term, so we do need to take a longer-term view on this. That is what this bill allows for, and I think it is important that it does that. As an opposition, I think we have tried to be constructive in the amendments and the contributions that have been made today, flagging that we should go through a Senate inquiry process to test this and to explore some of the concerns that have been raised. Without traversing ground that has already been covered by the shadow Treasurer, we should test some of these things out and then be able to determine a position—especially for the other place, which will consider this ultimately. I think there will be a lot in the start-up community that welcome what is being put here today, which is understandable. There will be others that will not necessarily share that view. There will be others that will say, for instance, that you should not be cutting corners—if I can use that phrase—and you should give people some allowances as to what is being foreshadowed here because business can be tough. You need to frame your operations in a way that meet your obligations to creditors, employees and investors, and do it in a way that means that you are behaving just like every other business in the country. I certainly understand the point that would be made through that. If this does provide some ability, particularly in terms of safe harbours, for people to stay on board and for that expertise to be retained within a company so that, in the case that I am putting forward for the consideration of the House, that start-up is able to survive through a difficult patch and then ultimately go on and become one of our biggest and best firms not just on the Australian scene but on the world stage, as many start-ups have in this country, then it is worth considering. We have flagged to the government that we do not stand in an obstructionist way before this bill. I think the concerns that have been raised, particularly around phoenixing, are legitimate concerns. We would hope that these could be teased out through the mechanisms that have been advanced by the opposition, primarily through a Senate inquiry process, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of that. But I did want to offer some remarks in this debate on some of the concerns that might exist, particularly for small enterprises and Australia's start-up community. 12:23 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I am pleased to stand and speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017, a bill that has really important intent behind it, and one that we on this side of the House support. Before I talk about the bill itself and the changes it makes to Australia's corporate insolvency system that are designed to assist businesses trade through difficult patches, I want to remind the House of the kinds of circumstances that businesses find themselves in from time to time, quite often not necessarily even because of their own actions. This legislation will not apply to every business in these circumstances, but it is worth thinking about the circumstances in our own communities, where we see businesses that, on a normal day, are viable. But changing circumstances can require them to rethink or sometimes just hold out for a short period of time. We see small businesses like the coffee shop down at Pendle Hill, where Baulderstone Hornibrook is building the big, new over-the-station ramp. They have not had any passing customers for the last six months, and they will have another six months without passing customers. That is a small business that probably will not be captured in this, but it is an example of a business that is perfectly viable on a normal day, but circumstances change. You may see a really great little coffee shop or restaurant where the building they are renting is sold. Suddenly the building is demolished and they have to move. Again, a perfectly viable business is in a circumstance that they have to find their way through. There are businesses that have been affected by fire. Many go to the wall because of the effects of fire, including the loss of their customer relationship during the time that they are rebuilding. Again, they are perfectly viable businesses. We see it in natural disasters and we saw it in the global financial crisis, not just because of the slowing of the market but also because of the rapid increase of the Australian dollar—something that was not going to last forever, so we thought, and it did not, but something that sent many viable, perfectly good businesses to the wall. The circumstance was largely out of their control and they were unable to respond to it with our current laws. We see what happens in the motor vehicle industry when a large buyer closes its doors and thousands of small businesses have to find ways to expand into new markets to deal with the fragmented supply chains. Again, they are perfectly good businesses with viable products that need to rethink the way they operate in a rapidly changing market. We see across the whole spectrum of our community at the moment disruption, rapid change and new opportunities which businesses need to be able to pursue. The pursuit of a new opportunity brings with it risks associated with the need to rethink and restructure, but we need our businesses to be able to do that. At this time, perhaps more than any other time in living memory, we need to be able to support business to rethink, restructure, engage with new markets and see themselves through some of the tougher times on certain conditions. That is what this bill does. As the shadow Treasurer and all of the speakers on this side have said, the intention of this bill is really good and we will support it in this House. The bill makes changes to allow more opportunities for businesses to be turned around. It does it in two ways. Firstly by creating a safe harbour from personal liability for trading while insolvent. This is for company directors who are honestly and diligently taking a course of action that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company than the immediate appointment of an administrator or a liquidator. Secondly, the ipso facto clauses may allow the termination or variation of contracts based on a company's financial position or the commencement of certain insolvency proceedings will become unenforceable during and after certain formal insolvency procedures. So there are those two things—firstly, the safe harbour for directors who are behaving exactly the way we would want them to behave, diligently and responsibly, to trade their companies out, and, secondly, the ipso facto clauses which prevent what you could describe in many ways as a run on a bank, where someone believes a company is in financial trouble and, even though it is continuing to pay its debts and staff, under the old laws it has the right to withdraw from contracts. This protects companies that are doing the right thing from that response by some of its creditors. When you are talking about something this complex, it is very much an issue of finding the balance. We obviously want fewer insolvencies and we want companies to be able to trade through, but we want to do that in a way which does not increase the severity of some insolvencies, by having companies trading for longer than they should, and does not damage shareholders. We want as much benefit as we can have but the least harm. It is a standard ethics dilemma: the most good for the most and the least harm for the fewest. On this side of the House we believe we need to continue to look at the possible consequences of the bill: the unintended consequences for the community, shareholders and other businesses that have contracts with the companies that are affected by this law. We are looking forward to the Senate inquiry's report. The Senate is already inquiring into this and the committee will report before the House resumes after the winter recess. When we come back the Senate inquiry will have reported. In contrast to the member for Fairfax's statements, the Senate inquiry will not cause a delay of this bill. Its findings will be back in plenty of time for the Senate to consider this bill. We believe that the inquiry is incredibly important because it allows many stakeholders to contribute to this place's understanding of the effects of this bill across the range of people that it affects. While the industry as a whole believes that the intent of this bill is very good, not everybody believes that it is in its best form at the moment. The Shareholders Association, for example, has concerns for its members, who are shareholders in some of the companies that will be affected by this bill. The Productivity Commission has made a number of recommendations, none of which are in this bill. So there is another course of action recommended by the Productivity Commission, and we need to consider whether we are looking at an exemption or a defence model. So there are things for us to work through, and it will be great to watch the Senate inquiry take place. It will be good to see the submissions so that we can fully understand exactly how this works. We have moved a second reading amendment because we on this side of the House have a particular concern with phoenixing activity. It is worth noting how long there has been concern about this. There are some areas in the Australian business sector—construction is a huge one—where the level of phoenixing is extraordinary. We all know that, when a company phoenixes, it is quite often small businesses that are found in a very fragile state, sometimes with major contracts—sometimes with their biggest contracts—effectively disappearing beneath them and tied up with legal challenges et cetera for quite some time. You see a lot of businesses go to the wall because of phoenixing. It is a particularly pernicious activity, where you see one business transfer its assets to another company and then deliberately send the first one broke so that they can basically start clean—same people, new business and assets from before. Let's face it, it is theft. It is a rather sophisticated form of theft. It is rife throughout our community and everybody on both sides of the House knows that it is. We on this side came up with a policy some time ago of a director identification number, which would ensure that each director is recognised as an individual and we do not get what we get now with, I guess you could call them, 'fake directors' and even some people being registered more than once. There was an article back in May 2017 in The Startup Magazine which talked through the recent history of this and talked about the Productivity Commission's report in December 2015, which recommended director identity numbers for directors—way back then, in December 2015. It took the government 16 months to respond to that. The response has only just come down. The government is now looking at it and there is a task force, but this is something that both sides of this House have known about for a long time. It is something that the tax office is looking at. It is something that government bodies that look at money laundering are looking at. It is rife through our communities and it is time that the government took action on it. We have recommendations from just about everybody. The Institute of Company Directors and the ACTU both agree. The Productivity Commission agrees. It seems everybody agrees that we need director identification numbers in order to shut down this particular, pernicious form of theft. I would strongly urge the government to act on it. If the government are genuinely concerned about viable businesses that go to the wall because of external activities and if they are genuinely concerned that legitimate and viable businesses are able to trade, they need to deal with phoenixing. Again, in the construction sector, we hear the government talk a lot about lawlessness from one sector but we do not hear them talk about lawlessness in this way—and it is rife in that sector. Every single one of us would know a subcontractor or a small business that is struggling beyond its capacity and that goes to the wall because of phoenixing activity in that sector. I strongly urge the government to act on it. This bill's intent is really quite good, and the government has included in it some of the protections that we on this side would be concerned about. It ensures that the company continues to comply with its obligation to pay its employees, including their superannuation, for example. It is incredibly important for we on this side that that is the case. Where the ipso facto clause applies, it does not protect a company that is not paying its contractors. The contractors can still withdraw from a contract if the contract terms are not being met, but it removes the ability for a business to break its contract simply because the company has moved into this particular form of safe harbour. So it has some protections in it. Again, we are concerned through the Senate inquiry to explore that further and ensure that those protections are in place. With some sectors of the business community, particularly those engaged in phoenixing activity, there can be remarkable mechanisms and attempts to find their way through the law as they are, and we need to ensure that the safeguards are absolutely there so that we do not have a greater harm to some by companies continuing to trade when they really are insolvent. We all know that directors of companies and owners of companies, particularly entrepreneurs, have such incredible faith in their ideas—if they did not, they would not be doing it—but sometimes that faith is misplaced, and we need to ensure that the safeguards are there so that we get the most good and the least harm. I commend the government for taking action on this. I am sorry to hear members opposite so critical of an opposition that seeks to look at some of these issues in greater detail. That is actually the role of an opposition, by the way. I think the remarks on this side have really been quite measured. We support the bill's intent. We just want to make sure that, in this really complex area, where you are dealing with human beings with different motivations that interact with other businesses, with employees, with shareholders and with superannuation funds, we actually get it right and we do not create another problem for one that we are solving. It was a pleasure to speak on this bill. As I said, it has great intent, and I look forward to the outcome of the Senate inquiry. 12:37 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 amends the Corporations Act 2001 to improve Australia's corporate insolvency system. I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This bill, as I said, reforms Australia's insolvency laws by introducing a safe harbour for company directors undertaking corporate restructures outside of formal insolvency proceedings and restricting ipso facto clauses which make it harder for businesses to successfully recover from financial difficulties. It is a bill that promotes a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation to drive business growth and global success and help to save local jobs. For too long our insolvent trading laws have put too much focus on stigmatising and penalising failure and, combined with uncertainty over the precise moment a company becomes insolvent, have long been driving directors to seek voluntary administration, even in circumstances where the company may be viable in the longer term. Concerns over inadvertent breaches of insolvent trading laws have frequently been cited as a deterrent on early stage investors and professional directors becoming involved in start-ups. This is why the government announced in December 2015, as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda, that it would introduce a safe harbour for directors from the insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 and make ipso facto clauses unenforceable in certain formal insolvency procedures. This bill delivers on those commitments. Part 1 of this bill creates a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency. This measure will drive a cultural change amongst company directors by encouraging them to keep control of their company, engage early with possible insolvency and take reasonable risks to facilitate the company's recovery, instead of simply placing the company into voluntary administration or, indeed, into liquidation. The amendments in part 2 of this bill will make certain contractual rights unenforceable while a company is restructuring under certain formal insolvency processes. Currently, ipso facto clauses allow one party to terminate or modify the operation of a contract upon the occurrence of some specific event such as the appointment of an administrator, regardless of the otherwise continued performance of the company. The operation of these clauses can reduce the scope for a successful restructure or prevent the sale of the business as a going concern. This measure will enable the businesses to continue to trade in order to recover from an insolvency event, instead of these clauses preventing their successful rehabilitation. Together, these reforms will reduce a company's need to go into a formal insolvency process, and, where companies do enter into particular formal insolvency procedures, they will have a better chance of being turned around or of preserving value for creditors and for shareholders. This in turn will promote the preservation of enterprise value for companies, their employees and their creditors, reduce the stigma of failure associated with insolvency and encourage a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. The measures contained in this bill have been extensively consulted upon and have the strong support of a number of peak industry bodies, including the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association. A discussion paper containing various proposals for improving bankruptcy and insolvency laws was released for consultation on 29 April 2016. The exposure draft legislation was released for consultation on 28 March. With that, I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 7473 12:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 7473

