
<hansard version="2.2" noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd">
  <session.header>
    <date>2017-08-16</date>
    <parliament.no>45</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>4</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing">
        <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SODJobDate">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 16 August 2017</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-Normal">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Qualifications of Members</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the information of members, I present copies of the following documents relating to the reference to the Court of Disputed Returns of the qualification of the member for New England, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP: (a) Speaker of the House of Representatives to the Principal Registrar, High Court of Australia, dated 15 August 2017; and (b) Principal Registrar, High Court of Australia, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated 15 August 2017; and a court notice, dated 15 August 2017.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017, Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <p>
              <a href="r5892" type="Bill">
                <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r5893" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 15 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 4 September 2017. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 15 August 2017.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 15 August 2017, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 4 September 2017, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications Act 1997</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications Amendment (Guaranteeing Mobile Phone Service in Bushfire Zones) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 15 August 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS MCGOWAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to renewable energy to improve support for the community energy sector, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Renewable Energy Legislation Amendment (Supporting Renewable Communities) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 15 August 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Continuing the Energy Transition) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 14 June 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to require the equal treatment of the religious certification of products, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Religious Certification (Non-Discrimination) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 28 March 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the coal seam gas industry in Australia, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Commission of Inquiry (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 20 June 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR CHAMPION: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS) has the potential to create 3,700 jobs for Northern Adelaide and add more than $500 million a year to the State's economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to immediately commit to provide the $45.6 million in funding required by the South Australian Government for the NAIS to proceed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 June 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Champion—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR PERRETT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that Australia has a significant role in assisting countries to reduce poverty and achieve inclusive prosperity through its international aid;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) every year Australian aid improves the lives of millions of people around the globe;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia is playing a leading role in international initiatives such as the Asia Pacific Leaders Malaria Alliance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia has played an important role in having the G20 Health Ministers commit to action on drug-resistant tuberculosis and the World Health Assembly endorsing action to accelerate access to vaccines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) while the global community is making progress towards ending poverty, hunger and the worst epidemics, the world is facing multiple challenges of war, poverty, hunger, displaced people and climate change;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the Asia-Pacific region, 330 million people live in extreme poverty, 1.5 billion people lack access to safe sanitation, and one in 7 people suffer from malnutrition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia is one of 194 countries which have endorsed the Agenda for Sustainable Development, which sets out 17 goals to eliminate poverty, improve health and achieve inclusive economic and social development; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) set clear long term goals for the Australian aid program, consistent with our interests in supporting sustainable economic development, health security and poverty reduction for countries throughout our region in the forthcoming Foreign Policy White Paper, which has received more than 9,000 public submissions on a range of issues, including our aid commitments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commit to consideration of increasing Australian aid in real terms in the next four years, to support achieving these goals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) build understanding within the Australian community of the work that has been achieved through Australian aid, to lift our national pride in our contribution to the world; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expand opportunities for everyday Australians to contribute in practical ways to regional development, through short work parties to exchange agricultural and practical skills in developing countries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 June 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR GEORGANAS: To move—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the significant contribution of the previous Labor Government's Living Longer Living Better reforms that were designed to deliver:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) more support and care at home;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) additional home and residential care places;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a focus on greater consumer choice and control; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) greater recognition of diversity and support to carers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the growing number of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) older Australians who would like to remain living in their own home for as long as possible; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) carers who work hard to ensure their loved one is able to remain at home for as long as possible;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that older Australians need adequate, flexible and responsive care options to ensure that they remain safe and healthy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that many older Australians are experiencing long delays in accessing the necessary care they need, and are having to make do with lower levels of care than they were assessed for; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) ensure that older Australians receive home care assistance when they need it and at a level they need in order to allow them to remain living in their own home safely and independently for as long as possible; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) release the number of people waiting for each level of the package.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 August 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Georganas—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS SHARKIE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Cystic Fibrosis is a condition that causes impairment of the lungs, airways and digestive system and leaves sufferers with an average life expectancy of 37 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) over 3,000 Australians live with Cystic Fibrosis and every four days an Australian child is born with the condition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) over one million Australians are carriers of the gene that causes Cystic Fibrosis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) there is currently an application before the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule Advisory Committee (PBSAC) for the drug known as Orkambi which is used to treat the most common mutation of Cystic Fibrosis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if approved, Orkambi will be available to over 1,000 Australians aged 12 and over who are currently suffering from this life shortening condition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) continue to support research into Cystic Fibrosis and its possible cure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expedite the PBSAC review of the application to have Orkambi listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme so that over 1,000 Australians can have access to a potentially lifesaving drug.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 9 August 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Sharkie—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR BOWEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that between 1975 and 1986, over 12,000 Cambodians were settled in Australia under the Special Humanitarian Program after being forced to flee their homeland by the Khmer Rouge;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the contribution that Cambodian-Australians have made to our nation since that time and the role they have played in the success story of Australian multiculturalism, including the large Cambodian communities in Fairfield, Liverpool and Cabramatta;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that the Cambodian community in Australia faces challenges that require attention, including a higher than average unemployment rate and a higher proportion of lower wage employment than the national average;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes the struggle that many in Cambodia still face from their Government, including the right to peaceful assembly and opposition to Government policies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) reaffirms Australia's commitment to the United Nations Human Rights Council's statement of 14 September 2016 that we are 'deeply concerned about escalating threats to legitimate activities by Opposition parties and Human Rights NGOs' in Cambodia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 June 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Bowen—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017: Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">19</inline><inline font-style="italic">June</inline><inline font-style="italic">2017</inline><inline font-style="italic">—Mr Pitt</inline>) on the motion of Mr Shorten—That the Bill be now read a second time—<inline font-style="italic">And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Christensen.