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016

Second Reading 7473 12:43 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 proposes to do two things. The first part of the bill expands the functions of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, otherwise known as Efic, so that it can provide specialist financial advice to Commonwealth entities and companies. It is currently only allowed to provide these services to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Legislation to do that was passed last year. The opposition supports this amendment, which will, hopefully, lower government service delivery costs and enable other Commonwealth entities to access Efic's financial expertise. The second amendment in this bill will allow Efic to provide loans to Australian companies to set up or expand operations overseas. In practical terms, it will allow a company to spend the loan overseas, rather than here in Australia. Currently, Efic is only able to provide guarantees to businesses that want to do this. The bill before us was examined by a Senate committee earlier this year. The committee received a number of submissions supporting this amendment. It is supported by industry groups like the Australian Advanced Manufacturing Council, the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre, the Export Council of Australia and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority on the basis that it will help Australian small and medium-sized businesses break into new markets. DFAT's submission also makes the point that this change to Efic's rules has the potential to reduce the administrative costs of funding applications by up to $12,000. The Senate committee also received a number of submissions expressing some concern about the potential unintended consequences of this legislation. In particular, concern was raised about the potential impact it could have on Australian jobs. The Australia Institute and the Jubilee Australia's Resource Centre, in their joint submission, expressed concern that: While the change to specifically recognise service exports may be desirable, the current proposed amendment seems to remove any focus on products that are produced in Australia. The effect of this could be the further offshoring of Australian manufacturing. Their submission concludes that this: …has the potential to reduce jobs that produce goods and services in Australia. In addition to potentially offshoring Australian production, this change could move production into jurisdictions with lower environmental and labour standards. This reduces transparency and standards in supply chains. The ACTU raised similar concerns in their submission to the inquiry. On page 3 of their submission, they say: It is in the national interest that companies which receive government loans are required to use that money in a way which benefits Australian employment. The removal of these provisions will be yet another blow to the Australian manufacturing and services sectors. It could potentially lead to jobs being offshored. The opposition supports what the government is trying to do with this bill. Australian businesses should be encouraged to become exporters and to look for opportunities overseas, but we also agree that we should avoid doing anything in this legislation that could lead to job losses in Australia. To make sure that this does not happen, we are proposing to move three amendments to this bill when it is debated in the Senate. The first of those amendments will be to introduce an Australian jobs test. This test will require Efic to be satisfied before approval of a loan or a guarantee that would be spent overseas that the investment would lead to jobs growth in Australia. Efic already has a test that it applies. It is a test of no net job losses in Australia for all of the loans which are spent in Australia. We believe that there should be a higher standard for loans to companies when they want to spend those funds overseas. The second amendment we will move will prevent companies from using a loan or a guarantee from Efic to, effectively, offshore Australian jobs. It will prevent a company from using a loan or a guarantee from Efic to set up something overseas that would, effectively, replace what the company currently does in Australia or what they contract another company in Australia to do for them. Let me give you a very practical example of what I mean and what this amendment is intended to ensure does not occur. A company uses an Efic loan to set up a call centre overseas and then shuts its call centre that does the same thing here in Australia. We do not think that taxpayers' money should be used to facilitate that. All that would be doing would be providing taxpayers money to offshore what are currently Australian jobs. I do not think anyone in this chamber or anyone listening to this debate would think that that is a good idea. I am sure it is not what the government is intending would happen with this legislation. This amendment would help to ensure that does not happen. Companies can use their own funds or they could get a loan from the bank if they want to offshore work that they currently do here in Australia—and they do do that, sometimes quite controversially. But our point is: taxpayers money should not be used to do that. The third amendment that we will propose in the Senate deals with a situation that was highlighted in the media a few weeks ago. On 20 May, there was a story in The Guardian that said that Efic was considering a multi-million dollar loan to a company called Resource Generation Ltd—Resgen—to develop a coalmine in South Africa. The company is based in South Africa but is listed on the Australian stock exchange. It has no mining activities here in Australia. The coalmine that they are developing in South Africa is quite large. They have approval to extract 32 million tonnes of coal a year. It is the sort of project which could have an impact on the Australia coal industry. We asked some questions about this in estimates a couple of weeks ago and we were advised by Efic that they were not currently considering providing finance to this project but that it could currently be financed under their act. It is correct to say that Efic can fund overseas resource projects, and they have done so in the past, under both coalition governments and Labor governments, but it is hard to see how this project could comply with the current part 1(3) of the Efic Act. This includes a requirement that loans can only be provided to companies for: … any services in or in connection with the supply, installation, erection, operation, maintenance or repair of goods produced or manufactured wholly or substantially in Australia and exported from Australia … The bill we are debating here today would remove that section of the act and therefore allow the whole loan to be spent overseas, making the financing of a project like this easier. In principle, we do not think it is a good use of taxpayers' money to give a company a loan that is spent overseas, to set up anything from a mine to a factory to any other business, if that is going to severely damage other businesses here in Australia and lead to the loss of jobs in Australia. It is not certain that a project like this would, but, in principle, we do not think it is a good idea to provide a loan to a company that is spent overseas that would severely damage other businesses here in Australia and lead to the loss of Australian jobs. We are not opposed to what the government is trying to do with this bill, but, when an Efic loan is spent wholly overseas rather than here in Australia, we think a higher standard needs to apply. That is why we have proposed the Australian jobs test—our first amendment—that says that, when a company is getting a loan that is spent overseas, Efic needs to be satisfied that it will also create jobs here in Australia. That is why we have also proposed a second amendment, to prevent a loan like this facilitating the offshoring of work that is currently done here in Australia. And that is why we will also propose a third amendment in the Senate that would require Efic, when it provides a loan to a company that is going to be spent overseas, to be satisfied that the loan is not going to damage other businesses here in Australia and lead to job losses here at home. The opposition supports efforts for businesses to expand overseas and enter new markets. We believe our amendments will help strengthen this bill and put Australian jobs first. I have been consulting with the minister about our amendments, and my office has been working with the minister's office. I think that consultation, that work, has been very constructive to date, and I thank him for his assistance with that consultation. Let me state on the record that I am happy to work with him and with Efic on our amendments over the winter break before they are considered by the Senate. The purpose of our proposed amendments is simple. We want to avoid any unintended consequences that come with this change to Efic's rules, and we want to make sure it creates more jobs here in Australia, not less—a very, very simple principle that I hope all members of the House and all members of the Senate can agree with. I look forward to those negotiations with the government in the coming weeks. 12:53 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016. This bill deals Efic, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. I can personally attest to the very good work that Efic do and the very important role that they play in our economy for small business. Before I came to this parliament, I worked as an export manager for my family's firm. My job was to travel overseas and put together bids for tenders for contracts. We were a small Australian company located in Chipping Norton, and we were competing against very large companies in the USA, Europe and the UK that were backed by public company finance. Often, putting together a specific package to supply goods or services—it was goods in our case—into a foreign market requires substantial finance. Many small exporters face exactly the same circumstance we did back then. Having Efic in the marketplace enables a company to go to Efic and say: 'Hey, guess what: I have this export contract here to supply overseas. If I'm able to supply it I can create jobs in Australia. I can create real wealth for the country. The employees I employ will pay taxes. The money they will spend will help the local community. But I need some assistance to finance it to get the materials I need to produce those goods in my factory.' There are many circumstances where a bank would say they need extra equity, extra finance or extra security to be able to loan that money. But having Efic in the marketplace basically gives an option of lenders of last resort, for want of better words. Deputy Speaker, the mere fact that you are able to go to Efic because Efic exists enables your bank to give greater consideration to your application for that loan. In the past, the way it was structured was that Efic would provide a guarantee to your bank, and your bank would then be able to loan you the funds for you to get the materials you needed and to incur all the expenses you needed to fulfil that export contract. What we are now changing with this bill enables Efic to actually loan directly to that small business. The other thing the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation does is enable you to insure the risk of non-payment. That is a real risk. My company was supplying places in Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Of course, the preference would always be to get a letter of credit, but a letter of credit is only as good as the bank that would issue it. In the Middle East there was always the risk on non-payment. But, Deputy Speaker, having Efic there gives you the ability to say: 'I'm prepared to take that contract, though there is a certain risk that I might not get paid.' Then you would price that risk into your pricing structure, quotation or tender and you were able to insure against this risk. This is a very important facility. It was important in the past and it will be even more important in the years to come. If our country is to progress and if we are to continue—when I say 'we' I talk about the private sector economy—to create jobs, we must always remember that it is not government that creates jobs but the private sector. Those jobs come about by the production of goods and those companies having greater demand for their goods. If we are to continue to grow the economy like we need to, we need to get Australian businesses to be thinking about export markets as much as we possibly can. More than 98 per cent of the world's economy lies beyond our shores. It is important for the future prosperity of this nation that we have businesses considering what they can do to export their goods and services and have an important facility like Efic to back them up. To do that, we must make sure we give Australian businesses at least a level playing field to compete on. If we expect Australian businesses to go and fight in international marketplaces and to win contracts, the very least we can do is give them some type of competitive level playing field. Some of the great risks we face are the policies we see from the other side of the chamber—from the Labor Party—that are simply putting Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage and tilting the playing field in favour of foreign companies. Here are a few example: firstly, the rate of corporate tax Australian businesses must pay. We have seen over the years Paul Keating, very wisely, reduce the rate of company tax. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Hear, hear! Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Correct. Hear, hear! And we give Paul Keating a 'Hear, hear!' for his understanding that if you lower the rate of corporate tax you encourage investment, you attract foreign capital, you grow the economy and, at the end of the day, government gets more resources and not less. Paul Keating understood that. Peter Costello understood that. The current treasurer, the member for Cook my good friend, Scott Morrison, understands that. In fact, I would say every member of the coalition understands that. If you can get that rate of corporate tax down it does not cost the economy money. It is not a giveaway to big business. It actually creates jobs, grows the economy and, ultimately, provides more resources for government to pay for—our schools, our hospitals, our roads, our kids with disabilities, our aged care—all the things that all of us want to see more resources put into. That is what we get. The real threat to that is that Australian companies are paying 30 per cent currently—and we are reducing that; we have reduced that to 28½ per cent for very small businesses with turnover, not profit, of $2 million, which in many cases can be a single-man operation. A sole trader working under a company structure can have $2 million turnover. We have been able to bring that back to 28½ per cent, but we have the other side threatening to increase the rate of corporate tax for all companies back to 30 per cent. How are we expecting our Australian companies to compete on a level playing field if they are competing against a company from the UK that has a corporate tax rate of 20 per cent? How are we going to expect our Australian companies to compete against businesses from the United State if President Trump sticks with his promise and reduces the US corporate tax rate to 15 per cent? They are hamstrung. We are tying their hands and we are putting lead in the saddles of Australian companies, the very people that we expect to go out there in the international marketplace and win business for this nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 A point of order, Member for Shortland? Mr Conroy 249127 The point of order is on relevance. There is no second reading amendment to this bill. This is about two narrow amendments to Efic. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member will be seated. The member for Hughes is in order. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 It is quite disappointing to get that interjection from the member for Charlton. This is a debate on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 and the amendments to it. It is clear from the interjection by the member for Charlton that he has no understanding whatsoever of what is involved in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—what they do, their practices and their importance to the economy. To think that what I was talking about was not relevant shows the member for Charlton has no idea whatsoever what the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation do or their importance to the economy. Ms Henderson ZN4 The member for Shortland. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Yes, the member for Shortland. What I am talking about is the importance of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act and why this is an important bill to give our businesses a fighting chance in international markets, something the Labor Party clearly do not have a clue about. What they do not understand is that if we are putting our businesses at a competitive advantage, it does not matter what we do as far as the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation goes. They will not have a fighting chance if we put them at a competitive disadvantage. One of the main things is that rate of corporate tax. I know what it is like because, before I came to this place, I had to compete and put in tenders against American companies and companies from Europe and the UK. I tell you what, Deputy Speaker, luckily back then we had a similar rate of corporate tax, or Australia had a competitive advantage, because of men like Paul Keating and because of men like Peter Costello, who understood we had to have an internationally competitive rate of corporate rate. And, of course, the member for Cook understands that, as does the Prime Minister and everyone who sits on this side of the House. We understand the importance. I would hate to be a small business in the years to come that has to go out to those international marketplaces and put together a tender to produce goods in Australia, knowing that I was burdened by a 30 per cent corporate tax rate because of the Labor Party, yet I am competing against American companies that have a 15 per cent corporate tax rate or companies in the UK that have a 20 per cent corporate tax rate. How are we going to expect our businesses to get out there and win those international contracts? The other area where this legislation, as good as it is, may come to nothing is with the cost of energy in this country. We can have all the policies that we want on building more wind turbines and subsidising solar panels but, at the end of the day, the cost of energy in this nation has to be internationally competitive if our exporters are to stand a fighting chance. The Labor Party wants to put lead in the saddles of our exporters. Over a decade ago, the cost of energy for Australian exporters in this country gave us a competitive advantage. That was what enabled Australians to get onto that international playing field and have the competitive advantage, knowing the cost of energy to produce goods in Australia was less than for our foreign competitors. But we surrendered that competitive advantage. Already we see the cost of energy for business and consumers in this country double that of what it is in the United States. How do we expect our export industry to go and fight in international marketplaces with goods it has produced here in Australia if the electricity is double that for those same goods produced in the USA? Yet, we see the Labor Party not even recognising this is a problem, but wanting to make it worse by creating uncertainty in the marketplace with their claims for a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They want to put more unreliable, high-cost, intermittent power into the grid, force it into the grid and force it on those exporters, the very people that we rely on to create the wealth in this country. The Labor Party wants to handicap them. This is what we face. We need to get real in this parliament. The world is a very, very competitive place. We have to do everything we can to at least give our exporters and our potential exporters a level playing field to compete on. This bill is important. It helps level that playing field. I would call on members of the opposition to have a rethink about all their policies that are putting Australian business at a competitive disadvantage. 13:08 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Unlike the previous speaker, the member for Hughes, I will actually talk about the bill we are debating in this place rather than delivering the fifth repeat of the speech he has given on five bills in the last few days. I think I could do a good impersonation of it; I have heard it enough. Unfortunately, the facts still do not support the member for Hughes's case—but I digress. It is my genuine pleasure to come to that dispatch box and talk about the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016. This legislation has two separate amendments that go to two separate issues. The first one is around empowering the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, Efic, to provide its expertise to other organisations. It already provides its expertise to NAIF, and NAIF well and truly needs its expertise given the conflict of interest many of its directors have already. It will allow NAIF to provide that expertise to other agencies, and that is a good thing. Labor supports that, and I applaud the government for bringing the amendment to the parliament. The second amendment is trickier. The second amendment allows Efic to provide loans to Australian companies to set up or expand operations overseas. Before I go into that specific debate I want to take a step back and talk about the noble work of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. It does good work in providing guarantees to Australian companies and providing loans, often concessional loans, to Australian companies that are trying to export overseas. When it was originally set up it was mainly aimed at manufacturers, and that is where it is currently predominantly being used. It has done some great work under governments of both persuasions. I had a close connection with Efic when the last Labor government used an Efic facility to drive Australian content into the joint strike fighter, one of the largest procurements in the defence arena, not just in Australia but across the entire world. The Labor government established an Efic facility to drive Australians into the supply chain of the joint strike fighter through the primes, such as Lockheed Martin, BAE and Northrop Grumman. That is great. That is a classic example of how Efic works. This amendment effectively allows Efic to provide loans to Australian companies to set up or expand operations overseas that do not lead to any local content in Australia. The minister used the examples of an Australian company setting up a call centre in the Philippines and an Australian fashion designer setting up a manufacturing facility in China. Both of those examples are two-edged swords to some extent. On the one hand, it may increase the viability of that business and mean that the fashion designer can keep producing great designs in Australia and add to the sustainability of their product and, in the call centre example, it may mean that that Australian company provides greater customer service and can expand in this country, but the concern of the Labor Party is, and has to be if we are going to honour the noble cause of the Labor Party, the impact of this amendment on Australian jobs. I join the shadow minister for trade in his belief that the government does not intend for this to be the outcome. I could be generous in that assumption, but I do not think that it intends to have this loan facility enable Australian jobs to be offshored. But there is a danger in that because the only test that will be applied, in terms of the economic impact on Australia, is no net job losses. That sounds fine and dandy and that sounds like it means that there will not be job losses, but let me give you a scenario of where a truck could be driven through that hole. If a company, Bank X, has two separate expansion plans and they access an Efic loan to set up a call centre in the Philippines, which is actually transferring a call centre that currently exists in Australia, they could satisfy the no net job losses by having another economic activity being established at that time or expanded at that time that produces roughly a similar amount of jobs. They could get an Efic loan to offshore Australian jobs as long as they were starting or expanding another economic activity at the same time. They would potentially satisfy that test, but we would have Australian taxpayer resources being used to offshore Australian jobs. That is why the Australian Labor Party, the opposition, has a concern about the potential unintended consequences of the second amendment, especially when you look at the definition of 'Australian export trade'. 'Australian export trade', to qualify for the soft loan in these purposes, is defined as 'any transaction involving a benefit flowing directly or indirectly from overseas to a person carrying on a business or other activities in Australia'. So something as obscure as an indirect benefit to an Australian entity is enough to qualify for a loan. That is, I would submit, quite wishy-washy, and that is why the opposition is proposing three direct amendments that improve the bill, which on the whole is trying to add to the operational effectiveness of Efic. The first one is around an Australian jobs test. The Australian jobs test that we would submit—and we will move an amendment along these lines in the Senate—is that the investment must lead to jobs growth in Australia. It cannot just result in no job losses; it must actually increase the number of jobs in this country. That is incredibly important. When I go back to my electorate of Shortland in the Lake Macquarie region on the Central Coast and I talk to people on low incomes who pay tax, they say to me that they do not mind paying tax as long as the money is used appropriately and effectively to advance our national interest. Mr Tim Wilson IMW That is why they vote Liberal. Mr CONROY 249127 They do not vote Liberal in my area, mate. I do not think you would fit into Windale in my area, member for Goldstein, but I would love you to go up there and see what Australians are really facing. This is really important. Mr Tim Wilson IMW I would love to come up. I don’t like the snobbery coming from the other side. Mr CONROY 249127 The snobbery is on your side, mate. I represent real Australia, not the wealthy parts of the country. The Australian jobs test means that taxpayers' money will only be used if the entity and Efic can demonstrate that it will increase the number of jobs in Australia. To me, that is a commonsense amendment that would improve the bill. The second amendment goes to preventing companies using a loan to offshore Australian jobs, so that they cannot use a loan to replace what they currently do here or contract a third party to do here. That is very important in the example I highlighted earlier. Bank X cannot use an Efic loan to outsource a call centre that they have already established in this country and, importantly, given the complex web that corporations often use in terms of structuring businesses, they cannot use an Efic loan to offshore work they currently subcontract to an Australian based activity. That is very important, and, again, I would submit that is common sense. The third amendment goes to dealing with a case that we saw recently: a South African coalmine, where Efic were actively considering providing a very generous loan to Resgen, a South African based coalmining company, to set up a coalmine in South Africa which would be the very significant size of Adani's Carmichael coalmine. To me, it is incredible that we would be considering using taxpayers' money to establish a mine in South Africa with some very vague assurances that some Australian mining supplier might benefit by supplying a bit of equipment to the mine at a time when global coal consumption is declining. So we have global coal consumption declining, we have Australian coal exports under pressure and the Australian government will be actively considering financing a direct competitor in South Africa. That is a huge concern. I am relieved that at estimates a few weeks ago, Efic stated that they would not be going ahead with that proposal. Hopefully they maintain that commitment and do not go ahead with that proposal. Our third amendment would prevent that. Our third amendment would prohibit Efic from providing a loan to an overseas based activity unless they can demonstrate that there will be no negative commercial impact to an Australian based activity. That is incredibly important. Let me summarise. Labor's amendments are threefold. Firstly, it must grow jobs in Australia. Secondly, it must prevent a company offshoring existing Australian operations through the loan. And, thirdly, it must not lead to the establishment of an overseas based activity that will compete with an Australian inactivity. That is only fair and reasonable. This is not saying to Australian companies, 'You can't do any of those things.' They are in their rights to offshore jobs. We will object at times, as will other political parties in this place—no-one likes to see Australian jobs going offshore—but companies do have a right to establish operations around the globe, and good luck to them, but they should not be using taxpayers resources to do that. They should not be using taxpayers' resources to offshore jobs or set up activities overseas in direct competition with Australian operations. That is the essence of Labor's amendments. They go to the nub of some of the concerns we have seen in some of the submissions to the Senate inquiry, particularly the submissions from the Australia Institute, the Australian Fair Trade Investment Network and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is really important to return to the true goal of Efic, which is to advance Australian commercial interests overseas. We have moved a long way from that—being purely related to Australian manufactured goods. I would like them to keep concentrating on that activity because Australian manufacturing needs all the help that it can get. I would urge Efic to keep concentrating on promoting Australian manufactured goods overseas, but we need to recognise that services are, increasingly, a dominant part of our economy. We need to make sure that we can assist Australian service operations to expand overseas, as long as it is not at the expense of existing operations in Australia. I am going to use the time remaining to refute some of the ridiculous claims from the member for Hughes, since the Deputy Speaker is allowing a free-flowing debate—in his wisdom. Let me place on the record again that the member for Hughes occupies a parallel dimension where black is white and right is wrong. He keeps talking about expensive electricity in this country. He is absolutely right—wholesale energy prices— Government members interjecting— Mr CONROY 249127 No. He is right on one thing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is one of your two, member for Hughes. He is absolutely right that wholesale energy prices have doubled in the last four years under his government. And why have they doubled? According to the Australian Energy Council—so the generators themselves, not the Labor Party or some mad conservation group—have identified the single most important driver of the doubling of wholesale energy prices. And it is uncertainty around climate change and energy policy. They have said that that uncertainty is equivalent to a $50 megawatt charge increase. So wholesale energy prices have increased from $60 a megawatt hour to about $130 a megawatt hour. Fifty dollars of that $60 to $70 increase is because of policy uncertainty, driven by the fossils in the Liberal party room, including the member for Hughes. It has been driven by the real minister for climate change and energy, the honourable member for Hughes. So that is the first issue that I have to rebut—what is driving wholesale energy prices. Secondly, what is the salvation? We need more investment in the electricity sector. But I have news for the member for Hughes and all the dinosaurs in the Liberal party room. Unfortunately, it will not be coal-fired power stations unless they are massively subsidised. That is because of not environmental policies but base economics. The cost of building a brand-new coal-fired power station in this country is around $130 to $150 a megawatt hour. The cost of new renewables— Mr Craig Kelly 99931 With storage. Mr CONROY 249127 I am going to get to that, Sunshine. Mr Craig Kelly 99931 And how much storage? Mr CONROY 249127 ARENA, a government agency, estimates that you add $20 for adequate storage—$20 a megawatt for storage. So new wind power with adequate storage, according to the government's own figures, is $75 a megawatt hour. That is half the cost of new coal-fired power. Yet again it shows that the member for Hughes occupies a parallel dimension and needs to come back to reality if he is going to be part of a serious economic debate in this country. In summary: let's get on with the job of reforming Efic so that we can support Australian businesses. 13:23 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I rise to support this bill, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016, and to support its objectives. As we have heard already from some of the other speakers, the Australian economy has been in transition. It is not a recent thing; it has been going on for a long period of time. Efic has played a very important part of helping Australian businesses grow their opportunities for creating jobs for every Australian and for improving and increasing the wealth of this country. For that, I think we have to be very thankful for the enduring contribution that every Australian business makes in employing people and employing the people in business who can grow the economy. I want to start by saying that I do find the comments that were made by the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, quite offensive. The idea, he kept insisting, that he represented real Australians—and he made the allegation against the people of Goldstein that they are not—is just objectionable. Not only is it a patronising attitude towards other Australians, regardless of their circumstances, but the idea that people who are industrious, take responsibility for themselves, work hard and contribute to build the wealth of this country are not real Australians is outrageous. But that is, tragically, why the people of Goldstein, since Federation, have never voted for a representative from the Australian Labor Party, because there is no fundamental appreciation for the effort, work and responsibility that the people of Goldstein bring. They are the people who are industrious. One of the things about our Goldstein community is that it actually has very little industry, but that does not mean that we are not deeply industrious people. We are entrepreneurial and take advantage of important measures, like Efic, that are there to support industry—traditionally manufacturing—to grow its export markets into the global economy but also, increasingly, in the services sector, which has been an important part of small business and entrepreneurs. That is why we support this piece of legislation: to broaden the opportunity that Efic can provide, to reflect the changing nature of the Australian economy and particularly to work with smaller businesses to make them medium businesses and larger businesses to travel them through their journey of growth so that they can continue to access finance to support their exports into the global economy. Efic has always had a very important role as part of that discussion in building the future of this country since it has operated. The legislation has some minor amendments in comparison to the earlier versions, particularly around ensuring a shift away from just manufacturing towards eligible export transactions, particularly because then it will focus on services. It also has in it entrenching legislation of what is already Efic policy to include protection against job outsourcing, when Efic finances offshore investments by Australian firms. There will also be a requirement for Efic to charge fees when providing services to the northern Australia infrastructure fund or other government entities. All of these things are very important. All of them make an enormous contribution to continuing to grow the Australian economy and to create opportunities. But one of the things I think is disturbing about what is being put forward by the opposition—and the previous speaker spoke about how they are seeking to move amendments in the Senate—is that it is simply for the purpose of virtue signalling. There is no substance. The scare campaign they are running around this piece of legislation is nothing short of absurd, but this is what happens when you have a political party that is irrelevant. They are still fighting like they won the last election, even though that is not the case. And what they seek to do, continuously, is find opportunities to drive wedges between the government, which is seeking to deliver for the Australian people, and all Australian people. What we see today is the driving of wedges by the Australian Labor Party, because they think it will achieve some sort of advantage. I will say about the previous speaker that I very strongly welcome the reflection and focus on jobs, because their general objective since or during the election campaign has been to mock. The modern Labor Party mocks the objective of creating jobs and growth for the Australian economy. We are the only political party that seeks to represent all Australians and create opportunities for all Australians. We want to make sure that we do not engage in the class snobbery that we had from the previous speaker, who mocked people in communities who try to make this country a better place. One of the things I also want to follow on from is the earlier comments by the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes showed how much he understands about what is necessary to create the opportunity so that people are able to be in a position to access Efic finance, to create the jobs and opportunities for Australians into the future. This measure is important, but it must sit as part of a suite of measures that reforms and contributes to the growing of the Australian economy. We know full well that tax reform is a very important part of building this nation's future, where you have international competitiveness with not just capital but also labour. If people in a business and Australians want to compete on the global stage, Australians and their government need to back them. It cannot penalise them by making it even more difficult in a competitive global environment for them to secure employment, reward their labour and effort, and attract the investment needed to grow businesses in this nation. That is the point the member for Hughes was touching on. We have a globally competitive tax environment for capital. It is only going to become more competitive over time. This is something that has been completed missed by the members opposite and many senators, and the cost of ignoring that important proposition is that it will harm the opportunity for job growth in this country. It will harm the very people they claim they represent and are standing up for. If you want to create greater economic opportunities for all Australians, it has to be built on the fundamental structure of understanding that working people will put their endeavours where they can secure the best gains and invest their capital where they can secure the best gains. The opportunities for Australia to export goods and services to the world will come when we back them by minimising the regulation burdens and the tax burdens to build this country's future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Goldstein will be given an opportunity at that time to finish his contribution. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 7484 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Workplace Relations 7484 13:30 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton If we do not pass Labor's penalty rates bill today, in 10 days 700,000 workers will get a pay cut. On the same day, those that make $1 million a year will get a $16,400 tax cut. It does not stop there. There will be more pay cuts for those workers on 1 July next year, there will be more pay cuts for those workers on 1 July the year after that and also the year after that. Hospitality workers, retail workers and pharmacy workers are the victims of Malcolm Turnbull's indifference and callous disregard for workers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The member for Gorton will refer to members by their titles. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 The Liberal Party and the National Party show a loathing toward hardworking Australians. The Prime Minister said Labor's defence of workers is the politics of envy. This is not the politics of envy, this is the absence of empathy by the Prime Minister and the government. More workers, hairdressers and club employees will suffer the same way. We know the Prime Minister likes to pretend he has struggled. He tells people he financially struggled. He has his own log cabin story. The problem is his log cabins were made of gold—his logs were made of bars of gold. That is why he has no understanding of the struggle people will have a result of these pay cuts. But Labor understands and we will defend these workers and ensure that they get their justice. Gilmore Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 7485 13:31 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore This week I have welcomed Jessica Weakley, a work experience student from Bomaderry High. She has written for me, and her words are as follows: Australia is a nation of extraordinary people. It fills me with pride to say that no part of our country is greater than Gilmore. It is only fitting that some of those individuals who work tirelessly for their community should be recognised. The Queen acknowledges such people on her birthday honours list. The awards give tribute to people who are achieving and are committed to their community. The Queen's honour roll celebrates without discrimination, recognising males and females, young and old from all walks of life. I would like to acknowledge some of the Gilmore residents who were recently honoured: Tina Philip for her service to community health and nursing; Rodney Austin for service to surf lifesaving; Keven Marshall for his dedication to marine rescue; John Downton, a fabulous community artist; Commander Marc Pavillard for his unerring duty and performance in the Royal Australian Navy; Chief Petty Officer Phillip Hirschausen for his excellent achievement in Navy avionics; Peter Butler, whose charity organisations have helped countless people; and finally, Detective Chief Inspector Kevin McNeil for his involvement in the New South Wales Police Force. Each of these people went above and beyond the usual expected effort. I will summarise by saying that a community is a reflection of the residents, and our people outshine so many others by their actions, their generosity, their volunteering, their service and their professionalism. Gilmore is a great community. Thank you, Jessica. Workplace Relations 7485 13:33 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In 10 days 700,000 workers will have their penalty rates cut—people who are working in retail, hospitality and pharmacy, the workforces of which are predominantly women. We are talking about women who work in retail saying that they will lose up to $6,000 a year because their Sunday penalty rate will be cut. These are women who say that they spend that penalty rate on their kids, paying their bills or making sure that their kids can participate in basketball. What are we seeing at the other end? On exactly the same day, people who are in the top income bracket will get a tax cut. Millionaires will get up to $16,000 back in their pay. Are we surprised that those opposite are not standing up for women and instead standing up for people in the top income tax bracket? Only 24 per cent of people in the top income tax bracket are women, meaning that 76 per cent of people in the top income tax bracket are men. We are talking about 1.5 per cent of women. That is who will benefit on 1 July from this government—1.6 per cent of Australian women. That is it. But we should not be surprised, when it comes from a government where the statistics match up. Only 25 per cent of their members of parliament are women. That matches up with the figure for the people in the top income tax bracket—25 per cent. That is who this mob cares about— Honourable members interjecting— Ms CHESTERS 249710 a bunch of blokes in the top tax bracket. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Before I call the member for Flynn, I realise it is the last day, but I am issuing a general warning to both sides of the House. I will not allow this time to descend into rabble. It is only 90 seconds—that is why I am reluctant to interfere in that short time. Flynn Electorate: Mount Larcom Show 7486 13:35 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I am looking forward to this weekend, and let's hope we are all home by then. Dr Chalmers 37998 You look forward to every weekend! Mr O'DOWD 139441 Yes, that is true too. There is a great thing about Mount Larcom: its district show. It hosts a two-day agricultural show with stud cattle, horseriding events, show dogs, dairy goat displays, poultry competitions, ute musters, pavilion displays, woodchopping, market stalls, sideshow alley and fireworks. This is a great country show. There are 129 rural shows in Queensland. The volunteers work for nothing on Saturday and Sunday—so there you go. Growing up just outside of Mount Larcom, we looked forward to the Mount Larcom show every year. It has been going solid since 1952—it had a break during the war years. Mount Larcom show is a jewel in the local show circuit. It has strong local support, with hundreds of local exhibits. People travel from Rockhampton, Gladstone, Killiby and Biloela to exhibit their produce and animals and to take part in one of the state's great shows. Mount Larcom is a popular show because of its variety: stud and prime cattle, showjumping, horse hacking, poultry, chainsaw events—we had the Australian chainsaw competition last year—freestyle motorbike stunts, face painting, magicians and, of course, fantastic fireworks. The show is on this weekend, the 24th and 25th. Workplace Relations 7486 13:36 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Here are the facts. Fact: we are in a climate where wages growth is at its lowest. Fact: we are at a time where underemployment—where people want to work more but cannot do it—is at its highest level. Fact: on 1 July, 700,000 Australians look like they will get $77 taken out of their pay packets because of penalty rate cuts. Fact: this government could do something about it. Fact: this government will not do anything about it. They could easily back the bill, brought in by the member for Gorton, that would protect those workers. They know they could support this right now. They will not. What is the answer to all this? Fact: this government is going to cut millionaires' taxes by $16,400. Another fact: from Blacktown to Mount Druitt, over 10,000 people face the prospect of a penalty rate cut. This is not good enough. They should not be facing a wage cut in a climate where wages are growing at such a low rate and where they see, on the other side of town, a constituent in the Prime Minister's own electorate will be getting a tax cut. This is wrong, particularly for women, who will face the worst impact of these penalty rate cuts. The fact of the matter is that the coalition is supporting penalty rate cuts. They have their cheerleaders there doing it, and they are doing the wrong thing by working Australians. Berowra Electorate: Pacific Hills Christian School 7486 13:38 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I was honoured to open recently the senior school extension at Pacific Hills Christian School in my electorate in Dural. I want to acknowledge Stephen Trew, the chairman of the council; Dr Ted Boyce, one of the legendary figures of education in my area—he has had 32 years as principal there—Tina Lamont and Andrew Waters, assistant principals; Phil Stanton, one of the great institutional architects of our country; David McInnes, who was the builder; and the school captains, Georgia Goulet and Ivan Yip. The school extension involved a gym, five new general learning areas, and science facilities, including a lab and research areas. Science, technology, engineering and maths will provide the jobs of the future, and it is very important that our school students have a background in these areas. I want to congratulate Dr Boyce, Stephen Trew and the entire school leadership on raising an extraordinary $2.9 million for the development, and I am pleased to say that the federal government was able to contribute $300,000 through the Capital Grants Program. While we are talking about federal funding, it is important to note that as a result of the federal budget, Pacific Hills Christian School will receive $72½ million over the next 10 years. That is an increase of $6 million. New facilities are always a cause for celebration, but it is the teachers, students and parents who give the spirit to the school. From the sacrifice of the parents, to the education provided by the teachers, to the Christian principles of service on which the community and school focus on, Pacific Hills Christian School ensures that graduates go on to become productive and engaged members of our community. I wish the staff and students well. Gender Equality 7487 13:40 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Equality for women is at the heart of Labor's enduring values. It is not only in our platform but is also central to policy development and implementation. Consecutive Labor governments have delivered some of the biggest social, economic and political reforms for Australian women. It was Labor governments that reopened the equal pay case, opened up the minimum wage to Australian women, and, indeed, made no-fault divorce proceedings accessible, so that women could escape violence. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Goldstein is warned! Ms CLAYDON 248181 The successes of Labor governments are also very clear to see in this chamber today. It is Labor governments that take seriously political representation of Australian women. There are more Labor women sitting on Labor's front bench than the entire representation of women in the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives. Opposition members interjecting— Ms CLAYDON 248181 It is a shame. I stand here proud of Labor's legacy and energised by our successes, but I know that there is still a lot of work to be done. Women are still more likely to be living in poverty in Australia. We retire, on average, with less than half the superannuation of men. Older women are quickly becoming part of the growing group of people in poverty. That is what a lifetime of gender pay gaps and unpaid caring roles results in. And these attacks on penalty rates, which will push women even further into poverty, make matters worse. Under the Liberals, we have slipped from ninth to 46th placing in the global gender equality rankings. That is what happens when you do not treat women as equal partners in this country. (Time expired) Bonner Electorate: Roads 7488 13:41 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner It is with great pleasure today that I announce that the federal government has committed $10 million to go towards the Brisbane City Council's upgrade of Green Camp Road. This adds to the Brisbane City Council's $18 million investment to improve the Green Camp Road corridor. Construction works are due to start next year. This will include the widening of Green Camp Road between Manly Road and Rickertt Road. It will also include the much-needed fixes to the notorious Green Camp Road and Rickertt Road intersection. I have spoken before about the issues commuters between Brisbane and Redland City face every day on these roads. Around 1,000 vehicles pass through the Green Camp Road-Rickertt Road intersection during peak times. This can bring traffic to a standstill for up to two kilometres. Countless people have come to me over the years asking for a fix to this problem. Thanks to the combined federal and council efforts, commuters will receive an upgrade for the Green Camp Road corridor much sooner. As well as reducing congestion, the project will improve safety for drivers due to improved signalling. I thank Lord Mayor Graham Quirk and local councillors Adrian Schrinner and Ryan Murphy for funding this vital upgrade. I also want to thank the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming for his advocacy on behalf of the Redland residents, which together has allowed us to secure the federal government's contribution to this project. I look forward to seeing work completed on this vital upgrade for the Bonner commuters. Workplace Relations 7488 13:43 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan In just over a week, 10 days to be exact, the Prime Minister will give millionaires a gift of a tax cut of $16,400 and on that same day low-paid workers will get a wage cut. Seven hundred thousand ordinary workers will have their penalty rates cut. Why? Because the Turnbull government does not care about everyday hardworking Australians. Why? Because the Turnbull government is out of touch. This is a government that is determined, that is dedicated, to helping the big end of town while sneering down their noses at hardworking everyday Australians just trying to make ends meet. Like everything this government does, this is an ill-conceived, ill thought-out move with no thought—none—given to those that it will affect, the people who will suffer. These penalty rate cuts come at a time when unemployment, particularly in Western Australia and even more so in Cowan, is at a record highs and wages growth is at a record lows. It is quite simply cruel and heartless to compound this by taking money from the pockets of our lowest paid workers. And women are going to be particularly hit hard by this—women who are more highly represented in retail and hospitality; women who, like I once was, are single parents raising children and working and studying to try to better themselves and their families; women who are tending to their children and working late nights. Shame on you! (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I will remind members to address their comments through the chair. We are not going to degenerate into a shouting match. Australian Filipino Association of the Central Coast 7488 13:44 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to honour the Australian Filipino Association of the Central Coast. The annual AFACC Charity Queen Quest was held last Saturday night. For 20 years, the local Filipino fundraisers have shown the heart of our social fabric on the Central Coast. I would like to acknowledge all of the contestants, including Michelle O'Beirne, Hazel Pormento, Ann Raad, Alida Hannah and Dewi Pertama. Our Charity Queen contenders are testament to the heartbeat of our local Central Coast community. This year, the contestants decided to support the wonderful Mary Mac's Place in Woy Woy and raised an outstanding $8,000. Mary Mac's provides 80 meals a day to people in need on the Central Coast, and the money raised by the Charity Queen contestants will help provide 1,600 meals for those who need it most. Today I pay tribute to the 2016 Australian Filipino Association of the Central Coast Charity Queen, Madonna Arnusch, for all her hard work over the past 12 months. Thank you, Madonna, for all that you do for our community. I also acknowledge the 2017 Charity Queen, Michelle O'Beirne, and congratulate her on her achievement. I have no doubt that Michelle will be an outstanding advocate for our community. I thank the team—June Young, Perla Dixon and Christine Lawrence—for their dedication, their fundraising commitment and their commitment to the Central Coast and I thank the Australian Filipino Association of the Central Coast for embodying the heartbeat of our community. Turnbull Government 7489 13:46 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Lalor thanks you for getting the pronunciation of her electorate correct today! We have heard a lot about consistency from our Prime Minister in the last few days. I am starting to think about consistency and I have found some threads of consistency. It is consistent that those opposite look after the big end of town. It is consistent that those opposite do things that hurt low- and middle-income families. There is definitely some consistency there. This goes to trust. Can the Australian public trust that they will be consistent on the other side? Oh yes, they can. They have seen it in education, where the wealthy schools are going to get more money and the poorer state and Catholic schools are going to get less money. They are seeing it with tax cuts for the wealthy, the top end of town, millionaires—$16,000 extra in their pocket—while the lowest paid, the most insecure in our workforce, those who work for penalty rates, 700,000 of them—13,000 in my electorate—from next week will look at a $77 a week pay cut. There is consistency in this chamber all right. It goes together with the unfairness that is coming from this government. This government is consistently unfair. That is what we know. The Australian public cannot trust the government to be fair, no matter how many times they use the word. They are consistent all right—consistently unfair. Environmental Conservation 7489 13:48 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to highlight the important work this government is undertaking to preserve our natural environment in my electorate of O'Connor. Last week we committed an extra $2 million to support the recovery of threatened species, and I am delighted to see that some of this work will be happening in my electorate. We will allocate $165,000 to protect one of the last remaining wild populations of numbats in Western Australia. This money, which matches a commitment from the Foundation for Australia's Most Endangered Species, will fund a dog program in Dryandra Woodland. A local group of wildlife enthusiasts, the Numbat Task Force, will run this project to control feral cats in the woodland. We hope that reducing the number of cats will protect the numbat and several other native animals that live in the region. The government has also committed $200,000 to support four rare species of plants: the matchstick banksia, the black grevillea, the scaly-leaved featherflower and the glossy-leaved hammer orchid. The matchstick banksia, in particular, is found only in the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia. It is estimated only 500 of these plants are left in the wild, so it is vital that we take action now to protect this species from extinction. In O'Connor, we are lucky enough to have one of the most diverse collections of wildlife and plant life that you will find anywhere in Australia. It is great to see the government is taking action to ensure that biodiversity is not lost to our future generations. Workplace Relations 7490 13:49 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Time is running out. Under this out-of-touch Prime Minister, under this out-of-touch government, in just 10 days time, millionaires will get a tax cut, and, in just 10 days time, 700,000 Australian workers right across the nation—13,000 of them here in Canberra—will get a pay cut. Mark the difference: in 10 days time, there will be a tax cut for the top end of town and a pay cut for those workers—those hardworking 700,000 workers right across Australia, 13,000 of them here in Canberra. The thing that is so galling about this is the fact that these penalty rate cuts target, disproportionately, women. They make the gender pay gap even worse. And it will not affect just their take-home pay today. This pay cut will have a knock-on effect for these women's lives for decades and decades and decades because it does not affect just their take-home pay today; it impacts on their super—on their retirement incomes. So these outrageous cuts are going to have a knock-on effect for decades and decades and decades, and they are going to disproportionately affect the women of Australia. Outrageous! Shameful! Riseley, Mr Ian 7490 13:51 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I would like to inform the House of the very proud achievement of a local resident of Goldstein from the local Rotary Club of Sandringham who has been elected to be President of Rotary International, Mr Ian Riseley. Ian has been a Rotary member for 39 years and has served Rotary as treasurer, director, trustee, Rotary International board and executive committee member, task force member and district governor. I hope his success as Rotary International's president is glorious because, when it comes down to it, he has made an incredible contribution already— Opposition members interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I am glad to hear that members opposite are getting excited, because it is going to be glorious, because the theme he has set for Rotary International for the next year is 'Rotary: Making a Difference'. Recently, he was quoted as saying: Doing good in the world is everyone's goal. We must learn from the experience of the polio eradication program to maximize our public awareness exposure for future partnerships. And he continued: Governments see Rotary as positive representatives of a civil society. I could not agree with him more. And he finished by saying: We should work with them to advocate for peace and conflict resolution, just as we are advocating for polio eradication. I want to congratulate Ian and the Rotary Club of Sandringham on behalf of all members in this House. It makes us so proud as Australians to see a fellow Australian take on the role of President of Rotary International. Workplace Relations 7491 13:52 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen As we have heard today, in 10 days time, the landscape for Australian workers will change. In the seat of McEwen, some 8,000 people are about to get their wages cut because of the decision of those opposite. Nearly $19 million is going to be taken out of the working-class economy, as people have their wages cut, just because the ideologues over there do not believe in penalty rates. That is an average of $2½ thousand dollars per year per person. On top of that, pensioners are going to lose some $370 a year. Why? Because of those opposite, who like to come into this place, like the Prime Minister, draped in the Australian flag, and pontificate about Australian values. Well, I will tell you what: Australian values are not about offshoring your millions of dollars to avoid paying tax in this country. Aussie values are not: ripping off low-paid workers and pensioners so you can give yourself and your millionaire mates a $16,000 tax cut. This government needs to wake up to itself, reverse these pay cuts for working people and reverse the decision to give millionaires $16,000 tax cuts. Aussie values are: standing up for Australian workers, not standing on them! Honourable members interjecting— Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Shut up, you moron! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will withdraw. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG And the member for McEwen is warned. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, he will not seek to argue the point. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I'm not arguing about that. The SPEAKER 00APG You can be thrown out before question time. It is quite novel, but it can happen. La Trobe Electorate: Puffing Billy 7491 13:54 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to congratulate Puffing Billy steam train for the fantastic work done by the volunteers—in actual fact, there are over 400 volunteers there— the CEO, John Robinson, and all their board. It is a steam train which was created back in the 1900s, initially for logging. It runs for 29 kilometres. For those rail enthusiasts, it is a narrow gauge, which means it is five foot three inches wide. Now, it is very much focused on tourism. With the beautiful Belgrave trestle bridge, it is a fantastic trip where we have so many international and interstate tourists, and locals, who sit out the back of the open carriage with their feet out. However, in inclement weather, people are desperate to do something when they get to Lakeside. That is why, in the last federal election, I and the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, committed $5.5 million to an Emerald discovery centre. It is something I am very proud of. In the last state Labor budget, we were expecting some good news. Sadly, though, the money did not arrive. I call on the state Labor government to get out there and actually support Puffing Billy. It is internationally recognised. As I said, 500,000 tourists each year go there. Let's get behind this. Let's create jobs. Let's do something which Victorians will be proud of right across Australia and the world. (Time expired) Budget 7492 13:56 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Today is the last day before the winter parliamentary recess, and you can imagine the conversations going on on the other side of the chamber. 'Where are you going on your European holiday? Lake Como, the South of France or maybe Wimbledon for some Pimm's and Devonshire tea.' And then the Prime Minister comes into the conversation and trumps them all. He says: 'Colleagues, guess what I am doing on the winter recess? On 1 July, I am giving millionaires a $16,000 tax cut.' They say, 'Oh, pip, pip!' He says: 'It gets better, colleagues. I am then going to cut the wages of 700,000 Australians.' They say, 'Tally-ho!' It sounds like a caricature because it is. It sounds like class warfare because it is. The Reserve Bank governor says that wage growth in this country is at crisis point. The response of those opposite is to cut wages. Government members interjecting— Mr WATTS 193430 I hear those opposite interjecting. If you do not like it—if you do not like the way it sounds or the way it looks—do something about it. Time is running out. You can stop this pay cut to 700,000 Australians. You can stop this pay cut for hospitality workers and for retail workers—for hardworking Australians who just want reward for their effort, who cannot hire an accountant to fix the rules of the game in their favour and who turn up every day trying to make their life better, make life for their family better and make this country better. Those opposite ought to be ashamed. If they want to be able to look at their constituents in the winter recess, they should act now. (Time expired) North Sydney Electorate: Community Services 7492 13:57 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I have spoken in this chamber before about the incredible contribution being made within our local communities by the thousands of people who volunteer to help others every year. It is occasionally easy to think that, in our busy cities, we have become a more impersonal society, yet I see the opposite across my electorate. Most of those who volunteer do so not expecting acknowledgements or accolades. Nonetheless, it is important we acknowledge those who really are the glue that holds our communities together. It is why later this year I am organising the North Sydney Community Awards. Those awards, which were established by my predecessor Joe Hockey, are an opportunity for us to say thanks to those who are volunteering or working in my electorate to help others. Nominations for the awards close on Friday, 11 August 2017, and nomination forms can be obtained by calling my office. Through the awards, we will acknowledge the efforts of those working with local community organisations, be they community service providers, our emergency services, those working to protect our environment and heritage or people supporting our schools and sporting clubs. As part of the awards, we will recognise the role of local community groups and older volunteers. There is also a specific category for younger residents, as one of the most inspiring aspects of my job as an MP is meeting the many young Australians—including schoolchildren—who give back to their local area. I encourage local residents to think about nominating someone who is making a difference to our community so they can be recognised at the awards ceremony on Friday, 15 September. Budget 7493 13:59 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield The first of July 2017 will be a black day in the short, miserable history of the Turnbull government. It will be the day the practical manifestations of this government's bleak economic policy hit home for every household in the nation. It will be the day when Mr Turnbull hands a 16 grand tax cut to millionaires, when he redistributes the nation's wealth to the very rich. It will be the day this government reveals itself as the millionaires factory, as a bankers government, as an exclusive club. It is also the day that 700,000 retail and hospitality workers will get a pay cut. That will be the day they get a government-sanctioned cut to their penalty rates. After all of the spin and the slogans, after the Treasurer's miserable apology on budget night about low wages growth, this will be the government's real agenda stripped bare: a tax cut for the very rich, for the idle rich; a pay cut for the working poor. It is an assault on the Australian ethos, on the fair go—a black day in the history of a miserable government. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 7493 CONDOLENCES Sciacca, Hon. Concetto Antonio 'Con', AO 7493 Reference to Federation Chamber 7495 14:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 7496 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Turnbull Government 7496 14:10 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, because of his Liberal government, when this parliament adjourns, if you are a pensioner, a weekend worker, a household with rising electricity costs or a parent of a child in a public or a Catholic school, you lose? And if you are a millionaire or the parent of a child at the elite The King's School, you win? Prime Minister, how on earth is this fair? 14:11 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I can confirm that, as a result of the work of this government and this parliament, we have ensured that Medicare is guaranteed. We are working now in the Senate to ensure that Australian children get a nationally consistent, transparent and needs based education funding model, as recommended by David Gonski and as espoused—in theory, at least—by the Labor Party for so many years, but never delivered. I can remind the Leader of the Opposition, who talks about rising energy prices, that he might well talk about his party's role in putting them where they are. It was not a Liberal government that allowed so much gas to be exported from Queensland without any regard to the consequences for the domestic market. It was not a Liberal-National government that decided to push renewable energy targets in South Australia without any regard to sustainability, storage or backup. But it is a Liberal-National government, it is a coalition government, that is taking action now on gas prices—that is taking action now on gas prices and that is taking action now, which Labor never went near, to stop energy companies from making re-hearing applications to decisions by the Australian Energy Regulator in respect of what they can charge for their poles and wires. Mr Bowen DZS What did you say in the election campaign? You said it was sovereign risk! Mr TURNBULL 885 I hear the member for McMahon always posing at the dispatch box as an advocate for the workers and the consumers. But when he gets away from the microphone and his inner self comes out, we hear what he is really up to. He just said, 'That's sovereign risk!' Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 That is what he said! He said it is sovereign risk. What he is saying is that ensuring that Australian businesses have the gas they need is a sovereign risk. That is right! What about ensuring that companies that own the poles and wires are not able to game the system and charge more and more, and add $6½ billion to consumers' costs? The reform that the minister for energy has announced is one that is consistent with the way that other utility sectors are treated, so it is thoroughly consistent. It removes an anomaly, it protects consumers and it protects businesses. And what does the member for McMahon say? 'Oh, it's a sovereign risk.' I will tell you what the biggest sovereign risk in Australia is—a Labor government! We won't have one! Schools 7497 14:14 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the importance of needs based school funding that is fair, transparent and consistent for all students, including in my electorate of Dunkley? 14:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the member for his question. I thank him for his commitment to ensuring that all Australian students and all Australian schools have the benefit of generous needs based funding—consistent and transparent right across the country. The Labor Party promised that. They talked about it but never delivered it. Twenty-seven secret deals—all inconsistent! They talk about a schools policy. They do not have a schools policy. They have a mishmash of inconsistent deals entrenching disadvantage. The only need they answered was political need. If members opposite had the integrity and the conviction that they claim to have, they would be supporting this reform. They would be supporting this reform in the same way that David Gonski is, that Ken Boston is and that one leading educationalist after another are around the country. The time has come to end all the special deals, to end the secret deals, to end the inconsistencies and to have one consistent national needs based platform for funding Australian schools. That is what we are delivering, and we are delivering it for the first time. This is record funding for schools. It is record funding for every sector—government, Catholic, independent right across the board. Every school in the member for Dunkley's electorate benefits from it—over $330 million of additional funding over the next decade. That demonstrates our commitment to the values that we espouse of ensuring that every Australian has the best chance to get ahead. When it comes to values and consistency, we see none from the Labor Party. Yesterday, we saw the Labor Party's response to John Setka's extraordinary threats where he threatened to track down inspectors of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, follow them to their homes, threaten them in the street, threaten their children. He was threatening violence to government officials in an extraordinary way at a rally to which the Leader of the Opposition had sent a letter of support. This is to a rally that he knew his party guest, John Setka, was going to be speaking—a man with dozens of convictions and a criminal record as long as your arm. The Leader of the Opposition backed him in. Today, will he condemn him? No. A mild rap over the knuckles with a wet lettuce. That is the best he can do. He fails the character test with Setka as he does with education. (Time expired) Schools 7497 14:18 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not answer when asked to confirm that Fregon Anangu School will lose over $100,000 next year compared to actual funding it received in 2015. The Prime Minister later added to his answer but refused to compare funding to 2015. So I ask: what is the difference between the actual funding that Fregon Anangu School received in 2015 and what they will get next year under this Prime Minister? They are going to get $100,000 less, aren't they? 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. I refer her to the answer I gave yesterday about the increase in funding allocated by the Commonwealth to that school. I am sorry that she was not in the House to hear it, owing to a her transmissions of regular interjections being interrupted by an objection. I have inquired of the minister. There has not been, I am advised, any reduction in the amount of funding per student allocated by the Commonwealth in respect of the school at Fregon. The honourable member knows that the My School site shows the amount of Commonwealth funding that a state decides to allocate to a particular school, not the amount of money the Commonwealth determines should be given to the state in respect of that school. I am glad the honourable member is listening. There are two figures here. Firstly, the Commonwealth have to assess the needs of the school and determine the amount of funding, and we are doing that now thoroughly, transparently and consistently. If the money goes to a state government or, indeed, to a Catholic school system, it goes in one block and that system—be it a state, a Catholic or another system—is able to allocate it as they wish. The point is that the funding amount in My School is determined by the state government. It is the amount of Commonwealth funding that it allocates. I repeat: the amount of funding allocated by the Commonwealth per student for Fregon is increasing—it is increasing on the basis that is set out in the estimator. The state of South Australia has, apparently, chosen to allocate more Commonwealth funding to that school and presumably less to other schools, otherwise their total funding package would not add up. That is the answer. It is very clear. The Commonwealth's allocation of funding to that school has been consistent and growing. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting. I think the last one was the member for Mackellar—I might be doing him an injustice. The member for Lalor and the member for Braddon were interjecting consistently through the answer. I warn them. Agriculture Industry 7498 14:21 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House how the government's achievements support hardworking Australians in the agricultural sector? Is the minister aware of any threats to the sector's ongoing success? 14:21 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. We have had so much to celebrate in the agricultural sector since we have been the government. This sector, on the last GDP figures, is the fastest-growing sector in our nation. This sector has grown since we have been in government, through its national gross value of agricultural production, by 29 per cent, taking it close to $63 billion. It is a sector that is also standing behind the $1 million on the table for Casino Beef Week. I know how important beef is, because of the record prices we are getting and the dignity that is coming back into people's lives with record beef prices. There are also record prices in sheepmeat and for wool. This is by reason of all the work that has been done through the free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan. That hard work has been built on and is delivering back to people. It is not just that; it is the $8.4 billion that we put on the table for the Inland Rail, to create a corridor of commerce from Melbourne to Brisbane, through Seymour, Wodonga, Parkes, Narrabri, Moree, Goondiwindi and Toowoomba. It is also a corridor of prosperity. There is also the $4 billion Regional Investment Corporation. That is so important, with $2 billion worth of infrastructure loans. There is the decentralisation of the APVMA, the GRDC and the RIRDC. There is money on the table for Dungowan Dam, Rookwood Weir, the McAlister irrigation district and the south-west Loddon pipeline. There is further access for chilled beef into China. You asked what the threats are. I can tell you what a threat sounds like. A threat sounds like this—and I quote John Setka: Let me give a dire warning to the ABCC inspectors: be careful what you do. …   …   … We will lob in their neighbourhoods. … We will go to their local footy club. We will go to the local shopping centre. They will not be able to show their faces anywhere. Their kids will be ashamed of who their parents are … This Mr Setka from the CFMEU has been convicted of or charged with 40 separate crimes and five counts of assaulting police officers. I want to commend the member for Grayndler, who said: I find it extraordinary that any Australian would raise kids in particular. …   …   … I just think the idea that people should be targeted is completely reprehensible. …   …   … The comments are offensive. …   …   … I completely repudiate them…I don't know the bloke. He does not know the bloke, but the Leader of the Opposition does. He knows the bloke. He made him a guest of honour at his election night party. Why was Mr Setka there—after-dinner speaker, to entertain the kids, colour and movement with coffee and cream? This is a person who is not going to dignify the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, and you know you should come to the dispatch box and repudiate him. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr JOYCE E5D You were standing beside Mr Setka— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have asked— Mr Joyce interjecting— Opposition members: Sit down! The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. I now point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that I asked him on three or four occasions to resume his seat. I was again going to request him to refer to members by their correct titles. Schools 7499 14:25 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister Data from the New South Wales government confirms that Sarah Redfern Public School in Minto in south-west Sydney will lose $960,000 over the next two years alone. Today I spoke to the principal of Sarah Redfern High, who says these cuts will mean up to eight fewer teaching positions as well as reduced support for at-risk students, Indigenous students, English-as-a-second-language, and gifted and talented students. How is it fair that this high school loses money while the elite King's School gets a $19 million increase? 14:26 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I can confirm to the member for Sydney that, in New South Wales, the government schools will receive a 4.8 per cent increase under the Turnbull government's plan, the Catholic schools will receive a 3.6 per cent increase under the Turnbull government's plan and the independent schools will receive a 3.8 per cent increase under the Turnbull government's plan. As for the Labor opposition's commitments, well, we know that the member for Sydney is talking about 'funny money'. This is what she had to say when she was asked on Sky about the $22 billion over the next decade. She said: 'Well, we'll have to work out exactly what the figures are as the next election approaches.' This is what the member for Port Adelaide had to say when he was asked about the funny money: 'It's not going to be $22 billion, necessarily.' So you cannot take the Labor Party at their word. But what you can do is take the Turnbull government's word, and we are moving to increase school funding by $18.6 billion. We are helping more than 9,000 schools be better off, with a 75 per cent increase. According to the member for Sydney's own electorate, we will see 40 schools, 14,000 students, better off by an average of $2.5 million under the Turnbull government's plan. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 7500 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:27 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to acknowledge in the gallery this afternoon five officials from the PNG Treasury who have been on a five-week training program with our Commonwealth Treasury. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 7500 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Papua New Guinea: General Election 7500 14:28 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi () (): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, Papua New Guinea will hold its national election from 24 June to 8 July. Colleagues, you may be interested to know that there are 3,324 candidates, of whom 165 are women and, since independence in 1975, only seven women have been elected to that parliament. There are 45 political parties, and I am sure everyone would like to know that 2,620, or 79 per cent, of the candidates are independent. So my question to the minister is this: Is the Australian government supporting an increase in the number of women candidates running for election? What is being done to ensure fair and free elections for the people of Papua New Guinea? (Time expired) 14:29 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Indi for her question. Papua New Guinea is our closest neighbour. In fact, only four kilometres separates us at our closest point. Our historic and wartime experiences have forged our very deep and close friendship, but our contemporary partnership is based on a broad and growing relationship in trade and investment, security cooperation and people-to-people links through education and sport, in particular, and our development assistance partnership with PNG is Australia's largest. Papua New Guinea is in fact a vibrant democracy, and the Australian government is responding to a request from the PNG government to assist in the preparations for their national elections, which will commence on 24 June. Through the Australian Electoral Commission, we are providing logistical and operational planning. We have provided training for over 30,000 PNG staff, who will be required to be involved in the election. The Australian Defence Force is also providing helicopters and planes to transport personnel and deliver election materials across PNG. The member for Indi points out that the PNG government is keen to increase the number of women contesting this election, and the Australian government is supporting a range of initiatives increasing not only voter awareness but also the opportunities for women to take part. We have in fact trained 127 potential female candidates and, as the member rightly points out, 165 women are contesting this election. We have also provided support through the Pacific Leadership and Governance Precinct, which is providing training and opportunities for enhancing leadership amongst the PNG public service, particularly women. I am pleased to announce that not only are we supporting the PNG government through the electoral process; a delegation of parliamentarians from the Australian parliament will in fact by deployed to PNG to observe the elections. I want to thank the member for Indi, the member for Bowman, Senator Claire Moore and Senator Linda Reynolds for taking part in this delegation. The Australian government's support for the PNG elections, through this delegation and through other initiatives, demonstrates our support for democracies in the Pacific. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of this House when we wish the people of PNG all the very best for their national elections between 24 June and 8 July, and we look forward to working with the newly elected leadership of PNG once this election has been completed. National Security 7501 14:32 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection measures? What are the risks associated with alternative approaches? 14:32 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. It is the case, as all Australians know, that this government is absolutely resolute when it comes to border protection policies. We have taken tough decisions to make sure that we can stop the drownings at sea, to make sure that we can stop the boats and that we can get kids out of detention, and we have closed 17 detention centres. That has not been the case for every government, for every party, in the Australian political landscape. As we know, the Labor Party, having inherited from John Howard the situation where boats had stopped and there were only four people in detention undid all of that policy, and so, when we went to the last election, the reality was that Labor could only stitch up a deal by working with the unions at their national conference. As people know, you cannot get policy through the Labor Party, unless it passes their conference. So all of the unions come together and they vote for or against policy. The trouble for the Leader of the Opposition is that the Left and the Right were divided when it came to boat policy, which of course resulted in 50,000 people coming on 800 boats and 1,200 people drowning at sea. What happened was that there was a dodgy deal stitched up at the Labor Party conference between the Leader of the Opposition, because he is the king of dodgy deals, and his friends from the CFMEU. I do not know if my colleagues can see this, but this is talking about— Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned; the minister knows the rules on props. Mr DUTTON 00AKI 'Left-wing union offers Shorten boats lifeline—this is by Andrew Probyn and Nick Butterly in the WeekendWest in July of 2015. It says: 'The militant left-wing construction union is expected to swing behind Bill Shorten's embrace of boat turnbacks to ensure the Labor leader is not embarrassed by an ALP revolt.' What has happened here is that this Leader of the Opposition has tried to fool the Australian public into believing that they actually have in the Labor Party the same resolve to stop boats and put the people smugglers out of business that we do. But we know it is not the case. We have seen in the headlines of The Australian and elsewhere over the course of the last couple of days that John Setka from the Victorian branch of the CFMEU is a great friend of the Leader of the Opposition. He is a known criminal. He consorts with organised criminal figures and he is a great mate of the Leader of the Opposition. He even went to the election night party of the Leader of the Opposition. What would happen if the Leader of the Opposition became the Prime Minister at the next election? What would happen if Mr Setka was invited into the Lodge, for example? Worse still, what would happen if Mr Setka did not want to leave the Lodge? Imagine if Prime Minister Shorten turned up with a broken arm at question time and pretended he had slipped over at the Lodge, but actually he had been pushed down the steps by Mr John Setka, because that is the way these people operate. And let me tell you, Leader of the Opposition, if you consort with criminals, the Australian— (Time expired) Schools 7502 14:35 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The executive director of Catholic Education Melbourne, Mr Stephen Elder, has said that the Prime Minister continues to show 'disrespect for a sector that educates one in four students in this country'. Why are the Prime Minister and every member of his government persisting with a Catholic schools policy that the Catholic education community do not want? And why is the Prime Minister making it harder for parents to choose to send their children to Catholic schools by following a policy— (Time expired) 14:36 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Every contention made by the Leader of the Opposition in that question is false. The simple fact is that funding for Catholics schools is increasing in Victoria at 3½ per cent per annum, and it is a commitment to providing more funding, needs based, consistently and transparently, to the Catholic sector, as indeed it is on the same basis of needs to the public sector and, of course, to the independent schools. To be very clear about this: the Leader of the Opposition can do his best if he wants to try and play sectarian games in the House. We will not have a bar of it. I want to be very, very clear about this. Every dollar that goes to the Catholic systems goes in a block form for each state, and then it is allocated. The total sum is built up by a series of school-by-school allocations based on need and based on the SES methodology that has been used for years by governments, both coalition and Labor. It is consistent, needs based funding, but an increased sum—a substantially increased sum—goes to each Catholic system. The system in Victoria that he is speaking about is a very good example. They get a substantial increase in funding and they are then able to distribute it and use it among their schools as they see fit. It is entirely up to them. We are transparent about how the funding is determined. The Catholic system is then able to allocate it as they see fit and, presumably, explain it or justify it to their parents and their communities. That is the fact, and the contentions of fact the honourable member put to me in his question are just false. Mr Shorten 00ATG I seek leave to table the document which quotes Mr Elder saying 'the continuing disrespect for the system that educates one in four students in the country'. Leave not granted. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 7503 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:38 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery today a delegation of members from the parliament of India. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 7503 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Law Enforcement 7503 14:38 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment. What action is the government taking against officials of registered organisations who routinely break the law? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach? 14:39 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. This morning we witnessed one of those legendary train wreck interviews on Sky television between Tom Connell and the member for Watson, who was busily trying to look like he has many other things that are concerning him than listening to the answer to this question. We watched a train wreck interview between Tom Connell on Sky Television and the member for Watson about the bugbear which is the CFMEU, which the Labor Party cannot shake as long as the CFMEU is part of the inner circle of the Leader of the Opposition's advisers and funders. The member for Watson was asked eight times—he had eight different opportunities—about whether John Setka was fit to lead the CFMEU. Finally, Tom Connell said, 'Would you be pleased if the members decided that John Setka's leadership had had enough?' and the member for Watson said, 'I'm not going to tell the members of the union what to do.' The member for Watson will not tell members of the union what to do, but he is very happy for the union to tell the Labor Party what to do, he is very happy to let the CFMEU tell the Leader of the Opposition what to do, and he is very happy for the CFMEU to give $3 million of funding to the Labor Party since the Leader of the Opposition held that office, to be part of the preselections of candidates for this House and the state parliament, to be part of the policymaking process, to get the Labor Party to do the bidding of the CFMEU, led by a man who routinely breaks the law—he has been convicted and charged with at least 40 different offences over the course of the last few years, the latest one of which was blackmail—and was an honoured guest at the Leader of the Opposition's election night party. He will not do the right thing, not like Bob Hawke and John Cain did in Victoria when they deregistered the BLF and disaffiliated from that union. When John Setka worked for the BLF, when he was a young official with the BLF and then folded into the CFMEU, Bob Hawke was a real leader of the Labor Party. This fellow, who is leading you all, is involved with an organisation led by a man with a criminal past who says it is okay to routinely defy the law. As the minister for immigration has said in the past: 'Happy to pay the fines. Couldn't care less.' The action this opposition needs to take is to disaffiliate the CFMEU from the Labor Party. Stop taking their money. We will introduce in the spring session a bill to ban officials who routinely break the law from holding office in a registered organisation. We will introduce that bill in the spring session, and we expect the Leader of the Opposition to support it or will he again confirm that he is weak and soft on— (Time expired) Schools 7504 14:42 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Can the Prime Minister today guarantee that no parent will have to pay more to send their child to a Catholic school because of the Prime Minister's schools policy? 14:42 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth As the honourable member knows full well, the funding going to the Catholic system is increasing substantially. There is more money going to Catholic school systems. That is the fact. How the Catholic school systems manage their fees or allocate the money they are given by the Commonwealth is a matter for them. What we do is, transparently and consistently, set out how the needs based funding is determined. The Australian government determines the needs of each school and allocates money appropriately. How the Catholic administrators determine fees is a matter for them and them alone. Turnbull Government 7504 14:43 Mr IRONS HYM Swan My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is responsibly delivering on policies to ensure better days ahead for Australian families and businesses, including in my electorate of Swan? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Swan for his question and his passion for ensuring that Australians are getting the good government that they deserve from the Turnbull government, which is delivering on the better days that are ahead and the hundreds of thousands of extra jobs that have been created over the last 12 months, particularly some 110,000 extra full-time jobs in the last quarter alone, which are also benefiting his electorate of Swan. The Turnbull government has been getting on with the job. Over the past year, we have legislated to reduce the tax burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises. We have reduced the tax burden, particularly on small businesses, by increasing the threshold from $2 million to $10 million, and we have legislated to extend the instant asset write-off for those small businesses up to $10 million for a further 12 months. We have introduced and legislated a tax on the major banks in this country, which will ensure that they are contributing additionally to the task of providing the many important services and guaranteeing those services that Australians rely on around the country. Over the course of this fortnight alone, we have legislated to provide extra support to pensioners. We have lifted the Medicare threshold for low-income earners to ensure that their needs are respected. We have legislated to introduce the Medicare Guarantee Fund that guarantees Medicare and the funding for Medicare all around the country and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We have legislated to restore the pensioner concession card to some 90,000 Australians. And we have legislated to prevent tax fraud in the precious metals industry, including the Goldfinger rorts that were being undertaken by members of the Labor Party, including those who were on the Senate ticket for the last election, which was put forward and supported and adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. I am asked about alternative approaches. In the last 12 months, this is what the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have done. They have put unions before young unemployed people by opposing our program, the PaTH program, which would get young unemployed people into jobs. They have put unions above the interests of owner truck drivers. They have put unions ahead of students by opposing our reforms which would put real needs-based funding in place and would see more money flow to those students. And we know that they put unions ahead of the rule of law and order in the building and construction industry. Law and order is necessary to grow our construction industry and ensure that the $75 billion of extra funding that is going into infrastructure projects around the country, in particular, will be well spent and will not be wasted on the union rorts that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed by having John Setka come to his election party. (Time expired) Schools 7505 14:47 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his hit list of 300 schools he claims are overfunded is still secret, that this list includes some of the most disadvantaged schools in the country, including 150 public schools in Lingiari, and that he is keeping government data on his cuts to schools hidden, including from members of his own government. Prime Minister, how do you expect senators and members to vote on your cuts to schools when you refuse to be up-front about their full impact on the future of our children? 14:47 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The only hit list that honourable members opposite should be concerned about is John Setka's hit list, and that includes hardworking public servants. That is the hit list that the Labor Party is defending. That is the hit list and the conduct that the Labor Party is defending. The desperate efforts of the Labor Party to mislead and deceive Australians about the nature of our education reforms are extraordinary. Mr Keogh interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member can wave his arms around as much as he likes, but he cannot waive his party's failure over the years. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt will cease interjecting. The member for Burt is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 Their hypocrisy! Mr Keogh interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Their failure to have one single needs-based education policy! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt will leave under 94(a). The member for Burt then left the chamber— Mr TURNBULL 885 I say to the honourable member: he knows as well as I do, and as well as every member of this House does, that schools in his electorate are going to be massively better off as a result of this. There is more funding right across the nation, and it is needs based. He has many schools in his electorate which have very high needs. They will be getting additional funding under my government's program. Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lingiari! Mr TURNBULL 885 It is a commitment; it is needs based. And the Labor Party can quote phony figures as much as they like. They can quote their fantasy figures, which they never paid for, as much as they like, but Australians know we are committed to delivering— Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lingiari is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 the needs-based funding model that David Gonski recommended and that Labor claimed to respect and then betrayed. What was their policy described as by Ken Boston? A corruption of the Gonski model. That is strong language, but very apt. Labor failed the children of Australia; we are delivering for them. Law Enforcement 7506 14:49 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to our law enforcement agencies? Are there any threats to the integrity of our law enforcement? 14:50 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Berowra for that question. I was very pleased to update the House yesterday about our $321 million investment in the capability of the Australian Federal Police in last year's budget. That reminds us that no government is committed to the support of the Australian Federal Police like this one. But from the other side—we have heard about the vicious attack by the secretary of the CFMEU in Victoria, John Setka, on the hardworking men and women of the Australian Federal Police. We have also heard the shocking comments that he made about his intention to track down, expose and intimidate public servants. I am pleased to advise the House that the Australian Federal Police have received a referral from Minister Cash in relation to this matter, and they are currently evaluating it for criminal charges. Unfortunately, this is only the latest example of the culture of lawlessness that we see within the CFMEU. I could give the House a list of examples: the official who walked into a Gold Coast site and threatened workers there by saying, 'I know your phone number; I know where you live'; the CFMEU member who threatened to gang-rape one of our workplace inspectors— Mr Pasin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The member for Goldstein. The member for Barker is warned! Mr KEENAN E0J The reality is: the CFMEU have all the attributes of an organised crime gang and they have got the criminal associates and the rap sheets that go along with that. Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Brand is warned! Mr KEENAN E0J The real question is: why does the CFMEU still have so much influence over the Australian Labor Party? Why does John Setka still vote at the Australian Labor Party's national conference? Why does this Leader of the Opposition sit there in the face of all this evidence and do absolutely nothing? The answer is that this Leader of the Opposition is completely owned by this guy. He is completely owned by this guy. The CFMEU is the most powerful organisation within the Victorian Labor Party machine. Just last month we saw a senior Labor source briefing The Australian: … the CFMEU has taken over the branch and everyone is too scared to do anything about it. Over the last decade, the CFMEU has donated $8.7 million to the Australian Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition's leadership is dependent on the factional alliance that he has with the CFMEU. What will it take for this Leader of the Opposition to actually do something to stop the CFMEU from influencing his political party? What will it take for him to stop taking their money? How much evidence of lawlessness, how many crimes committed, will it take for you to take action? (Time expired) Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen has already been warned. Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting. Turnbull Government 7507 14:53 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it now clear that, because of this government's policies, when the parliament adjourns, millionaires will win, parents with children at The King's School will win, but pensioners will lose, people with rising electricity prices will lose, weekend workers will lose, children at public and Catholic schools will lose? Why does this Prime Minister only ever look after the big end of town and punish everybody else? Mr Chester interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will cease interjecting. 14:54 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member poses now as the champion of the workers—the same workers that he sold down the river, trading away their penalty rates, when he was a union official; the same workers who are threatened with violence by the CFMEU, by John Setka, a union official whom he depends on for his leadership and whom he will not condemn. He does not even have the courage to say that he should be sacked as an official of the CFMEU, any more than that hero from Watson was prepared to do—'Oh, it's a matter for the union.' After all, how much do you threaten people to actually get slammed by the member for Watson or the Leader of the Opposition? Let's be quite clear: what John Setka threatened to do was take thugs from his union and follow hardworking public servants around, follow them home, threaten them with violence, threaten them in front of their children and threaten them at their clubs. You would think that a Labor Party that cared about the rule of law and about Australian values would call for him to be sacked. And what they have done? Nothing at all—no denunciation at all. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— Ms Keay interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting and is warned. The member for Braddon has already been warned and will leave under 94(a). The member for Braddon then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 So we have seen nothing but the limpest of response from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Watson. Where is the champion of the law, the member for Isaacs? Has he been out there calling for action? Where has he been out there? They have done nothing to stand up for the rule of law. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I think those interjecting are missing the point. I simply refer members to my statements earlier in the week. This might be the last question time for a while, but, if members insist on disrupting the chamber and engaging in disorderly debate, they will be throwing themselves out. There might only be about 10 or 15 minutes to go, but I am not working on a quota. Mr TURNBULL 885 At a public rally organised by the head of the largest single financial backer of the Labor Party, a union that delivered the leadership of the Labor Party to the member for Maribyrnong, we have seen a criminal, John Setka, with a record of dozens of convictions stand up and threaten officials with violence—threaten to track, harass, bully and menace officials of the Commonwealth government working for the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And what is the Leader of the Opposition's response to that? A rather limp dissociation, without any conviction. But the real message he sends is that he does not believe the CFMEU is breaking the law. He does not believe the CFMEU is a threat to the law. He wants to abolish the ABCC. He wants to once again put those thugs above the law. That is where he has failed. (Time expired) Business Investment 7508 14:58 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House why the rule of law is vital in maintaining a stable flow of investment across Australia? Is the minister aware of any risks to this investment that would threaten the jobs of hardworking Australians? 14:59 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for her question, because on this side of the House we are very aware of the importance of investment flowing into the Australian economy. We know the fundamental link between investment in the Australian economy and the ability to drive economic growth and to drive jobs. That is why, as the coalition, we are so committed to making sure that there can be confidence in the rule of law, in the Australian economy and in the Australian political system. In fact, in 2016 the report on the Index of Economic Freedom has Australia currently ranked fifth overall in world rankings and noted, 'Strong rule of law protects property rights and helps to minimise corruption.' Now, that would seem like a very worthwhile goal; that would seem like a goal fundamental to ensuring continued economic growth and fundamental to ensuring we have the opportunity for Australians to be able to secure employment. The problem is this—and it goes to the member's questions: there are threats to the rule of law in Australia. In fact, the threats to the rule of law in Australia come directly from the culture of those opposite. In particular, we see the greatest threat come from those involved in the militant CFMEU. In particular we see— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Well, the member for Rankin is the last man talking, so he can leave under 94(a). The member for Rankin then left the chamber. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 The problem is that we have seen a culture in the Australian union movement which was epitomised by ACTU Sally McManus when she said: 'I don't think there's a problem with breaking it in relation to Australian laws.' If that is the permeating culture in the Australian union movement, what chance do we have? But it is not just Sally McManus; it is more than that because it is more endemic. Just this week, we saw Australian Manufacturers Workers Union of New South Wales Secretary Tim Ayres say: Sally McManus was right, comrades— we are— not going to be cowed into submission by … laws. That is another example of the culture in the CFMEU. The thing is, the Leader of the Opposition knows about this culture. When we talk about toxic donations, we are not talking about foreign entities that are making toxic donations; we are talking about the CFMEU. We are talking about the fact, for example, that they are taking money. The member for Griffith, the member for Werriwa, the member for Shortland and the member for Calwell—all of them—are affiliated with the CFMEU. All of them are prepared to turn a blind eye as the unions go about threatening children, as they go about threatening ordinary Australians and as they are prepared to trash the principle of rule of law. The Australian Labor Party are suckling on the teats of the CFMEU and they will keep taking that cash and remain in silence until such time as we can put in place strong laws like the ABCC. Taxation 7509 15:03 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister and this Liberal government, millionaires get a tax cut in just nine days time, but on the exact same day ordinary workers will get a pay cut. Prime Minister, how exactly is that fair? 15:03 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth That question came from a man who wrote a book claiming that there should be a 25 per cent company tax rate in Australia—he did. He was so convicted of this he wrote a book and said that the best way to get wages up was to lower business taxes. He said it will deliver investment and that will result in more employment and higher wages. Mr Bowen DZS I will send you an autographed one. Mr TURNBULL 885 Yes, he is going to autograph me one. I am sure he has plenty of unsold copies lying around. That was his conviction, and that is what we are doing: we are reducing company tax this current financial year. Businesses with up to $10 million turnover will pay 2½ per cent less company tax; next year it goes up to medium-sized businesses with up to $25 million a year turnover. We know, they know, that will result in more investment and more jobs, and at the same time we are doing what Labor were never prepared to do: we are cracking down on multinational tax avoidance. The Labor Party, for reasons they have not explained, actually voted against the multinational tax avoidance measures—they voted against them. Fortunately, we were able to get them carried in the Senate, notwithstanding. And of course the diverted profits tax comes into operation—one of the toughest international tax-avoidance countermeasures in the OECD. It is an absolute cutting-edge measure—one of the toughest; described as 'very harsh' in some quarters. But we make no apologies. We are committed to ensuring that everybody pays the tax that they are due. As to the deficit levy, it is not being abolished. It is expiring, in accordance with its terms—in accordance with the terms the Labor Party voted for. They cannot have it two ways. First, they condemned it as a deceit tax. They denounced it. They said: 'It's outrageous—a terrible idea!' Then they voted for it, on the basis that it was only for three years. The three years are coming to an end. We have delivered tax cuts to middle income earners. Half a million will not go into the second highest tax bracket, thanks to our efforts. We are delivering tax cuts to business so that they will, as the member for McMahon said, invest and employ, driving higher wages. We are backing business. We are backing jobs. Labor is trying to run a most unconvincing politics-of-envy campaign. They are not persuading anyone that they are other than frauds on the economy and on jobs. Infrastructure, Trade Unions 7510 15:06 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. I refer the minister to the government's $75 billion infrastructure investment. Will the minister update the House on how this investment is creating jobs in my home state of Victoria? What are the threats to the delivery of key infrastructure projects? 15:06 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. He is always on the side of his community. He is a tireless worker for better infrastructure in his community, particularly projects like the Monash Freeway upgrade. And the Turnbull-Joyce government is delivering for infrastructure in Victoria. We are planning to reduce congestion, to improve productivity and also to save lives on our roads. We saw that last year, with the $3 billion deal we announced for Victoria and the package which will include $1 billion for the Monash Freeway. That package will include $690 million for rural and regional roads. It has been welcomed in the seats of Corangamite, Wannon, McMillan, Murray, Flinders—right across Victoria, in fact. And this year we announced another $500 million under our regional rail package. We are looking to do more. We are looking to do more longer-term projects in Victoria. But, in our efforts to build more infrastructure, help create more jobs and deliver more value for money for Australians, we are being blocked. We are being blocked by the Labor Party and the unions. They are standing in our way. The member for La Trobe asked about threats to the delivery of infrastructure projects here in Australia. There is a big threat, and we have heard about it today. It is called 'the construction division of the CFMEU'. It is called 'John Setka'. Speaking of that, earlier this week John Setka said that 'people might have to wait longer than they think' for infrastructure projects in Victoria. Member for Grayndler, your party has got to get 'better than this'. Don't talk to me about 'better than this'. Your party has got to get better than this. The Productivity Commission report into public infrastructure in 2014 found: A prominent concern is that union and employer behaviour is not only fuelling unlawful conduct, but also frustrating productivity and raising costs. As I said earlier— Honourable members interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ The member for La Trobe knows whose side he is on. He is on the side of the Australian taxpayers who want value for money for infrastructure projects. The Leader of the Opposition cannot stay on the side of this union thug. This is a quote from John Setka, who said this week: Let me give a dire warning to the ABCC inspectors: be careful what you do … …   …   … We will lobby their neighbourhoods. We will tell them who lives in that house. … They will not be able to show their faces anywhere. Their kids will be ashamed of who their parents are … Decent Australians are disgusted and they are revolted by these bullying tactics, and we are on their side. On this side of the chamber, we are on their side. John Setka and the CFMEU construction division make Norm Gallagher and the BLF look like a bunch of choirboys. Bob Hawke actually deregistered the BLF. This leader of the Labor Party continues to accept CFMEU money in the form of political donations. John Setka has gone too far, and those opposite know that. The member for Grayndler has supported the police being called in to investigate John Setka's comments, but the current Leader of the Opposition has only 'disassociated' himself from the remarks. It is not good enough to slap them with a wet lettuce. The Leader of the Opposition needs to abandon all ties with the CFMEU and to stop accepting their donations. Mr Turnbull 885 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 7511 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 56 and 57 of 2016-17 7511 15:09 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2016-17 entitled Performance audit No. 56: Pesticide and veterinary medicine regulatory reform: Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and Performance audit No. 57: Department of Health's coordination of communicable disease emergencies: Department of Health. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 7512 DOCUMENTS Presentation 7512 15:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 7512 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 7512 15:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 7512 15:11 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 22 June 2017. In so doing I might read the statement, because it is quite a complicated process! The position of both the government and the ALP on the school bill is well-known. Negotiations on the substance of the bill have concluded. What have not concluded are negotiations about when the bill will be returned to the House with a request for the House to make amendments. The timing of that request for amendments is dependent on our Senate colleagues, and I will endeavour to advise the House at 5 o'clock when we will receive that request. Hopefully, it will be tonight. We will return the request to the Senate and then deal with the bill, finally, tomorrow. In effect, we are waiting for the Senate tonight and we will wait for the Senate tomorrow. I will update the House again at 5 o'clock. To explain that to members: the Senate is dealing with the school funding bill, and because the Senate— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Order on my left! The member for Lindsay! Seriously, members want to be updated on what is occurring. Mr PYNE 9V5 I thought you would want to know—obviously not! The member for Lindsay does not want to know. The Senate are dealing with the school funding bill but they intend to make an appropriation. That requires them to make a request of the House of Representatives, which means there is an extra step in the process of dealing with their types of amendments. One is a request for an appropriation. Obviously, the Senate are not allowed to make appropriations unless we give them the permission to do so. That means that the request for the appropriation needs to come back to the House of Representatives, be passed—hopefully, passed—and then transmitted back to the Senate, where they will then deal with the final bill. Practice in the past has been that the Senate deal with their request and with any other amendments in their entirety and then send the bill back to us before we then send it back to them. What I have asked the Senate to do is to deal with that appropriation first, if they would, then send it to us so that we can deal with it. Then we will send it back to them and they will finally deal with the third reading of the bill when they receive that request back. They have not agreed to do that yet. I am hopeful that they might, but they do not have to. So the bottom line, colleagues, is that we cannot leave here tonight until that request has been dealt with. Then we have to deal with the final amendments to the bill as a separate process, which will have to come back from the Senate. So, basically, there are two processes—two bounces between the houses. What I have discussed with the Manager of Opposition Business, and I think this is a sensible process, is that we will suspend the House until the ringing of the bells, which we have done before. In fact, we often do that at the end of session. We will pick a particular time when those bills will be rung again—say, about 9 pm, for example, so that colleagues can have dinner and do whatever they have to do without sitting and waiting for the House to discuss things while we wait for the Senate. And then we will ring the bells when we need you to come back to the chamber. We cannot all go home to Kingston or Deakin or wherever we are and stay there; we will need to come back tonight at some point. But I will update the House throughout the evening if the Senate is more cooperative than that—obviously, we would all like that to be the case. So you cannot go home tonight and not come back but we will not just keep people here, probably between five and nine. And we will sit tomorrow morning, probably at nine, in order to deal, finally, with the Senate bill. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 7513 COMMITTEES Government Response 7513 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG (): For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 1 December 2016, the date of the last schedule, and 21 June 2017. Copies of the schedule have been made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows— THE SPEAKER ' S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEES (also incorporating reports tabled and details of Government Responses made in the period between 1 December 2016, the date of the last schedule, and 21 June 2017 at 5pm) 22 June 2017 THE SPEAKER ' S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE REPORTS The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 1 December 2016. It also lists reports for which the House has not received a government response. Schedules of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, generally in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings. The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Reports from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights are only listed where the committee has examined and reported on a specific item(s) of existing legislation. Not listed are that committee's regular reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments that come before either House of Parliament. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are usually reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report. The attached schedule includes a table which provides a summary of responses received and responses outstanding for the last four parliaments. 22 June 2017 Table of responses received and outstanding (current as of 21 June 2017 at 5pm):   Notes 1 The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate or to the President or Speaker (if presented earlier out of session). Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date. 2 If the source for the government response date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote. 3 For reports up to the end of 42nd Parliament, the time specified is three months from the date of tabling. While the Government has undertaken to continue to respond to reports within three months, from the 43rd Parliament (28 September 2010 onwards) the period within which the House requires a response is six months—see resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six month period. The period from when the 44th Parliament was prorogued on 9 May 2016 to the commencement of the 45th Parliament on 30 August 2016 is not included in the response period. 4 On 22 June 2015, during debate on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, the Senate noted that the Government has not responded to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications report on its inquiry into information technology pricing. The committee still awaits a response to this report. 5 On 4 December 2014 the Government provided an interim response to the report, advising that the committee's report is informing the Government's White Paper, which is being prepared. The White Paper will set out a clear and well defined policy platform for unlocking the full potential of the north, including actions through to 2030. The Government indicated that it will respond to the committee's specific recommendations through the White Paper. On 18 June 2015 the Government released the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia: Our North, Our Future. The committee still awaits a response to this report. 6 On 14 July 2014 the Government advised the committee that on 25 June 2014 it announced funding for the National FASD Action Plan, and that the plan would form the basis of the formal response to the inquiry. The committee still awaits a response to recommendations of the report. Selection Committee 7521 Report 7521 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG I present Report No. 13 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of bills introduced 19 June to 22 June 2017. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 19 June to 22 June 2017. 1. The committee met in private session on Thursday, 22 June 2017. 2. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made— Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay of All Workers) Bill 2017 PRIVILEGE 7521 PRIVILEGE 15:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I am seeking your advice on a fairly serious matter of privilege. It goes to one of the oldest privileges of the parliament, which is the immunity for members of parliament when the parliament is sitting from having to attend the court. We have an unusual situation today and tomorrow, in that tomorrow, when the House is sitting, it will not in fact be a sitting day. As far as the parliament is concerned, it will be an extension of Thursday's sittings. Hearings that are reported to be occurring in Melbourne may be tomorrow only or may drag on for subsequent days, which would then bear on the five-day rule as well. So I am seeking your advice as to whether or not tomorrow, while the parliament is sitting, does in fact count under privilege as a sitting day of the parliament. Secondly, I want to indicate to the House that if any member does require an arrangement for a pair for a court appearance, it will be provided by the opposition. 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for that. As with any issue that is raised of privilege, I will carefully examine the issue. In this case, I will report back as soon as I can. The Manager of Opposition Business has referred to a number of matters of practice which are important. If my calculations are correct, they could have operated with respect to last week as well. But that is a matter I can report back to the House on. In terms of the rule: obviously, I reserve the right to give a more definitive statement, which I will do later. If the Manager of Opposition Business is making a point about a five-day rule—in the Parliamentary Privileges Act, I think—that would not turn on whether this Thursday's sitting continues tomorrow. But I thank him for raising the matters and I will report back. It sounds like we will have enough time to do that a little later. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 7522 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:18 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BOWEN DZS I do, by the Prime Minister. During question time today, the Prime Minister claimed that I had said his policy on gas exports was a 'sovereign risk'. Actually, it is on the contrary. I pointed out that the Prime Minister, the minister for resources, other government members and official Liberal Party policy had claimed that Labor's policy, announced during the election campaign by myself and the member for Port Adelaide, to ensure that gas exports are in the national interest was 'protectionist, sovereign risk and would kill investment'. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister is, as usual, playing desperate catch-up with Labor. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 7522 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Turnbull Government 7522 15:20 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The harm that will be inflicted on Australians in just nine days. I call upon those honourable 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— 15:19 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Australians should be aware that, nine days from now, we will see the unfairness of the Liberal coalition's Australia writ large. In nine days from now, in the world that the Prime Minister envisages for this country, if you earn $1 million, you are going to get a $16,400 tax cut, courtesy of the Turnbull government. But at the same time, on the same day, in some real irony, for 700,000 workers who are covered, in hospitality, retail, pharmacy and fast food, under their awards their penalty rates will be reduced, and not for an offsetting wage rise. It is just a pay cut. Under Prime Minister Turnbull, the first weekend of July means a wage cut for workers and a tax cut for millionaires. Nine days from now, Australian families will start to pay the price of this government's four years of failure of energy policy. Power prices are set to increase by up to 19.6 per cent in New South Wales, 7.3 per cent in Queensland and nearly 20 per cent in South Australia. And, every time the Prime Minister says the problem is fixed, the electricity prices go up. People of Australia are wondering what is going on with this government. They keep hearing that the Prime Minister has solved the energy crisis, but, every time they hear that the Prime Minister has solved the problem, they keep hearing from their gas and electricity companies about a new price rise—seven per cent, 14 per cent, 18 per cent. The Prime Minister keeps wanting to blame Labor. But the coalition have been in government for four years. The Prime Minister says that now they have fixed the gas crisis caused by Labor, but where were the government for the last four years? They should hand back their wages, because, if they want to pretend they were not there, they were taking their wages under false pretences. When they talk about the causes of rising prices, there is always one cause that this conservative, right-wing, hopeless government never concedes: privatisation of energy assets. We have seen rising power prices hit the hip pocket, time and time again, and this is at a time when wage growth is at historic lows. From 1959 to today—incomes and wages in this country are at their lowest proportion of the national economy since records were kept. What did the Prime Minister say about wages growth when the shadow Treasurer asked him about it on Tuesday? I am going to give the exact quote, because it tells you so much about the out-of-touch world that our Prime Minister inhabits. He said: Low wages growth is an issue—it is. We are very aware of it. That is why we are supporting Australian business. But corporate profits are at record highs and wages growth is at record lows. Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG There is the old member for Mitchell, the trickle-down economics 101 guru! He says, 'Oh, if the corporates are making more profits, the wages will go up.' That disconnect has been proven in the last economic data. Let us be clear about this country. Under Malcolm Turnbull, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed. There are no wage rises, productivity growth is anaemic and economic growth is desperately dependent purely on terms of trade overseas, and there is no plan to look after the average battler. Actually, they have got a plan, and that is that millionaires get a tax cut, the big corporates get a tax cut and average working-class people in this country have to pay more income tax. Then they give a Medicare guarantee. If you ever see a Liberal Medicare guarantee on a shelf in the pharmacy, run 100 miles away. Let me tell you what is behind the badge of a Liberal Medicare guarantee. What it says is that the freeze will still be in place on 1 July 2017, 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019. GP consults for chronic diseases like asthma and diabetes will be frozen until 2020. GP items to treat pregnant women and women who have recently had a child will be frozen until 2020. Rebates for GPs to conduct Pap smears will be frozen until 2020. Rebates for GPs to have mental health assessments for people will be frozen until 2020. And all the time we get these patronising lectures from the establishment class of this country saying, 'It's all about Australian values.' The Prime Minister looked like he was trapped in his own body last week and this week when he talked about Australian patriotism—as if Australians need to be lectured by the top end of town about loving this country. They say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Look how this government seeks to wrap themselves up in our national flag while they attack the fair go in this country. We are not copping a lecture on Australian values from a minister for immigration who would not support the apology to the stolen generation. As for a university English language test, give us a break! Most days in parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister would be flat out trying to pass that! As for the Prime Minister's values, why on earth is this desperate party so keen and hungry to have Senator Hanson's references? Why has no-one in this government called out her disgusting attack on children with autism? I make a promise to every parent in this country with a child with a disability: we will stop a forced segregation of kids with disability out of our mainstream schooling system. It is long overdue for all of you on that side to join us to say no to Senator Hanson's segregation in our schools. And today we had to listen to those opposite lecture us about respecting the rule of law. But I saw at least three ministers of the crown, the Minister for Health and— Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG He says, 'Give it up'. No way, son. No way are we going to let you lecture us, when three of you, the Yarra 3, went out there and now you have to go to court tomorrow. I make no comment about the case, but I make this comment about the Yarra 3 and their benefactor, their sponsor, their honoured leader. The Prime Minister went on radio and endorsed their comments. Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Oh, yes, we'll give them a pair. Respect the law—pull the other one! And let's have a look at the schools policy. For all the confused horse trading going on, the government is just trying to work how much money you can get away with from ripping off Australian schools. You were having an auction and you wanted to get away with $40 billion and then you rolled poor old member for Warringah and then the member for Wentworth turns up and says, 'I'm the hero of the ages,' and says, 'I'll only cut $22 billion.' Then of course, they went, 'Oh, my goodness; no-one in Australia likes it, except a couple of school chums of the Prime Minister.' And then today they started lecturing us about standing up for public schools— Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG You would be better off saying nothing, Member for Corangamite. The Catholic education system has worked you out. The $22.3 billion cut was in the Prime Minister's own fact sheet. Let me read out what they distributed to the media: Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents savings of $6.3 billion over four years … and $22.3 billion over 10 years ... That is their confession. An average of $2.4 million per school is the equivalent of not hiring an extra 22,000 teachers over the next 10 years. But they say, 'Oh, that's only compared to Labor.' Well, here is a news flash: you are in a contest with us and we are going to win the education debate, because we are the party of education. We are the party of needs based funding.' To be fair, the member for Sydney is wiping the floor with the lot of you reprobates, even without the rest of us. But we are up for this fight on education and we are not the only people. The teachers hate this policy. The Catholic education system— Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG You say, 'Rubbish'. Don't you read what they say about you? What do you have against parents who choose to send their kids to low-fee Catholic parish schools? Why do you want their fees to go up? Whatever happened to the 'party of choice'? Whatever happens in nine days time with their manifest unfairness, their rising prices, their tax cuts for millionaires and their penalty rate cuts for hundreds of thousands of workers, I promise the Australian people that we will remedy and right the wrongs of 1 July. We are on the side of the people and we will take this government on all the way to the election. 15:29 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell If you believe any of that, Mr Deputy Speaker, you must have had the Senator Doug Cameron lobotomy he says members of the backbench in the Labor Party have to have. If you have watched federal politics for the last 10 years you would understand that so much of what the Leader of the Opposition just said is completely at odds with the position of the Labor Party in government. Of course, we do not accept that they believe any of what the Leader of the Opposition just said because we know from history that when they were in government they did the exact opposite. We know the member for McMahon's position on company tax cuts—company tax cuts for small and medium Australian businesses that this government has passed. Those tax cuts for small and medium Australian family-owned and operated businesses mean that they will have more money in their pockets to pay the very wages that the Leader of the Opposition talks about. There is only one kind of wage the Leader of the Opposition means when he talks about wages, and that is increasing government wages. We know that when they were in government they blew the budget sky high. We are supposed to believe that the Labor Party now cares about debt and deficit—that they suddenly discovered a long-lost care for the debt and the deficit. If we had continued spending at the same rate as the Australian Labor Party it would not be half a trillion, it would be $1 trillion of debt. If the Labor Party had stayed in office and continued spending like drunken sailors, it would be $1 trillion. This is the only government—that of the Liberal and National parties—that has proposed savings and cuts and has delivered them. Ms Owens E09 That didn't work very well! Mr HAWKE HWO The member for Parramatta said it did not work very well. That is because you have been opposing them, member for Parramatta. You have blocked the government's cuts and savings measures. In spite of the Labor Party's opposition, it is the Turnbull government that has cut $26 billion since the last election. The only government—the only parties—in this House that proposes savings is this government. At the same time as we have done so, we have cut tax for small and medium Aussie businesses. We have taken measures to ensure income tax cuts. Half a million Australians will no longer go into the second-highest tax bracket because of this government. Every time the Leader of the Opposition gets up and says: 'What about the debt? What about the deficit?' he needs to get a big mirror and look in it because it was they who ran up the debts, ran up the government spending and delivered the conditions we inherited. We will not take a lecture. He says he will not take a lecture from us, but we will not take a lecture from him on debt and deficit. We will not take a lecture from the Labor Party—the absolute vandals of this parliament, the vandals of Australian politics and the people who ran up more government spending, more government debt and more government deficit than any other government in Australian history. We are the ones proposing to do something about it. At the same time, we have delivered an education policy which delivers more money to schools—$18. 6 billion—which is proposed to go through this House today. It is an $18.6 billion increase which the Labor Party says is a cut to school funding. Only a Labor Party completely and utterly at odds with its own policy could believe— Ms Owens interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Parramatta will be silent! Mr HAWKE HWO that an $18.6 billion increase in education funding is actually a cut. I do not believe any teacher or any member of the public would believe it. We have seen the Australian Education Union break ranks in recent days to say an $18.6 billion increase is an $18.6 billion increase. Go figure! No amount of untruths, half-facts and misleading questions we have seen day after day in this chamber can erase the fact that the Turnbull government is solving the education wars in this country and making sure we have a genuine, needs-based national model. Nothing could convince Australians that the Labor Party and this Leader of the Opposition are not genuine about their approach to politics more than this Leader of the Opposition coming into this chamber and saying that he is concerned about energy prices. A Labor Party brought in the world's highest carbon tax to Australia—the world's highest carbon tax applied to Australian businesses. Now, we are supposed to believe that, after decades of Labor governments, state and federal, applying policies that have lifted power prices in this country, they care about your power bill. This is the only government that removed the carbon tax. It was this government that removed the carbon tax. Ms Owens interjecting— Mr HAWKE HWO The world's highest carbon tax, the member for Parramatta says. She is criticising our approach We know, if they were ever returned to government, policies like the carbon tax would come back. How do we know that? Well, they are proposing—variously, depending on what day it is—a 50 per cent renewable energy target with no idea about how they would meet that renewable energy target. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to address power prices, if he is ever elected, how is he going to do it when his own government would have a 50 per cent renewable energy target? Ms Owens E09 Don't talk about your own record. Mr HAWKE HWO That is depending on what day it is, Member for Parramatta. We know, of course, that it has been 40 per cent and it has been 50 per cent. They have no idea how they would do such a target. We need to introduce a spot price for the renewable energy target over there. We do not know what it is. We would have to look it up depending on the day of the week it was; how high they would do it. One thing we do know is that you would increase the renewable energy target in such dramatic ways that you would increase power prices for end users. Contrast that approach with the Turnbull coalition government. We are taking action on gas. We are taking action on gas once again, following a decade of Labor, state and federal, who had recklessly run up the ability for people to export gas overseas. It is actually easier to export that gas than it is to supply our own domestic market. Today in question time, the member for McMahon, no matter what he likes to say, was yelling out 'sovereign risk' when the Prime Minister was talking about the gas supply. He might want to make a personal explanation and say, 'Oh, I meant some other sophisticated thing,' realising he had been badly embarrassed. He says that when the Turnbull government acts on gas, reserving domestic supply and ensuring that the price pressure on gas comes down, he describes it as sovereign risk. That is what he said. I heard him say it. He says, 'Oh, no, I didn't mean that; I meant something else.' But he was yelling out 'sovereign risk'. This government removed the carbon tax and lowered the RET. It was the coalition government that proposed to lower the RET because there was no way that we could feasibly meet the RET at the target the Labor Party had left us with. Labor agreed, of course, to the reduction, even though their policy now says—variously, depending on what day it is—it will go up. You know that the Leader of the Opposition is being his most disingenuous when he comes into this House and says: 'I'm really worried about your power bill. I'm really worried about the price you're paying for power. I'm so concerned. It is this mob that's been in government.' Well, we know that the South Australian state Labor government is the cause of the blackouts that we have seen. The reckless pursuit of renewable energy at the expense of base-load generation has meant a disaster for the economy of South Australia. We know that the Victorian Labor state government has said not that you cannot frack for gas—you cannot in various rural or regional areas; we do not want to do that on prime farmland; they have banned non-conventional gas and they have also banned conventional gas exploration. Why would you ban conventional gas exploration and, at the same time, build a port to import the very same gas into your state? We have more gas under Australia than Saudi Arabia has under oil, but we cannot supply our domestic market because of the decisions of Labor state governments. That is before we turn to the Queensland state Labor government and look at their ownership of the energy assets in Queensland. How much do they take out of those assets, those utilities, each year in dividends? When the Labor Party comes in here with one of the highest renewable energy targets in the world, with a carbon tax at the highest rate in the world, all of the pressures that the state Labor governments have put on power prices, we know that the Leader of the Opposition is not genuine about your power price. He has no idea how to lower your power bill. Any policy that the Labor Party pursues will mean higher power prices for business and higher power prices for households. We will not be lectured by this man on power prices. It is a Turnbull coalition government that is acting to lower people's power prices. We are governing in the national interest. We are delivering to schools genuine national, needs based funding. We are tackling debt and deficit in this country, with no help from the Labor Party. Their approach will deliver a debt and deficit disaster. We will not be lectured by this kind of Labor Party that has no regard for the Australian people. 15:39 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I was so interested a few weeks ago, towards the end of May, when the Prime Minister spoke at CEDA about the top marginal tax rate and the reason the government has to give millionaires a big tax cut on 1 July. Do you know what he said? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you paid a lot of attention at the time. He said that this would be a success tax—that cutting the tax paid by millionaires and multimillionaires would be a success tax. Someone earning $1 million a year would pay $16,400 less tax a year and a bank CEO would get a tax cut of $171,000 a year from 1 July. I thought it was interesting the way that the Prime Minister was justifying this. He said that to not do this would be a success tax. The people who teach kids to read are a success. I think nurses are a success. I think the police, who keep us safe, are a success. I think carers, who are home looking after family members, are a success. I think ordinary people working hard every day are a success. It is offensive to suggest that the only people who are successful are those earning $180,000 a year and that the way we measure success in this country is simply by your pay packet. If that were the case, every corporate crook in Australian history would be a great success, wouldn't they? I mentioned teachers because one thing that has distressed me so much about the education debate this week is the sanctimony from the Prime Minister. He says, 'It's all about the children.' We had the Minister representing the Minister for Education this week confirm that Northern Territory public school children will get the worst deal in the country if this legislation passes. They will not even keep up with indexation. This deal is not needs based when Northern Territory public school children get the worst deal and Tasmanian public school children get the second worst deal. It is not sector blind when the government says it is going to pay only 20 per cent of the cost of educating a public school kid but will pay 80 per cent of the cost of educating a private school kid. Even a school that has fees of $30,000 or $40,000 a year will still get 80 per cent of the cost of educating a child. In effect, that means that, while public schools will lose funding and small Catholic systemic schools will lose funding, some of the wealthiest schools in the country will see an increase in their funding. You only have to look at the state of Tasmania to see the actual effect at a micro level. It is a bit hard when you are talking about billions of dollars to really understand the impact of this. The Prime Minister admitted the other day in question time—it took me three days, mind you, to get him to admit this—that students with a disability in Tasmania will lose a third of their funding next year. It took me three days to get him to admit it, but he did admit it. They will lose a third of their funding. There are beautifully resourced schools. The Friends' School in Hobart will get a $19 million increase. St Michael's Collegiate in Hobart will get a $11 million increase. The Scotch Oakburn College in Launceston will get a $22 million increase. Launceston Church Grammar School will get a $15 million increase. The Hutchins School in Sandy Bay will get a $19 million increase. They are very well resourced schools already. I compare those to the schools I visited on my last trip to Tasmania. Campbell Town District School has a fantastic principal and dedicated teaching staff. I asked them what they would do with the extra money. What did they tell us? They told us: 'We'd make sure that the kids had sporting opportunities. We'd give them more access to a few computers. We'd make sure that we could help with homework because a lot of these kids are travelling a long way to come to school and are working many hours on the weekend to support the family budget. We'd help them with their homework. We'd give them some opportunities to participate more broadly in the community of Northern Tasmania and Central Tasmania by maybe travelling to Launceston, and getting a bit more vocational education.' They knew how they would spend the extra money if they got some extra needs based funding. Well, guess what? Public schools in Tasmania will lose $68 million over the next two years alone. Disability students will lose money, small Catholics schools will lose money and public schools will lose money. 15:45 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on this MPI. As Australians hearing this debate may have noticed, the real subject before the House today is the harm that would be inflicted on Australians if Labor is re-elected. The best judge of future behaviour is past behaviour, and we saw this in action from the member for Sydney in her contribution just a few moments ago. Even the ABC's Fact Check has made it very clear that the member for Sydney is misleading Australians. She is misleading Australians by claiming the $22 billion that, in fact, never existed in Labor's budget. This is all funny money. This is all made up. And, as we have heard from the member— Ms Plibersek 83M Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek leave to table the budget document from 2014 that shows that it is a $30 billion saving. You cannot have a saving if there is no cut. Leave not granted. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Regrettably, we have seen more out-of-order conduct from the member for Sydney by that intervention just then. As I was saying, the member for Sydney, in her contributions in the parliament, has fundamentally misled Australians. Shame on the member for Sydney. There is no $22 billion. This is funny money. Our government is delivering fair, consistent and needs based funding—$18.6 billion—and, judging from the reports today, it could be even more, depending on what comes out of the Senate. But this is another example of why you cannot trust Labor. On 1 July, we are very proud that we will be introducing our Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, and this will introduce tough new regulations in the gas sector, in contrast to the absolute basket case of policies from Labor that we have seen on energy which have driven up electricity—doubled the cost of electricity—and also driven up gas. Under Labor, these hideous export deals were entered into. Labor was not cognisant of the damage this would do to our domestic supply. We are taking the strong action, and we are ensuring that Australians will be able to access cheap and accessible power and have energy security. On 1 July, we are introducing our company tax rate extension. Companies with a turnover of up to $25 million will enjoy a tax rate of 27.5 per cent. The member for McMahon used to believe in company tax cuts. He used to think that would drive jobs and investment. What absolute hypocrisy. The Labor Party is a laughing joke. They are looking more and more like the Communist Party. It is an absolute and utter joke. Paul Keating is embarrassed by this Labor Party. He said it is an absolute joke, and I can tell you, on this particular issue, the member for McMahon has absolutely embarrassed himself. On 1 July, our Medicare Guarantee Fund will come into place, and we are unfreezing Labor's indexation freeze. This is Labor's damage. This is Labor's great work! We are taking strong action to guarantee Medicare and to give Australians the assurance that there is only one party that cares for Medicare, and that is the Liberal-National coalition. We are introducing the major bank levy. We are taking strong action. We are holding bank executives to account. We are introducing the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. And what has Labor got? What policies has Labor got to hold the banks to account? It has zero. Calling for a royal commission shows it has no ideas, no policies. On 1 July this year, we will introduce our National Firearms Amnesty. This is the first nationwide gun amnesty since 1996, and what do we see from Labor? In contrast, we see Labor rejecting legislation to impose mandatory jail terms for gun traffickers. Labor says it does not believe in mandatory sentencing. That is why the state of Victoria is in such a mess with its crime. It is in such a mess. It is not prepared to take the strong action. What we are seeing from Labor is an absolute basket case of policies—of flips, of flops. On 1 July, we are proudly introducing a whole range of new measures to give Australians confidence in our government for all Australians, for jobs and for security. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the member for McMahon, I remind members that they might be required in here for a division later on. I will not be beyond throwing someone out. I am not going to allow this MPI to degenerate any further. I call the member for McMahon. 15:50 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I hope the member for Corangamite's lectern is okay over there; I am very concerned about the property of the parliament. The bad economic news comes so thick and fast under this government that it is very understandable that members of the public—and indeed members of the House—might have trouble keeping up with it and the confused economic response of this government. It wasn't that long ago that we heard the fact that debt ticked over in Australia: half a trillion dollars for the first time—$500 billion worth of gross debt under this government's watch. That has never happened before, and the government says: 'Well, it's net debt that counts more.' And we accept that: we accept that net debt is a very important measure, and net debt will peak at 20 per cent of GDP, a rate never hit by a Labor government, apart from the financing of World War II—never hit by a Labor government once. We have issues around debt and deficit in Australia, and the government has a response. Their response is to give a tax cut to high-income earners. Their response is to reduce the tax take in Australia. I would have thought that, when you have got debt at half a trillion dollars, when you have got a deficit that is 10 times bigger than Joe Hockey predicted in 2014 in the coming year, the government would say: 'Well, we might not be able to proceed with that tax cut. We might have to cancel that tax cut, because the budget needs to be in better shape.' But no: this government's priorities are clear to see, because on 1 July, they will deliver that tax cut. This is a government that is not too fussed about breaking election promises when it suits them. When they find that there is a matter of great principle—of values; it is in their DNA, to their core—like looking after high-income earners, they are completely honourable. They will not have a cigarette paper's worth of difference to their comments about what they have said before. They will deliver in full. On 1 July, as other honourable members have said, we have a government—and even the member for Corangamite just said—that will deliver tax cuts for businesses, tax cuts for high-income earners and a pay cut for low-income earners. We heard about the corporate tax cuts from the honourable member opposite—and that is another bit of news that honourable members may have forgotten. Remember in question time just a few weeks ago? It took us four or five questions to get it out, but the tax cut cost had gone from $50 billion over the next decade to $65 billion over the next decade. The Prime Minister stands there and says: '$22 billion worth of education funding is unaffordable.' It was funny money. It was fantasy money. It was unfunded. He said it with a straight face—$65 billion worth of corporate tax cuts. Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 How is it funded? Mr BOWEN DZS How is it funded—asks the member for Gorton, as well he might, because the government has no clue. So they can afford $65 billion worth of corporate tax cuts—no problem They can afford the money for high-income tax cuts—no problem. Can they afford the money for schools? No, they cannot afford that. And of course the other bit of bad economic news that we have had lately is the fact that wages growth continues at a record low—in fact, I am being small-l liberal with my language when I call it wages growth; because it is not growing at all. Real wages are going backwards. It is negative growth. People are not keeping up with inflation, and the government, yet again, has a cunning plan. They have worked it all out: their answer to negative wages growth is to cut wages further on 1 July. The member for Higgins would be proud. Remember when she said that the negative gearing policy is going to put house prices up and the Prime Minister said they were going to go down? She might have come up with a policy to cut wages as a response to falling real wages. This government, at its core, lacks a comprehensive and comprehensible economic agenda. Their only agenda is to look after people who they regard as the most important people in Australia—high-income earners. We have nothing against people earning a good income but we want people making a fair contribution. When the budget is under such pressure, we want people to make a contribution which they can afford to do, as they have done now since 2014 when this government introduced the deficit levy. Has Western civilisation ended for the last few years? Have people refused to turn up at work because the tax rate is too high? Have people refused to engage in economic activity? No. This government's priorities are all wrong, and 1 July is the day it will be shown they are— (Time expired) 15:55 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page The sanctimony from the other side is palpable. The member for McMahon, a man who has written books about certain things, will get up and talk about the debt and the rising debt, and have a go at us about our debt management when he himself said that if they won government at the last election debt would go higher. I think he thought it would work out to be about $16 billion to $17 billion higher. So the sanctimony of it is ridiculous. The other thing that he has also written books about is the importance of a competitive tax rate. If you believe the rantings of that side of politics, why don't we put the company tax rate up to 90 per cent? Why don't we put tax rates up to get more money? Labor of the past—as in the Hawke-Keating type of governments—and the Howard-Costello Liberal-National governments understood that for every public dollar that we want to spend on health, education, welfare, defence or any other thing that we should do as a government it has to come from a healthy private sector—one that is growing, one that is competitive and one that we can, therefore, know is healthy. Go and speak to your luminary past leaders like Hawke and Keating. They knew that to have a healthy private sector you have to have a competitive tax rate—more so now more than ever because of how global and how inter-traded a lot of companies are, and how even small companies have competitive pressures from overseas. I could go through and quote for you how many countries have a lower tax rate than ours, and that is why we need to do that to remain competitive. There have been many times that I have quoted it before—and I will not do it again—as well have others in this chamber. In the past, when we have cut company tax rates, within two years we have been collecting more tax at the lower rate than the higher rate, because the private sector is getting healthier. So we have a great policy coming in on 1 July. We know that that side does not like small business. We know that they do not understand small business. That is why the 3.2 million small businesses in this country that employ— Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOGAN 218019 Real small businesses—that is right. Two million dollars—that is not profit, mate. It is turnover. So you can be a small business and have a $2 million turnover, but the profit is not that great. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOGAN 218019 But I do not expect you to understand. I would not expect you to understand because you know nothing about small business. The other thing that we are doing, too, is on 1 July we are extending the $20,000 asset tax write-off. Every small business that I talk to in my electorate loves that. It is good for business, it is good for regional communities like mine. It has spurred economic activity. It is good policy. The other thing that we are doing on 1 July is diverted profits tax. The philosophy behind that is: if you earn the money here, you pay tax here. For some reason, they do not support that, either. They did not vote for that policy in this chamber, as well. But that is another thing that we are going to bring in on 1 July. There is the bank levy tax. They want to bring in a royal commission. We just want them to pay their fair share and help repair the budget. This is a good policy because it is confined to the four majors and Macquarie bank. There is an implicit government guarantee for the big banks that credit agencies like Standard & Poor's note. They actually quantify it and say that the implicit government guarantee is worth about 20 basis points to banks. We are taking the six-basis point levy on them to help us do budget repair. As the previous member said, we do have a budget issue and we do want to repair the budget. We know it all took off and was out of control under the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, but we do want to repair the budget and we will repair the budget. That is an important part of that. I have been thinking: why doesn't Labor like small business? Obviously, they have also done deals. Big businesses and big unions have done deals together. Some of them have actually been done by the opposition leader himself. What it means is that a family chicken shop on a Sunday has to pay $8 more than KFC, a family-owned takeaway must pay $8 more than McDonald's on a Sunday, a family bottle shop has to pay $7 more per hour on a Sunday than Dan Murphy's, and family greengrocer has to pay $5 more per hour on a Sunday than Woolworths. (Time expired) 16:00 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton That was a load of nonsense because the reality is, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you want to talk about deals, let's talk about the Prime Minister. The bankers' friend has managed to negotiate a $65 billion gift to big business in this country at the same time as cutting $22 billion to schools over the next 10 years. Again, $65 billion to big business and a $22 billion cut to schools in this country. That is the position and that is the plan of the Prime Minister and this government. That is why Labor will stand up for the kids of those schools and the workers in workplaces who are going to also receive on 1 July, in nine days time, a pay cut. Up to 700,000 workers in this country—retail workers, hospitality workers and those who work in pharmacies and fast food outlets—are going to receive real pay cuts as a result of the government refusing to actually respond to the concerns of Labor to quash the order of the commission and ensure that those wages do not go down. This government has chosen to turn its back on 700,000 workers whilst giving tax breaks to millionaires and $65 billion to big business. In fact, if you look at the tax cuts, Deputy Speaker, they are quite interesting. Everybody under $87,000 does not get a tax cut. Indeed, the same people that will be subject to a pay cut as a result of the penalty rate decision the government refuses to respond to will of course not be receiving a tax cut. Yet those that earn $1 million a year will receive a $16,400 tax cut courtesy of the Prime Minister and this government. As the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, said earlier in this debate, wage growth is at an all-time low. In fact, we have been collecting data and in the last 20 years there has never been so little growth in wages. We are seeing, effectively, a wage recession in most parts of the labour market. It is exactly the wrong time to be cutting wages, if there is ever any good time to do so—of course, there is not. To combine the pay cuts because of the penalty rates decision with a decision to increase taxes on those workers on under $87,000 is just madness unless you have a callous disregard for these people and unless you have an indifference towards these workers. The Prime Minister and the government have shown time and time again that they have a disregard for the people who built this country—those workers in the workplaces across the land who are going to get a tax increase and a pay cut on the same day, courtesy of the Turnbull government. That is the reality as a result of the decisions taken by this government. That is an absolute outrage. I have to say: is it any wonder? We have had the Prime Minister seeking to emote. He is now using the word 'fairness' more often. He tends to use the word 'fairness'. He has gone to a focus group and has realised the word 'fairness' helps and thought: 'We should say it a few times. We should say it in the budget speech. I should say it when I get up.' But the reality is that he does not believe in fairness. In fact, he is also trying to revise his personal history. He tries to make people believe that he struggled financially. The Prime Minister wants us to believe that he struggled financially. I do not mind him making money, but let's be honest: it is easier to make money from money. That is what the Prime Minister has done. He likes to pretend he has struggled and he likes to create this log cabin story about his past, but we know those logs were made from bars of gold. He has never struggled in his life. He has no empathy at all for those workers. He has no understanding that, if you cut even as little as $50 a week from a household budget, that makes it difficult for thousands and thousands of families in every electorate of every member in this place. That is the result of the combined effect of cutting the pay of those workers and increasing taxes on workers below $87,000 a year. That is a deliberate attempt by this government to make those who cannot afford it pay for the tax cut to billionaires and millionaires. That is the reality, and this government has to reconsider this position, because it is unfair and it is intrinsically against what Australian values are about. Indeed, they should come in here, support Labor's bill and support workers on penalty rates. 16:05 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Just to remind the speakers on this particular MPI and also the people who are listening, I would just like to go through the policy that are commencing on 1 July. We can start with the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism; the national firearms amnesty; the US-bound air cargo 100 per cent screening; the company tax rate cut turnover threshold being extended from $10 million to $25 million; the Medicare Guarantee Fund; the major bank levy; the diverted profits tax; the superannuation package reforms; the foreign investment capital gains tax; the Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency being established as an executive agency; the commencement of the cashless debit card Ceduna and East Kimberley trial and income management extension; the vocational education and training ombudsman; the commencement of the WA National Disability Insurance Scheme transition; the Skilling Australia Fund; the social services legislation amendment; and the disability services amendment. I will also go through the achievements that we have had since we came into government. There are more than 232,000 more Australians in jobs than just a year ago. We have passed small and medium— Mr Howarth 247742 Hear, hear! Say that one again. Mr IRONS HYM Do you want to hear it again? More than 232,000 more Australians are in jobs than just a year ago. We have passed small and medium business tax cuts benefiting 3.2 million small businesses that employ 6.5 million Australians. I see the minister is here, and he wants to hear it again: more than 232,000 more Australians are in jobs than just a year ago. We have also provided a middle-income tax cut stopping 500,000 Australians from moving into a higher tax bracket. We have implemented the bank levy, representing a fair contribution to the community from our major banks. We have passed childcare reforms that will benefit around one million families. We are working to secure Australia's energy future through Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will be the biggest project of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. We have banned secret payments between employers and unions and restored the rule of law in the construction industry, which employs more than a million Australians. We have also defended 60,000 volunteer firefighters in Victoria from a hostile union takeover. We have continued strong border protection policies, with over 1,000 days since a successful boat arrival, and we have secured resettlement for the refugees on Manus and Nauru. We have also passed additional antiterrorism legislation to keep Australians safe and allow us to keep terrorists behind bars when they continue to pose a danger to the community after their sentence has ended. We have also fixed Labor's VET FEE-HELP mess, which paid people to study massage therapy for pets. We have added lifesaving medicines to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving hundreds of lives, and I know there are people in my electorate who have been benefiting from that as well. We have also fully funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme and guaranteed Medicare, and we have made strong laws to make multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. I think that is not a bad record since we have been in government. On that side, most of the people over there voted against all those great moves that we have had. The matter of public importance today, according to the opposition, is 'the harm that will be inflicted on Australians'. I am sure I do not need to remind the House of the devastating harm they inflicted on everyday Australians during the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, through unnecessary taxes. Let's start with the anti-Western-Australian mining tax. There is a Western Australian in the chamber supporting that anti-Western-Australian mining tax; I cannot believe it. Those on that side expected a total of $22.5 billion to be raised over the first four years of that tax, to be spent on a list of priorities. As you would expect, that disappeared, but guess what: they still spent the money, even though they did not get the money in. In fact, it was broken promises and they were broken because their harmful tax was a failure—$22.5 billion they claimed and somewhere along the way the figure went into the ether. By 2012, Labor had reduced that to $2 billion and not even a year later they projected it had fallen to less than $200 million. The great state of WA was even promised $100 million by Kevin Rudd at the 2007 election to boost the economy as part of his repair to the GST problems—problems that existed even back then for Western Australia. But I can assure you we never got the $100 million. That was typical of Labor: do not worry about what they say, just worry about what they do. That was typical: $100 million that never materialised for Western Australia but Labor reaped tax from businesses and the mining industry in Western Australia. 16:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide That was quite a magical mystery tour from the member for Swan, who is a very popular member across both sides of the aisle. I think someone must have written that for him and held his arm behind his back and forced him to read it, except for the last bit which was a nice bit of history. As my colleagues have pointed out, and as those opposite appear intent on denying, 1 July is firming as a nightmare for ordinary Australians. There is a series of measures, driven by this Prime Minister and this government, that are going to hurt ordinary Australians. As my colleague the shadow minister for employment pointed out, it is going to be a day of joy for the big end of town. Those earning $1 million are going to receive a tax cut of $16,400 on 1 July, but ordinary Australians are going to take hit after hit, blow after blow, as a direct result of decisions by this government. The shadow minister referred particularly to the penalty rates decision by the industrial commission—an unprecedented decision to cut the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers with no offset. There has been legislation in this parliament that we pleaded with the government to support to prevent 700,000 workers from receiving a pay cut. We gave them opportunity after opportunity to do the right thing by some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, and they have just shunned us; importantly, not only shunning us but shunning those 700,000 workers. Households across Australia, many of which will be dealing with the impact of penalty rate cuts for those who work on Sundays in retail, hospitality and pharmacy are also receiving notice from their power companies—AGL, Origin Energy and Energy Australia—that they will receive price hikes of up to 20 per cent. Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK The member for Hughes is from New South Wales, and I am sure we will hear something about renewable energy from him. New South Wales—a state governed for six years by a Liberal government—under four years of this federal government is facing a power price increase of 16 per cent from AGL, 16.1 per cent from Energy Australia and 19 per cent from Origin Energy. Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Hughes will get his turn in a minute. Mr BUTLER HWK We know exactly why because report after report has told us why, including the recent report from the Chief Scientist. The key driver is the policy paralysis in this building under this Prime Minister and his predecessor, the member for Warringah. Wholesale prices under this government have doubled. We saw the numbers in The Australian, the newspaper favoured by members opposite, in an article by David Crowe, who showed that even under the carbon tax—the dreaded carbon tax—wholesale prices were around $58 a megawatt hour and now they are $130. Of course under the carbon price mechanism there was the household assistance package—pensioners received increases and we tripled the tax-free threshold—which more than covered the impact in energy prices and other prices of the carbon price mechanism. In my state of South Australia, the impact of the carbon price mechanism was about 4.5 per cent. In New South Wales, they are dealing with 20 per cent power price increases, at the same time that wages are as flat as they have ever been. People are actually receiving real wage cuts under this government. And just to put the cherry on the top of the outrage, at the same time, this government is going to cut the pension by $365 a year for new pensioners—hundreds of thousands of pensioners into the future will have their pension cut by $365—at a time when we are seeing record power price increases. As my friend the member for Grayndler has said time and time again, this government had a plan to get into government but no plan to govern. For four years we have had no energy policy in this country. The Finkel report has given us an opportunity to work across the aisle to put downward pressure on the power price increases that the member for Hughes is going to have to explain to his constituents in New South Wales over the coming weeks. But we still do not quite know whether this Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy will be given permission by the member for Hughes and others in the coalition party room to do the right thing by the nation and actually start to put downward pressure on power prices in this country. 16:15 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I have heard some hypocrisy coming from the other side through my 6½ years in parliament, but to hear the member for, of all places, Port Adelaide stand at the despatch box and cry about the effect of increasing power prices on consumers just takes the cake. Member for Port Adelaide, go and give yourself a gold medal for your performance at the despatch box crying about power prices. Under those 'most magnificent glory years' of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regimes, of which the member for Port Adelaide was a senior member, power prices increased in this nation 118 per cent. And do you know where they bit the most? It was in the member for Port Adelaide's electorate. If you look at the statistics, you see that, over the last several years under the Labor Party, nowhere have households had their power cut off more than in South Australia. And the member for Port Adelaide comes in here and talks about how upset he is about power price increases. Member for Port Adelaide, go and give yourself a gold medal for hypocrisy, because that is the best that I have ever seen. Getting back to the MPI, I actually read it and I was a bit confused. The MPI from the Leader of the Opposition says, 'The harm that will be inflicted on Australians.' So I thought, 'Is this an extension of the threats made by the CFMEU?' They are the ones who talk about harm to Australians. Actually, let's just see what the CFMEU have said about doing harm to Australians—and I quote: Let me give a dire warning to the ABCC inspectors: be careful what you do. When we come after you, you'd better be careful. We're going to expose them all. We will lobby their neighbourhoods. We will tell them who lives in their house …We'll go to their local footy club, we'll go to their local shopping centre. They will not be able to show their faces anywhere. Their kids will be ashamed of them, who their parents are, while we expose these ABCC inspectors. Threatening children. This is the type of rhetoric that you would expect from a criminal outlaw motorcycle gang. Yet these are the major benefactors of the Labor Party. Millions of dollars from the CFMEU underwrite the elections and the campaigns of the members sitting over that side. When we raise this issue, their heads go down and silence comes across them, because in their hearts they are embarrassed to receive funding from an organisation that makes such criminal threats. The late great Bill Leak, in one of his cartoons, summed up the relationship between the CFMEU and the opposition. His cartoon showed a CFMEU official with a CFMEU t-shirt on, with the tatts and the muscles, holding up a sock puppet, and that sock puppet of course was the Leader of the Opposition. We know who pulls the strings. We know what would happen should that Labor Party ever sit on this side of the chamber. They would merely be puppets of the CFMEU. And I think that is something all Australians should consider. All Australians should consider what this country would be like if an organisation like the CFMEU was running the show, because that is what would happen should the Labor Party ever sit on this side—hypocrisy, threats; that is the modern day Labor Party. The other hypocrisy we have heard from them is that this MPI, which should have been an uplift and a chance to talk about the progress our nation is making—instead, we see this appalling motion to end this session of parliament. Simply hypocrisy for the Labor Party to come in here and complain about cutting penalty rates when no-one has cut more penalty rates than their trade union bosses, when no-one has done more to increase electricity prices than the Labor Party and when no-one has done more to run up debt and harm the citizens of this nation. We are working to improve this nation. We must keep these people away from this side of the chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The discussion is now concluded. BILLS 7538 BILLS Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017, Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017, Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017, International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017, Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation For Small Business Entities) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Resident Capital Gains Withholding Payments) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017 7538

Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017

Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017

Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017

International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017

Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation For Small Business Entities) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Resident Capital Gains Withholding Payments) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017

Assent 7538 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 3) Bill 2017 7538

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 3) Bill 2017

Returned from Senate 7538 Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 7538

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016

Second Reading 7538 16:21 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I am really conscious that Efic is one of those government agencies with a peculiar set of initials that most people would not bother to think much about. It is not as well-known as ASIC, and it is not as scary as the AFP. But it is a really important agency, and that is why I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has been operating since the fifties; in fact, this month is its 60th anniversary. The corporation provides finance solutions for export businesses when their bank, on its own, is not able to help. Efic partners with banks to help Australian small to medium enterprises export, to help companies expand their businesses overseas and to operate in emerging and frontier markets. For businesses in my electorate of Macquarie, where manufacturing and agriculture are two of our biggest areas of export, we look for any support in enhancing those opportunities. It was a different world when Efic was born as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. Back then, Australia was overwhelmingly an agricultural exporter. Wool accounted for a massive 49 per cent of Australia's total exports. The changed export environment means that there is a need to expand Efic's functions so it can provide specialist finance advice to Commonwealth entities and companies. That is one of the functions of this amendment, and we will support that. We also support the principle of the second amendment in this bill, and that is to allow Efic to provide loans to Australian companies to set up or expand operations overseas. I certainly want to see support for businesses to become exporters and to identify opportunities offshore and to take those opportunities. My concern, however, lies in what the impacts might be back here in Australia. I do not want to see an Australian agency helping an Australian business set up offshore that takes existing jobs away from Australia. In the interests of working constructively with the government, we will be moving three amendments in the Senate. The first is an Australian jobs test, which will require Efic to be satisfied that the investment will lead to jobs growth in Australia. This needs to be assessed before approval of a loan or a guarantee that will be spent overseas. Efic, we know, already has an internal policy that stipulates any loan must not result in net Australian job losses, but this is not enough of a safeguard, particularly given the expansion of Efic's remit. If taxpayer funds are being used then it is important that there are benefits to the Australian economy. The second amendment we will move in the Senate relates to offshoring. It is hard to see why you would want to have Efic lending money to Australian companies to move operations offshore, leading to the closure of their Australian operations—for instance, setting up a call centre overseas and then shutting down one in Australia at the same time. This issue was highlighted in the Australia Institute's evidence before the committee, which said that the government's change: … seems to remove any focus on products that are produced in Australia. The effect of this could be the further offshoring of Australian manufacturing. For example, a garment company based in Australia could move all production offshore, but still be eligible for Efic's services. This has the potential to not only deprive finance to companies that produce in Australia, but also to give advantage to their competition in other countries. That is the insight from the Australia Institute. Efic should not be financing offshoring of Australian jobs. It is worth remembering that Efic's role is to assist business where the regular banking system fails it. If companies want to offshore—and there are so many in the community who would rather not see that happen—they will obviously still have access to their banks to fund those sorts of expansions, but it is clearly not right that taxpayers and a government agency facilitate that transaction. The third amendment is around the impact that an investment will have on a company engaged in the same business in Australia. Let me explain. A recent article in The Guardian reported that Efic was considering a loan to a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, Resource Generation Ltd. The loan was to develop a coalmine in South Africa. The company is based in South Africa and the company has not a single mining activity in Australia. This was reported as a multimillion-dollar loan—if it were to go ahead—to build a big coalmine, a coalmine so large, in fact, that it could have an impact on the Australian coal industry. When asked about this in Senate estimates, Efic said it was not considering the project at that time, but that technically it could have funded such a project. The changes that we are making would prevent that from happening, because this bill, as proposed, would actually make it even easier for Australian taxpayer-funded support to take place through Efic for this sort of situation. Our amendments, which are to be moved in the Senate, will prevent that from happening by ensuring Efic is satisfied there will not be a negative commercial impact that could lead to job losses in companies involved in the same business within Australia. We think these are very sensible amendments, and they will be moved in the Senate. They are being moved in the interests of creating a more robust framework within which Efic operates and ensuring that there are no unintended consequences for Australian workers, because surely the purpose of a strong export market is actually about increasing the opportunities in Australia. 16:28 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I and my Labor colleagues have serious concerns about the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support For Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016—in particular, the aspect of the bill that broadens the definition of eligible export transactions to include funding for projects that are predominantly based overseas. When Efic was established, its guidelines were very clear: to support Australian businesses to build and grow their export industries in other nations. That, of course, implies that jobs for Australians would be paramount and that supporting Australian businesses would be the reason for the establishment of the corporation. Through a series of amendments to the operation of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, we seem to be getting further and further away from that initial aim. This amendment bill appears to represent that. That is why Labor will move amendments in the Senate to this bill that will strengthen the provisions of the bill and ensure that the aim for which Efic was established—most notably, to support the growth of Australian businesses through exports in other countries—is paramount. The purpose of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support For Commonwealth Entities) Bill is to amend the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act for two main purposes. Firstly, it is to permit the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, or Efic, to provide specialist financial advice to Commonwealth government bodies, subject to ministerial approval. Secondly, it is to broaden the definition of eligible export transactions, such that a wider range of businesses will be able to receive a range of insurance and financial services and products from Efic, as the Australian connection required to access Efic's assistance will be relaxed under the amendments proposed under this bill. In practice, the second objective would allow Efic to more easily loan money to Australian companies to increase their international trading opportunities, which would bring benefits to the Australian economy. However, it would also allow Efic to loan money to Australian companies to increase their manufacturing capabilities overseas, or to a company to set up a call centre in another country. So there is a real concern that this bill will promote the shifting of Australian operations to other nations and ultimately result in a net loss of jobs for Australian workers. Efic can provide a range of insurance and financial services and products under part 4 of the act. Specifically, Efic can provide: export payments insurance contracts; guarantees and subsidies in relation to loans to Australian suppliers; guarantees and subsidies in relation to loans to overseas buyers; guarantees to co-lenders in relation to export transactions; tender guarantees and performance guarantees; reinsurance of guarantees; and also loans to finance eligible export transactions. Whether a particular service or product can be provided depends on whether the transaction is an eligible export transaction or a transaction that involves the Australian export trade. Though not legislated, it is expected that Efic will operate on a commercial basis, and Efic must not provide financial services or products on its commercial account unless Efic is satisfied that the private sector providers are unable or unwilling to support financially viable business activities, and Efic should ensure its activities fill the market gap where private provider finance is not forthcoming. As I mentioned earlier, I and my Labor colleagues hold some concerns about the objective of broadening the definition of 'eligible export transactions'. Despite the internal Efic policy stating that any loan cannot result in net Australian job losses, I feel that that is not strong enough to safeguard the protection of Australian workers and their interests. It is Labor's strong belief that Australian taxpayer money should be spent to benefit Australian taxpayers—in particular, to grow jobs in the domestic economy, be that through domestic operations or export operations. Any potential loophole that allows this basic principle to be circumvented should be firmly shut. As a result of these concerns, Labor sent this bill to a parliamentary committee to investigate the potential effects of broadening the range of projects to benefit from Efic's financial support. This best-practice measure offered stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in and provide some insight into the measures' practical impacts. In the evidence provided to that committee inquiry, the committee found that the Australian Fair Trade & Investment Network submitted that, in the absence of the requirement for firms to actually produce goods and services in Australia and employ Australians, there would be no incentive for firms receiving Efic loans to have any Australian content, leading to the perverse situation that an Australian government institution could be providing finance and support for firms that are offering no employment in Australia. That is a ridiculous situation, and no Australian taxpayer would believe that that is a fair situation or should be a basis upon which Efic should be lending money to or providing guarantees for finance to particular Australian businesses. The Australia Institute expressed concern around the potential for further offshoring of Australian manufacturing, saying: For example, a garment company based in Australia could move all production offshore, but still be eligible for Efic's services. The ACTU simply stated: It is in the national interest that companies which receive government loans are required to use that money in a way which benefits Australian employment. And it said that the removal of such provisions could potentially result in the loss of Australian jobs. Despite these concerns, Labor is not seeking to vote down this bill altogether. We are seeking to make it a better piece of legislation and to improve the operations of Efic so that it does meet its establishment obligations to provide support to increase exports and to grow jobs in the Australian economy. We acknowledge the government's claim that this will save business $12,000 in red tape and time. Labor is committed to supporting Australian business and securing Australian jobs, and we support the bill, but with the amendments that have been outlined by the shadow minister in this debate. Those amendments, we feel, will serve to strengthen it against the undesirable consequences flagged, in committees, to the Australian parliament as being against the interests of workers and businesses. So we will move those amendments in the Senate. The amendments will ensure that, prior to approval of a loan or guarantee for an overseas investment, Efic must be satisfied that: firstly, the investment will lead to jobs growth in Australia, which is a very, very important obligation and a principle for which Efic was originally established; secondly, the investment will not be used to replace a function currently being undertaken in Australia, the important notion here being that it should be a growth strategy, not a replacement strategy or a strategy to shift business to other parts of the world; and, thirdly, the investment will not have any negative commercial impact on a company engaged in the same business in Australia. Those are the three amendments to this bill that Labor will seek to move in the Senate, to strengthen the bill's provisions, make it a better use of Australian taxpayers' money and, importantly, support Australian workers' jobs. I commend all those senators involved in this debate to support those sensible Labor amendments. 16:37 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta This is a really interesting area—and one particularly interesting for me, because I worked in an area, for many years, in the commercial sector where work just flowed freely across international borders. I remember giving a lecture to a forum about 30 years ago, talking about the ultimate effect of globalisation as not about imports and exports of total goods but the complete fracturing of the way things move across borders, including labour. As early as the late nineties, in the music sector, in which I worked, we already had firms in Australia providing the soundtracks for American daily programs overnight, using the difference in the time zone to effectively work a 24-hour shift, and that was back before the GST, because, when the GST came in, I remember thinking, 'I'm not quite sure we're in the right decade here—it is the wrong time for this.' So this is an area that I have watched for a long time. In my community, where we have a lot of people who were born overseas who have expertise and knowledge of overseas markets, we have a lot of entrepreneurs who develop something in Australia and manufacture it in their country of birth. We have a Kenyan fashion designer who uses Kenyan fabrics and Kenyan manufacturers. We have a couple of Nepalese boys who do the same. We have a Fijian-Indian Australian, who recently got her citizenship just in time, who heads off to Kenya and works with the Masai women on her beaded designs which are kind of half Indian and half Kenyan. So we have these phenomenal young entrepreneurs in modern Australia who think in a profoundly different way. The world is actually theirs. They are connected in ways that Australia was not. When I talk to these young people, I quite often say to them, 'Look, if you're going to train those Kenyan women in how to make that for a Western body, you should invest in the factory—you should actually own part of it, so that you can sell those skills to other people around the world.' If you are working with women in remote villages, as one of my Indian designers does, there are ways to make sure that your work returns to you in ways other than just the manufacture of the product. This is a great thing—this changing nature of Australia and the way that our population is so woven into the world. This is actually a good thing. As great as that activity is, the question is: to what extent should the taxpayer pay for it? That is the issue. To what extent should the taxpayer subsidise or assist that kind of activity? What are the rules, if you like, for what the Australian taxpayer does or does not pay for? The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 extends what the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment can do in terms of its support of Australian companies. It has two purposes, the first being to allow Commonwealth entities and companies to access the loan expertise of Efic for a fee, with the approval of the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. That currently occurs with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It is non-controversial. Both sides of the House see benefit in that. I will state, though, that this is about Efic managing loans for other departments. It is a very effective way of using the expertise of one government entity and expanding it across a broader range of activities. It is a very good thing. The second purpose of the bill is to allow Efic to provide loans to Australian companies for overseas investments, and this is where it gets slightly more controversial—there is more to consider in this one. On this side of the House, our concerns are the effect that this change will have on Australian jobs. We are concerned that we will see Australian jobs shifting offshore. We have heard the stories, as many have, following an article in The Guardian which claimed Efic was preparing to loan funds to a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange to establish a mine in South Africa. Efic did confirm in the Senate estimates last month that they are no longer considering the loan at this stage as no formal proposal has been submitted, but it is still listed on their website as being considered, and Efic confirmed that the original application was consistent with the Efic Act. We have, already, an interesting situation with Efic, and this bill extends that slightly. We had enough concern to refer this to a committee. The evidence given to that committee is worth sharing in this House. The Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network said: It is a reasonable and in fact modest requirement that firms receiving support from Efic actually produce goods and/or services in Australia and employ Australians. It provides ample flexibility for firms to have offshore operations where required. In the absence of such a requirement, there would be no incentive for firms receiving Efic loans to have any Australian content. This would lead to the perverse situation of an Australian government institution being able to provide support for firms providing no employment in Australia. The Australia Institute said: This has the potential to not only deprive finance to companies that produce in Australia but also to give advantage to their competition in other countries. The ACTU said: It is in the national interest that companies which receive government loans are required to use that money in a way which benefits Australian employment. The removal of these provisions will be yet another blow to the Australian manufacturing and services sectors. There are a range of voices out there that express what is quite a reasonable concern. Of course, much of the way this works will take place through regulation, so the detail is still largely unknown, but, when money is limited and it goes to offshore activity rather than onshore, it does actually pull money out of onshore activity. I will be quite honest about this: it is such a complex issue when you live in an electorate like mine, with such incredible diversity, where the world is their market. I am looking forward to the process that we go through as these regulations are developed. I will be watching the government very closely to ensure that, where possible, they put a priority on the funding of projects which provide a tangible benefit in terms of jobs in Australia. I understand all of the reasons why a government would seek to expand the criteria in this way. There would be many in my community that would be very much in favour of this. Again, I think it is a complex area that needs considerable consideration and a lot of consultation with the sector as we move forward. We on this side will not oppose it. I look forward to, I hope, a close working relationship with the government as the regulation unfolds so that we can all make sure that this serves the best interests of Australian industry going forward. 16:45 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce When working well, of course, Efic can play an important role in filling market gaps, which is a contested term, nevertheless, in facilitating jobs and growth. Jobs and growth—actually, I remember that. We lived through the never-ending election campaign when we heard a lot about jobs and growth. Here was I at the start of the campaign thinking it was in fact policy but, as the rest of Australia figured out, it turned out to be a website and a slogan—it was blue and yellow, with a banner and a lovely logo, but not a policy. In fact, since the budget the government has gone rather quiet on jobs and growth because, in fact, the budget cut the jobs forecast by 92,000 jobs and cut the growth forecast. So we have not heard so much about that. Any proposals to facilitate economic growth—more investment, more trade, more jobs—are welcome. We all in this parliament should approach it constructively to get the best possible outcome for Australian jobs and businesses. As has been said, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 does two things. I will just make a couple of brief remarks on the first aspect which has been largely glossed over because it does have support. There are few issues here, as the Bills Digest touched on. The first objective is to expand Efic's function so it can provide specialist finance advice to Commonwealth entities and companies. Currently, it is only permitted to provide that to the NAIF—and isn't the NAIF a funny thing. All it has actually spent money on is its board and consultants; it has not actually spent any money developing northern Australia—but, you know, northern Australia lives in hope. We support the amendment which will, hopefully, lower government service delivery costs as other Commonwealth entities can then access Efic's expertise. This touches on a couple of important issues from the point of public administration. Consultant and contractor spend by the Commonwealth for many years—and this is actually not particular to this government—has been a significant item; well over half a billion dollars on consultants alone across the Commonwealth Public Service in 2015-16, the most recent full year figures. Of course, there are legitimate circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for departments and agencies to procure in specialist expertise. Indeed, commercial advice and financial expertise is probably up the top of that list, where it is not reasonable to expect the plethora of agencies across the Commonwealth public sector to have that advice in-house. It is quite natural and, indeed, critical that they turn externally to procure advice, but it is not cheap advice. It makes eminent sense then to draw on existing expertise, such as that that resides in Efic to assist other agencies. It could lower costs. The Bills Digest raises a few issues and a note of caution. The government has provided no indication or assessment that we can see of the likely frequency of this advice. This provides the potential for a very substantial draw on resources should this take off, and no additional funding is flagged. I would urge the government to make sure that in managing this new function there is a great degree of consciousness about the potential for displacement of resources because no-one would want to see resources in Efic diverted, if you like, to become an in-house consulting house to government and away from its core business, which is the provision of export credit to increase jobs growth and exports. That leads then to the main concerns with this badly thought-through bill—it is a good objective but we do have a number of serious concerns about the drafting. The second aspect is to allow Efic to provide loans to Australian companies to expand or set up overseas operations. To give the government the benefit of the doubt, there are unintended negative consequences. But we have tried to be helpful as an opposition and we have put forward a number of sensible, proposed amendments which we would urge the Senate take up. The major concern is the potential impact on Australian jobs. The bill, as drafted, could allow loans to offshore manufacturing. The submissions to the Senate inquiry made that clear and 'the potential to reduce jobs that produce goods and services in Australia'. I cannot imagine any member of this House would think it a good use of Commonwealth taxpayer funds to give loans or loan guarantees to a company that then takes jobs offshore. There was a comment in the Bills Digest that I do not think anyone would want to see a circumstance where the main criteria was the flow-back of profits onshore if we actually had job losses. That is perverse. As legislators I think it is incumbent on us to be careful and cautious and to examine the detail. Indeed, the Senate committee has done some of that already. I will just summarise the three amendments without going into detail. First, the Australian jobs test, which is designed to make sure that before making a loan or guarantee spent overseas that Efic must be satisfied that a supported investment would lead to jobs and growth in Australia. It is not controversial—or it should not be—that we satisfy ourselves that this will actually grow domestic jobs and that the sole criterion should not be the earnings flow offshore under this new arrangement. Second is the amendment to prevent business using Efic loans or guarantees to offshore jobs. The third, as has been touched on by a number of members, is to make sure that disturbing reports we read in The Guardian of loans being given to finance coalmines in South Africa, which would hurt the Australian coal industry, on the way through with taxpayer money could not proceed and were clearly ruled out. So in the spirit of bipartisanship we lend our support to this bill but will urge and encourage the government to take up our sensible proposals for amendments in the Senate. 16:51 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016. As secretary of the Australian Jobs Taskforce I get to hear stories all around the country of people in our community that are looking for work. Those who were highly skilled and employed to work in mines, for example, are now out of work with the downturn. When we hear those stories we want to do everything we can to make sure that we have a policy setting in this country that can put those people into work. I hope that those sentiments will be supported by everyone in this place. Assistance to Australian businesses and manufacturers to become exporters and explore overseas opportunities is always welcome. In my electorate I have a number of local manufacturers who already export overseas, and I am sure they would support access to a facility to create further opportunities for overseas markets. I would hate to think there would be legislation that could allow a competitor to set up in an overseas market that would have a direct impact on a local industry and, of course, local jobs. Labor supports the principles of this legislation, but as my colleague the member for Bruce and other speakers outlined, we do have some concerns, which is why we will be moving amendments to protect Australian jobs Efic has a test of no net job losses. That should not be a minimum; there should be a high standard of net job growth in this country. That is what we should be aiming to achieve. Like many other places in Australia, Tasmania and my electorate have seen Australian manufacturing jobs go overseas, and that has huge implications for our community. Blundstone, for example, moved their operations off shore from Hobart, and 300 jobs were lost. More recently, in my electorate, Caterpillar moved the vast majority of their Burnie-based manufacturing jobs offshore, and 280 jobs were lost from a regional community. It has devastating implications. Community, government and the AMWU worked really hard to try to offset some of the damage, and they should be congratulated for their efforts there because we have become a very resilient community because of that. The last thing my state and electorate would need is a system whereby a company could access Commonwealth finance to set up overseas and replace an existing local operation. It has been a fear up to this point that that could potentially happen in the coal industry. The principal focus of taxpayer money on this issue should be to support local jobs, not to run the risk of jobs simply being exported. I do not think anyone in this place would like to see that happen. Any potential for the offshoring of Australian jobs must be prevented, which is why Labor will be moving amendments. I have spoken before about my local manufacturers in this place and how they have been resilient and bouncing back. Only yesterday the Australia Institute Centre for Future Work released a briefing paper titled Manufacturing: A moment of opportunity. The paper was released at the National Manufacturing Summit held in this place only this week. The summit brought together business, unions, universities, the financial sector and numerous other key stakeholders. Its purpose was to identify policies that could assist an Australian manufacturing industry turnaround. The paper makes the point that while the focus on Australian manufacturing tends to be on job losses, factory closures and redundancies, the sector is recovering. The paper highlights that a number of indicators suggest economic opportunities for Australian manufacturing have improved. Manufacturing employment has increased over the last 12 months. The growth in manufacturing was the second-largest increase in jobs recorded over the period of any sector in the Australian economy—surpassed only by public administration and safety. And governments should not be patting themselves on the back for this job growth as it is coming off a very low base. The growth is being led by industries in my electorate such as Elphinstone and Direct Edge, not the government. The average output of each worker in the manufacturing industry is also increasing, and the report stated output to hours worked in manufacturing is returning to its peak achieved under the former Labor government. That is interesting in itself, because manufacturing productivity in Australia was at its highest over the last 10 years under a Labor government and on the back of a global financial crisis. It just goes to show what can actually happen when government and the manufacturing unions, like the AMWU, work together. Perhaps that is a lesson the coalition could learn. Labor has always been a proud supporter of our manufacturing industry, which is why we will be moving the amendments to prevent offshoring of Australian jobs, and supporting industry to invest overseas to create export opportunities for Australians and Australian jobs is a principle Labor supports. But we are concerned changes in this bill will make it easier for a company to establish an overseas operation that will directly compete against an existing Australian operation. I would hope no-one in this place would want to see that happen. Labor is prepared to work with the minister and Efic to ensure this legislation achieves exactly what it is meant to do, but we want to avoid any unintended consequences that could stymie potential growth and opportunities in Australian industries. I know my local manufacturers, the manufacturing industry and unions, especially the AMWU, would welcome additional opportunities that this legislation could ultimately bring. 16:56 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016. In particular, I want to acknowledge a number of the contributions that were made. To my shadow minister, the member for Blaxland, as he outlined in his contribution to the chamber, we have got a good working relationship on this—it is a good working relationship full stop—but it has also been a productive discussion that we have been having with respect to this Efic legislation. Those listening to this debate would have heard contributions from both sides of the chamber as to the way in which we can make sure that the legislation is crafted in the best way possible to ensure that we are giving the maximum opportunity to Australian businesses, Australian job opportunities and our exporters. That has been a guiding principle in the development of this legislation, and I will make some more remarks in more detail about that. In terms of comments that were made, I have heard a number of contributions from members opposite, which I will go to in a moment, but I would like to reflect just for the moment on some of the contributions from government members—in particular, the member for Hughes and the member for Goldstein. Both recognised the important contribution of small and medium sized businesses in their electorates and the importance of being able to ensure that they can invest and grow their businesses. In particular, the member for Hughes spoke about the significant role Efic will play as Australian small and medium businesses continue to expand and take advantage of the opportunities that the coalition government has been able to put in place, in particular, with respect to the three North Asian powerhouse economies of China, Korea and Japan. These are of course preferential market access opportunities that I continue to pursue now as trade minister and, in particular, the focus and emphasis that I put on them in terms of concluding, we hope, a comprehensive partnership agreement with Indonesia by the end of this year. Discussions in that respect are going well, and I am driven by the knowledge that, if we conclude a very good deal—particularly with respect to Indonesia, given its geographic proximity to Australia and the size of the Indonesian economy—we will be in a very good position with respect to enabling Australian exporters to take advantage of what is a rapidly growing economy and what will, over the coming decade or two, become one of the most significant economies in the globe. I also note the member for Hughes made comment about the importance of giving Australian businesses a level playing field to compete on. This is a principle that this legislation will help to put in place. The member for Goldstein made a number of comments about how businesses in his electorate are entrepreneurial and have access to finance, such as that provided by Efic and that this helps them to grow from small businesses to medium businesses and beyond. In terms of the contributions by opposition members, I cannot help but think that perhaps a number of them—and I do not mean the this in an overly negative way—were speaking from old talking points. The reason I say that is because there were a number of concerns that opposition members raised which are addressed in the government's amendments that are on the table and that have been circulated. For example, in particular, we heard contributions made by the shadow minister and others, including the member for Shortland, about Labor's proposed second amendment. They gave the example about wanting to ensure that a business would not relocate a call centre from Australia to an offshore location. They said that by putting in place those changes it would not help to prevent that from taking place. I will make further remarks about this in respect of the consideration in detail aspects of this bill, about the government's amendments and why we do not believe that some aspects of what Labor has put forward make sense. In fact, they would result in a poorer policy framework. The member for Macquarie made complaints about how the bill eliminates references to Australian manufacturing. Again, this is a case in point about the amendments that the government has put on the table and which have been circulated already making it clear that we will no longer eliminate references to Australian manufacturing. They will leave these in place. Instead, they will just add export of services, IT and software, as well as tourism services, to the bill. I think that many of the contributions that Labor members made were well intentioned, but that perhaps they were ignorant of the amendments that the government has already circulated and that they do not recognise the fact that their concerns have been addressed in the government amendments that we have put forward. Let me make it clear: the government is absolutely committed to supporting Australian exporters in the 21st century, and this bill achieves our aim. This bill further strengthens Efic's focus on supporting Australian small-and medium-sized enterprises that cannot obtain private sector finance to expand their reach overseas. This focus is paying dividends. During the course of the last financial year, Efic provided over 110 SME exporters with over $155 million in funding. However, Efic could do more to help Australian SMEs. This bill responds to the new ways in which our SMEs are growing Australian exports and expanding their reach overseas. Our legislation must change to enable Efic to lend directly to a wider range of Australian SMEs, including tourism operators, online businesses, exporters of intellectual property and other related rights and businesses engaged in overseas direct investment. The changes give these businesses the ability to benefit from an Efic loan. Previously, Efic could only provide a guarantee for a loan from another bank for these types of exporters of Australian goods and services. This change will save these businesses time and money by allowing them to borrow directly from Efic. For example, consider the case of a small charter business running whale-watching tours out of Brisbane or the Gold Coast. The business wanted to increase its capacity to meet the needs of the growing number of international visitors. With its bank unable to help, they approached Efic. However, Efic could not assist under the existing legislation. The changes in this bill will enable Efic to loan to tourism operators like this one, which provide services directly to retail customers. The changes also introduce a legislative stipulation to ensure there are more Australian jobs where Efic supports Australian businesses to expand overseas. I note that it is already Efic policy that applicants for its overseas direct investment financing product must not use it to fund the outsourcing of jobs. The changes will require businesses to certify in writing their reasonable belief that Efic's support for overseas direct investment will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by their business or an affiliate. The government is committed to unlocking Efic's potential to support the operation and administration of government financing arrangements. Efic already provides fee-for-service support to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and the changes in this bill will enable Efic to provide its specialist financial services to a wider range of Commonwealth entities and companies. The changes will ensure that this is on a fee-for-service basis, subject to ministerial approval. Efic's provision of services will not impact on Efic's support for SMEs. In summary, the changes contained in this bill will benefit a wider range of Australian SMEs, often family-owned, as they seek to export, innovate online, sell intellectual property, expand their reach overseas and grow jobs at home. This bill will ensure Efic remains agile to respond to their financing needs. It will also enable Commonwealth entities and companies to leverage Efic's financing expertise when required. These reforms will make it easier for Efic to support our exporters in their contribution to the growth of Australian jobs and the promotion of trade, tourism and investment. I thank all those on both sides of the House who have contributed to this debate. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 7549 17:06 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 I move government amendments (1) to (3), as circulated, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 12 to 14), omit the item, substitute: 2 At the end of subsection 3(3) Add: ; or (e) the supply to persons who are not ordinarily resident in Australia of services relating to tourism; or (f) the conduct of an online business with customers outside Australia; or (g) the sale or licensing of intellectual property and related rights to persons outside Australia; or (h) direct investment outside Australia where a benefit flows back to Australia (whether directly or indirectly). (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item 6, insert: 6A At the end of section 16 Add: (3) However, EFIC must not make a guarantee or enter into a contract under this section in relation to a loan or a proposed loan that is to be used for the dominant purpose of direct investment outside Australia unless the requirement in subsection (4) is satisfied. (4) The person who carries on the business must certify, by writing given to EFIC, that the person reasonably believes that the loan will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by the business or a related business during the term of the loan. 6B At the end of section 23 Add: (3) However, EFIC must not lend money under this section for the purpose of financing a transaction whose dominant purpose is direct investment outside Australia unless the requirement in subsection (4) is satisfied. (4) The person to whom the money is lent must certify, by writing given to EFIC, that the person reasonably believes that the loan will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia in the business concerned or a related business during the term of the loan. (3) Schedule 1, items 7 and 8, page 4 (lines 10 to 17), omit the items, substitute: 7 Section 84A Repeal the section, substitute: 84A EFIC must charge for certain services (1) EFIC must charge fees for services it provides in performing the following: (a) EFIC's Northern Australia economic infrastructure functions; (b) EFIC's Commonwealth entities function. (2) The fees: (a) must be sufficient to compensate EFIC for the services it provides in relation to those functions; but (b) must not be such as to amount to taxation. I rise to move three amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016. The government has responded to the 7 February report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee inquiry into the provisions of the bill. The amendments address issues raised in the report and clarify the purpose of the bill to enable Efic to support a broader range of small and medium sized enterprises, ensure Efic's support for overseas direct investment results in more Australian jobs and ensure Efic charges a fee for providing its services to Commonwealth entities and companies. The first amendment maintains the EFIC Act's support for manufacturing and expands the definition of an eligible export transaction to include support for tourism operators, online businesses, exporters of intellectual property and other related rights, and businesses engaged in overseas direct investment. The second amendment will ensure Efic's support for businesses engaged in overseas direct investment will result in more Australian jobs. It is already Efic policy that applicants for its overseas direct investment financing product must not use it to fund the outsourcing of jobs. This amendment stipulates that businesses will have to certify in writing their reasonable belief that Efic support for overseas direct investment will result in a net increase in the number of people employed by the business concerned or related business in Australia. The third amendment will mandate that Efic charge a compulsory fee for providing services to Commonwealth entities and companies. This fee will not amount to taxation, but will ensure Efic is compensated for providing its specialist financial expertise. The amended bill will unlock Efic's potential to respond to the needs of complex government financing arrangements, subject to ministerial approval. The amendments also clearly enable Efic to support a wider range of innovative Australian small and medium sized enterprises to succeed in the global marketplace. I certainly commend these amendments to the House. 17:08 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the minister for bringing forward these amendments. They do arise from a lot of the evidence that came forward in that committee, but not its recommendations. To be fair, they arise from conversations that the minister and myself have had and that our respective offices have had about the need for an Australian jobs test to make sure that, where Efic is providing a loan to a company that is spent overseas, it provides an assurance that it will deliver additional jobs to Australia. The minister made the point that, where Efic provides loans at the moment, it already has an internal process to make sure that there is no net loss of jobs. What the minister is proposing in this amendment is that the company that would be provided with the loan would provide an assurance to Efic that this would provide additional jobs. We reserve the right to tinker with this amendment in the Senate if we think it might be stronger if that responsibility should rest with Efic rather than the business. The current responsibility that Efic has in its internal policy is that it makes that determination itself, I understand. So we will consider this amendment and see whether it might benefit from some minor changes to it in the Senate. But we support this amendment here. As I foreshadowed in the substantive debate, I also outlined two further amendments that Labor intends to move in the Senate. With the benefit of the winter break, I am hopeful that the minister and I might have further conversations about the benefits of those amendments and, potentially, a briefing from Efic on how they might work in practice. Subject to those conversations proceeding well, we might find other ways to strengthen this bill further so that it provides support for Australian businesses seeking to export and expand overseas, so that it makes sure there are no unintended consequences from this legislation and so that it creates more jobs here in Australia. 17:10 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In speaking to the bill, there is a gap to which attention has been drawn to by the leader of the Xenophon party in the Senate. There are holes that enable money to be given by the government to foreign corporations. If I went home and told my electorate that an Australian government would give assistance to foreign corporations, they would think that I had taken a few too many hits without a helmet on in rugby league. They would not believe it. The decision was taken here not to intervene in the gas sales of all of our gas reserves overseas. It was a decision taken in this parliament by both sides of the parliament that we are quite happy for foreigners to own all of our gas reserves. There are people negotiating to buy Australian gas from Japan because it is cheaper to buy Australian gas from Japan than to buy it here in Australia. This would all be very funny except we have major industrial operations in Australia that are placed in the gravest of jeopardy. We are talking here about allowing the government to provide assistance to these foreign corporations. If you think that is outrageous and extremist, well, who would have thought that the governments of Australia would have given all of their gas reserves away? Who would think that there is a government on earth that could be so stupid—and both governments; I am not singling out the LNP, I can assure you; the ALP, as well—to be quite happy that we have no petrol in Australia? In sharp contrast—whatever you say about the Americans—according to the reports I have read, 10 or 15 per cent of America's petrol needs are being met from oil shales, 12 per cent is being met by ethanol, about seven per cent is being met by gas and about two per cent is being met by electric cars. If necessary, 30 per cent of their oil requirements can be met by uncapping the oil wells that they have capped. Just a short history lesson for the people in this place: for the last big war that we were in, Japan was forced into the war because America cut off their oil supply. The European war was simply about Hitler trying to get to the oilfields. He tried through Stalingrad and he tried through North Africa. The world is prepared to go to massive wars over the supply of oil, yet this place decides that there is no problem in getting all of our oil from the Middle East when we are a country that is gifted in such a way that, like Brazil, we can provide 60 per cent of our oil requirements from ethanol. A cavalier attitude at best and a traitorous attitude at worst allows this to happen. In the minute left to me, what country on earth has the national flags that it hands out made in China? What country on earth has all of its ordnance owned by the French? What country on earth get the boots for its army from China—and the soles fall off? And I cannot help but tell an anecdotal story that illustrates that point. I said, 'Did 2,000 soldiers really have the soles fall off their boots last Anzac Day?' and the head of the catafalque party, a sergeant major, lifted up his foot and he was marching along in just the uppers and his socks. This was the next year. What sort of a country continues on like this? When will we learn that we are Australians, we are not some foreign corporation? When will we act in the interests of our own people and not in the interests of foreign corporations? (Time expired) 17:15 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I will pick up on some of the points that have been made with respect to this debate. I understand the legitimacy of the concerns of the member for Kennedy, but there are reasons why Efic does provide finance to foreign corporations. I will give you but one example. Efic provided finance to a Norwegian business because that Norwegian business was buying an Australian ferry. One way to think of it is that it is effectively a form of vendor financing. It ensures that foreign companies are generating jobs in Australia. They are generating jobs in Australia because of the requirement that there be a linkage between the finance that Efic provides and the ability to export a product. I do understand what the member for Kennedy is saying, but it is not that black and white. The fact is that there are foreign businesses that Efic, by providing that finance, will ensure purchase Australian manufactured goods and Australia services. These are Australia goods that provide employment opportunities for Aussies all around this country, including, for example, Incat in Tasmania, who are able to provide employment opportunities and help boost the Tasmanian economy as a direct result of that finance going to a foreign entity, which, in turn, buys Australian manufactured goods. That is part of the reason why we have that requirement ensuring that there is that direct link. I want to assure the member for Kennedy that there is always the requirement for a direct link back to Australian exports, and that is a crucial part of what we are doing here. The other aspects that I will quickly raise before this debate concludes are in respect of the amendments that have been foreshadowed, which these amendments within the chamber currently address. As a consequence of the amendments that the government is putting forward, we are currently putting in place a net positive jobs test. It is the coalition that is making sure that there must be an improvement in the jobs outcomes—not a neutral jobs impact but, in fact, a net positive jobs impact—as a consequence of providing finance to a foreign entity. Labor has outlined two amendments. One is to prohibit finance being provided to a business overseas that may possibly impact on an operation in Australia, and they cited the example of a call centre. We cannot support that because what that amendment will effectively seek to do is freeze in time the composition of the business. If a business were evolving and, for example, moved a function of that business abroad in order to generate more employment, more profits and a more efficient business in Australia, then, in net terms, that would be a positive, and my concern with that amendment is that that would not be the case. The final point with respect to Labor's foreshadowed amendment is with respect to prohibiting overseas investment where it would have a negative commercial impact on a company engaged in the same business in Australia. I have heard a number of Labor members and, indeed, the shadow minister make reference to the recent Guardian article. I think it is important that we understand that there is another side to that. For example, I have a letter from Glenn Jobling, the engineering director of Adelaide Control Engineering. He wrote: 'Without the support of Efic, we would not have been able to meet all of the contract provisions, which would have resulted in the client cancelling the approximately $11 million Australian order, the bulk of which involved equipment manufactured in Australia, resulting in significant benefits in terms of employment both in my company and those of my suppliers. Perhaps even more importantly, the success in winning this contract has opened the door for further similar orders both within Australia and overseas. Your'—that is, Efic's—'assistance has thus enabled us to invest in the development of new technology for the mineral, mining and processing industries which, in turn, is providing opportunities in the Australian manufacturing sector.' I just cite these couple of quick examples. I want to work constructively with the Labor Party and I want to ensure that we can improve Efic's function. But these are not black-and-white issues, and there must always remain a tie back to improving the job opportunities for Australians. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 7554 17:20 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I ask leave of the House to move the third reading immediately. Leave not granted. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the minister, that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

The House divided. [17:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 71 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 59 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 7555 17:32 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 7556 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Privilege 7556 17:32 The SPEAKER 00APG After question time the Manager of Opposition Business raised some questions with me concerning the immunity available to members under section 14 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The provisions in the act provide, in part, an immunity for a member from being required to attend a court within five days, before and after, a meeting of the House. The purpose of the immunity is that members should reasonably be available to attend to their responsibilities to this House. I make a few points in response to the Manager of Opposition’s questions. the act refers to a day on which the House ‘meets’. The reasonable interpretation of this is that, should the House meet tomorrow for an extended sitting, that would still be a ‘meeting’ of the House; the immunity applies to a member personally, not to representatives who may appear before a court on behalf of a member; a member does not need to exercise the immunity; finally, the exercise of the immunity is one for individual members to assert, although as Speaker I can issue a certificate relating to a day on which the House will meet. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for raising the matter with me. It has given me the opportunity to give some clarity to the House. BUSINESS 7556 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 7556 17:34 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt While we are thanking people, Mr Speaker, can I thank the member for Fenner for showing the government that there are only 59 members of the opposition in the building—great job! Members will recall that I raised at the end of question time the process for tonight and tomorrow morning. I can report to the House that we have more clarity around the Senate's activities and their plans in terms of the request for the appropriation plus, of course, the actual amendments to the education bill. It is the intention of the government that we suspend in a moment until the ringing of the bells and not before half past seven. The reason for half past seven is that, if the Senate acts more quickly than we had originally anticipated, we might be able to do both the processes tonight that I talked about at the end of question time, which would free us up tomorrow morning. But, if we are not ready by 7.30 pm, we obviously will not ring the bells. So members can go out to dinner between now and half past seven—we will not ring the bells before half past seven—but you need to be back in the precinct by half past seven, and we will ring the bells— An opposition member interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 Well, you don't have to, of course, but we have to. We will ring the bells as soon as we get the message back from the Senate. Proceedings suspended from 17:35 to 24:00 Friday, 23 June 201 7 COMMITTEES 7557 COMMITTEES Membership 7557 00:00 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received three messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 7557 BILLS Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 7557

Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 7557 00:02 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the amendments requested by the Senate be considered immediately. 00:02 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney As the only thing before us at the moment is tipping slightly more money into this inadequate school funding bill, we accept it. We will not oppose. 00:02 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the requested amendments be made. Question agreed to. 00:03 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt The requested amendments, having been made, will be transmitted back to the Senate. The Senate of course is still sitting, considering the media law reforms. We will ascertain over the course of the next little while how long the Senate intends to consider the third reading on the Australian Education Amendment Bill. If it is apparent that it intends to consider it at some length, then we will resume tomorrow morning on the ringing of the bells, as was flagged earlier this afternoon. If it appears that the Senate will deal with it expeditiously, the Manager of Opposition Business and I have agreed that we will remain for a little while to discover the Senate's intentions. I will inform my own members, through our methods, and I will let the Manager of Opposition Business know the intentions of the Senate. Members should remain in the precinct for the next half an hour to three-quarters of an hour to determine the Senate's intentions. If it is clear that the Senate intends to take some time to deal with the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill, we will return at 9 am. I would beg the forbearance of my colleagues on both sides of the House to deal with that in the short term. When it becomes apparent what the intentions of the Senate are, I will inform the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The House is suspended until the ringing of the bells. Sitting suspended from 00:05 to 01:45 Consideration of Senate Message 7559 01:45 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the amendments be agreed to. 01:46 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney People have been talking a lot in the last few weeks about the school-funding wars. This place tonight reminds me nowhere more than of Heston Aerodrome, and the Prime Minister across there waving around his new education act like Neville Chamberlain—'peace for our time'. I will tell those opposite that I will not forget and we will not forget that this legislation is not fair, it is not needs based and it is not sector-blind funding. We will never accept legislation that means Fregon Anangu School gets $100,000 less next year than it did in 2015. I will never accept legislation that delivers a third less funding to Tasmanian children with a disability. I will never accept legislation that says kids in public schools deserve to have just 20 per cent of their education paid for while kids in private schools can get 80 per cent of their education paid for. I will never accept that The King's School, The Friends' School, Churchie and Scotch College are underfunded, according to this Prime Minister. Public schools around the country like Plunkett Street Public School, Campbell Town District High School, Mill Park Primary School and Sarah Redfern Public School—those schools, and thousands like them, will actually lose funding under what is proposed by those opposite. I will tell you what this legislation does. It reminds every Australian that they can never trust the Liberals on education. You remember the signs, don't you? 'You can vote Labor, you can vote Liberal—not a dollar difference for your school.' You remember those signs, don't you? You remember the bunting, don't you, at that election? Well, I tell you what, there will be signs and there will be bunting at the next election. You will rue this day. I tell you what, people will never trust the Liberals on education, because this Prime Minister opposite, in the last election campaign—what did he say then? He said the federal government should not provide a dollar of funding to public schools. Well, they are well on their way to that objective, aren't they—slashing the guts out of public schools and small Catholic schools right around this country, too. I will tell you something: Australians will never trust the Liberals on education and those opposite will be sorry that they have supported these cuts to schools around the country. Where has he been for the last two weeks? The Prime Minister is having a good laugh, isn't he, about the schools that will lose funding in his electorate. The Prime Minister is delighted because Cranbrook, one of the really wealthy schools in his electorate, will get a nice increase. On this side, we have fought for public schools from day one. On this side, we have fought for small systemic Catholic schools from day one, and we will restore every dollar cut by those opposite. Do you know what? One of the most disappointing things about this legislation is we have given up our ambition for Australian children. This act removes all of the ambition that we had: more children finishing year 12, closing the gap on Indigenous education, more school autonomy, better teaching—all gone from this act. Those opposite have delivered less money for our schools and less reform because we know that those opposite think that improving our schools is just so much red tape. I tell you what, the parents of Australia have been watching you. The teachers of Australia have been watching you. There is nothing worse that this parliament can do than rob the children of Australia of hope and opportunity, and that is what you have done tonight. That is what you have done. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills is warned. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [01:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 71 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Claydon, SC Collins, JM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 02:01 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt In adjourning the House, could I congratulate the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, for the most significant reform to school education in Australia's history. I move: That the House do now adjourn. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 8 August 2017 at 12 noon. House adjourned at 02:02 (Friday) NOTICES 7566 NOTICES