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—20</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All Members speaking—5 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR BURKE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Australia has over 500 national parks that protect our unique and precious environment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Sydney's Royal National Park (RNP) was established in 1879 and is Australia's oldest national park and the world's second oldest national park;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the 16,000 hectare RNP has unique cultural, heritage and environmental values;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the RNP:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is the traditional country of the Dharawal people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) has one of the richest concentrations of plant species in temperate Australia with more than 1,000 species; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) is rich in wildlife such as birds, reptiles and butterflies and exemplifies the biodiverse Hawkesbury Sandstone environment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) the RNP's importance to the nation was recognised with a National Heritage listing in 2006;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) the values of the RNP deserve World Heritage protection;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) federal Labor will consult Traditional Owners and the local community on nominating the RNP for the World Heritage List; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) with the consent of the Traditional Owners, Labor will prioritise a World Heritage nomination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 June 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Burke—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR HAYES: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day is observed on 29 September;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the significant role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the great deal of risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty and tragically this year we specifically honour Senior Constable Brett Forte of the Queensland Police Service, who was shot and killed in the Lockyer Valley on 29 May;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation's history;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) commends the good work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers that have fallen; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication to ensuring the peace and safety of our communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 8 August 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—50</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Hayes—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS MCGOWAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Superannuation Guarantee system—in conjunction with voluntary superannuation contributions and a means-tested, government funded age pension—forms an integral part of Australia's retirement income policy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) recent analysis by Industry Super Australia indicates employers failed to pay an aggregate amount of $5.6 billion in Superannuation Guarantee contributions in 2013-14;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) this amount represents 2.76 million affected employees, with an average amount of more than $2,000 lost per person in a single year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) within the electoral division of Indi there were 16,068 affected employees, with an average amount of $2,001 lost per person in a single year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) evidence received by the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the Superannuation Guarantee indicates a failure to adequately detect and address that Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance causes long term financial detriment to millions of Australian employees, significant competitive disadvantage to compliant employers, and an unnecessary impost to Government finances through additional reliance on the age pension; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) in its report, the Committee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) concluded the current approach of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in identifying and addressing Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance is inadequate and recommends that the ATO takes a more proactive stance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) argued that there is a compelling need for the determination of a reliable Superannuation Guarantee gap figure annually in order to track rates of Superannuation Guarantee non‑payment, analyse which policies are effective, and ultimately minimise the problem;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) recommended the current Superannuation Guarantee Charge framework, with its reliance on employer self-reporting, should be reviewed in order to ensure that penalties are strong enough deterrents; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) considered it is crucial to move Superannuation Guarantee compliance from the 'paper age' to the 'digital age', enabling a greater focus on proactive methods, and in turn increasing the effectiveness of efforts to detect and remedy Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to accept and act upon all 32 recommendations made in the Committee's report to address the significant problem of Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 10 May 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—45</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms McGowan—10</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS BRODTMANN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the use of sexual violence in armed conflict is a war crime; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the use of sexual violence as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population is a crime against humanity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that Islamic State:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity against minority Muslim groups, Christians, Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) has perpetrated acts of sexual violence amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) has dedicated infrastructure for the kidnap, trafficking and sale of sex slaves; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Australian Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) investigate, prosecute and hold to account Australians who have committed crimes, according to domestic or international law, as members of lslamic State or other recognised international terrorist groups; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) support international efforts to gather evidence, investigate and prosecute those responsible for international crimes perpetrated by Islamic State or other recognised international terrorist groups.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 9 May 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Brodtmann—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR HAMMOND: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government established a panel to review the Small Amount Credit Contract (SACC) laws on 7 August 2015, which provided its final report to the Government on 3 March 2016;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government released its response to the SACC review on 28 November 2016, in which it agreed with the vast majority of the recommendations in part or in full;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services said at the time that 'the implementation of these recommendations will ensure that vulnerable consumers are afforded appropriate levels of consumer protection while continuing to access SACCs and leases';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister claimed in an interview on Lateline on 28 February 2017 that Treasury was drafting legislation to implement the review's recommendations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) in response to questioning in Senate Additional Estimates by Senator Gallagher on 1 March 2017, Treasury's head of the Financial System Division confirmed that drafting had not commenced for a Bill to enact the SACC review recommendations accepted by the Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that consumer credit contracts and consumer leases have been shown to cause unnecessary hardship to vulnerable consumers, and that the Parliament should act to protect vulnerable consumers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that the delay in introducing legislation for consideration by the Parliament, to implement the SACC review recommendations, results in an unnecessary continuation of hardship to vulnerable consumers and their families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) congratulates the consumer advocate groups who attended Parliament House on 27 March 2017 to raise the profile of this important issue; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to immediately prepare legislation for consideration by the Parliament, to implement the SACC review recommendations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 28 March 2017.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Hammond—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 August 2017</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corporations and Financial Services Committee</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reporting Date</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a message from the Senate, transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on whistleblower protections be extended to 14 September 2017.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>( I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Unions and employer associations have a privileged position in the workplace relations system and the economy more broadly, and their members place a great deal of trust in them.</para>
<para>There is absolutely no place for those who breach this trust and act in their own interest at the expense of members.</para>
<para>There is also no place for those who show nothing but contempt for the laws that apply equally to all Australians.</para>
<para>That is why we committed at the last election to implement the changes in this bill to ensure that unions, employer associations and their officials act with integrity.</para>
<para>The changes in the bill strengthen the grounds for the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court to deal effectively with the financial misconduct, disregard for the law and abandonment of members that has been all too common in recent times.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption identified countless examples of officials breaching their duties, engaging in blackmail, extortion, coercion and secondary boycott conduct, abusing their rights of entry, acting in contempt of court or failing to stop their organisations from repeatedly breaking the law.</para>
<para>The bill will restore integrity to registered organisations through four improvements to the law.</para>
<para>First, the bill will create a public interest test to be applied by the Fair Work Commission when unions or employer associations seek to merge.</para>
<para>When companies seek to merge, they must first satisfy a regulator—the ACCC—such a merger won't substantially lessen competition.</para>
<para>This competition test is like a public interest test for companies seeking to merge.</para>
<para>By comparison, unions and employer associations face no similar test. Currently, the Fair Work Commission has very limited ability to do anything other than effectively rubber stamp a merger approved by just a bare majority of members.</para>
<para>There are no general public interest considerations and there is very limited scope for affected parties to raise any concerns about a proposed merger of registered organisations.</para>
<para>Some unions and employer groups have greater assets than many companies. Some also have a capacity to disrupt major sections of the economy. And considering their privileged position, including tax exempt status, it is especially important that they are accountable.</para>
<para>If large, powerful unions or employer groups seek to become more powerful, with more coverage across the economy, then a public interest test should apply.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So this bill introduces a new public interest test, supported by members like the member for Fisher, which will take account of the broader impact of a proposed merger and also the record of the organisations in complying with the law.</para>
<para>Second, the bill will strengthen the Federal Court's power to disqualify an official from standing for or holding office where they deliberately flout the law, fail to act in their members' interests, breach their duties or are otherwise found to be not fit and proper to act as officials.</para>
<para>The bill will also make it an offence to act as an official while disqualified.</para>
<para>Again, this is a sensible change, consistent with community standards.</para>
<para>If a company director breaks the law they can be disqualified by a court from running a corporation. If a driver repeatedly breaks the road rules, they can be disqualified by a court from holding a driver's licence.</para>
<para>A similar standard should be applied to an official from a registered organisation who repeatedly breaks the law.</para>
<para>As recommended by the royal commission, the bill also includes automatic disqualification for serious criminal offences punishable by five or more years imprisonment.</para>
<para>How can anyone seriously suggest that individuals convicted of serious offences such as blackmail, extortion and threatening to cause serious harm to public officials should be allowed to hold office in a registered organisation?</para>
<para>Third, the bill strengthens the powers for the Federal Court to cancel the registration of an organisation or take appropriate action against a part of the organisation.</para>
<para>Under present rules, it is virtually impossible to deregister a union or employer organisation—even if they persistently break the law.</para>
<para>This needs to change.</para>
<para>This bill will allow the court to cancel registration where the organisation or its senior officials have repeatedly broken the law, breached their duties or failed to put their members first.</para>
<para>Again, this applies a consistent standard. The new grounds for cancellation are modelled on similar powers relating to the winding up of companies.</para>
<para>Where a ground for cancellation has been made out because of the conduct of officers or members of a particular branch of an organisation, the bill will also provide for the court to make an order specific to that particular branch, division or other part of an organisation.</para>
<para>Last, the bill strengthens the provisions providing for an organisation to be placed into administration. The current provisions offer little guidance on the circumstances in which administration is available, and do not make clear what steps the court can take to deal with those situations.</para>
<para>The proposed provisions will ensure that the court can appoint an administrator to a registered organisation or part of it when financial misconduct has occurred in an organisation, its officials have repeatedly broken the law or breached their duties or it is otherwise dysfunctional.</para>
<para>These provisions will deal with the problems that arose in the context of the HSU being placed into administration. That case was ultimately resolved because the parties largely agreed about the facts in issue.</para>
<para>However, there were numerous court applications, which resulted in a confusing process that could have been extremely lengthy had the facts been contested.</para>
<para>All of these changes will help ensure that unions and employer groups focus on doing the right thing by their members and the industries they represent and ensure that when the law is broken, the court can take action.</para>
<para>The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 will help improve, and in some cases restore, a culture of integrity to registered organisations—for the benefit of members and also the wider community. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5951" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 amends the Migration Act 1958, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to implement measures to support the integrity of the temporary and permanent employer sponsored skilled visa programs.</para>
<para>The measures in this bill will:</para>
<list>allow the public disclosure of sponsor sanctions;</list>
<list>allow the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to collect, record, store and use the tax file numbers of certain visa holders for compliance and research purposes;</list>
<list>provide certainty around when merits review is available for visas that require an approved nomination; and</list>
<list>allow the department to enter into an enforceable undertaking with a sponsor who has breached their sponsor obligations.</list>
<para>These measures complement and are part of the significant reform package to abolish the subclass 457 visa and replace it with a new temporary skill shortage visa. The measures in this bill will apply to temporary and permanent sponsored skilled work visas, which include the 457 visa and its replacement, the temporary skill shortage visa.</para>
<para>These measures strengthen the integrity of these visa programs, and protect Australian and overseas workers.</para>
<para>Tax file number sharing and the disclosure of sponsor sanctions will also give effect to recommendations made in <inline font-style="italic">Robust new foundations: an independent review into integrity in the subclass 457 program</inline>.</para>
<para>I now turn to examine the bill in more detail.</para>
<para>The bill proposes to amend the Migration Act to allow the public disclosure of information concerning businesses that are sanctioned for breaching their sponsor obligations. This information will be published on the department's website. Information released will include the sponsor obligation that was breached, the sanction that was imposed, and details of the business.</para>
<para>Sponsor obligations are in place to protect the wages and conditions of Australian and overseas workers, and to ensure skilled work programs are used only when an Australian is not available.</para>
<para>Currently, the department is only able to publicly release limited information regarding breaches. Whilst the department's annual report includes aggregate data on sponsor sanctions, it does not contain details of the companies that breached their obligations, or the penalty that was issued.</para>
<para>This information is not enough to inform the public about businesses that do the wrong thing.</para>
<para>The publication of detailed sanction information will deter businesses from breaching their obligations. It will allow Australians and overseas workers to inform themselves about breaches, and it will increase public confidence in the integrity of our visa programs.</para>
<para>The bill also proposes to amend the Migration Act to provide certainty around when merits review is available for visas that require an approved nomination.</para>
<para>This measure will clarify the situations in which review rights are available. It will clarify that review rights are determined at the time a decision to refuse a visa is made.</para>
<para>The bill also proposes to amend the Migration Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Taxation Administration Act to allow the department to collect, record, store and use the tax file numbers associated with temporary and permanent skilled visas for compliance and research purposes.</para>
<para>It is proposed that the Migration Regulations will provide for tax file number sharing associated with temporary and permanent skilled visas, including the subclass 457 visa.</para>
<para>Tax file numbers will improve the department's ability to verify that businesses who sponsor overseas workers are complying with their sponsorship obligations, and that skilled visa holders comply with their visa conditions.</para>
<para>The department will use tax file numbers to match and access data, including salary data, held by the Australian Taxation Office. Whilst the department already conducts data sharing with the Australian Taxation Office, it does not have the authority to collect or store tax file numbers for this purpose.</para>
<para>This data will assist the department to undertake more streamlined, targeted and effective compliance activity to identify employers who breach their obligations, including by underpaying visa holders, and visa holders working for more than one employer in breach of their visa conditions.</para>
<para>Tax file numbers will also improve the department's ability to undertake research and trend analysis. This will provide an additional evidence base for the department in developing skilled visa policy.</para>
<para>In order to achieve these goals, it is also proposed that the department would be able to store tax file numbers if they are provided during the visa application process.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill proposes to amend the Migration Act so the department can enter into enforceable undertakings with sponsors who have breached their obligations. This provides the department and sponsors with an additional remedy to address breaches.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>In conclusion, the measures in this bill will protect Australian and overseas workers by strengthening the integrity of Australia's temporary and permanent sponsored skilled work visas. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence for 16 and 17 August 2017 be given to the honourable member for Kingston on the ground of ill health.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5922" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will be supporting this bill, which is comprised of two schedules, one dealing with the wine equalisation tax, another dealing with MySuper. Changes to the wine equalisation tax need to recognise the perspective from which we tax alcohol. Taxes on alcohol are a Pigouvian tax, designed to internalise the externality. As the Henry tax review noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Taxes on alcohol should be set to address the spillover costs imposed on the community of alcohol abuse, when this delivers a net gain to the community’s wellbeing and is more effective than alternative policies. Raising revenue is a by-product, not the goal, of taxing alcohol.</para></quote>
<para>This point is important in recognising changes that are proposed to the wine equalisation tax. The Henry review went on to describe how different alcohol products are taxed according to alcohol content, and it showed that wine is both the highest and the lowest taxed on a volumetric basis. A $40 bottle of wine with a relatively low alcohol content has a higher tax rate than would apply to beer or spirits, but a $12.99 four-litre wine cask has a lower tax on a volumetric basis. The Henry tax review noted an example. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In Alice Springs, a 2-litre wine cask costs $10.99, which includes roughly $1.59 of wine equalisation tax. An equivalent volume of alcohol in full-strength beer would attract $7.48 in excise, and in spirits $16.45.</para></quote>
<para>The changes that are being proposed in this bill to the wine equalisation tax also have an industry component, but it's important to outline their public health component first. A report from the Centre for Alcohol Policy Research and the Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre estimated that over 70,000 Australians were victims of alcohol related assault, of which 24,000 people were victims of alcohol related domestic violence. Almost 20,000 children across Australia were victims of substantiated alcohol related child abuse. A report from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education estimates that each day 15 Australians die and 430 are hospitalised because of alcohol. It goes on to say that there are significant negative externalities of alcohol, including violence in our streets and in our homes, child maltreatment and neglect, and lost productivity in our workplaces. A report carried out by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2013, report No. 454 by Matthew Manning, Christine Smith and Paul Mazerolle, estimates that the costs to society amount to $2.9 billion through the criminal justice system, $1.7 billion through the health system, $6 billion in Australian productivity, and $3.6 billion in traffic accidents.</para>
<para>The challenge, though, with alcohol, unlike with other Pigouvian public health taxes, such as cigarette taxes, is that moderate alcohol consumption is not damaging. Indeed, according to some research, it may have beneficial effects. So, the key focus in alcohol taxation ought to be its ability to target heavy drinkers. In an ideal world, one would imagine higher taxes on somebody having their 12th drink at three o'clock in the morning in a rowdy pub than on Mrs Smith, sipping her first sherry at home on a Friday night. But such taxation is not practical, so taxation of alcohol works in a second-best world, aiming to target these negative externalities.</para>
<para>The wine equalisation tax operates in an environment in which, while alcoholic excise on spirits and beer is based largely on the alcohol content, wine taxation is based on the last wholesale price. The taxation of wine is 29 per cent of the value of wine at the last wholesale transaction, before adding GST, and then there is a producer rebate applied. The government's <inline font-style="italic">Re:think</inline> tax discussion paper noted that in 2013-14 excise and excise equivalent customs duty on beer, spirits and other excisable beverages raised $5.1 billion in tax revenue. WET revenue in 2013-14 amounted to $826 million net of producer rebates, which are typically around 25 per cent of total WET.</para>
<para>But the WET producer rebate, as it stands, has distorted production in the wine industry, contributing to the increased supply of wine and wine grapes and preventing necessary adjustments that would improve the long-term strength of the industry. The rebate was introduced in 2004 and currently provides up to $500,000 in tax relief to producers of wine. The intent of the policy was to benefit small wine producers in rural and regional Australia. My colleagues the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, and the shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon, noted in 2015: 'The intent of the policy is not being met and there is consensus from the government, the opposition and the industry itself on the need for change.' The member for Bendigo has been a strong advocate for the wine industry in her sector and has spoken to me about the challenges that the current scheme provides for legitimate cellar-door operators. We want to make sure we have a rebate system that encourages wine tourism but which does not have the perverse incentive of encouraging a glut of cheap wine, effectively making it more difficult for other producers in the industry and, potentially, contributing to some of those negative externalities—social costs—I spoke about before.</para>