Thursday, 22 June 2017

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 7568 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Lyons Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 7568 10:00 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons On the Queen's Birthday we honour many Australians for their services to the Australian community. I am delighted to stand here today to pay tribute to four people in my electorate who were acknowledged in the Queen's Birthday honours list for their service. Three people, Wendy Charleston of Wilmot, John Cameron 23 of St Helens and Mary Knowles of Rossarden were awarded an OAM, or a Medal of the Order of Australia, in the general division, and David Daintree of Colebrook was awarded an AM, made a member in the general division of the Order of Australia. Wilmot is a beautiful little town—I am not sure whether members are aware of this—in the north-west of my electorate. It is very difficult to get to—there are long, winding roads—but it is a beautiful little town. The school has, I think, about 15 kids, going from grade 1 through to grade 6. It is a wonderful little community. Wendy Charleston has been awarded her medal for her service to heritage preservation and to the community of Wilmot. Wilmot is famous in Australian history as the site of the very first Coles store. Coles—the store, not the man—was actually born there. The first Coles general store was sited in the town of Wilmot. From there, it has grown to become an Australian icon. Sadly, a few years ago the Coles store there was burnt to the ground, which is a great shame, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Wendy Charleston would have been one of the people helping to preserve that store while it was around. John Cameron, of St Helens, was awarded for his service to the community for a range of roles, including the RSL, Legacy, Break O'Day Council and a veterans support centre, so he is very well regarded. Mary Knowles is a councillor for the Northern Midlands Council. I know Mary. She helped host a wonderful exhibition in Avoca last year. Her list of achievements and associations is simply too long to read out. David Daintree, from Colebrook, was awarded an AM for his services to education through the University of Tasmania, the University of Sydney and a whole range of other academic achievements. I really would like to pay tribute to these four great citizens of the electorate of Lyons. Their recognition in the Queen's Birthday honours list is very well deserved. They do a lot for the community. They do it not for the money but for their passion for their community, their love of community, and I wish them well. Mitchell Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours, SAFHEART Initiative 7568 10:03 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Last Monday was a special occasion, as we marked the official celebration of the 91st birthday of our longest reigning monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I can think of no better way to do that than to celebrate and recognise the best and brightest amongst our community with the awards that the Queen issues. I congratulate and commend several upstanding recipients from the electorate of Mitchell. Mike Blair received the Order of Australia Medal for his outstanding service to local government and the community of Baulkham Hills, having served as a councillor and deputy mayor. He founded the Tour de Hills Bicycle Classic, has been president of the Rotary Club of Castle Hill for a long time and has been involved in helping victims of domestic violence through the Lisa Harnum Foundation and The Sanctuary. Barry Gobbe received an OAM for his exemplary 42-year service as a paramedic, and as a first responder in the Granville train disaster, the history of which he has since fought to preserve. It would be remiss of me not to mention Barry's work in cofounding Western Sydney Homeless Connect, and Blue House Juvenile and Homeless Refuge and commend him on his work with The Children's Hospital at Westmead. Beverly Dykes received an Order of Australian medal for her immeasurable contribution to the local community through her work in the Parramatta family law courts and the Anglican Board of Mission, just to name a couple. Graham Towle received his Order of Australia medal for his dedication and passion, having given countless hours to Swimming New South Wales, Swimming Australia and the McCredie Park aquatics club. Guruswamy Jayaraman received an OAM for his service to the Indian community of Western Sydney, one of the largest diasporas of Indian people in Western Sydney, which is of course right near my electorate and the largest Sikh temple in Australia in Riverstone. I thank Kellyville local Ken Murphy AFSM, who received the Australian Fire Service Medal for 33 years dedicated service to firefighting. I must also mention Dr Paul Byleveld, who received a Public Service Medal for his efforts, both in Australia and overseas, to improve water quality. The admiration that we have for these fine individuals, these Australians, and for their selfless energy and passion goes without saying. They are the foundations of what makes Australia such a great place to live. They are people who succeed in their professional endeavours, who look after themselves and their families and who spend all of their lives in dedicated service to the community by that pure voluntary instinct that says we want to do it not because we are compelled by the government, not because we believe that we have to, but because we want to help others, we want to serve others, and we want to ensure that our community is a great and safe and secure place. These people are what makes the fabric of our society so strong. They give up their time. They give up their effort. They dedicate themselves with no thought of reward to serve the causes that they choose to work with. We are so grateful to them for the countless hours that they put in. I also want to just take a moment to welcome the SAFEHEART initiative in my electorate. That is a collaborative initiative between the Lisa Harnum Foundation and the Make Bullying History Foundation. It is a fantastic initiative in my electorate, and I am looking forward to seeing it do so much to help women escape domestic violence in the north-west of Sydney. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority 7569 10:06 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Earlier this month, the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee handed down its report into the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order 2016. This is the order that would give effect to the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale. The key recommendation coming out of the Senate committee report is that the order be revoked—yes, that the order be revoked. The report says: The committee considers this government policy order is deficient in a number of … areas. This order is opposed by stakeholders, the agricultural sector, and the regulator itself on the basis that it is 'all cost and no benefit'. Tellingly, the government's own cost-benefit analysis reached the same conclusion, finding no strategic or other benefits to the move. 'No strategic or other benefits to the move'. It continues: This analysis also found that the benefit to Armidale from the move would be less than the economic loss to Canberra from losing the agency. This report confirms again the Deputy Prime Minister's blatant and shameless pork-barrelling effort to retain his seat at the last election. The report says: It appears that no other location was ever under serious consideration by the government. The committee received no evidence that other regions were consulted or provided with the opportunity to compete for the APVMA. Toowoomba, raised as an option in the Deputy Prime Minister's letter to the CEO of the APVMA, and preferred by the CEO in her reply, appears to have been dismissed very early. I wonder why! It continues: At the Canberra hearing, both the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and the APVMA admitted that the Deputy Prime Minister did not request nor did they provide any information or analysis about the unsuitability of Toowoomba or the benefits that Armidale held over Toowoomba. The lack of clarity regarding the decision-making process and the absence of a transparent selection process leads the committee to conclude that there is only one obvious driver for the decision, and that is political self-interest. This is hardly a surprising outcome because the order is all cost, and the only benefit it delivers is the benefit to the Deputy Prime Minister's re-election prospects. The Senate committee's report is just further proof that the Turnbull government's argument for decentralisation is a thought bubble with no substance. How many of the 38 per cent of government agencies here in Canberra does the Turnbull government want to get out of Canberra? How many thousands of public servants do you want to move from Canberra? Do you really want to decimate Canberra? Is that the objective here? Do you really want to fly in the face of Sir Robert Menzies's legacy? This report is damning. Durack Electorate: Nullagine Primary School 7570 10:09 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak about the children from the Nullagine remote community school who visited me last week here in Parliament House. When these children visited parliament last week, they delivered to me, by hand, some letters which they had written to the Prime Minister. Nullagine remote community school is a very, very long way from Canberra, some 4,500 kilometres, to be exact, but the students of Nullagine have some things they would like to say to the Prime Minister of Australia. Triston Francis and Dio Booth would like the Prime Minister to give them a new house. Sonia Francis and Ashton Francis would like a pool in town as there is no pool in Nullagine, despite it being in the middle of the Pilbara and is an incredibly hot place to live. There is, however, a river where the kids can swim but the dirty water sometimes hurts Ashton's ears—that is what she wrote. Nullagine remote community school provides education for children in one of the most remote locations in Australia. The government's Gonski 2.0 school funding model will deliver a funding increase of nearly $7,000 per student by 2028 for the Nullagine remote community school students. That is what I call needs based funding. That is not pumping money into a Sydney grammar school in the member of Sydney's electorate where the fees are some $30,000 a year. That is not wilfully ignoring Western Australian schoolchildren, as those opposite have done so for many decades. WA schools are currently at the bottom of the league ladder in terms of funding from the federal government, and it is this government on this side of the chamber that is actually going to fix that. We have heard during the Gonski 2.0 debate some longwinded bluster from those opposite about how unfair our school funding model is. We have also heard about how the cuts that they expect to happen to their school are atrocious. Let me tell you a few things about fairness. Fairness is not giving schoolchildren in government schools in very remote communities in the Pilbara like Nullagine less funding per head than children in inner city Sydney. How in anyone's world in anyone's universe is inner city Sydney a place in more need of help than Nullagine, a remote community in the middle of the Pilbara? It is absolutely absurd and yet that is quite unbelievably what those opposite are arguing. I have here a letter from Weston Stream, which I would like to read: 'Dr Mr Turnbull, my name is Weston Stream. I am 10 years old. I live in No. 5 house. It is old. I would like a better house. I would like a bedroom, a lounge and a kitchen. I love living in Nullagine'—that is the bit I love—'because it is my town. All of my family come from here. Love from Weston.' Thank you, Weston; beautifully written and beautiful handwriting. To the Nullagine remote community school, thank you for delivering me the letters and I assure you I will hand deliver them to the Prime Minister today. Australian Institute of Sport 7571 10:12 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner At the 1976 Montreal Olympics 180 athletes represented Australia but not one of them returned with a gold medal. From national humiliation, the Australian Institute of Sport was born. The Australian Institute of Sport claims partial credit for the success of so many of our athletes: Petria Thomas, Anna Meares, Michael Milton. When we ranked fourth in the medal tally in the Sydney 2000 Olympics many felt the Australian Institute of Sport deserved its share of the credit. But the Australian Institute of Sport now faces a crisis of neglect. Over the past decade, the number of Canberra based staff has fallen from 173 to 140. The number of athletes in residence has fallen from 237 to 140. Australian Institute of Sport Director Matt Favier and his team are not to blame for this trend. Over recent years and under governments of all stripes there has been a tendency for sporting bodies to move their operations out of Canberra to other parts of Australia. Next out the door is men's soccer. Football Federation Australia's Centre of Excellence is due to leave Canberra later this year. It is true that there are some sports, notably triathlon and rowing, that are recommitting to Canberra. It is also true that there is a close partnership between the ACT Academy of Sport and the Australian Institute of Sport. And it is certainly true that Canberrans like myself love the AIS. My sons do swimming at the AIS pool. I recently ran a race on the AIS track, where over the course of 10 kilometres I was lapped by the winner four times! But it needs to succeed as a national institution and I am concerned about how we can take the AIS away from its crisis of neglect towards restoring its former glory. I am calling on Canberrans and those who are concerned with sports across Australia to send me the ideas about how to rebuild the Australian Institute of Sport into a premier national institution. It might not necessarily involve more resources; it may involve the Institute of Sport playing a role bringing together sports such as squash, volleyball, basketball or cricket for focused, skills camps. As the parliamentary member whose electorate holds the Australian Institute of Sport, I am keen to engage with my community and also with people across Australia about restoring the Australian Institute of Sport to the vision that it had when it was founded in 1981, when the Fraser government opened it in part because of the personal criticism directed towards Malcolm Fraser from athletes in Montreal in 1976. Like any elite athlete, maintaining form in Australian sport can never be taken for granted. That is why I want to hear your ideas for reinvigorating the AIS. South Australian Government 7572 10:15 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My constituents, like the rest of South Australia, will be eagerly looking forward to the state budget this afternoon. It is, I think, in many ways the last roll of the dice for the Weatherill government. Already, the Premier has been out there saying that the budget is about creating jobs. That is a good thing. That is exactly what he said for the 2015 budget, the 2016 budget and now, of course, this budget. In that time, South Australia has been easily winning the unemployment stakes in Australia—a very sad thing indeed. In fact, we have 7.3 per cent unemployment. The next worse state is Queensland, with 6.3 per cent. The national average is 5.7 per cent. We are in a very dire state after 15½ years of Labor government. It is worth noting that our state net debt level is $13.6 billion. For a state the size of South Australia, that is a considerable and very onerous amount of money to be owing. The government is beset by disasters and maladministration all around it, starting with the care of the aged and the disabled with the now disgraced Oakden facility. The child protection system is in complete disarray and there has been such a great number of children that have been harmed by those who are supposed to care for them. Our unemployment rate, as I said, has reached 7.3 per cent. We have a new hospital, which is 12 months late in opening, that is apparently is the third most expensive building in the world. What a wonderful thing to be able to brag about. Certainly, looking at the size, it is quite big, but I have seen much, much bigger and flashier places all over the world. I think we have to worry about the fact that it has not been delivered on time. Then, of course, there is electricity. I have spoken in this place many times about the state of the South Australian electricity grid and what it is costing our state in terms of investment and population. Our children are moving out of the state at an ever-increasing rate. Our population is falling as a percentage of the Australian population. In fact, it is highly likely—it is on the cards—that South Australia will yet again lose another federal seat before the next federal election, which would reduce us to 10. We used to have 13, but, in the space of 20 years, we will come down to 10. That is a very clear indication of what is happening in South Australia. It is a tired government; it is out of ideas; it is time for a change. They have plunged my state, a state that I am very proud of, into disaster. Fremantle Electorate: Residents Groups 7573 10:18 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Supporting strong and dynamic local communities has to be a shared role between all levels of government in partnership with local residents. My electorate of Fremantle is fortunate to have a number of neighbourhood advocacy groups located across East Fremantle, Fremantle and Cockburn in addition to a range of groups that pursue larger regional issues like heritage preservation and environmental protection. As a representative, it is always valuable to meet with and hear from these groups, especially in the newer and faster growing parts of the Fremantle electorate. They are the forums through which people discuss and resolve local issues. They make up a network of bonding and bridging social capital. In other words, such groups bring people together who might not otherwise interact. Their work means people benefit from the rewards of shared responsibility and shared effort in a common purpose. I know it is part of my job to support them in their practical and social endeavours. To give an example of what resident groups contribute, the Yangebup Progress Association, under the leadership of Chontelle Sands, has delivered community events like the annual outdoor Christmas carols as well as providing targeted advocacy in relation to local transport and amenity. YPA has been a strong voice in support of widening the Spearwood Avenue road bridge—a project for which the City of Cockburn has been seeking federal assistance. I would also like to recognise the newly formed Beeliar Residents Action Group, or BRAG, and their president, Trace Radcliffe. BRAG is intent on bringing greater vibrancy to Beeliar by introducing night markets and working on initiatives to protect the local environment. I thank both BRAG and YPA for their support earlier this month on an event that we held with my friend and colleague the shadow Assistant Treasurer in order to consider and discuss Labor's Women's Budget Statement. I also want to recognise the efforts of the residents' group known as the community of Aubin Grove, led by Lara Kirkwood. This group has consistently championed the needs of their local neighbourhood. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet with them to discuss the woeful state of broadband in Aubin Grove, one of far too many areas around this country that still has no line broadband. We have worked together to ensure that NBN Co are aware of the dire state of telecommunications in Aubin Grove and of the importance of delivering on the current timetable. I will finish by mentioning the Hamilton Hill Community Group led by Tobias Busch, because the HHCG made an important contribution to the fight against the Perth Freight Link. They collaborate very effectively with the City of Cockburn on a range of urban design projects and they are playing a key role in facilitating community consultation for the future of the Hamilton Hill Senior High School site. Residents and community groups are a vital part of the social fabric in my electorate. They, of course, depend on the effort and energy provided on a voluntary basis by the people who act as office bearers and give their leadership and organisational skills for the benefit of their fellow citizens and residents. I acknowledge and thank them for their work. Fadden Electorate: Tourism 7574 10:21 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I encourage the nation to take a trip away from the every day and take a theme park one-day holiday. In my electorate, the biggest employers in the northern Gold Coast with almost 8,000 Australians employed—so countless tens of thousands of families being supported—are the great theme parks. We are the theme park capital of the nation with Dreamworld, WhiteWater World, Movie World, Wet'n'Wild, Australian Outback Spectacular, Paradise Country, Wet'n'Wild Buggy—Queensland's first driving adventure park—and, of course, across the Broadwater in the neighbouring electorate of Moncrieff is Sea World. There was that wonderful ad in the 80s where Dreamworld was positioning itself in terms of 'Take a trip away from the everyday, take a dream world one-day holiday. Don't say one day, that day will never come'. Let me say that that day is now: come along to the Gold Coast and experience some of the great theme parks of the world. If you look at Dreamworld, the opportunities there are huge. Not only are there the big 10 rides in terms of great roller-coasters and the like, there is Tiger Island, which has been completely redone and has daily tiger shows. WhiteWater World is superb, especially for parents to sit in the one location and watch their kids. There is the Dreamworld Corroboree experience that I opened, which is probably the only Indigenous corroboree experience attached to a major theme park and, of course, there is a major DreamWorks experience along with that. If we go to Movie World, it is about to open the DC Rivals HyperCoaster. This is 1.4 kilometres at 115 kilometres per hour of pure adrenaline—the tallest, longest, fastest hyper-coaster in the Southern Hemisphere, opening in October this year. These are world-class attractions on the northern Gold Coast. This parliament knows that—I have spoken of it extensively—we had a tragedy at Dreamworld less than 12 months ago. But the industry has risen, and the safety concerns have all been alleviated. The theme parks on the Gold Coast are the safest in the world. I go there often with my three sons. I am a pass holder for all of the major theme parks. Many times after school, I will take my boys there. It is a marvellous opportunity to come along and take a holiday. I encourage not just the House and my colleagues, but the whole country. Do not say 'one day'; that day is never going to come. Come to the northern Gold Coast and get involved. Come along to these great theme parks. Choose any of them—Dreamworld, WhiteWater World, Movie World, Wet'n'Wild, Australian Outback Spectacular, Paradise Country, Wet'n'Wild Buggy, or go across the water to Sea World, but do not say 'one day'; come today. Media 7574 10:24 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak on community television in Australia and to call on government to continue its support for the transition of community television broadcasters to go 'over the top' to an internet distribution method. Community radio and community television play an important role in meeting the objectives of the Broadcasting Services Act, which include: promoting the diversity of broadcasting services available to the Australian public; developing and reflecting Australian identity, character and cultural diversity; and providing programming material that is locally significant. The need for the local content that is being produced by Channel 44 in South Australia is a case in point. Channel 44 provides a platform for local stories, events and community activities. They promote many arts activities and events. This year they have been part of the Adelaide Fringe and the Adelaide Cabaret Festival, for example, and have created better access into the arts communities. Community broadcasting services must be provided for community purposes and cannot be operated for profit, or as part of a profit-making enterprise. They are unable to broadcast advertisements, they are subject to limits on the amount and placement of sponsorship announcements and they are subject to conditions pertaining to the sale of access to airtime. This helps maintain competitive tensions within the Australian broadcasting mix and ensures that Australians enjoy a range of services—national, community, commercial and subscription. Community broadcasters require a licence to use the broadcasting spectrum, a finite and valuable public resource. In September 2014, the then Minister for Communications announced that the transmitter licences, which authorise community TV stations to use the broadcasting spectrum to deliver their services, would not be renewed beyond 31 December 2015. This meant that the services would have to migrate to online delivery or simply cease operating. The government gave two main reasons for its decision: first, it believed that the best long-term outcome for community TV was that it use the internet as its distribution platform; and second, moving community TV out of the sixth channel spectrum would free up the spectrum needed for the testing and migration of MPEG-4 technology. Since then the government has supported the transition of community TV operators to an online-only delivery platform with financial assistance and by licence extensions, which are set to expire very soon, on 30 June 2017. In that time, community TV operators have been working very hard to make the best of the situation that was thrust upon them. All of the stations have made difficult decisions to reduce staff and expenditure and have worked to develop new sources of income, in anticipation of a reduction in revenue that comes with the transition to the online model. Channel 44 in South Australia has made concerted efforts since launching their app and online portal last year. Community TV stations are not asking for more money. They simply need more time. For these reasons, I call on government to extend community television licences until tests are actually planned or replanning is done, and that community television licensees be given six months' notice of the requirement to vacate the spectrum. This would be a pragmatic approach in the absence of an alternative use for the spectrum in the near term and would support diversity in our broadcasting landscape. Child Support Agency 7575 10:27 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Last night I received an email from someone; I am calling him Andy. He wrote despairingly about child support, poverty, and male suicide; issues that should be of great concern to us all. Andy begins: Hi Everyone, I am writing to you because I have reached the end of the line in trying to resolve my personal issue, the same issue that affects thousands of parents around the country. I am a paying parent in a child support arrangement administered through CSA. While I am willing, I would like fairness! Like so many other paying parents, I have for a number of years now experienced the bullying and completely unfair treatment exhibited by a government department that displays more of the characteristics of a debt collection agency than one where the lives of both parents and children are involved and affected. Andy woke one morning to sunrise and a life turned upside down—no children, bank account drained followed by a demand for child support payments. He understands he has a parental responsibility, but in this case it was one financial injury piled on top of another, on top of the emotional pain of being separated from his children. I hear many stories just like this one where children are used as financial pawns. It is wrong and it is damaging for both the parents and the children. Andy questions the fairness; one parent can take the children, either out of the country or to another state, as part of a premeditated plan, withdraw all the family money, leave no rights of appeal for the remaining parent and then claim child support. The CSA has the curtain of existing laws to shroud itself against the reality of unfairness. Andy also says he cannot call during work hours because he is working. He never gets the same person anyway, so he deals with everything by letter. Actually, in this day and age, having a copy of everything is not a bad idea. But what he really struggles to comprehend is how legislators or a government agency can think it is at all 'fair and reasonable' to take almost half of his post-tax fortnightly income and give it to the person who took away his children? After the calculations done by the CSA, Andy, who actually has a well-paying job, ends up living on 225 bucks a fortnight. It cost him $8.40 a day to get to and from work on the train, leaving him with $140 a fortnight. It is no wonder so many highly productive men just give up the ghost. Well, actually, some men take their life and become a ghost. I am not being flippant. This is the one of the final chapters in some cases, and the stories are impossible to tell without an overarching deep sadness for the plight of so many men who are going through a similar journey in life. I have referred many men to local help groups like Men 4 Life and Dads in Distress where people—a friend, a dedicated social worker, a counsellor—volunteer to help men through the phases of anger, grief, notions of suicide and depression as they deal with the consequences of marital breakdown. Andy has contacted members of parliament before, and they have said there is not enough interest. Well, Andy—not your real name—there is interest in this parliament. I would ask all MPs to reach out to their communities, listen to their Andys or Anitas, and let us collectively find a solution. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 7576 10:30 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I rise in this place today to categorically state how bitterly disgusted I am with this government. But why would I be surprised? This is the government that championed Work Choices. This sitting week the Turnbull government had not one but two chances to save the take-home pay of 700,000 Australians, and yet they voted in favour of cutting workers' penalty rates, showing once again their complete and utter disregard for low-income workers. In my electorate of Herbert 13,142 workers will have their take-home pay cut as of 1 July this year. That is one in six workers in my community. In a city where unemployment is at 11.3 per cent and our youth unemployment at 21.7 per cent, this decision is morally bankrupt. There are single people and families in my community that rely on their penalty rates each week to put bread on the table. It is scandalous that casual retail workers will see their Sunday penalty rates fall from 200 per cent to 175 per cent. Full- and part-time hospitality workers will also experience a pay cut from 175 per cent to 150 per cent. Fast food and part-time workers will experience pay cuts from 175 per cent to 150 per cent. At a time where inequality is at an all-time high, wages are declining and the cost of living is going up, the Turnbull government has failed to protect our most vulnerable workers, many of whom are women and single mothers. This is a government that is happy to see a tax cut of $16,400 for millionaires on 1 July, followed by a take-home pay cut for our low-paid workers. I think it is absolutely appalling to hear members of the Turnbull government say they support workers when clearly they do not. I say to them: actions speak louder than words, and the 700,000 workers who will now receive a pay cut will not forget this unconscionable decision come the next election. There is no point being a lion for workers in your electorate and a coward in Canberra, but that is what some government members are choosing to be. The member for Gilmore, for example, has said that she has concerns about the cuts to penalty rates, but when it comes to the vote for the third time the member for Gilmore voted with the government against Labor's amendment to support these workers. The Turnbull government are supporting cuts to penalty rates whilst they are increasing taxes for workers under $87,000. This is outrageous. For a government that is consistently spruiking about jobs and growth, they have failed to understand that cutting vulnerable workers' take-home pay will definitely reduce the cash flow in local communities and hurt small business. There is nothing fair about giving a tax cut to millionaires and cutting the penalty rates for low-income workers. Banks Electorate 7577 10:33 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 16 June I met with members of the Zonta Club of Botany Bay. It was great to meet with the group and hear about their important local activities. I want to acknowledge in particular Ann Selle, who was awarded the medal of the Order of Australia on Australia Day this year for her work with the Zonta Club since she joined it in 1994. Ann has worked on a number of projects, but there are two particularly notable ones. Firstly, Ann and the Zonta Club of Botany Bay produce cushions for distribution to women suffering from breast cancer. They showed me a number of these cushions, which are designed to relieve pain and help recovery after surgical procedures. The club works with a wide range of organisations to make this project possible, including working with textile classes at local schools. Secondly, the club also prepares and distributes care packs to local emergency accommodation locations for victims of domestic violence, and has been doing so for some years. I would like to congratulate Ann and all of the members of the Zonta Club of Botany Bay for all of their contributions to the St George community. On 7 June, I visited Hannans Road Public School to attend its popular breakfast club program. This program was started by the Rotary Club of St George Next Gen back in 2015 by its charter president, Vimla Hayman. It involves the kids coming together to learn about healthy eating and producing a balanced meal for breakfast. At the school, the kids learn about growing and cooking food themselves. There is a fantastic veggie patch which is there and even eggs from chickens from the school itself. It is a great initiative. I thank Vimla Hayman and Rotary Club of St George Next Gen, and also Dan Sprange, the principal of Hannans Road Public School, who is doing a fantastic job at a great school in my electorate. On 9 June, I visited Tower Street Public School to speak with year 5 and 6 students on the role of government. It was a really interesting and fun discussion with the kids. They had a really wide range of interesting observations and questions about parliament. They had visited Canberra earlier in the year. It was great to get their perspective on what they learnt while they were here and also to hear from them some questions that they had for me about the operation of this parliament and Australian democracy more generally. I would like to thank the assistant principal of Tower Street Public School, Matthew Probert, for organising my visit to the school. Tower Street Public School is one of the smaller schools in my electorate, but it is a school with a tremendous sense of spirit and purpose. It was great to visit the kids on the day. Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme 7578 10:36 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield My state faces a very serious jobs crisis, and that crisis will truly hit in October when the car industry closes—that is as a result of the betrayal of the Abbott-Turnbull government of the automotive industry. Labor is already seeing their effects on the shipbuilding industry as well. It is important that this government supports projects in South Australia which will create jobs. One such project is the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. This scheme, which has already seen a commitment from the state government of South Australia of $110 million, will create 3,700 jobs and add more than $500 million a year to the state economy. What it involves doing is taking water that is currently treated and discharged into the gulf out of the Bolivar Sewage Treatment Works and pumping it north to two wells in the Adelaide Plains area for the horticultural industry. It is a tremendous project because it benefits not just the economy—that benefit comes in both jobs and land value, and in investment in that land—but the South Australian environment because we are no longer pumping out some 12 gigalitres of treated sewage water into the sea. There is a very big environmental benefit too to the mangroves which run up the coastline in my electorate, which are very important to the health of the marine environment. This is a terrific project. It requires a federal contribution of $45.9 million to see it through. This is less than what was originally estimated. It would be wise for the federal minister and the federal government to commit to this project. Labor committed to the full project in opposition last election. The government approved a scoping study. It would be great if we could reach a bipartisan position where both sides would support this project so that people would have investment certainty so that it could go ahead. It would be good to have some good news on the jobs front and some good news on the environment front for South Australia, because we are looking down the barrel of a very difficult time over the next year or two. Goldstein Electorate: Schools 7578 10:39 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It is a great privilege and opportunity to speak directly to the constituents of Goldstein about the benefits that will be secured through the government's Gonski 2.0 reforms. There are 22,733 students in the federal electorate of Goldstein across the government, independent non-government as well as Catholic education systems. I am pleased to report that all will be enjoying funding increases as a result of the Turnbull Liberal government's increases in federal government funding. In fact, from 2017 government school funding will increase from $27.2 million to $33.6 million. Catholic education will go from $21.6 million to $24.8 million by 2021. The independent sector will go from $21.3 million to $25 million in 2021. As a result of this package of reforms, we have seen a substantial investment by the federal government in the continuing support for government education, the independent non-government sector as well as the Catholic education sector. I have had a number of constituents contact me directly about their concerns following some information provided to them by the Catholic Education Commission in Victoria, which I believe to be deeply misleading. It is disappointing to see that misleading information provided to them and, more to the point, being picked up by the Labor Party and run as some sort of narrative. All the data that are shown to me, and are clearly available on the federal government's education funding estimator, show that every single school in the Goldstein electorate—Catholic, independent non-government as well as state—will receive more federal government funding as a result of this reform. In fact, some of the data are really quite encouraging. Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College in Bentleigh, for instance, will go from getting $4.8 million in 2017 to $10,296,800 by 2027 in total. St Finbar's in Brighton will go from getting total government funding of $1,351,000 to $2.8 million over the same time frame. What is very important for parents and families is that part of this reform is not just to increase funding, though that is an important part of the discussion; it is tying that funding and long-term commitment for schools to plan but also to be able to make sure that it is tied directly to improvements in student outcomes. The federal government has commissioned David Gonski to do a further review to make sure that every dollar that is spent is not just another dollar into a school but a dollar invested into the outcomes and improvements of children's education. Schools, Sharp, Mr Tim 7579 10:42 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham Last night I left this place sick with anger. I was furious about the comments made by Senator Hanson in the education debate about children with autism. I was so angry about it that I did not trust myself to be able to speak about it; I was really hurt on behalf of people. When I opened my Facebook, a very good friend of mine, Judy Sharp, had put up a post. Her son Tim is an internationally famous artist; he is better known as Laser Beak Man. If people want to look at his work, it is laserbeakman.com. He has an amazing life story. I sent Judy a message and asked her if she would you like to put her words on the record in this parliament because you have so much more to offer than what the senator had to say. This is what Judy had to say: Tim Sharp is 29 years of age he lives in Brisbane. He is the creator of a colorful super hero called Laser Beak Man. He is an internationally acclaimed artist, writer and keynote speaker. The day after Tim Sharp's third birthday, he was diagnosed with Autism. The specialist told his mother his difficulties were so severe and so all encompassing that there was no hope. He told her that Tim would never speak, he would never go to school and he would never learn anything. He said the best thing would be to put him away and forget … him. When it was time … to go to school his mother was told he would need to go to a Special School. She went to the special schools, saw some really dedicated teachers … happy kids and great programmes, but it didn't feel right to her. She wanted opportunity and that there would be an expectation for Tim. She wanted Tim to be included as part of the community, that is how he and his brother and his mother lived. She couldn't understand why people were trying to keep her son separate. It took her two years to find a school that would give Tim a go. A small school of 120 students with adequate support given to Tim at all times, including specialist one-on-one. Judy goes on to say that Tim's first art exhibition—his story has been told on the ABC's Australian Story, if people want to have a look—was opened by the previous Governor-General, Dame Quentin Bryce, and his next exhibition was opened by Rugby League coach Wayne Bennett. Tim's artworks are hung in galleries and collectors' homes around the world. A short film about Tim has been shown in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. There is an exhibition about Tim in the National Museum of Australia in Canberra. He has twice been the Queensland finalist for Young Australian of the Year. His art is shown everywhere and he speaks at TED Talks. He is very famous but, more importantly, he is a very strong and wonderful advocate for people with autism and what they can achieve. Judy is very disappointed at the comments, and she writes, 'Your cruel words, Pauline Hanson, "We need to get rid of those people because you want everyone to feel good about themselves," broke the hearts of tens of thousands of families across Australia.' Forrest Electorate: South West Football League 7580 10:45 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I am pleased to rise to speak about one of the finest football leagues in Australia: the South West Football League. In 1953 the Bunbury-Collie League was formed with teams such as Bunbury Railways, Collie Railways, Pastimes, Mines Rovers, Collie Centrals, South Bunbury and Donnybrook signing on at the historic meeting in Collie in March of that year, with Eastern Districts which was Capel and Busselton, and Western Districts, which was Busselton, joining later. In 1955 Eastern Districts and Western Districts merged to form one united Busselton team, before Harvey Brunswick joined the league in 1956. In the same year Pastimes became Carey Park and Bunbury Railways became Bunbury. They are names which will be familiar across the south-west. Well-known Bunbury man Percy Payne was a driving force in revamping the league to the South West National Football League in 1957. Seconds, as it was then called, as well as Boyanup-Capel, joined as part of the competition. Nineteen fifty-seven also marked the start of the south-west using the colours of green and gold for the country championships, which has continued 60 years on. In 1961 Collie Railways and Collie Centrals merged to form the Collie Football Club and Augusta-Margaret River joined the league to make a 10-team competition in 1966. League matches were umpired by WAFL umpires who travelled from Perth until the umpires association was formed in 1977. Today the league appoints matches to all four levels: Colts, Reserves, Women and League. Jason Crowe holds the overall record for the most games umpired: 711, including 14 league grand finals. In 1991 the competition dropped the 'National' title in its name and became the South West Football League. It is one of the strongest country leagues in the country, having won the landmark country championships 22 times since its inception in 1965. The Colts have won eight out of 10 of their grand finals. It includes an impressive run of taking out the title five times in a row between 2011 and 2015. South Bunbury has won 44 league premierships in this time—15 since the South West Football League was formed. Following a successful stint in the Peel Football League, the Harvey Bulls Football Club joined the South West Football League in 2009. I was a proud president of that club for 10 years. There may be more teams ahead in the future, but I want to congratulate the President of the South West Football League, Barry Tate, and General Manager John Vidos. We all know that sporting clubs, particularly football clubs, are often the heart and soul of communities. They offer not just sport but social interaction for people, particularly in small regional communities. Congratulations to the South West Football League. Sydes, Ms Cate 7581 10:48 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It is a great day in this place when you get to recognise the great contributions that are made in other places by great people like Cate Sydes. It is especially terrific that Cate could be here today. Thank you so much for coming. She is joined by Marist180 board member John Warhurst. Thank you for joining us today, John. Throughout Cate's professional career, spanning over 36 years, she has dedicated herself to improving the wellbeing of those in need. Cate's impact in Western Sydney, as the CEO of Marist180, where she worked for over a decade, has led to transformative change. I have had the pleasure of working with Cate since day one of becoming a member of parliament, and I can personally vouch for the important role that she has played in our area and at Marist180. She built the organisation to a leading non-profit agency that now helps nearly 2,000 of the most disadvantaged young people in our area every year. When the Sydney Business Park opened at Marsden Park, I asked management to partner with her organisation to help train and prepare young people so they could take advantage of the 17,000 new jobs that the park would bring to the region. Cate and Marist180 were one of the most important parts of a team that worked with the business park to identify young people who could be trained to take on roles, making sure local business development was benefiting local workers. The program was a huge success—IKEA, for example, strongly supported the program. Nearly three-quarters of the 300 staff are local hires, but 44 of them were hired through Cate's program. Unfortunately we did not get as much support as we would have liked out of the government, but certainly we will always continue to get support for that program. Cate helped Marist180 to expand through grassroots programs, business development and fundraising, resulting in a six-fold increase in the agency's operations. Highlights during Cate's time as CEO include the Aboriginal trainee support worker program, which has since established Marist180 as one of the largest employers and trainers of Aboriginal young people in Western Sydney. She established a skills development centre that is providing training programs to upskill marginalised young people and helping them to become independent and job ready. In conjunction with the Blacktown Police Local Area Command, Cate established Com4Unity, which helps vulnerable and homeless young people who gather around Blacktown station and the CBD there. As of January this year, Cate has assumed the role of CEO for Loreto Ministries, focusing on education specifically for women and children. Cate, I just want to thank you for all your hard work and dedication to improving the lives of so many young people in our area, and, importantly, for believing in their potential and backing that up with great help. Chisholm Electorate: Women in Sport 7582 10:51 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I rise today to talk about not only the amazing local sporting clubs in my electorate of Chisholm but the fact that sporting clubs would not be the Australian institutions that they are if it were not for the commitment of many Australians and parents of children. Without their goodwill and spirit of volunteerism, Australia would not be the great sporting nation that it is. Just as my mum did, from cutting oranges for half-time to being the 'mum's taxi', I too enjoyed what I would describe as a simple pleasure rather than work in helping my kids' sporting teams. The