<para>There have been clear signals from the opposition throughout this process that we would engage with the government and support sensible proposals. Frankly, I'd say that this could have come forward more quickly. But it is good to see these reforms before the House. They better target the rebate, improve its integrity and ensure consistency with the original policy intent of benefitting small wine producers who are making a genuine investment in the wine industry. If left in its current form, the WET producer rebate will continue to create a perverse incentive for businesses to structure themselves so as to maximise rebate claims. The result of that would be that if it were left unchecked we may see excess wine production exacerbating challenging market conditions for growers.</para>
<para>The measures in this package are supported by many stakeholders, including most industry participants. As the Winemakers' Federation of Australia has noted, removing the rebate from bulk and unbranded wine is an important driver for industry's restructure, and industry would like it to happen as soon as possible. The amendments make integrity changes to the WET producer rebate, quoting and WET credit rules; reduce the WET rebate cap from $500,000 to $350,000; tighten the associated producers rule; and repeal the earlier producer rebate rule. The new WET eligibility criteria generally apply to wine for which the winemaking process commenced on or after January 2018 and to most other wine products from 1 July 2018. The reduction of the WET rebate cap to $350,000 applies to dealings in wine made on or after 1 July 2018. The amendments to the associated producers rule apply to dealings in wine from the day that schedule 1 to the bill commences.</para>
<para>Going specifically to those changes, the changes will ensure that at least 85 per cent of the wine by volume in its final form, as a packaged and branded product that's fit for resale or sale, will have to originate from source product that was owned by the producer before the winemaking process commenced. That will target this issue of bulk and unbranded wine while ensuring that legitimate cellar-door operators can still take advantage of the rebate. The opposition notes that the government has abandoned a further decrease in the WET cap rebate from $350,000 to $290,000, as was announced on budget night, because the government believes that tightening eligibility criteria will address much of the abuse in the scheme.</para>
<para>I go now to the second schedule, which is dealing with MySuper. This schedule amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide income tax relief to superannuation funds that are transferring the account balances of their members as they transition to the MySuper rules. Labor was proud to introduce the MySuper reforms, which brought in place new, low-cost superannuation products with a simple set of features to allow members to more easily compare products and ensure that members don't pay for features they don't need or use.</para>
<para>The MySuper reforms were informed by behavioural economics research, which has shown that most Australians are invested in the default superannuation fund and invested in the default investment strategy within that fund. So we have to make defaults good if we're going to ensure the long-term viability of Australians' retirement savings. The original superannuation reforms of the Keating government were visionary indeed, but, in retrospect, they placed too much emphasis on choice and on people informing themselves of all of the available options and going in and making active choices so as to select the fund and investment option that's best for them. MySuper recognises that, in a busy world, many of us simply don't get around to taking an active engagement with our superannuation fund and, therefore, that we have to make sure that defaults are as good as possible.</para>
<para>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 in the transfer. The tax payable would, of course, reduce the balance of the member. Tax relief is currently available for those superannuation funds that transfer the default members to a different fund, but this tax relief has not been available where the member transfers to a MySuper product within their existing superannuation provider. This legislation extends the tax relief, providing an asset rollover for mandatory transfer of balances and assets to MySuper products within the same superannuation fund.</para>
<para>Labor supports this change as a measure which supports the integrity of the MySuper system and ensures that members' balances are not negatively impacted by tax liabilities when their balances are moved. It also ensures equity between those members who move to a new fund provider and those who merely take up new products within their existing providers. We need to continue the work to ensure that Australians are in high-quality default options, with minimum management fees. Australians benefit massively through investments which have low-cost administrative overheads. I commend work that the Grattan Institute has done on this, ensuring that we work over time to bring down the administrative cost within superannuation. Those administrative costs may seem small at any given year, one-half of one per cent or one per cent, but over the course of a lifetime this can add up to massive amounts. So, as the MySuper reforms continue, I commend those who are continuing to work to ensure, for example, that investments are moved towards lower cost index funds and away from actively managed funds, which appear, on average, not to have higher returns than index funds. We need to ensure that young Australians aren't placed in overly conservative investment strategies and that, overall, our system ensures the maximum returns with the minimum administrative overheads. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROAD</name>
    <name.id>30379</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017 is one bill that does have bipartisan support on both sides of the House, and that is very refreshing because it is a reform that needs to happen. My interest in this started with two people—a guy by the name of John Ward, a wine grape grower from Swan Hill, who came and saw me, and another guy by the name of Frank Pedulla, with another delegation of wine growers in my patch. People think of the Barossa, they think of Coonawarra and they think of the Hunter Valley, but they might not realise the quality of grapes that are grown in the electorate of Mallee. It is very refreshing when people come and sample some of the grapes grown in our patch and realise that we actually do produce good quality wine.</para>
<para>The wine equalisation tax rebate has been upsetting things for quite a while. I think the intention of the reform when it was brought in under the Howard government was probably quite sound, but, unfortunately, it's been open to some rorting, and it needs a clean-up. Essentially, the intention is—and we have kept the intention pure in this bill to try and clean it up—that we want people who are growing grapes and producing their own wine and having cellar-door sales to receive some additional benefit because of the additional jobs that come from the tourism around food culture. It is one of the great beauties of our country. Not only can you see spectacular scenery; but you can taste the produce that is produced in that place, which generates a sense of pride in our country. We do produce great wine, and it encourages businesses that start off as just a cellar door to then go to the next step. Unfortunately, the wine equalisation tax, as it stands before this proposed reform, has allowed the wine rebate to be claimed on bulk and unbranded wine, which is largely away from the intent of the original legislation, and this is putting some pressure on the viability of the take-home price for wine grape growers across our region.</para>
<para>I know a little bit about agriculture and trade, given my background. I remember—and I used this example when we were having these discussions around the party room—that, in the early eighties, when there was a drought, you couldn't get 20c for a sheep. You couldn't get very much money. I remember as a 16-year-old, at times, having to line up and shoot sheep because they weren't worth anything. Now, the great thing that's happened in the agricultural industry is that we have developed so many markets that we now export sheepmeat to 112 countries right across the world. Even through the dry times you can get over $100 per head per sheep, so we are getting better utilisation out of our product. What we want to do with the wine industry is replicate what we've done with the livestock industry, and that is to open up the market.</para>
<para>Ultimately the product we are producing in Australia is First World. Those of us on both sides of the House have probably consumed too much of it—Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you have definitely consumed too much of it! I'm not reflecting on the Deputy Speaker, although that could be a good reflection! Certainly we want to sell our wine to the world. If you open up the marketplace, you lift the base rate that domestic sales work from. If you think it through, there has been a wine glut for a number of years and we are shifting the bulk of that wine onto the export market. That takes it out of the market, which therefore lifts the profitability of growers, who will sell through their own cellar doors. That is what this reform is trying to target.</para>
<para>As well as moving to lower the rebate cap from $500,000 to $350,000—which, incidentally, saves the federal government $300 million over a four-year period—we have re-invested $50 million for the Australian Grape and Wine Authority to promote Australian wine. I would like to see more of that savings reinvested into growing the industry, but we will take one step at a time. Let's see what they can do with that $50 million. When we have our trade fairs overseas and when we are helping a grower to move into the export market, it is important that we are assisting them to promote the product that we produce.</para>
<para>The public consultation around this has been very thorough. There is always a bit of a dispute between grape growers and winemakers, but this is one area where they've come together. This is an example where both sides are coming together for the betterment of the industry. As well as that, both sides of the parliament are coming together to see the reform go through. We are cleaning up the rorting. We are ensuring that cellar door sales can grow so that people—even those in the electorate of Bendigo—can go and see some good wineries. I have been to a few of those: I believe Connor Park is one, and Balgownie Estate, if I remember correctly. Their wine is not quite as good as those in the electorate of Mallee, but it's not too bad a drop.</para>
<para>We can argue about this one, but what we want to see is viable places where people can come and spend tourism dollars and enjoy wonderful food. We want to see an export industry that continues to grow so that the products we produce are marketed all across the world. I commend the grape and wine industry for coming together and I commend both sides of the parliament for coming together. May the viability and profitability of all people involved in the industry be better as a result.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I guess it is fitting that I follow the member for Mallee so that I can set the record straight about quality of the wine in the Bendigo electorate. We are here to debate reforms to the wine equalisation tax, reforms that are long overdue. I think it is important to remind the House how we got to be here and the panic that the government and the Treasurer caused on budget night back in 2015. On the day after the budget I received a phone call from a local winemaker in my electorate, Adam, from Bress Winery. They produce a wide range of wines in Harcourt—which is unusual, because Harcourt is known for its apples and cider. Adam said to me, 'Lisa, the problem with the reform that has been put forward and the date it starts is that that wine is already in the barrel. It's unfair to bring these reforms in so quickly, reducing the cap so quickly, without any notice to winemakers and wine manufacturers.' He was right. That triggered a conversation that I had as a local MP with people in the Labor opposition team but also, like a number of wine growers, I engaged the government and government ministers to say: 'You can't bring this on in this format and in this way. There needs to be broader consultation with the sector.' There were concerns that the original proposal that was announced on budget night focused first on reducing the cap and second on addressing the issue with bulk and unbranded wine. For a long time it's been acknowledged in the wine industry that the real rorting that has gone on with the wine equalisation tax has been in the space of bulk and unbranded wine.</para>
<para>There was also concern on budget night around eligibility. So what constitutes a winemaker? What constitutes a cellar door? Who would actually be eligible for this particular rebate? People in my electorate were so concerned because they believed it would stifle innovation and it would stifle their investment. They were concerned that the original proposal to deal with the fact that there was rorting going on in this space and that it was costing the budget necessary revenue, whilst well intentioned, wouldn't achieve that.</para>
<para>I do want to acknowledge, though, that, after those first alarm bells from the industry and from MPs, the government ministers involved in this space did listen, did take on board those concerns and did start a genuine face-to-face grassroots consultation, engaging with not just the wine associations nationally—that is, the Winemakers' Federation—but also with the wine industry.</para>
<para>We have a very diverse wine industry in Australia. It's not just Jacob's Creek and Yellow Tail, which we know as the big export names and brands. We have a number of small independent winemakers in Australia, particularly in the state of Victoria. In Victoria, the wine industry employs nearly 13,000 people and many of these jobs are in regional Australia. Victoria has more cellar doors than any other state. There are 22 diverse regions, 747 wineries and almost 500 cellar doors. Just to point out how relevant that is for my own electorate, we have the Heathcote winemaking region, the Bendigo winemaking region and Deputy Speaker Mitchell and I actually share the Macedon winemaking region. I should give a shout out to Curly Flat. Whilst it is in the member for McEwen's electorate, it is a pinot enjoyed by all in the Macedon Ranges. The Heathcote wine region, just to give you an example, has 70 vineyards and 59 cellar doors. There are just under 150 cellar doors and vineyards in the Bendigo electorate. We have more wineries in the Bendigo electorate than we have schools. So any reform in this space is critical to Bendigo, central Victoria and, in fact, all winemaking regions in Victoria.</para>
<para>The concern that was raised by a lot of our independent winemakers on budget night in 2015 was well founded. They all said to me that they agreed that there needed to be reform, that we needed to restore the integrity to the wine equalisation measure, that it was about helping small, independent winemakers and that they supported reform in that way but that that reform needed to be inclusive and researched in a way that supported the original integrity. A local winemaker said in our local <inline font-style="italic">Bendigo Advertiser</inline> that the reduction of the rebate 'would reduce their revenue by $150,000 in the first year and $210,000 in the second year'. That was the cold, hard reality they were facing if what was proposed on budget night went through. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have serious concerns about viability going forward because of this change …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The price for a tonne of fruit has increased, production has increased, so reducing the rebate will catch a lot of people out.</para></quote>
<para>Because we have had the consultation, our winemakers in our region are now able to change. They are now able to know going forward exactly where they stand. What we have before us is a compromise. It does allow the winemakers I just talked about, because a lot of their sales are through their cellar doors, to claim a top-up. What we have now in front of us is the ability for the winemaker, if they do pass the new cap limit, to receive a top-up through a grant so that they will still be able to invest that money that they've saved back into their business.</para>
<para>As mentioned by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, we on this side of the House, Labor, have acknowledged the need for change for quite some time. The rebate was first introduced in 2004 and provided tax relief of up to $500,000 to wine producers. The intent of the policy, as stated, was to benefit small wine producers in rural and regional Australia. The intent of the policy currently is not being met, and therefore it is the consensus of the government and the opposition, and the industry itself, that there is a need for change. The rebate did lead to overproduction and damaged Australia's reputation for high-quality wine. It was plagued by rorting by virtual winemakers due to the complexity of the arrangements that had been set up. People got really smart. They worked out the loopholes and the ways in which they could game the system. We all need to acknowledge that and be responsible for and proactive about tightening those loopholes.</para>
<para>I should also note that we need to do more about the wines that we wish to retail overseas. People in the industry say part of our problem with being able to market our great wines—from areas like Heathcote, in my electorate, or from anywhere in Victoria, such as the Mornington Peninsula or the Yarra Valley—in the United States market is that the label they associate with Australian wine is Yellow Tail. They don't have the understanding or the knowledge of how good our wines are more broadly. Yellow Tail is bulk wine. It is not the crafted wine. It is not the quality or the boutique wines that we should be known for. So we have a lot of work to do in regard to promoting the amazing and innovative winemakers and wine varieties that we have in all parts of Australia.</para>
<para>This reform is necessary because it does save our budget hundreds of millions of dollars a year. But we question the timing and the way in which this bill has been brought forward. Back in 2015, we said, 'Hey, let's work together, government, to bring about this reform. Let's do the consultation, but bring forward reform that restores the integrity of the original intent of the wine equalisation tax and at the same time save the budget from the rorting that has gone on in this space.' There were no roadblocks put in place by Labor. We were consultative. We were inclusive. So it is a bit disappointing that it's taken this long to come forward.</para>
<para>As stated, the purpose of this reform was to target, in my opinion, bulk and unbranded wine. Removing the rebate from bulk and unbranded wine is important to drive industry restructure and to drive industry. And the industry also wants to see this happen. Changing the eligibility to exclude bulk and unbranded wine will encourage the re-emergence of brand power. It restores and supports our small independent winemakers, which is critical to building the reputation of our wine, particularly overseas, but also critical to encouraging the industry to grow and to innovate. Cleanskins, unbranded wine, work against the objectives of the wine equalisation tax and against the objectives that so many of us talk about in this place of growing the dining experience, growing the dining boom and growing the opportunity for export. We continue to say that we need to focus on the top tier—the top shelf. We need to do that with this measure to ensure that we have the innovation at the grassroots level.</para>
<para>I know that the people in my electorate will welcome the certainty, going forward. Whilst many of the wineries, the 150 or so that I mentioned, never hit the cap because they are too small, the package that we have before us does give them the opportunity to strive, to invest and to think about growing their businesses. The member for Mallee mentioned a few of the wineries that we have in Bendigo. I would need another 15 minutes to mention all of them, but I do want to acknowledge the openness and frankness of the consultation that the winemakers in the Bendigo electorate have had with me about their vision for their industry.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the work the state Labor government did around this as well to really promote and support the industry. Getting people to head out to the cellar doors, invest, be involved and spend their dollars in regional communities is about local, state and federal governments working together. We have a famous art gallery in Bendigo that is quite popular but our winemakers say that when there is a show on at the art gallery, like the Marilyn Monroe exhibition, most of their clientele drive up from Melbourne through Heathcote, stop at the wineries, stay overnight, then the next day go to the exhibition and spend the day in Bendigo. A strong cellar door is important for regional tourism. Making sure that we have that opportunity for people to stay in a region is also important. We have our cellar doors working together for some quite fun things like bike trails—being able to ride your bike from winery to winery, order your wine and then have the wine turn up at your hotel later. Equally, a lot of our wineries are now sending their wine all over the country. To federal MPs, if you want to have Bendigo wine to share with your guests and colleagues here a number of our wineries will send wine to Parliament House for you. Our winemakers are not afraid of change. They are incredibly innovative. In Victoria, they employ 13,000 people and a lot of those are in regional areas—and, in particular, in my electorate of Bendigo.</para>
<para>In this contribution I have focused solely on the wine equalisation tax. There is broad agreement amongst the industry, from the small winemaker to the large mass producer that exports, that closing the loopholes is vital for the integrity of the measure. However, there is also acknowledgement that reform shouldn't stop here, that we need to keep the conversation going about wine, about the wine equalisation tax and about alcohol tax. Locally they are keen to discuss volumetrics; they are keen to look at the industry as a whole. Our cider makers and our craft beer associations are all keen to be involved in a conversation about how we can support independent boutique craft wine, cider and beer makers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill today, because some of the measures in this bill are very significant to my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia given the number of small and family businesses that have invested year upon year—small businesses that are in rural and regional wine production, in crafted wine production, and of course in the wine-food tourism space. Members in this House would probably know about Margaret River. Margaret River is in my electorate and I'm very proud of that. I'm proud of what they do in Margaret River, one of the premier winegrowing regions of this nation. It is undoubtedly an actual international brand, and it is about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of commercial fine wine making in the modern era.</para>
<para>Margaret River winemaking was started by Dr Tom Cullity. He began his plantings for Vasse Felix winery in Cowaramup in 1967. He was a pioneer in the industry. He based that investment and that confidence on groundbreaking research that had been done by University of Western Australia agronomist Dr John Gladstone. Vasse Felix was followed in the Margaret River region by Moss Wood, Cape Mentelle, Cullen, Sandalford, Leeuwin Estate, Woodlands and Wrights. Of course Vanya Cullen was one of those who did outstanding work in raising Margaret River as a premium brand around the world, and I acknowledge her efforts.</para>
<para>There are over 150 wineries producing outstanding wines, including top-quality chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon. Margaret River's wine exports were valued at $27.8 million in 2016—an increase of 18 per cent. And it's being exported to countries such as China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore and Canada. I can see, after being at a Dunsborough Chamber of Commerce event last Friday in Busselton, that more of those wine producers in the region are looking directly at how to take advantage of the free trade agreements and the practical steps they have to take to be able to get the benefits of the reduction in tariffs—those, of course, with Japan, South Korea and China that this government has signed. Importantly, given the measures in this WET rebate bill, there are over 100 actual cellar doors in the Margaret River region that will benefit as a result of the decisions made in this bill.</para>
<para>We also, though, in my south-west region, have the Geographe wine region, encompassing areas of Ferguson Valley, Donnybrook, Capel, Harvey and Busselton. We have even more of these wonderful small-to-medium, often family, businesses—the ones that have invested, and they've invested in producing a variety of wines and greatly add to the tourism, the wining and dining experiences in the south-west. They are wineries such as St Aidan's, Barrecas, Harvey River Estate and Capel Vale, just to name a few. I know that the Geographe wine region is celebrating 15 years of its very popular wine shows.</para>
<para>The wine equalisation tax rebate enables these types of wineries that I have mentioned—eligible producers like my small-to-medium family independent enterprises—to offset their wine equalisation tax liability. It is so important in my electorate. The rebate was designed specifically to provide assistance to small- and medium-sized winemakers as well as to promote tourism in rural and regional areas. It has done exactly that, through increased incentives to open cellar doors and to provide the experience that not only attracts our tourists but retains them in the region. Originally, at the time, the government said that the policy objective was to assist winemakers who make retail sales directly to unlicensed people from the cellar door or via mail order and who use their product in application to own use. It was stated at the time that wine producers form an important part of regional Australia and provide significant employment and tourism benefits. Well, none of that has changed. In fact, they've done a great job at it. I know that even Australia's south-west, the regional tourism group, always uses the wining and dining experience in my part of the world as one of the premier regional attractions.</para>