camaraderie between the parents on the sidelines—the coffee shouts, caring for each other's kids if one got injured and making sure food and first aid were always on hand before, during and after the game—is an endearing characteristic of the mums, dads and grandparents of Chisholm. These people are often unacknowledged volunteers who define the sporting and community spirit in this nation. Continuing traditions such as this will always be enduring, but, like everything, communities need to remain agile and change with the times. It is different now for the sports mums than when my mum was the weekend sports mum for my brother and me. For example, there is an emerging, significant and wonderful increased participation of girls in sports that were traditionally in the male domain—Aussie Rules football, soccer and cricket—while there is a practical and increased need for facilities that are tailored for women at the local level. I am an avid supporter of local sporting clubs in Chisholm not just because they are great but because of the people who directly and indirectly participate in them, which makes them the quintessential community hub. I am proud to be part of the Turnbull government, where we have backed and supported many of these local clubs. To name a few, there are the Surrey Hills Cricket Club, in Box Hill South, a club which has been supported through generations from the time of building the clubrooms brick by brick to the current day; the Box Hill Athletic Club; the Eastern Gymnastics Club; and the Nunawading Cricket Club. All these clubs continue on the path of continuous improvement of themselves and have worked hard to ensure the active participation of young girls and women in sport. The Box Hill Hawks, a grassroots local club that is proud of its enduring and historical traditions, is also a club that is changing with the times and looking forward to the future by including women's participation in sport. The Box Hill Hawks Football Club recently named its first VFL women's team. Providing equal opportunity for women to participate in sports often translates into their leadership attributes and experience in other spheres such as business and community life. For future generations of women in leadership, leadership in sport translates to leadership and equality in business and the community and is integral to continuing the great Australian tradition of sport participation for future generations. Bendigo Electorate: Broadband 7582 10:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo The NBN rollout under this government has been an absolute debacle. I would like to take a few minutes to share with the House, as I have done previously, what is going on in central Victoria, and in Bendigo in particular. Day after day, month after month, I have people contacting my office with their latest complaint about the debacle that is this rollout. Unfortunately for Bendigo we have ended up with fibre-to-the-node technology—19th century fibre-to-the-node technology—which relies upon the copper network. We have had people, depending on the distance they live from the node, being stuck with slow internet services. We have had people contact our office who have had their complete internet disconnected for weeks and sometimes months on end waiting for NBN to come out to connect them. In a recent editorial, the Bendigo Advertiser said: If not for the ousting of the federal Labor government at the 2013 election, Bendigo would be receiving the vastly superior fibre-to-the-premises— just like Ballarat and Shepparton. That is our own paper acknowledging that Labor had a better plan. What we found out this week, and I do welcome this decision, is that the government has acknowledged that there is a real problem with Bendigo and the current infrastructure—the copper and the pairing system—that we have. I welcome the announcement they made that the suburbs of Epsom and Eaglehawk will receive fibre to the curb. It is not fibre to the premises, but it is slightly better than fibre to the node. That is good news for Eaglehawk and Epsom. However, they are only two suburbs of Bendigo. What about Maiden Gully? What about areas of Huntly? What about areas of Big Hill and Kangaroo Flat? What about the rest of Bendigo? They will still be stuck on fibre to the node. What about historic towns like Maldon? Why would the historic town of Maldon, with its preserved streetscape, not also get fibre to the curb? If we know this technology is good, if we know this technology is far superior and better than fibre to the node then drop the ideological obsession, drop the ego and roll out fibre to the curb to the rest of Bendigo and central Victoria. I urge the government: what Eaglehawk gets, allow others in our area to get. There is a real problem with the node. It relies on outdated copper, 19th century copper. We need to improve our telecommunications in Bendigo and central Victoria. I urge the government to roll out fibre to the premises or fibre to the curb everywhere. Murray Electorate: Infrastructure 7583 10:57 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray In my electorate of Murray, Shepparton is our largest regional centre. In fact, it is Victoria's fourth-largest regional centre and is home for nearly 70,000 people. Shepparton is situated only 188 kilometres north of Melbourne, which is roughly a two-hour drive. However, if you want to take the train you are looking at a minimum travel time of 145 minutes, but more often you are looking at nearly four hours. That is just for one of the four weekday services each and every day. Bendigo is another regional city, and is 150 kilometres away from Melbourne. Bendigo has 20 weekday services. You can get from Melbourne to Bendigo in 92 minutes. The trains that are on the Shepparton line are slower now than they were 20 years ago. The top speed of the fastest service to Shepparton is about 75 kilometres per hour. The state Labor government are still using the same locomotives and carriages they did in 1987. The Labor Party, in their wisdom, have said the Shepparton rail line will receive an additional weekday and two daily coach services from Bendigo to Seymour, halfway towards Bendigo. Whilst they are going to upgrade a crossing route and some new stabling for the trains, this is only going to happen in 2020. It gets better. The Labor Party in Victoria continue to gloat about fairness and how their rail services are evenly distributed. Ararat is going to get 10 new weekday services from August; Bendigo and Ballarat, already having 20 services and 30 services, are going to get an additional 18 services; and Geelong is going to receive an extra 69 services. And they say that Shepparton is going to get a great boost of four extra buses. How is that fair? It begs the question: what does the Labor Party have against the city of Shepparton? This is why the federal coalition government is spending $10 million to finally get a proper vision and to undertake a fully comprehensive planning strategy and give this city a vision for what will have to happen for train services and freight train services into the future. We do not need tokenistic efforts from the state Labor Party. We have to work out what the vision is going to be. Is it going to be more VLocity trains? What is it going to be? Maybe we need to think beyond the standard VLocity carriages that we currently yearn for. We know that we deserve at least 10 services of VLocity trains a day. They can travel at up to 140 to 160 kilometres an hour across the landscape out of Melbourne. We need a clear vision. What is achievable? What is deliverable? What is possible? If the state Labor Party will not invest in the Goulburn Valley then somehow the federal coalition government will have to step into this space. This is the time for action. This is the time when maybe we have to have a vision, both for VLocity trains in the next 10 years and maybe the idea of bullet speed trains that can bring Melbourne to Shepparton in 40 minutes in the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT In accordance to the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 7584 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Indigenous Referendum: 50th Anniversary, Mabo Native Title Decision: 25th Anniversary 7584 11:01 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Can I begin by recognising country of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people. Each year we see many anniversaries—for example, the 100-year anniversary of World War I and, of course, in 2015, the 100-year anniversary of Gallipoli. But this year, 2017, for me is the most important, with the marking of 50 years since the 1967 referendum and 25 years since the High Court decision in Mabo that established native title and did away with the legal doctrine of terra nullius in this country. I had the great honour just a few weeks ago of attending the Mabo dinner in Townsville as the special guest of the Mabo family, along with Cathy O'Toole. Aboriginal people of course are tied to country, just as it is tied to us. Not so long ago we had two distinct historical narratives: a white one and a black one. White Australia, as it was then, had no interest in Indigenous history and black Australia had no stake in engaging with the white future. Now this map is better known. Thanks in part to the High Court finding, more young Australians than ever before know the truth. Eddie Koiki Mabo knew that. His community knew that. But the broader Australian community did not; they denied it. On 3 June 1991 the painful truth was exposed for this nation, but it was one we sorely needed to be told. So determined was this great man that he and the other litigants overturned more than a century of legal orthodoxy and tore apart the fiction of terra nullius, 'nobody's land'. Of all the cruelties inflicted on an Indigenous people after the arrival, none was more insulting than the presumption that this place did not belong to anybody. That denial was not only a cruelty in denying us ownership but a cruelty in denying the very existence of our ancestors and our history. The High Court finding in Mabo was a victory for First Australians, a victory for the Meriam people and a victory for the broader Australian community. We all remember the day after the Mabo finding and the fight over native title. The scare campaigns and divisions that followed certainly were our poorest national moment. The truth is that while Eddie Mabo won a substantial battle the broader fight for justice continues today. On 27 May this year was the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, which afforded us the right to be counted in the census and afforded us some equality in the law. These things exist not as a single victory but as events in— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:05 to 11:25 Ms BURNEY 8GH Before the division I was recounting the importance of the High Court decision, which this year we celebrate 25 years of in Australia. I was also speaking about the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum which, as I said, afforded us the right as Aboriginal people to be counted in the census and afforded us some equality in the law. I have said to this House before that it is interesting that this is not ancient history—in fact, I was 10 years old when the 1967 referendum took place. These things exist not as a single victory, but as events in a long journey towards social justice and reconciliation. I think it is very important that we see these two events in the context of the whole story of Australia and in the history of social justice and reconciliation. We have to take heart from these victories, but we must also take the lessons that they give us. In particular, the 1967 referendum was not a referendum that just came overnight; it took 10 years, three prime ministers and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of goodwill working together, without the resources or the infrastructure that we have today, to bring about a yes vote in the 1967 referendum. That yes vote was the most successful referendum this country has ever seen, and the genius of that campaign is that, whilst the questions that were put into the referendum did not, in many ways, seem groundbreaking, the campaigners were able to turn it into a decision for the Australian people about rights for first peoples and the unacceptable position that first peoples were in. That was the genius of the 1967 referendum. I am glad the member for Herbert has just joined us, as I have recounted that we attended the Mabo dinner up in Townsville. The 1967 referendum involved people like Jessie Street, Faith Bandler and many, many others who campaigned over the 10 years and three prime ministers. Holt was Prime Minister when the referendum actually took place. These people knew that they were playing the long game and knew that the only way this referendum would be successful was if it captured the imagination and the decency of the Australian people. We need to remember just how difficult it is to pass referendums in this country. We are very bound up by the Constitution, but the referendum in 1967 was, as I said, the most successful. When you have a look at the outcomes of that referendum, you can see it is just extraordinary; absolutely extraordinary. In New South Wales 91.46 per cent of people voted yes; in Victoria it was 94.68; in Queensland it was 89; in South Australia it was 86; in Western Australia it was 80; in Tasmania it was 90; and of the total Australian population, 90.77 per cent of people voted yes, which had never happened in a referendum prior to that. Of course, the questions asked of the people in that referendum related to sections 51 and 127 which, essentially, went to the issues of Aboriginal people being able to be included in the census and the Commonwealth government being given the responsibility and the power to make laws on behalf of Aboriginal people. A lot of people say that the referendum gave Aboriginal people citizenship and the right to vote, but that is not actually correct; it is something that has emerged. In fact, it is not out of the realm of reason to hold that belief because, in many ways, it felt like citizenship. If you were denied the right to be counted in the census, then it felt like you did not really count anyhow, and that is very much the way in which it was seen. The other thing to say, of course, with these anniversaries that we have paid homage to in this parliament and across this country is that we are on the eve of—and the discussions are taking place about—a proposed referendum to recognise Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution, hopefully some time next year. Of course, that is going to be a very interesting debate for Australians and we, as members of parliament, have to be very clear about our determination there. It is, in the end, up to this parliament to make the decision about what the question will be and the time frame for this referendum. There are three or four pieces of work that we will be required to look at. We will be required, of course, to take heed of the outcomes of the Uluru gathering and the Uluru Statement. There will also be the expert panel's work, led by Patrick Dodson, in that time. There is also the work of the parliamentary committee that went around this country and talked to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. There is also a fourth piece of work, which I am sure my colleague the member for Lingiari will speak about. Those are the things that will need to inform us in our very important deliberations and discussions over the next few months in this parliament, where we will be making monumental decisions on the continuation of the nation building of Eddie Mabo and, of course, of the '67 campaigners. It is a great honour to speak in this debate; it is historic. It is very important that we remind ourselves of our great responsibility. 11:31 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the referendum that took place on 27 May 1967—a referendum that did two very important things: it amended section 127 of the Constitution to count Aboriginal people in the census for the first time and it also amended section 51(xxvi) to give the Commonwealth power to make laws with relation to Aboriginal people. I note that this was a referendum that was supported by both sides of politics, but, in my contribution, I particularly want to note the involvement of Liberal members in this issue. That is not to downplay the bipartisanship, but just to note that Liberals should be proud of the role that we played and that, in 1967, it was a Liberal Prime Minister in Harold Holt that put this referendum. It has become fashionable in some circles on the left to believe that all progress happened in 1972 with the election of the Whitlam government, but as Donald Horne in, probably, his best book, A Time of Hope, points out, the period between 1965 and 1972 was a great period of reform in Australian history, and one of those key reforms was this referendum. The Liberal Party, of course, is the party of Neville Bonner, Joanna Lindgren and Ken Wyatt, and the party that put forward the referendum in 1967. Indeed, Sir Robert Menzies is often criticised for not having done this, but in November 1965, he put forward a proposal to amend section 127. He told the parliament on Remembrance Day in 1965: … the matter can be simply put by saying that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and with the elevation of the Aborigines into the ranks of citizenship which we all wish to see. In cabinet, Bill Snedden, who had been his Attorney-General at the time, also tried to put forward a proposal for the amendment of 51(xxvi), but he was unsuccessful. At the same time, Billy Wentworth and Dudley Erwin had put forward a private member's bill, not only to amend section 127 and 51(xxvi) but also to put forward a proposal that spoke about the advancement of Aborigines. It would have been a version, in some respects, of the one-clause bill of rights—the anti-discrimination clause proposal, which is currently put forward. Wentworth's contribution is in this whole debate is so interesting. Wentworth was a virulent anti-communist, one of the most anti-communist members of our party, but he had a very intimate and personal interest in Indigenous policy and he, of course, became the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Wentworth pointed out, as my friend the member for Barton did, that Aborigines already had the right to vote before this referendum. He said of the Menzies government: In this matter of Aboriginal welfare the present government has a good record. It has given Aborigines the right to vote, it has extended the social services accorded to them and it has reduced discrimination. I believe that by establishing the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies the Government has recognised the importance of the background and culture of these people and has restored to them something of their inherent dignity. This is perhaps only a psychological factor, but I believe that it is of great importance if we are to make these people fully participators with us in the benefits of Australian citizenship. That was Bill Wentworth talking in the 1965 proposal to amend section 127. Menzies retired at the beginning of 1966, and Harold Holt became Prime Minister. In cabinet discussions, the Attorney-General, Nigel Bowen, put forward his submission not only to amend section 127 but also to amend section 51.26. Bowen said that there would be 'a large area of dissatisfaction' if the Commonwealth failed to improve include an amendment to section 51(xxvi) in any referendum, and that removing 'words alleged to be discriminately against Aboriginal people' would do meet the demands of those 'urging action with respect to Aborigines' and 'would be welcomed by a very large section of the Australian people'. Putting forward the referendum proposal in March 1967, Harold Holt told the House of Representatives: The simple truth is that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age. In relation to 51(xxvi), he said: In coming to this conclusion, the Government has been influenced by the popular impression that the words now proposed to be omitted from section 51(xxvi) are discriminatory. And that popular impression had been largely created by the work of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, which was led by Faith Bandler. Wentworth, speaking on the 1967 referendum proposal, said: I think we in this parliament should realise our responsibilities to the Aboriginal people. If the referendum proposal is adopted and this Bill becomes law, we have to realise that responsibility even more fully. Wentworth's contribution in this space was quite important. Although not a member of my party but a member of the Country Party, Bob Katter senior urged the following: I am 48 years old and I have been associated with them all my life. I have been to school with them, grown up with them and mixed with them. Psychologically we can never see any difference. This may sound a little silly to people who live in the cities but it is perfectly true. … … … There is consideration of international importance in this legislation. This Bill will do something to counteract the very bad reputation we have among people overseas who have heard of the White Australia policy. … … We are showing tonight in a very decisive way that we are doing something about the matter. I am very proud to be associated with the House in what it is doing on this issue. In his final plea to voters the day before the referendum, Harold Holt told people: Anything but a Yes vote to this question would do injury to our reputation among fair-minded people everywhere. That was the very important contribution of Liberals to this vote. As the member for Barton pointed out, this was a historic referendum in terms of the result that has achieved. 90.77 per cent of Australians voted yes. It is unheard of. I was saying to the member for Barton the other day that I was surprised in my own electorate that the vote had been even stronger. Berowra did not exist as an electorate in 1967 but the booths that make up Berowra today voted very strongly in favour of it. In Beecroft, the yes vote percentage was 96.9; in Castle Hill, it was 95.1; in Dural, it was 92.9; At Normanhurst, it was 96 per cent; at Pennant Hills, it was 94.8 per cent; At Berowra, it was 94.3 per cent; at Hornsby, 94.3 per cent; and only at Wiseman's Ferry did the vote fall below the national average at 89.1 per cent. Those booths now making up the electorate of Berowra voted in total 95.1 per cent as a yes vote in the referendum. I think that says something about my electorate. Sometimes people think that my electorate is a purely conservative electorate. My electorate was more progressive on this issue than the rest of the population. It is worthwhile noting that the youngest people to vote in that referendum are now 71 years old today so it is a long time since people voted yes on that referendum. The 1967 referendum took place during a liberal age. It was the post-war period, a period after which Australia had fought wars against two powers—Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany—which had fundamentally race-based policies based on racial superiority. It was a time of the civil rights movement in the United States—the Great Society and the Winds of Change speeches—and, although some of those things had consequences that were not seen by their proponents at the time, it was, in Donald Horne's phrase, 'a time of hope and optimism'. The proposals that Australians voted on in 1967 were very specific: the power to make laws about Aboriginal people and to have Aboriginal people counted in the census—and that was very important. Today, the atmosphere around our politics is more angry, more individualistic and less tolerant, so a referendum is much more difficult. I want to put on record the fact that I support Indigenous recognition. Although I am a person who has voted no to and would campaign against most changes to our Constitution, I think there is something special about this. Indigenous people are unique to Australia. They are our only indigenous people. Their culture, heritage and traditions have survived and prospered for 60,000 years. They have a remarkable continuity and remarkable culture. The purpose of Indigenous recognition is to make the culture of Indigenous people the culture, heritage and traditions of all Australians. I think it is incumbent upon us to find a way forward to achieve this. I want to say something about the Uluru Statement from the Heart because I see the Uluru statement as being very significant. A lot of the debate and discussion on this issue have previously focused on having some form of recognition in the preamble to the Constitution or a racial non-discrimination clause. I have written elsewhere about why these particular ideas are unsuitable. I think it is particularly important and we should take note of the fact that Indigenous people at Uluru are saying to Australians, 'These are things that we are not interested in.' What they are giving us instead is a direction, an important direction. They are telling us that they want to be consulted and have a voice in the way in which policy is developed, and consultation is good. When you consult, you are less likely to have unintended consequences. You are more likely to get buy-in. You are more likely to have better quality public policy. Fundamentally, I think that is what this needs to be about, because, of course, among Indigenous communities we have suicide rates and incarceration rates which are too high and life expectancy rates which are too low. If we can do something through the recognition process that can address these things then we are well and truly serving the memory of 1967. 11:41 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Can I acknowledge the last two contributions, by the member for Barton and the member for Berowra, and I will just make some observations about both of them, if I may. Firstly, I want to congratulate both of them for their expositions on the 1967 referendum. I do not intend to repeat that story in detail, but I think it says a lot about where we are currently that the member for Berowra could eloquently quote the words of former leaders of the Liberal Party in advancing the cause for change of the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal people as part of our population. It is worth just recalling that the question which was asked in the 1967 referendum was: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled 'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population'? That had enormous implications for the country. I note that the member for Berowra and also the member for Barton referred to Jessie Street, Faith Bandler and FCAATSI and the work that they were doing. There were a lot of people involved in this project over a decade. They were not only Aboriginal people. I recall one person who I knew very well, Stan Davey, who was part of FCAATSI. Stan spent much of his life after that process working as a community development worker in Fitzroy Crossing, in Western Australia, and then later at Daguragu, in the Northern Territory. He is a man for whom I have the greatest of respect. The other person I want to comment just briefly on was Joe McGinniss. Joe was a Kungarakanman who came from Paperbark People. He came from outside Darwin. I was involved in his family at one point, living with one of his nieces or grandnieces—he would say daughter. I met this man in the 1970s and was forever grateful that I had that meeting because he was a man of such stature, influence and quietness but such determination. And so were these others. It led to promoting through the church and through the community the need for change to the Constitution, which took a long while. As the member for Barton said, the extraordinary success of that Constitutional referendum was down very much to their work but also, as I might say to the member for Berowra, to the leadership that was then shown by the leaders of the country in acknowledging the need for change. It took a long time to get them there, but they did. We find ourselves now at a point where we are talking about recognition. I noted the words of the member for Berowra and also those of the member for Barton. It is worth recognising with the Uluru statement—whilst historically very important, and we should not downgrade its importance—that for a decade now there have been discussions around constitutional change. The expert panel did a lot of great work canvassing the country around the need for change in the Australian Constitution. They did it over a long period of time. Those important words, which they came to find, need to be part of our current deliberations, as do the words that were produced by the joint parliamentary committee, which was led by Senator Nova Peris and Ken Wyatt. They will inform us here, in this parliament, of what the debate has been over a period of time, not just recently—as important as that Uluru statement is—but over a period. We need to be contemplating, as members of parliament, the whole package of things that have been discussed over a period of time. I am looking forward to those discussions and I am very much looking forward to participating with our colleagues on the other side. Ultimately, if we are to get fruitful change to our Constitution, it can only happen if there is largely bipartisan support. It is very simple. It will not happen if there is a division in the parliament. I countenance those who may be listening to this debate and those elsewhere in the community, who may have an extreme view or may have a very strong view that their view is the only one that should be prevail, that they need to actually relax a bit and allow this parliament to have due consideration of all views and then come down and sit down in a way where we can collaborate. No doubt, there will be differences. But ultimately it is our responsibility to give proper recognition to the Australian Constitution to the Australian first peoples. It is as simple as that. I am totally behind the idea of structures, the importance of having s national representative voice and all that stuff. After all, I can understand the yearning that people have for such collaboration and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have their voice properly heard. We saw with the demise of ATSIC, in such an unseemly way, that that voice was just diminished. Since then, it has been encouraged to come back through the National Congress Of Australia's First Peoples, but it is not listened to by the government. They have defunded it. There is an important element here for how we make sure that Aboriginal voices are properly heard. We are so lucky that in this parliament we now have five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are so lucky, but it has taken us so long to bloody well get here. What we need to do is recognise their eminence in this place and understand that they bring with them a great depth of knowledge, background, experience and cultural heritage. The member for Berowra talked about 60,000 years worth; it is the oldest living culture on earth. Then we go back to the other reason we are here today, which is to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Eddie Koiki Mabo and the Mabo decision. Let us reflect for a moment, and I am going to unashamedly use the words that Pat Dodson used in the Senate. We need to understand Aboriginal people have always regarded this place as theirs. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land. There is nothing that we can say that will change that. The fact that we have a bunch of whitefellas arrive here a couple of centuries ago and claim it on behalf of someone who lives in England did not matter a tinker's cuss to the traditional owners of this country, and that has been their view ever since. What we saw in the Mabo decision was the whole concept of terra nullius being given the boot, as it should have been. As Pat said in his speech in the Senate: The first peoples were in this land as owners and governors of their respective countries before and when the colonists 'arrived' and began to gradually occupy their territories and rule over them. Today those native title holders under the Native Title Act are evidence of their descent from their ancestors and are the living testimony of their prior occupation of their lands and waters. It is true. There is nothing we can say in this place that will change that construct. I think we benefit a great deal as a nation from the recognition of native title. I was in the parliament. I was a member of the cabinet subcommittee led by the venerable Gareth Evans, who did a stint of 45 hours on his pitch here in the Senate to get the legislation through. I remember those discussions. I remember the representations of Aboriginal leaders, such as Pat Dodson and others, to the parliament around the importance of recognising native title. I remember the debates vividly. And I remember the division that it created. Subsequently, we had the Wik decision—some of you here will recall that—and the shameless attitude of the then Deputy Prime Minister in attacking the High Court judges for the Wik decision. Shamelessly! And then there was the Howard government's 10-point plan to amend the Native Title Act, and the same Deputy Prime Minister talking about 'bucketloads of extinguishment,' trying to take back what the court had recognised in terms of native title to prevent Aboriginal people being given proper recognition of their land. We have a unique responsibility in this place, but it is a unique moment in time. We have a confluence of events that have happened over the last 25 and 50 years. We now have the capacity and opportunity to carry on that discussion and to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the next step: recognition in our Australian Constitution in a way which meets and suits our aspirations and needs. I say to those who may be listening to this debate: we need, in this place, to take our responsibilities very seriously and to understand that we have a responsibility, all of us, to address our minds to what this means for us and for the nation, because if we do not we will be forever damned. 11:51 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, their leaders past, present and emerging. The history of Australia is peppered with memories that make us, and memories that break us. Today, I am rising to speak on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and to mark 25 years since the High Court's Mabo decision. These were moments that defined Australia as a nation. They defined us as a people, and they defined our notion of sovereignty. The 1967 referendum was a foundational shift and resulted in the Australian Constitution officially recognising Indigenous people as members of the Australian population. In 1962, the Australian Labor Party, in opposition at the time, submitted an urgency motion seeking a referendum to include Aboriginal people in the census. This followed the 1962 decision to permit all Indigenous adults to vote in Commonwealth elections. 'Permit'; what a word! It seems absurd that just 55 years ago a supposedly modern Western democracy like Australia did not 'permit' all of its first peoples to take part. It seems incomprehensible that as white Australians and immigrants citizens lined up to cast their votes, Indigenous Australians, with their culture going back thousands of years on this land, were denied a full say in its future. But the 1960s were a time of great passion, upheaval and conflict. Values were being reshaped. Australians had different opinions on Vietnam, but on the urgent need to acknowledge Indigenous rights they were at least united. With both the coalition government of the time and the ALP opposition urging a 'yes' vote, more than 90 per cent of eligible Australians said yes. History remembers the politicians, but we often come late to the party. We need to honour and remember names such as Jessie Street, Faith Bandler, Pearl Gibbs, John McGuinness, Pastor Doug Nicholls, Stan Davies and so many more. The change to the Constitution also and crucially amended section 51 of the Constitution, which had prohibited the Australian government from making laws specifically for the Indigenous people of any state. Australian governments have enacted a number of important pieces of legislation over subsequent years, including the Native Title Act 1993. The trigger has worked in some cases, and in others it has failed miserably. Twenty years ago the Bringing them home report provided a damning assessment of the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families under the misguided attempt to forcibly assimilate children of mixed race into white society. Children were ripped from their mothers' arms, taken to cities and fostered out. Many never recovered; many never stopped trying to get home. The Bringing them home report made many findings and recommendations. A review has just been conducted into the 20 intervening years, and it is clear that much remains to be done to bring effect to those recommendations. The report marked a pivotal moment in our national consciousness, but for some in positions of national leadership at the time the burden of shame and guilt was too much to bear. There was a preference by some to pretend that those times were not really all that bad and that the report was detailing a 'black arm band' version of Australian history that did not align with the preferred Australian narrative of Anzac heroism, FJ Holdens and laid-back mateship. But the truth is that we are all these things. We are a great nation but we are not perfect, and the road that we have taken to get here has had its twists and its potholes—and there are more ahead. We do ourselves a disservice when we look at our history through rose-coloured glasses. It is a history that did not start in 1770, with Captain Cook supposedly discovering Australia, but tens of thousands of years before that. We owe it to ourselves, to our children and certainly to the Indigenous people of this nation to be as honest as we can with the story of Australia and all its chapters. The importance of the 1967 referendum cannot be overestimated. It represented a seismic shift. As the member for Barton remarked, it is a popular myth that before the referendum Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could not vote. The truth is more complicated: as British subjects, Aboriginal men in most states, other than WA and Queensland, have been able to vote in state elections since the 1850s. In 1895, the same right was extended to Aboriginal women in South Australia. After Federation, the 1902 Commonwealth Franchise Act allowed only Aboriginal people who had been enrolled as state voters to vote federally. In 1949 the Chifley government legislated that anyone eligible to vote in state elections could vote federally. In 1962 legislation extended the vote in federal elections to all Aboriginal people of voting age, but it was voluntary and it was not well known nor well advertised. Incidentally, it was not until 1962 that WA extended its state vote to Aboriginal people, while it took Queensland until 1965 to do the same. So the real import of the referendum in 1967 was not so much voting rights but a universal acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were no longer 'them', to be counted separately, but 'us'. We are one people. Twenty-five years ago I was at the High Court to hear the Mabo case handed down. At the time I was on the staff of Roger Price, the then member for Chifley. I had ducked out to go to hear what I knew would be a watershed moment in Australian history. My memory is swiss cheese at the best of times, but I do recollect that day with some measure of clarity. The long room was packed, and on the steps outside there was a great buzz. Mabo challenged the Australian legal assumption that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had no concept of land ownership before the arrival of the British colonists or—for want of a better word—the British First Fleet in 1788. This was the concept of terra nullius: that sovereignty delivered complete ownership of all land in the new colony to the Crown, abolishing any rights that might have existed previously. The premise of terra nullius could never be defended, because it was a fiction—terra nullius, 'empty land' belonging to no-one—but that did not stop many from trying. This was not for moral reasons but to protect financial interests. So the Mabo victory shook the Australian establishment to its foundations. It changed the lives of so many, it drew a line in the sand and it recognised Indigenous sovereignty of this land. 'Mabo' has become shorthand for Aboriginal land rights, but it is a person's name—Eddie Mabo. He was a man of the Meriam people in the Torres Strait and had launched the legal case to have his people's traditional ownership rights to the Murray Islands recognised. Eddie Mabo did not live to hear the judgement, but his name will live for ever. A display here in the parliament showcases Eddie Mabo's drawing of the shape of the island of Mer, noting the family names associated with tracts of the island, including his own family name. There are also other important documents and paintings on display: the Yirrkala bark petition, the Barunga petition and the Kevin Rudd apology. Subsequent to Mabo, this parliament in 1993, under the Labor government of Paul Keating, enacted the Native Title Act, and that sought to build on the common law as redefined by Mabo. It was not a universally accepted piece of legislation, but it has stood the test of time. Much land has been handed back to traditional owners. There have been deals and contracts struck with commercial lessees, and there are many cases still going through the courts. It takes time to address 200 years of theft. We have seen our nation changed, values reshaped and prejudice diminished as our reconciliation journey has rolled out. Our political leaders have both led and responded to events. In 1975 Gough Whitlam poured red soil into the hand of Vincent Lingiari at Wave Hill in the Northern Territory; in 1992 Paul Keating delivered his Redfern speech, acknowledging the destruction of Indigenous culture and society; in 2000 Peter Costello marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for Sorry Day; in 2008 Kevin Rudd delivered his apology to Indigenous people for the stolen generations; and in 2016 Linda Burney, Pat Dodson and Malarndirri McCarthy joined Ken Wyatt and Jacqui Lambie as Indigenous MPs and senators of this parliament, and Ken Wyatt was appointed this nation's first Indigenous minister at federal cabinet level. We have a long way to go. As this nation now grapples with the concept of including Indigenous recognition in the Constitution, I hope we can come together as a parliament in tripartisan spirit—the Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor—for the future of this nation, just as we did in 1967, and recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 7594 ADJOURNMENT Melbourne Electorate: Ramadan 7594 12:02 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I have never felt a warmer welcome than when I am with Melbourne's Muslim communities, and now is a special time, as Muslims right around the world are observing Ramadan, a month of fasting and charity. This month is a time when people come together. An iftar is served at the end of the day during Ramadan to break the day's fast. Iftar is a religious observance of Ramadan, often done as a community, with people gathering together to break their fast with one another. As one popular meme circulating at the moment puts it, during Ramadan every night is date night. Ahead of Eid this weekend, I would like to share with others in parliament some of the great things happening in Melbourne during Ramadan. It was my pleasure to again host a community iftar for the local community in my electorate. This is the fifth time I have hosted an annual local iftar and the first with my two young daughters. I would like to thank all my staff members, but especially Mukhtar Mohammed and Farhiya Mohamed, for their work in making this possible. I also want to thank Yasseen Musa for his tireless efforts as a community leader. My Greens colleagues have also hosted iftars during Ramadan. Senator Richard Di Natale and the Greens team welcomed the community to the Coburg iftar last weekend, and a women's iftar was hosted by Senator Janet Rice in Fawkner. Senator Rice was joined by women from communities across Melbourne and organisations including the Islamic Council of Victoria Women's Office, the Board of Imams and the Islamic Museum. Melbourne has been home to many wonderful community events that show the spirit of Ramadan. Many mosques open their doors nightly to share meals with the community. In Melbourne these include the Australian Muslim Social Services Agency in North Melbourne, the ICV City Mosque and the Melbourne Madinah. The Oromo community is this week holding a public iftar in North Melbourne, hosted by Ayyantu Ali and the Melbourne Oromo community. I look forward to attending that. The Somali community has hosted a range of iftars. The Eritrean Jeberti community collaborated for the first time with the Moreland Turkish Association to host its multicultural harmony iftar, and they were supported by Multicultural Arts Victoria and the City of Moreland through Councillor Mark Riley. The Community Connect network holds an annual street iftar, sharing food with people experiencing homelessness in inner Melbourne. Farnham Street Neighbourhood Learning Centre in Flemington held its annual iftar dinner, and the Somali Women's Development Association and the Hotham Mission hosted a shared iftar meal in Kensington that doubled as a youth art exhibition, where young people's artwork on themes of diversity and social inclusion was displayed. The delicious shared meal was catered by the social enterprise Kuljar Kitchen. Congratulations to Sainab Sheikh and Beth Stewart-Wright for their work on this excellent event. Other organisations like the Victoria Police, the Muslim Legal Network, the Victorian parliament, the AFL, Rotary and others have also hosted iftar events. Around Victoria, Muslim communities and organisations have worked to bring people together. The Islamic Council of Victoria hosted a major interfaith iftar in Ballarat, welcoming people of all faiths and bringing together the Ballarat community. The Bubup Wilam centre, an Aboriginal children's and family centre in Thomastown, welcomed the Muslim community to the centre for a shared meal. Children welcomed their visitors to country, and first nations and Muslim attendees participated together in a smoking ceremony and Tarawih prayers. Ramadan is a special time, but interfaith and community events hosted by Muslim communities happen throughout the year. Earlier this year, Melbourne was home to the Islamic Council of Victoria's Mosque Open Day. Mosques around Melbourne opened their doors to visitors from all faiths and backgrounds to learn about the Muslim faith and community. I was delighted to visit the Albanian Australian Islamic Society mosque in Carlton North and I would like to thank the mosque and its volunteers for the very warm welcome that I received. I encourage all my colleagues here to visit, or to continue to visit, mosques in their electorates. None of these events and activities could happen without the wonderful contributions of volunteers. Volunteers from across the community give their time and work to make this time of sharing possible. What I would like to say to my colleagues here in parliament today is: these are the building blocks of social cohesion. These are the building blocks of multiculturalism in Australia. This time of sharing and open doors is Australia at its best. At a time when too many politicians are attacking Muslims, or are failing to stand up for the people in their communities who are under attack, people in Muslim communities are doing the real work of building social cohesion. Social cohesion does not get built without the kinds of activities and actions that we have seen from our Muslim communities right across Melbourne and right across Victoria. To members of Muslim communities in Melbourne and around Australia: Ramadan kareem and Eid mubarak. Petrie Electorate: Business 7595 12:07 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to say to the small businesses in my community: there are only six business days left in this financial year, and now is a great opportunity to take advantage of the instant asset tax write-off. It means that any item up to $20,000 that you wish to purchase—it might be a new coffee machine for the office, solar panels for the roof to lower electricity prices, a new truck or work vehicle that you need, or perhaps some new IT equipment or a new phone system—you can instantly write off in this financial year in your tax return rather than letting it depreciate over a few years. It is a great opportunity for small businesses in my electorate of Petrie with a turnover of up to $10 million. It stimulates growth in the economy as you spend, but it also enables you to buy essential work items for your business that you can use and get an instant tax deduction for. So it is good news: with six days to go, make sure you go out and spend. We have lowered company tax rates for businesses with up to $2 million turnover and up to $10 million turnover, and it will go further next year, with legislation now through—up to $50 million. This will enable each and every business to reinvest money back into their business, rather than paying additional tax to the government. It might be to hire some more casual staff on the weekends, or it might be permanent part-time staff that you need. It might give you the opportunity to invest in even more equipment above $20,000. It is more hard-earned money in your pocket than in the government's. The other thing is: if you are from a small business or a medium business—anyone who employs more than five people—in my electorate of Petrie and would be interested in speaking at my upcoming Job Seeker Boot Camp, which will be held in August, could you leave a message or contact my office, because your information—the information that you look to when hiring people—is so valuable to local jobseekers in my electorate, and we need to pass on that knowledge that you have to local jobseekers. So leave a message on my Facebook page or call my office on 32848008, and we will make sure that your wisdom is passed on to those young people in my electorate who are so desperately in need of work. Victoria: Infrastructure 7596 12:10 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Something has been playing on my mind since this government announced its budget. I have been wondering if the Prime Minister or Treasurer would ever pass their year 3 Australian geography test. The reason I ask this is that in the recent budget they have delivered next to nothing for Victoria. When they were asked to name the states of Australia that they have been able to deliver projects in, Victoria was out. In fact, the only one that the Treasurer could remember was New South Wales. So my question is: does the Liberal government actually know that Victoria exists? The budget says it does not. Mr Watts 193430 The Prime Minister for Sydney! Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E The Prime Minister for Sydney, as my friend the member for Gellibrand reminds me. This government has yet again failed my home state of Victoria, not promising one extra dollar for investment in infrastructure. In the budget there was the big announcement: $1 billion for regional rail infrastructure investment in Victoria. Mate, it sounds great, doesn't it? But it is not a win. Why isn't it a win? Because when we put it in front of the Senate budget estimates we found out the truth: it is not new funding. Instead of actually investing in infrastructure and instead of actually creating new jobs, the government has turned a blind eye to Victoria. Victoria is home to a quarter of all Australians. We have one of the strongest infrastructure pipelines in the country but somehow, instead of providing fair funding for 25 per cent of the nation's population, this government ignored us. It has shovelled 46 per cent of infrastructure funding to New South Wales and 26 per cent to Queensland, but Victoria struggles on eight per cent. Why? Because the Turnbull government is punishing Victorians for getting rid of the failed Baillieu-Napthine experiment. Since its election in November 2014, the Labor government have created around 216,000 jobs. In fact, the Victorian government is set to spend an annual average of $9.6 billion on infrastructure over the next four years. That is close to what the Turnbull government is spending right across the country. But the Prime Minister and his government have had their heads stuck in their Point Piper sinkholes rather than realising there is more to Australia than the Sydney bubble, leaving the Victorian state government to pick up the slack. When will the government stop playing politics and give communities like Wallan, Doreen, Mernda and Sunbury the infrastructure funding they deserve? When will the government invest in projects across McEwen, like the much needed Bridge Inn Road and Craigieburn Road duplications and the Wallan diamond interchange? Imagine what it would mean for locals in my electorate if the government gave us even a fair share of funding. Imagine the 'jobs and growth'. That is what the government motto is, isn't it? But they clearly do not care enough to act on it. While this government is not providing the investment to create the jobs it promised, it is also now asking people to work longer for the same amount of money. Whatever kind of test you put it through—the pub test or the sniff test—it all fails. The Liberal government has confirmed that it wants to raise the age pension age to 70. It wants hardworking Australians to work harder for longer, but where are the jobs? Only a government made up of people who have had never had dirt under their nails or worked outside an office would even think of this. This policy means that every person born after 1 July 1966 will be waiting until they are 70 before they are eligible for an age pension. This government will leave Australia with the oldest pension age in the developed world. Take that in: we would have the oldest pension age in the developed world, and the Prime Minister just expects you to cop that. It is all well and good for Mr Harbourside Mansion to tell us all to work until we are 70. After all, someone needs to be farming his organic quail, building his multimillion-dollar investment properties and filling his cupboards with only the finest of Canberra's truffles. And all this while he kicks back to Netflix and Chill, as he says, and gets through his monthly supply of black caviar. The Prime Minister has no idea what it is like for an everyday Australian. It is completely out of touch to expect real people, real Australians, working Australians—our nurses, our builders, our farmers, our emergency services personnel—to work until they are 70. On this side of the House we understand that when you have worked hard all your life you deserve to be able to retire in peace. Labor understands that nurses who work day in, day out to provide for their families cannot be running and moving patients at 70. It is not fair, and it is time this government actually pulled its head out of Point Piper and looked after all Australians. Energy 7597 12:15 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Speaking about looking after the needs of all Australians, earlier this week I asked the Treasurer in question time about the importance of a reliable and affordable energy supply for our economy. In his response the Treasurer said, 'We are on the side of Australians and Australian businesses that want to see downward pressure on rising electricity prices', and we are. This government is on the side of Australians, and it is on the side of people and businesses in my electorate of Robertson, who are deeply concerned about rising power prices. While growing up, I was the eldest of five siblings in a single-income household. Every morning before school we would deliver papers and pamphlets with my father around Point Clare to help pay for household bills, so I know the strain that rising energy bills can have on a family—particularly these days. And so do many people on the Central Coast. I have heard from around 1,300 people in my electorate who are deeply concerned about their power bills and the impact it will have on their families. Joseph from Bensville told me he wants affordable energy, and soon. Patricia in Kincumber has said she has been told her bill is going up and, quite rightly, she wants some answers as to why. Rodney from Umina Beach contacted me and said, 'We need to secure our power.' Rodney asked that the government 'just get on with it,' and I am pleased to be able to tell Rodney and everyone in my electorate that we are doing just that. Paul from Terrigal, a former chief petroleum engineer, also got in touch to say that it was high time we had an in-depth look at our energy situation and security of gas supply. People like this across the Central Coast want to know what this government is doing to help them with their energy bills, so I am very pleased to be part of a government that has this week taken very decisive action for people in my electorate like Joseph, Patricia, Rodney and Paul—and, indeed, for those people around our nation. The decisions we are making in this area are designed to ease pressure on families and to help make businesses more competitive. We are putting our local families and businesses first. But people in my electorate are already asking what all this means. What it means is that our gas prices have been rising; in fact, prices have tripled over the last five years, and many companies that rely on gas in their day-to-day operations are doing it tough. I am advised that prices have been rising as a result of supply shortfalls here at home, and families and businesses in my electorate want to know why. Put simply, we are a large producer of gas but much of this is exported, which sometimes leaves Australia undersupplied. It is not fair that Australians pay more than overseas customers do, so the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, or ADGSM, will enable the government to place restrictions on gas exporters when we are experiencing supply shortages here. How does that affect our power prices? By making sure that Australia has the supply it needs, we will be putting downward pressure on gas prices here at home. Asking the ACCC to review retail electricity prices will ensure, or will help to ensure, that retailers are getting the best deal for their customers. Competition in retail electricity markets should mean lower prices for our customers. However, it seems that those markets are not operating as effectively as they could be, which is part of what the ACCC will be looking at. With an additional $67 million for the Australian Energy Regulator we will stop big companies from trying to overturn decisions made by the regulator. Fifty-two appeals have been made by companies, and of those the courts ruled against the consumer 31 times. This government is saying that this needs to end. By asking the Australian Energy Market Operator how we can ensure that continuous power is provided we are securing our energy for the future. This plan shows that the government is committed to energy affordability and reliability as we move to a lower-emissions future. This is in stark contrast to Labor's plan, which will hurt energy security and drive prices up. Labor wants to put ideology before economics and technology, which will unfortunately only drive up prices further. We are taking action on this issue because we want to ensure that the lights stay on and prices stay low for all Australians while we remain in a strong position to meet our emission targets. We know that there is no magic fix to this issue, but what we can do and have done is take clear action and make strong plans to reduce the price of energy. This is incredibly important for people in my electorate, and I commend the government's actions to help reduce energy prices for Central Coast residents and businesses. Refugees 7599 12:20 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand This week, the UNHCR released its annual global trends study, which found that 65.6 million people around the world had been forced to flee their home because of violence or persecution by the end of 2016. That is an increase of around 300,000 people over the last year, and it is the largest human exodus since World War II. More than 22.5 million people were seeking safety in another country as a refugee in 2016—another record. The global refugee crisis is the defining humanitarian crisis of our times, but my view is that Australia has a special obligation to assist with this crisis in our own region. It is also in our national interests that we do so. Australia's strategic and economic future relies on being seen as a valued and trusted partner in South-East Asia. So it is in our interests to support and be a part of regional efforts to respond to this crisis in our own backyard. That is why I spent the April parliamentary recess travelling through Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar, to see this issue firsthand. I funded the cost of this trip myself, but it would not have been possible without the invaluable logistical help and local expertise of Save the Children Australia. I wanted to experience for myself the way refugees are registered and assessed in transit countries; how they live while in transit, whether in detention or in local communities; the conditions they live in while waiting for a durable solution to their situation, whether their kids can go to school, whether adults can work and whether they can all access medical care; and to see conditions in the dominant source country for these refugees in South-East Asia—Myanmar. I heard some heartbreaking stories. A 10-year-old girl in Thailand told me that her only dream in life was to see her father again. Another in a Myanmar displaced persons camp told me how happy she was when she first had been able to go to an Australian aid-funded school for the first time, because 'a school life is my best life'. The good news is that irregular movement of people by boat across the Andaman Sea in this region has fallen dramatically in recent years owing in no small part to intelligence and interdiction measures supported by Australia as part of the Bali process. This was viewed as unambiguously good news by everybody that I spoke to on this trip. The mass graves discovered in the region in 2015 are a testament to the violent extortion and exploitation that people traffickers subjected asylum seekers to on these routes. However, this alone is obviously no solution to the broader crisis. Indeed, half a million refugees and asylum seekers remain stranded in the region waiting for a durable solution. For the majority of these people, their ultimate durable solution will involve integration into their transit country of asylum through residency and associated rights or a safe voluntary return to their country of origin when the cause of their being forced to flee is resolved. I saw firsthand the way Australian aid is supporting refugees while they wait, often for many years, for these solutions. I was particularly impressed by Australian government support for the rollout of biometric identification cards in Malaysia to give refugees in that country a basic level of status that affords them freedom from harassment by police and improves their ability to find work. But also in delivering access to education to children living in internally displaced-persons camps in Myanmar there is much more that Australia could do on this front. I am pleased that last federal election, Labor committed to taking a leadership role within South-East Asia to build a regional humanitarian framework for refugees from this region. We pledged $450 million over three years to the UNHCR to support these measures and to support the UNHCR in advocating for work rights and the delivery of health and education services to asylum seekers and refugees. I was pleased to see reasons for optimism on this front. In Indonesia, a new presidential decree on refugees was signed, giving nationwide consistency and direction to their approach. In Malaysia, a pilot project on work rights for 300 Rohingya refugees has started, and senior ministers have given a broader statement of commitment to expand work rights to all refugees. The Thai government has passed a cabinet resolution to develop a screening mechanism to distinguish refugees from economic migrants. The peace talks between the Myanmar government and minority ethnic groups, as well as that government's response to the interim findings of the Annan report on the Rakhine State, provide some reason for hope that outbound flows could be stemmed. However, for some for these people the only workable solution is third-country resettlement, a process that even today can take a decade. For these people, the wait for resettlement is likely to get even longer, with the total number of resettlement places globally falling this year as a result of President Trump's decision to halve the total number of refugees that will be resettled by the United States. I am pleased that the Labor Party has committed to increasing our humanitarian intake to 27,000 per year but we need to ensure that we are doing all we can possibly can to respond to this humanitarian crisis. I have spoken previously in the chamber about the potential to expand the existing government community sponsorship program to provide an additional pathway to settlement. I encourage Australian businesses, community and civil society groups to make the case across Australia for the potential benefits of this scheme. It is all too easy to be awed by the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Syria and it is something that we should not look away from. But there is a similar crisis in our own backyard that we all have a responsibility to address. McMillan Electorate: Representation 7600 12:25 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I want to talk today about representation. I raised an issue about aged care in this chamber only a few weeks ago. The first tweet that came through was: 'Broadband just wants to pork barrel his electorate.' I want to say to that tweeter, what I actually want to do is represent my electorate. I want the opportunity to be able to represent my electorate. I will give you two examples. They may be historic, but they are two examples. Yesterday I was shown a letter by one of my staff, an old letter from Centrelink, which admitted they had made a $66,000 mistake in regard to one of my constituents. It took weeks and weeks of arduous work by my staff to go back and find where the original mistake was made and how that mistake had been compounded to the tune of $66,000 that Centrelink was trying to pull back from my constituent. There was no apology in the letter. The letter just said 'we were wrong' and 'we have negated this $66,000 debt'. Without my staff, that would not have happened. Without representation that would not have happened. I go back to a Probus meeting I was addressing just a few months ago. I was telling the story of how we got drought relief from my farmers and telling it in a humorous way because, at that stage, the only person who could sign off on the relief was the Prime Minister. We needed the Prime Minister to address the issue. It was a combination of my staff members, Sally Cray and Jim Middleton—the journalist—who cooked up a proposition to put to the Prime Minister in public, which we did. I do not think we were invited to the Prime Minister's Christmas party that year, but, thanks to Sally Cray and Jim Middleton, those people received their benefit. But at that Probes meeting, a woman came up to me and said, 'Yes, Mr Broadbent, because of that decision, you put food on the table.' I had no idea that there were people in my electorate—farmers—that did not have food on the table at that time. I did not know. They are too proud to tell me but all these years later that lady came up to me at that Probes meeting with a tear in her eye and said, 'Mr Broadbent, that decision put food on the table.' If it were not for the idea of Sally Cray at that time, who is now the Prime Minister's chief executive, and Jim Middleton, who is now working for Sky, if they had not cooked up a proposition, that would not have happened and it did happen. That is called representation. I also represent today the thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who have had their power or gas or utilities turned off in South Australia and Victoria and New South Wales and Queensland. Are they telling their elected members that they have their power turned off? No they are not. We do not even know who they are. But they have had their power cut off because of policies that we have implemented over a long period of time that are affecting those people directly. Is it affecting me and my household personally? No, we just have a higher power bill, which I have the ability to pay and I have been blessed all of my life. But what about people who are out there today who have had their power turned off in South Australia or Victoria? What about them? I represent those people too. I also represent my farmers, who have had a tough time because of Murray-Goulburn being unable to manage their affairs properly and inflicting great hardship on those farmers. Those farmers are thinking now, 'If we're going to have blackouts in Victoria next year or over this summer, my cattle still have to be milked.' They are thinking, 'Now, do I invest $40,000 that I haven't got in a backup generator so I am not affected, at a time when I am already pushed financially and I have already probably borrowed to the hilt of what I can borrow.' Do I now have to say, because of our policies, that we are now faced with this situation where they need a backup generator for their farm? It is $40,000 or $50,000; it is not cheap. Elected representation carries responsibility: not only does it carry responsibility to our party, to our faction or to these people but it carries a responsibility to the people who elected us. Never forget who brought you to the party. Citizenship 7601 12:30 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin In 1948, Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell, bringing into parliament the Nationality and Citizenship Act, stated: When this bill becomes an act … It will symbolize not only our own pride in Australia but also our willingness to offer a share in our future to the new Australians we are seeking in such, vast numbers. … My aim, and the aim of the Government, will be to make the word "Australian" mean all that it truly stands for to every member of our community. We will try to teach the children that they are fortunate to be British, and additionally fortunate to be Australian. We want to … encourage our young but very vigorous traditions of mateship, cooperation, and a fair deal for everybody. Since that time, some 7.5 million people have come to Australia from overseas. Of those eligible, around 80 per cent have taken up Australian citizenship. That means that one in five people eligible to become Australian citizens have chosen not to do so. My understanding is that currently around one million eligible people have not pursued Australian citizenship—the figure may be higher. I know that for many the barrier is the current citizenship test. Now, the Turnbull government wants to make it even more difficult for them by bringing in a tougher English competency test and a four year permanent residency requirement. The government's rhetoric in support of a four year residency requirement has also been characterised by a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Applicants are already required to have lawfully been in Australia for four years to qualify for Australian citizenship, with one of those years as a permanent resident. Under the changes, the requirement will be that an applicant must be a permanent resident for all of the four years. If a person has been living, working or studying in Australia for four years, the category of visa will not make any difference to that person's understanding of Australia and its values. Furthermore, what does it mean to be Australian and what are the values which define us that are commonly referred to? The Australian citizenship pledge does not mention values. Values is a term that is not defined and which all people have a different view about. Values also change. The non-British migrants who came to Australia immediately after World War II did not have to pass a citizenship test or an English literacy test. I believe most would probably have failed today's test if they had to sit for it. It was not their ability to speak English or their knowledge of Australian affairs that made them good citizens but their commitment to Australia and its future. Half a century later many can still barely speak English and could not pass a citizenship test, but they are Australian through and through. Those people became model citizens, and the Prime Minister and others boast about Australia's successful immigration story. Last week the Prime Minister stated: We are the most successful multicultural society in the world. So if Australia is such a stand-out model of multiculturalism, why change the road to citizenship? It could reasonably be argued that this legislation is directly at odds with the widely held Australian value of a fair go or the fair deal Arthur Calwell referred to in 1948. There is nothing fair about a newcomer to Australia being required to pass an English language test that most other Australians would very likely have difficulty with or that raises the bar when compared with the citizenship test that applied to earlier citizenship applicants. Nor does passing such a test prove anything other than a person's literacy competency. Even more glaring in the proposal is the absence of any evidence that the existing citizenship test is inadequate or that national security concerns have resulted because of it. In my view the critical character test assessment should be at the point of entry—that is, when an entry visa of any type is granted, and more particularly when a permanent residency visa is granted. That is when the screening is critical and the test should be robust. Under the proposed changes a person can come here, be granted permanent residency, work and pay taxes, but cannot vote or be granted an Australian passport unless they pass a competency test—not a loyalty test but a competency test. Citizenship arises from the swearing of an oath or affirmation of allegiance. It is a step new citizens choose to take. As Sir Peter Hollingworth stated: The swearing of an oath goes right to the heart of human belief. To take an oath is to highlight the solemn seriousness, power and efficacy with which a person's own word becomes endowed. Whether that oath is taken one year or 10 years after arrival does not alter the solemnity that Sir Peter Hollingworth refers to. Commitment and allegiance cannot be legislated—they come from within. Raising the bar to a level which will preclude people from becoming an Australian citizen will simply cause resentment rather than create a spirit of goodwill, mateship, cooperation and loyalty towards their new homeland. It is completely contrary to Arthur Calwell's purpose in introducing the Australian Citizenship Act. Schools 7603 12:35 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Today I would like to talk about the origins of what is colloquially known as 'the big lie'. What I refer to is Labor's claim that there are cuts to school funding. Labor's cunning plan on this goes back to the May 2013 budget. Part of Labor's cunning plan was to announce an increase in schooling funding of $9.8 billion. They backed this with the I Give a Gonski advertising campaign, a multimillion campaign with billboards around the nation, T-shirts, hats, badges—a great range of advertising paraphernalia. But of that $9.8 billion, only $2.8 billion was actually in the four-year forward estimate period. That was around $700 million a year. The other $7 billion out of the $9.8 billion was backloaded into years 5 and 6. Of course, in years 5 and 6 you do not have to show where the money comes from. I have asked members of the teachers union: if the I Give a Gonski program is so good, why does the funding multiply five times in years 5 and 6? They looked at me, dumbfounded. We know the reason why. It is because Labor did not have to show where the money was coming from. It was a complete and utter hoodwink of the public. Some may not take my word for it, but they only have to go to the ABCs Fact Check. I think everyone would agree that ABC Fact Check gives an independent opinion on Labor's claim. They gave a verdict on Labor's claim that there are $22 billion in cuts to education. ABC Fact Check's verdict is: Ms Plibersek's claim is misleading: the Government is not cutting $22 billion from schools. Yet we have Labor member after Labor member stand up in the House of Representatives and repeating that complete and utter untruth. What is objectionable about this is that we understand that Labor likes to tell many untruths. We have seen the Medicare scare campaign, where Labor members walked around claiming the coalition is going to sell Medicare. When they came in after the election did they apologise for misleading the public? Did they say, 'We are sorry we tricked you,'? No. They wore it like a badge of honour. It was a badge of honour to Labor members that they deceived the public at the election. They are doing it again. It is one thing to scare old pensioners about Medicare, but what is really shameful is to scare schoolkids that their school is having funding cut. Labor member after Labor member stands up in the House of Representatives and says, 'The school is having its funding cut,' misleading school kids and their parents so the kids hear only part of the news. They go to school and they think, 'Our school is having their funding cut. Will our school be closed down?' It is just an utter untruth. Schools are having their funding increased. Already, under this government, we are providing 34 per cent more than was provided in the glory years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Next year, there will be more money over and above inflation. The Catholic schools will be getting more money. They point to the Catholic schools in New South Wales. They will be getting 3.8 per cent more. Mr Dick 53517 Why are they so unhappy? Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Why are they are unhappy? I will tell you why they are unhappy. It is because members like you, sir, that mislead the House. That is the reason why. To walk into the parliament and to say that schools are having their funding cut is an absolute disgrace and you should retract that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Hughes will address his remarks through the chair and not directly refer to other members. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 It does upset me when I hear members of the Labor Party who stand up in parliament and say that they are having funding cut from schools, when that is simply and utterly an untruth, because it upsets the kids unnecessarily. It scares them and I call members of the Labor Party to desist in this big lie. (Time expired) Sciacca, Hon. Concetto Antonio 'Con', AO 7604 12:41 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Today, I pay tribute to the life of the Hon. Con Sciacca AO, who sadly lost his battle with cancer yesterday afternoon in Brisbane. The term 'larger than life' is used too lightly in my opinion, but if there was ever a person who did fit this bill, it was Con Sciacca. Concetto Antonio Sciacca was born in June 1947 in his beloved Sicily, and reached the age of 70 just over a week ago. Coming from humble beginnings with hardworking parents who came to this country with nothing, Con never forgot where he came from. His parents worked hard. They became model Australian citizens and taught their children to give back to the country of their new home. Admitted as a solicitor in 1970, Con never looked back. As a legal professional, Con built one of the most successful legal practices in Queensland, Sciaccas Lawyers, alongside his partner and lifelong friend, now magistrate, Brian Kilmartin. We were lucky to have Con serve in this place, because if it was not for 200 votes in the 1986 Redlands by-election Con would have been a state member of parliament. But in 1987, after winning a controversial preselection for the seat of Bowman, Con entered the House of Representatives alongside his great mate, Warren Snowdon. Con wasted no time in making his mark in Canberra as a powerbroker, the early fixer of his day and someone who everyone loved and feared, sometimes at the same time. The great Hawke-Keating leadership battles of the 1990s are a piece of Australia's history that Con was at the heart of. Everyone knows about his work as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—one of Australia's best ministers. What people do not understand is his work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Security and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Superannuation. Some of his reforms included empowering women to receive superannuation. He always understood the dignity of work and ensured that people who needed support got the support when they needed it. Con was a Labor man. He was at the right of the movement—sometimes, some people say, a little too right of the movement—but he was one of the few politicians who truly crossed the political divide, both in his time in this place and is post-political career. Leaving parliament, Con jumped into a new business career with his dear friends Santo Santoro and Larry Anthony. Both were former ministers and both remained loyal to Con to the end. I want to particularly acknowledge and thank Santo for his devotion to Con and his support over the last few years. The SAS team with Peter Costantini was truly another family for Con. 'Getting things done for people and results' was Con's motto. Con always said the same thing to me after I was elected—look after people and the people will look after you. He took his friends seriously—loyal to every single one of them; that is, of course, until they crossed him. However, his friends remained loyal to the end, visiting him in hospital at his bedside. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten; former leader Kim Beazley; the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott; and so many other former colleagues all visited him until the end. I speak for my own Queensland colleagues about just how sad we are about losing Con. Leaders would come and go, candidates would win and lose, and governments would rise and fall but, always, Con Sciacca was at the beating heart of all of these situations. When Con's phone number would flash up on your phone, it meant one of two things: Con had a brilliant idea or he wanted to take you to lunch. Somehow I think the restaurants in Brisbane will simply never be the same again. I know that, as a new Young Labor member, I would watch him at events, conferences and meetings in awe of his turn of phrase, his negotiation skills and his fierce compassion for those who had nothing. Over the years I have met hundreds of people whom Con had helped out, helping their lives in countless ways—winning battles that people may have had with government, making sure his beloved bayside community was always looked after and, in many cases, personally financially helping out constituents in need. The Hon. Con Sciacca AO was truly a magnificent character—a legal professional, a parliamentarian, a minister, a businessman, a mentor and also a friend, husband, father, stepfather and grandfather. That was the Con I knew. My thoughts today are with his beautiful and beloved wife, Karen, who was with him to the very end and looked after him with such beauty and grace; his beloved daughter, Zina; his much-adored granddaughter, Grace; and his stepsons Daniel and Nicholas. They will never forget Con, just as Australia will never forget Con either. Energy 7605 12:45 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I have to tell you that, living in Australia, it almost feels like we are living in the twilight zone. We have some of the largest naturally occurring energy reserves anywhere in the world; we know we have enough coal to power this nation for hundreds of years; we certainly have large deposits of uranium; and we have huge LNG-LPG production which powers countries like Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea. In my electorate of Durack, which is home to the North West Shelf project, they produce some 16 million tonnes of LNG a year. Chevron has two projects—one on Barrow Island and another, called Wheatstone, near Onslow in my electorate. When the Wheatstone project is up and running completely, they will be producing some 460,000 barrels of LNG a day. I think this energy debate is quite absurd. Australia has the energy and it has the supply, so we should have cheap energy and cheap power, but somehow we have the energy problem. It is quite bizarre, and I really struggle to get my head around this. No doubt it is do to with decisions made not just by federal governments but also by state governments. As you know, Deputy Speaker, I am the chair of Friends of Mining, and INPEX hosted us the other day. We heard about their fabulous gas project just off the coast of Broome, between Broome and the Northern Territory. They are a Japanese company, with a very small percentage owned by the country of Japan, and 70 per cent of what they are going to produce will go to Japan while about 30 per cent of that will go to Taiwan. Japan does not have gas reserves; it has an energy problem, so they have gone about finding an energy solution. In Western Australia we are reasonably lucky, because we do have a domestic gas reservation policy. That requires that, for all new gas export projects, 15 per cent, or the equivalent of 15 per cent, of what they are going to export be reserved for the domestic market. That is good news. I am very glad that the federal government has recently moved towards a similar system with respect to the east coast, but I am very grateful that these new arrangements will not impact Western Australia, which is what we were very fearful of. But what we see is that we have governments, like the South Australian government, that have insisted on renewable energy targets of some 50 per cent. We have seen what a devastating effect that has had on that part of the country with the blackouts they experienced last summer and, of course, we are fearful that in other parts of the country we could also be heading for blackouts come next summer. I do not necessarily have any particular issue with renewables, but we all know that in this debate we have to take a very balanced approach. I think that is certainly what Finkel was trying to achieve in his report. In my own electorate there are hugely ambitious plans to build one of the largest solar panel fields ever seen in this country. You will know, Deputy Speaker, because I know you have been there, that the Pilbara receives some of the most solar radiation of anywhere on the earth, which makes it perfectly placed to develop large-scale solar energy projects. In terms of wind turbines, you see them dotted around places like Denham and Kalbarri and out towards Merredin—and there is no surprise there, because they are incredibly windy places. But unfortunately renewables are not yet at the level where they are capable of delivering the cheap power we need to keep businesses competitive, and we certainly know the issues relating to storage. Certainly we have a long way to go. I do not doubt renewable energy's ability to power a town of a few hundred people in my electorate. In fact, there are obvious benefits for a farmer leasing land to a power company for a few decades. I know that even in your area, Deputy Speaker Coulton, people have had the benefit of that. With the time remaining, I just want to focus briefly on carbon capture and the Gorgon project, which is another Chevron project. This is going to be the largest example of carbon capture in Australia. Gorgon will ensure the removal of CO2 from four million tonnes of LNG every year. We know that we have a long way to go. We have the Finkel report, and there is no doubt that there are still many conversations to be had about what is right and wrong in the Finkel report. There are many more models that need to be reviewed, and there is much more debate to be had about this country moving towards security of energy. But carbon capture and storage will surely have a role to play, and I congratulate Chevron for their initiative. Turnbull Government, Braddon Electorate: Budget 7607 12:50 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I rise this afternoon to reflect on the last 12 months, nearly, as the member for Braddon and on the neglect Braddon has experienced under this government. When you consider that half of the country is in opposition, certainly there are a lot of stories to be told. This government has persistently let down the people of Braddon over the past year. This is a government that has had no investment in new infrastructure since it was elected, and no new projects have been announced for the north-west region. This has continued to leave Tasmanians behind. There are vital projects that are in need of funding to grow local jobs and the economy, like the Cradle Mountain Master Plan, coastal pathways and safety upgrades at the Bass Highway. This government has continued to show that it cannot be trusted on health, with its continuation of the Medicare freeze causing a massive decline in bulk-billing in every jurisdiction and a rise in out-of-pocket costs. In Tasmania, this is an increase of $5.90 from the December 2014 quarter to the March 2017 quarter, or an eight per cent increase in out-of-pocket costs from the December 2016 quarter to the March 2017 quarter. Pensioners have also borne the brunt of the coalition's unrelenting attacks on them, such as the axing of the clean energy supplement, with couple pensioners $21.20 a fortnight, or $550 a year, worse off. And let us not forget the government's continued approach to have our retirement age going up to 70. Our kids' education is now at risk from the bungling of a proper needs based funding model in our schools, with a revised Gonski scheme that is set to pass through the Senate with the support of Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie. Under Labor, the schooling resource standard for all schools in all systems in Tasmania would be at 95 per cent by 2019. That standard ensures that there is the funding needed to give every child a quality education, but now, under this government, that standard has gone out the window. I ask the question: if the funding for public schools is now going to be set at 20 per cent, how on earth is Tasmania, the smallest state, going to fund the remaining 75 per cent to reach the funding level that is fair? In particular, Tasmanian students with disabilities are going to lose $12 million across the entire sector over the next 12 months. While Tasmania was the first state to receive the National Broadband Network, it has been one mess after another, as some areas have fibre to the premises while other areas continue to receive speeds comparable to that of the existing ADSL. I actually wish I had gone back to the ADSL now that I am on fibre to the node. This government also tried to waste $160 million on a harmful and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality, when it was more than willing to cut important areas for everyday Tasmanians like health and education. Over the parliamentary break and the next 12 months, I hope the government takes a more holistic approach and looks at how its policies can benefit all Australians, not just those in the big cities. Braddon is getting left behind in serious terms over a lack of infrastructure investment to grow jobs and the local economy. The State of the regions report 2017-18, released on Sunday, made particular reference to the north-west and northern regions of Tasmania as having ranked 57th and 60th respectively in the national wealth-per-household ladder of 67 regions, yet this government is not addressing the decline in wages and not addressing growing inequality. It is supporting cuts to penalty rates for those on low incomes yet gives millionaires a tax cut. I think this is very pertinent in regional Australia. It is something that is growing and growing, to the point where we have the haves in the cities and the have-nots in the regions. We desperately need to ensure we do something on that. Labor, on the other hand, is actively consulting with the broader community on these issues—on growing jobs, growing an inclusive economy, supporting those that need it, and investing in health and education, but, most importantly, listening to the people we represent. I feel this is not the case at all with those on the government side, who continually fail to consult with the community or with stakeholders at all—and we have seen that with a number of bills that have come through the parliament—as well as attempting to bring into this place poor policies and flawed legislation. To conclude, we need to take serious steps to ensure that we are putting in place the right projects, policies and legislation to create jobs, fund our health and education systems, and support our agriculture and regional infrastructure so that regional communities can prosper just like mine on the West Coast of Tasmania. Queensland: Sport 7608 12:55 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I am so glad that you are in the chair, because I would not normally stand here in parliament and talk about yet another Queensland win in the State of Origin. Queensland wins so often that it is almost mundane. But I do want to mention a couple of key players in last night's game. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! It is against standing orders to be disrespectful to the chair! Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was not I who was disrespectful; it was the Maroons, and probably your team also. My electorate in North Queensland is bounded by Townsville in the north, the home of the remarkable Johnathan Thurston, and Mackay in the south, the home of two-try hero Dane Gagai. Often in Origin games it comes down to the final minutes, or seconds, and the game is there for the taking. And cometh the hour, cometh the man: Johnathan Thurston. His sideline conversion in the final minutes never looked like missing and Queenslanders never doubted that outcome. Thurston had the opportunity to steal the game away from the Blues at the last minute because Dane Gagai scored his second try of the match. Gagai's contribution to that victory and to Origin in the past three years is a source of great pride for Mackay. Dane Gagai was born in Mackay in 1991 to Indigenous Australian and Maori parents, which means he could play for Australia or New Zealand at test level. He got his NRL start at the Broncos in 2011, but he has spent the past five years playing for the Newcastle Knights. Two years ago, he scored a try on debut in State of Origin game 3, helping Queensland win—again—52-6. Last year he cemented his place in the side, playing in all three origin matches. He scored Queensland's only try in game 1—a victory again—and scored three tries in game 2 to win the series. These origin stars are part of a great sporting tradition in North Queensland. Like many other regional centres, the towns in North Queensland produce more than their fair share of sporting stars. In the Burdekin, Karrie Webb, born in Ayr, became not only Australia's best female golfer but also one of the greatest players in the world in the history of women's golf. The small town of Proserpine in the Whitsundays is home to dual Paralympic gold medallist David Nicholas, a cyclist who won gold medals on the cycling track at London in 2012 and Rio in 2016. One of the toughest competitors in the north is 26-year-old professional bull rider Beau Willis, from Bowen. Before he was seriously injured last year, he was riding in the US with a world ranking of 70. I believe he got even higher than that. The sugar city and mining service centre of Mackay has produced an array of sporting greats: runner Cathy Freeman; swimmers Geoff Huegill, Linda Mackenzie and Susie O'Neill; hockey players Stephen Lambert, Tracey Belbin and Baeden Choppy; NRL's Dale Shearer, Daly Cherry-Evans, Wendell Sailor and Martin Bella; and racing royalty in George Moore—one of the greatest jockeys and trainers in the world. Townsville has its own greats: swimming sensation Libby Trickett; beach volleyball gold medallist at the Sydney Olympic Games Natalie Cook; and Gorden Tallis and Sam Thaiday—both from the NRL. While Johnathan Thurston was not born in Townsville, he has spent the past 12 years with the Cowboys and led the team to the NRL premiership in 2015 in one of the greatest matches in NRL history. Townsville and North Queensland embrace their football team like never before, and that fervour was a driving force behind the push for a new stadium in the city. This government is committing $100 million to the construction of a new stadium in Townsville, recognising the importance of the Cowboys and sport in general—and the fact that this will deliver construction jobs, and other jobs in the future. We are also delivering on other major sporting infrastructure projects throughout North Queensland: $10 million for a sports precinct at CQ University campus in Mackay; $1.9 million to develop a sports park in the Whitsundays; $1 million to relocate the junior football grounds in Mackay for better lighting—we have already granted that—and a further $350,000 for turfing and irrigation; $250,000 for new a netball court and resurfacing of the existing netball courts in Mackay; and $250,000 for a multipurpose stadium in the Burdekin, which will principally house basketball. There is a great investment from the federal government, from this Liberal-National government, going into sport so that there can be more sporting greats in North Queensland. The government recognises the importance of sport in North Queensland and the benefit it brings to individuals and communities. It recognises that participating in higher levels of sport can be difficult for young people in regional areas. In addition to good infrastructure, we continue to support the Local Sporting Champions grants to young people for travel costs for playing at state and national level games. We continue to back sport in the north because we want to ensure that the Maroons keep on kicking the butts of the Blues in every origin game in the future. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:01 until Tuesday, 8 August 2017 at 16:00, unless in accordance with standing order 186 an alternative date or time is fixed.   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 7610 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Australian Submarine Corporation (Question No. 746) 7610 746 Mr Champion HW9 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 1 June 2017 : Since September 2013, has the Minister's department developed any proposals or in any way investigated (a) the possibility of privatising any part of ASC Pty Ltd (ASC), including the submarine sustainment, shipbuilding and infrastructure businesses, or their operations, or (b) selling any parts of ASC to private operators; if so, (i) when was this work carried out, (ii) is any work still ongoing, and (iii) what was the outcome. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: Please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance to Question 38 from 17 October 2016.