<para>The industry itself, though, along with government, acknowledged that there needed to be tightening of the eligibility rules to prevent the rebate being claimed multiple times on the same wine and to stop double-dipping and overproduction just for that purpose. Of course, this bill introduces changes to address those industry integrity concerns about the WET rebate and to better target—again, bring it back to what it was originally intended to do, which is to support those small-to-medium Australian craft wine producers as originally intended, not the bulk and unbranded.</para>
<para>These changes have been very soundly negotiated with wine growers across the nation. I particularly wish to thank Assistant Minister Senator Anne Ruston, who led the discussions for the government on this matter. The discussions were very extensive, and I commend her for her work. Of course, Senator Ruston came to the Margaret River region in the south-west and met a diversity of growers with a range of issues, and she listened to all of those. Much of what we see here is as a result of those consultations and genuinely understanding the positions of those small-to-medium producers. Senator Ruston herself represents a large wine-growing region as well.</para>
<para>I also want to thank, particularly, the members of the industry who made their time available to meet with Senator Ruston and myself for their frankness at the table. It is very important. I acknowledge Wines of WA for their engagement—particularly the Margaret River Wine Association—and the work of Redmond Sweeny, who has been part of this process on an ongoing basis, to make sure the issues that affect the small-to-medium enterprises in my part of the world are represented all the way through the progress of this. The changes in this bill are part of the continuing efforts of the government to strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system. We know there are over 2,500 wine producers in Australia, and this will better target the rebate to genuine wine producers who invest themselves in building their brand. They invest in our regional communities. I see them every day. They invest in local jobs. There couldn't be anything better than that. The measures will stop traders and major retailers from making multiple rebate claims over the winemaking process, which is to the detriment of the Australian wine industry, the work, the effort, the private investment and the passion of our producers.</para>
<para>From 2018-19 the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program will exist. That's another measure in this bill. It will allow producers who exceed their cap to access a grant of $100,000 for their cellar door sales. This, again, provides certainty for the wine sold directly to consumers through the cellar door or mail order, which was exactly the original intent of this, particularly once the producers reach the WET rebate cap of $350,000. That allows and will encourage even more investment. A lot of investment is happening on the ground in the cellar doors, because tourists are expecting far more of their experience. Often it involves—sometime sophisticated, sometimes very rural—experiences about the food they consume at the same venue. It's about the whole experience. That is now what our small-to-medium cellar door wineries need to offer to attract and retain the tourists in this area. We have so many additional experiences for people in our region as well. I'm very pleased about the $50 million the government is providing for wine tourism and export promotion activities. I'm looking forward to what comes out of that, particularly given the free trade agreements signed by this government.</para>
<para>This needs to be used in a way that promotes the fine quality wines that are produced around Australia. As members would understand, I'm very parochial about the product produced in my area. I would think that some of the members in this room have sampled some of that wonderful produce and probably have a great affection and connection not only to the wine but also to the region. That's what we want. That's partly what this measure does: it helps to attract and retain tourists in our region. We sell a dream of a fabulous experience. Part of that experience is not just the scenery, a visit to a winery and sampling some of the best quality products in the world; it's about the different experiences they can enjoy and what they can see and do. This part of the south-west is known as the events capital outside of Perth. Barely a weekend goes by without a major event in my region—a range of amazing events, whether it's the Margaret River Pro surf, the Busselton Jetty Swim or the Margaret River Gourmet Escape.</para>
<para>I thank the minister at the table, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and the government for the $9.78 million invested in the Busselton Margaret River Regional Airport. As you know directly, Minister, this is going to facilitate not only regional tourism but also the freight component for international flights, with people coming in on the top and our wonderful products going out underneath in freight. That is going to be transformative. I have said it repeatedly, and you understand it better than most and have supported that very strongly. You are coming to my electorate very soon, Minister, and I'm also looking forward to you being directly in touch with some of those wine producers who were at that chamber of commerce event and who see great opportunities in exports and also in dealing with the practicalities of how to engage. I encourage them in that.</para>
<para>I say to members on any side of this chamber: if you haven't been to the Margaret River and Geographe wine regions then you've missed out on a fabulous experience in life. Every member of this House, and every member of the Australian public, needs to fly into the Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport, once it is up and running, and take advantage of the amazing experiences. I would encourage people to do so.</para>
<para>I am very pleased that the measures in this bill actually support, encourage and enhance the investment opportunities for those small, local and often family cellar door businesses that not just have invested a lot of their time, passion and money but, as I said, are providing an incredible and unique experience for people. I would also say that something people sometimes overlook is that they provide venues for an extraordinary number of weddings that happen in the Margaret River-Busselton region every weekend. That is a massive economic multiplier for the businesses there. It is interesting that some small businesses have developed around the things that people forget when they come to attend a wedding. That is very innovative, very smart and very switched on to what their market is and how to service it.</para>
<para>There is that whole region of Margaret River, the south-west and the Geographe region. If you also haven't been to Ferguson Valley, it is a beautiful little part of the world that has developed on the back of these small individual wineries. There is so much more to come for this region, and it's almost an untapped space. If you want a specific, great rural experience, the Ferguson Valley is for you as well.</para>
<para>So I am unashamedly, in supporting this bill, also very proud to promote and support the investment, passion and commitment that my small rural and regional wine producers have offered and will continue to offer through the measures that the government is promoting through this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm speaking in support of this bill. It's not often that I concur with the member for Forrest, but I certainly do agree with her on the quality of the viticulture and the wineries and wines produced in her electorate. Indeed, it also has some of the great surfing spots, if you are happy to share the water with a few great whites! So there is good-quality wine and good-quality surfing—what more could you ask for in an electorate? But I digress.</para>
<para>This bill contains two distinct schedules—the first being about the wine equalisation tax and the second being about income tax relief for transfers within MySuper product. Amendments associated with schedule 1 are made to A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act to improve the integrity of the wine equalisation tax producer rebate. The intent here is to bring a bit of fairness to the operation of the wine equalisation tax and allow some of those smaller wineries the opportunity to compete with some of their bigger counterparts in the markets that they provide their quality products to.</para>
<para>As the member for Forrest and other speakers have outlined, Australia does have a very good and burgeoning viticulture industry. Through recent free trade agreements, particularly in the Asia area, new markets are opening up, and the depth and breadth of wineries in Australia and the quality of the product that's being produced means it is now being sold internationally, and we're gaining a great reputation for doing so and this reform will only add to that. Unlike beer and spirits, which are taxed based on the amount of alcohol per litre they contain, domestically produced wines, cider, mead and fruit wine are all taxed at 30 per cent of their wholesale value. That's where the difference is between the operation of taxation in relation to beer and the wine equalisation tax.</para>
<para>The amendments contained in this bill make integrity changes to the WET producer rebate quoting the WET credit rules, reduce the WET rebate cap from $500,000 to $350,000, tighten the associated producers' rules and repeal the earlier producer rebate rule. Reform of the wine equalisation tax producer rebate is something that the producers in the area have been advocating for some years now, and it will better target the rebate and improve its integrity. It will also ensure consistency with the original policy intent of benefitting smaller wine producers who are making a genuine investment in the wine industry—many of whom are located in rural and regional Australia. Many Australians visit some of these areas on a regular basis and, indeed, increasingly international visitors are attracted to rural and regional Australia and some of the smaller wineries that dot the landscape in areas like the Hunter Valley and the Clare Valley and around the south of the electorate of the member for Forrest.</para>
<para>The changes featured in this bill have been widely supported by industry stakeholders. Providing comment to the ABC in April, the winemaker Damian North of Journey Wines in Victoria's Yarra Valley supported this package by saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The new changes define an eligible producer as someone who owns the grapes through the winemaking process, and producers who build brands, invest in regional communities and create jobs, and we think that's a great change, …</para></quote>
<para>That's a perfect way to put what the parliament is doing here. Mr North went on to say that the changes were a confidence booster which would assist winemakers to invest in their businesses. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It means we can continue to build our brands, now we're confident we won't be excluded from the scheme because of the way we start out, or our inability to afford expensive equipment, …</para></quote>
<para>If left in its current form, the wine equalisation tax producer rebate would continue to create a perverse incentive for businesses to structure themselves so as to maximise those rebate claims. The result would be excess wine production, exacerbating challenging market conditions for growers.</para>
<para>In conclusion, in respect of the WET and the wine equalisation tax producer rebate, this is a sensible reform. It evens the playing field for some of those smaller producers, particularly those that are looking to make capital improvements to their production facilities, and it's a great outcome for rural and regional communities and viticulture in those areas.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill looks at a distinctly different area of policy, which is nonetheless related to taxation reform, and amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to provide income tax relief for superannuation funds that are transferring account balances of their members as they transition to the MySuper rules. The MySuper basic account was introduced by the previous, Labor, government when we were in office. It came about as a result of a series of recommendations that were made by an independent assessment of the industry and the fact that many Australians were missing out on ensuring that they had a low-cost, low-fee superannuation option that would ensure that they're maximising the opportunity of building a credible superannuation balance so they avoid having to completely rely on the aged pension in retirement.</para>
<para>Of course, superannuation is something that the Labor Party is very, very proud of. In 1992 the Keating government introduced a compulsory superannuation guarantee system as part of a major reform package addressing Australia's retirement income inadequacy in policies. The reason behind this historic reform was that, along with many other western nations, Australia was expecting to increase in population and experience a major demographic shift in the coming decades, resulting in an increase in aged pension payments. If we hadn't done anything at the time, there would have been an explosion in the number of people relying on the age pension, because of the ageing population, and a resulting impact on the fiscal position of the government. It was feared that this would place an unaffordable strain on the Australian economy. History really does have a way of repeating itself.</para>
<para>Labor built Australia's superannuation system. It is our commitment that we will always work to make sure that superannuation is fair, whilst providing a comfortable life in retirement for a growing number of Australians. As I said earlier, in 2011 the Gillard government announced—as part of those stronger super reforms—MySuper, a simplified superannuation accumulation product into which contributions are paid if the employee either nominates the product or does not express a choice about which fund their superannuation contributions are going to be paid into. MySuper has provided a simple, cost-effective default product that all Australians can rely on. Superannuation funds have been able to provide MySuper products since 1 July 2013.</para>
<para>As part of the transition to the new rules, funds are required to transfer existing balances of their default members to MySuper-compliant products by 1 July 2017. In doing so—when superannuation funds are making that transfer to these MySuper products and transferring the balances and the assets which support those balances—tax liabilities could arise on the transfer. This tax payable will reduce a member's balance and really undermines the purpose for which the government originally established the MySuper product: to be a low-cost product for low-income workers. Tax relief is currently available for those superannuation funds that transfer their default members to a different fund, and asset rollover, which defers the income tax that would otherwise be payable on the transfer, is available. However, this tax relief has not been available where a member transfers to a MySuper product with their existing superannuation provider. So there was tax relief when it was done by the fund, but not so much when it was done by the member.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of this bill will extend the asset rollover relief to mandatory transfers to a super product within a superannuation fund. This will ensure that default members of superannuation funds will not incur adverse or unintended consequences when their account balances are transferred to a MySuper product within the fund. The legislation will ensure equity between members that move to a new fund provider and those that take up new products with their existing provider. It also makes sure that member balances are not negatively impacted by tax liabilities within their fund, and when their balances are moved.</para>
<para>In conclusion, again, these are two sensible reforms which Labor is pleased to support. They ensure a level playing field for producers in the wine industry and will benefit rural and regional communities. They strengthen and add integrity to the operation of the superannuation system, particularly for MySuper products, ensuring that low-income workers in particular will be able to accumulate, hopefully, enough superannuation in retirement to avoid having to completely rely on the age pension. This taxation reform will ensure that we are maximising those account balances and reducing the fees and taxation associated with, in particular, transfers into MySuper products. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak today on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017. I wholeheartedly support the government's initiative in this area, proving that this is one of those instances that show the rest of the country that we as federal parliamentarians can come together and agree on the direction and progression of a range of issues in the parliament, despite our obvious political differences and citizenship difficulties. The general public will be surprised to learn that this occurs far more often than they would believe. I think it's a facet of our political system that requires far more attention that it currently gets, especially in relation to the important work of the joint standing committees across this whole parliament. I would hope giving some more attention to this might combat the adversarial and combative images that portray this place in the short media snippets on the evening news. I may be waiting some time for that, however.</para>
<para>As we all know, many countries around the world, including Australia, are still coming to terms with economic difficulties post the global financial crisis and the subsequent effect on many of their own iconic industries. Australia is no different. While we may differ on our response to the many challenges that this economic reality presents, I'm pleased to be in agreement with the government on this one. I'm sure members opposite can relate to those on this side of the House, that after a long day at this place there is something to be said for relaxing and sitting with colleagues and friends—and sometimes family when they're here—over a glass or two of the best Australia has to offer.</para>
<para>These new challenging economic environments have required action to ensure Australian wine producers, sellers and exporters continue to maintain a competitive edge and operate on a level playing field in this country. This bill deals directly to reform and improve the wine equalisation or WET producer rebate. Structural changes to the legislation will ensure the long-term viability of the Australian wine industry and improve the integrity of the rebate itself, which in its current form is damaging the sustainability of wine production across Australia. In its current form, the WET producer rebate creates an unfair and uneven incentive for businesses to create a structure that maximises rebate claims. This results in excess wine production and indeed an inferior product, which is distributed across the country. We don't want inferior products. It also creates further difficulty for growers in an industry already under significant pressure. The loopholes in the WET and the rebate processes allow bulk wine traders to exploit the market and take advantage of the up to $500,000 rebate, which has sometimes been claimed several times for the same wine. Reforming this rebate will better target the areas for which the policy was initially intended, which is for the benefit of smaller wine producers, who are making significant commitments and investments to the industry around rural and regional Australia.</para>
<para>It must be noted that the WET rebate and the wine equalisation tax itself was an extremely distortionary element of alcohol taxation in Australia. It has been contentious among economists and public health groups, some of which have advocated that the WET rebate should be abolished all together. However, the measures taken in the reform package are to be welcomed by all stakeholders in government and industry and, indeed, they are.</para>
<para>Specifically, the amendments make changes in relation to the WET rebate in its quotation, credit rules and a reduction in the rebate cap from $500,000 to $350,000. It then tightens the associated producers rule and repeals the earlier producer rebate rule. Other measures include the requirement that producers must now own at least 85 per cent of the grapes at the time of crushing and maintain ownership throughout the wine-making process, and that the rebate only applies to packaged wine that is branded in volumes not exceeding five litres.</para>
<para>The industry does have a while to adjust to these new rules in an appropriate time frame up until the first half of 2018. This should provide sufficient time, more than enough time, for the Australian wine industry to make sure they comply with these regulations and can get their head around what will surely benefit a more sustainable wine industry in the future in this country.</para>
<para>As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and all my colleagues here would know, and especially the member for Perth, who is in the chamber, Western Australia has a great local wine industry. The tourism hotspots—the Swan Valley and Margaret River—are beacons in the domestic wine industry and are popular for visitors around the state and from overseas. Margaret River is a treasured destination of mine, with an expanse of natural wonders, with caves, forests and amazing beaches. As the member for Kingsford Smith pointed out earlier, there are also great white sharks. I think he was exaggerating about that. There is a wide range of activities for visitors to see and do: surfing, mountain bike trails, hiking. There's the Cape to Cape Track, the various national parks, and of course there are some beautiful vineyards and wines. I invite all of my colleagues in this place across the whole parliament, all their staff, friends and families and all of you who live on the wrong side of the Nullarbor to come and take a look when possible.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hammond</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It'll be a big bus!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, the Dockers' bus. I echo the words of the member for Forrest earlier, when she urged, as I do—and I know the member for Perth will as well—all people to make the trip across the Nullarbor, come and visit Western Australia and make sure you visit the Margaret River wine region. You really haven't lived until you have done this, and you certainly haven't tasted wine until you've had some Margaret River wines from the cellar door.</para>
<para>Only last year, Margaret River dominated the 2016 Royal Melbourne Wine Awards, winning the highly coveted and most prestigious wine award in Australia—the Jimmy Watson Memorial Trophy. Deep Woods Estate 2014 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon has quickly become the most sought after wine of the year after having won this award. Many other Margaret River producers cleaned up on the night, including growers from the Snake and Herring, Stella Bella wines and Flametree wines all taking home a trophy. And then there are my personal favourites: Rosily vineyard, named after French navigator and cartographer Vice-Admiral Count Francois Etienne de Rosily-Mesros. Rosily is a small vineyard, where grapes are hand-picked from their own vines and all their wines are produced in this small winery, Wilyabrup, in Margaret River. The 2016 Rosily Chardonnay won a silver medal at the International Wine Challenge 2017, and their 2016 Semillon Sauvignon Blanc won gold at the Perth Royal Wine Show and the Royal Adelaide Wine Show last year.</para>
<para>Another small vineyard in the region, which some find hard to get to but that I assure you is not, is Ashbrook Estate. This is another vineyard that has been family owned and operated for a long time. This one is owned by the Devitt family, and they have been running it for over 40 years. Ashbrook, similar to Rosily, is where all grapes are harvested by hand from their own vines, on their own property, and all the wine is made on the estate in all their own vats and equipment and so forth. It is acknowledged as one of the highest performing and brilliant little vineyards in the country. Ashbrook's 2016 Semillon and 2016 Verdelho won silver in the International Wine Challenge 2017, and I congratulate them on their ongoing efforts.</para>
<para>And, of course, there is the great Cullen Wines on Caves Road, built by Dr Kevin Cullen and Diana Madeline Cullen—both remarkable Western Australians. Mrs Cullen was the first person to import merlot and cabernet franc cuttings to Western Australia. She was part of the first trial of vine growing in Wilyabrup in 1966 and established the Cullen vineyard in 1971. Dianne Cullen is acknowledged as a pioneer of the great Margaret River wine region and has been acknowledged as a citizen of Western Australia in the past. Her husband, Dr Kevin Cullen, was no slouch either, being the first recipient of a medical degree from the University of Western Australia. Dr Cullen started one of the most remarkable pieces of work that has ever been undertaken in Western Australia—the Busselton Health Study. It is a true treasure of the state and of science in this nation. It is the world's longest-running, longitudinal health survey, and it is famous around the world and used by medical and scientific researchers around the globe.</para>
<para>The Cullen's established their remarkable vineyard and the Margaret River wine industry on the back of their own research and the advice of Dr John Gladstone, who, in the sixties, first identified the potential of Margaret River to become one of the world's great wine regions. And, of course, this has now come to pass. Today, Cullen Wines prosper and, among other great wines, produces the iconic Diana Madeline Bordeaux blend that is highly sought after around the world.</para>
<para>It is the legacy of pioneers like the Cullen family that the provisions of this bill will serve and protect, which is the treasure of Australia's small vineyards. It speaks volumes about Western Australia's capacity for wine production and quality of produce. While, essentially, a tiny region when compared to some others around this country, Margaret River accounts for more than 20 per cent of the premium wine market.</para>
<para>I would add that there are other little gems spotted around the state. The Swan Valley is a great producer as is the Geographe region. Thankfully, my electorate of Brand is able to claim some small vineyards as well. It is home to four vineyards: Peel Estate wines, Stakehill Estate, Tuart Ridge and Peel Ridge Wines. These are all small family-owned businesses that will benefit from the changes made to these laws.</para>
<para>My electorate is often noted for its contributions to manufacturing in Defence industry. However, I'm pleased that these families can make an economic contribution that adds to the rich, diverse set of businesses and industries that I have the privilege to represent in this place. And these aren't just any contributions. Many of these wineries are changing the way they operate, providing unique, sometimes unconventional, products for a growing fan base. For example, Stakehill Estate Winery in Karnup makes a range of chilli wines to suit heat levels and even the most avid chilly fan as well as fruit wines made from rhubarb and passionfruit and table grapes. I have ordered a case for the member for Perth. Another winery, Peel Estate, has been around for over 40 years, with the first vines planted in 1973 and the winery adding other varieties as the years progressed and the Australian palate changed. I visited Peel Estate in Karnup, in the south of my electorate of Brand, with my mum and my sister over the winter recess. We had the chance to enjoy their beautiful grounds and taste some of their wines. I was told at the cellar door that Peel Estate have the oldest zinfandel wines in WA, having planted them in 1976. This makes the vineyard at Peel Estate in Karnup among the oldest in Australia to have zinfandel wines—and we know zin is best!</para>
<para>Small, often family-run, businesses like these are adapting and changing to meet the demands of consumers, and I am pleased that the federal government is able to give them a leg-up in this regard. That is why I will be supporting this bill to ensure a competitive, viable and sustainable sector in this diverse market. Again, Labor is in unison with the federal government on this bill and will pass the bill to give producers certainty about the new regulations—certainty that this industry needs, as a stable economic environment will produce the greatest output.</para>
<para>In 2015, Australian wine producers contributed over $40 billion in gross output to the Australian economy as well as nearly 70,000 jobs in the industry, which includes 2½ thousand in Western Australia from grape growing and beverage manufacturing jobs. That's taken from the 2011 census; naturally, six years later, the number will be much higher. In 2014-15 over 44,000 tonnes of wine grapes were crushed in Western Australia. It is an outstanding number to contemplate, and that's only from one state. What is also pleasing to note is the solid trajectory in growth in Australian wine exports internationally from the nineties until now. The global financial crisis, of course, had some impact on this; however, forecast growth is expected to be moderate and steady in the lead-up to the financial year 2020-21. I believe our export capacity, particularly to Asia, is still to be fully realised, especially in the sense that wine makes up only around five per cent of Australia's agricultural exports. We have a way to go.</para>
<para>However, there is much to celebrate. In 2015, bottled wine exports to China increased by 45 per cent, demonstrating the emerging Asian market and the demand for the highest quality that Australia offers. Still, nearly half our bottled wine exports go to Europe and nearly a third go to North America. There is a demand out there for Australian wine, and we must keep our regulations modern and up to date to foster it. We also must ensure our regulations support small vineyards across this nation, which have made the wine industry what it is. Australian wine is loved around the globe, and it makes sense for us to capitalise on this award-winning industry and ensure its sustainment for years to come. Sustainability is the key here. It is incumbent on all wine producers to ensure they are compliant with these regulations and don't snuff out the little guys that form the base of this great industry. It would work against their own interests and the interests of wine lovers everywhere.</para>
<para>This bill has many things we on this side of the House agree with. I won't go into them; I have chosen to pay attention to the change to the wine equalisation tax rebate. Again I would echo the member for Forrest, the Chief Government Whip, and would urge all people, whenever they come to Western Australia, to make the trip down south. I look forward also to the Margaret River-Busselton airport being upgraded so that more people can get there more easily. In the meantime, it is really not that hard to get onto the Forrest Highway to get down south to Margaret River and have a look around. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too commend to the House the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017, in particular schedule 1, which deals with the wine equalisation tax rebate, or the WET rebate as it is referred to in the industry. A number of people in this place seek to label me—some kindly, some less kindly; some graciously, some less generously—but the one title in this place I do revel in is 'the member for wine', not because I'm a great consumer but because my electorate produces more wine by value than the electorate of any other member in this place. Indeed, if that wasn't claim enough to the title, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we also produce more wine by volume than the electorate of any other member in this place. In effect, I represent constituencies that span the great spectrum of the Australian wine industry: from Penfolds Grange, Henschke's Hill of Grace, other iconic brands from the Barossa Valley, from Coonawarra, from some of the newer, burgeoning wine districts all the way through—and just as importantly—to the large-volume producers of some of Australia's inland areas like the Riverland, which export large volumes of their product at a lower value.</para>
<para>When I was elected—and, indeed, in the lead-up to my first election in 2013—I was introduced to the concept of the wine equalisation tax. As a young lad who grew up in Mount Gambier on a horticulture, cattle and sheep property and who had ensconced himself in criminal law professionally—as an advocate; I make that clear—I had to be introduced to the concept of the wine equalisation rebate. It is a rebate that enables eligible producers to offset their wine equalisation tax rebate.</para>
<para>You might ask: what was so controversial about that in the lead to the 2013 election and beyond? Whilst the rebate was intended to support small wine producers, many of whom are in rural and regional Australia, during its operation a number of wine merchants—'wine tax traders', I'd like to call them—were operating in a way that circumvented the intent of the legislation. What it meant, in practical terms, what it meant to the producers in my electorate, was that there was a downward influence on the price of their fruit. That is, there was downward pressure on the value of their fruit, and that was happening because certain individuals and entities were able to, effectively, game the system and use the rebate as a value shift from this place and from the public purse to processors. So the industry, through individual constituents, came to me, as they had come to others, and I indicated I would see what I could do to work on changing this.</para>
<para>We went through two treasurers, a number of assistant treasurers and two prime ministers on this journey, but I am pleased to say that the day has finally come—a long time since those early discussions in 2012 with an aspiring candidate, and all the way through to 2017—when these changes will become law. That's not to overestimate my role. Ultimately, this has happened because industry came together. Industry decided that this rebate was harmful to their interests. I don't think we should brush over this. Industry came to government and said: 'You know that money you're giving back to us? We'd like less of it, because it is harming the interests of the industry.' That doesn't occur often in this place. And there was another thing that doesn't occur often in this place: industry came with a solution. Very often in this place we hear gripes from industry and from members of parliament, and it is very easy to identify the problems. It's much more difficult to identify a solution. It's even more difficult to have everyone—or, at least, a very significant majority of the industry—agree that that solution is, in fact, the solution that they would like to see legislated. So, to the industry today, I say: congratulations. Congratulations for your efforts, congratulations for your industry on this issue and congratulations for the work you have done to assist me and others in persuading the government to come to this resting point.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGowan</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear! Well said!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Indi. In particular, I want to thank someone who has left the industry and who, at one point, when we came across yet another roadblock and frustration, said to me, 'Tony, I think I'm done'. Thankfully he wasn't done and he continued to fight the fight—it was Paul Evans, formerly from the Winemakers' Federation of Australia. This is a man who, time and time again, assisted me in pushing for this proposal.</para>
<para>So what will we see? What we will see is a re-establishment of the original integrity of the wine equalisation tax. It was always intended to support small wine producers, principally in rural and regional communities. By taking its operation away from bulk wine, by reducing the rebate slightly but allowing those who sell above the cap—or who would be eligible, otherwise, above the cap—a $100,000 cellar door grant, we're effectively going back to where the original architects of this rebate intended us to be.</para>
<para>A number of changes are being made, all of which are important. There will be a $300 million saving, which the industry has said they will give back because they don't believe it is serving the purposes of the industry. From that, $50 million will be provided to industry to grow the Australian wine brand. I have spoken on numerous occasions in this place, as indeed I think everyone in this House has, about the benefits of the trilogy of free trade agreements established in recent times. We have seen the great benefits of that in the wine industry. Export opportunities have grown exponentially, particularly to our Asian neighbours, China principal amongst those.</para>
<para>The history of Australian wine's ability to sell the brand—that is, Brand Australia—to the rest of the world has not always been so glowing. Constituents of mine who visit wine fairs around the world often return with photographs and stories that are somewhat embarrassing. For example, at Vinitaly we see very small offerings of the presentation of the wine Australia brand compared to large international brands. This $50 million will assist the Australian wine industry in marketing itself to the rest of the world. In the middle of what was the really low point of the commodity price around wine, particularly in the warm regions, people were starting to approach me and say, 'Tony, what we need is another vine pull.' There needed to be an incentive to remove vines and the production. I said to them: 'Please stop there. The reality is we need to sell more wine, not produce less wine. We need to sell to the rest of the world more of our fantastic product, not produce less of our fantastic product.' That is, in fact, what we have done in recent years.</para>
<para>We have enjoyed fantastic tailwinds in this regard, with the movement of the Australian dollar and with demand out of North America. These things, coupled with the free trade agreements, have created the perfect climate for an international push for Australian wine. This $50 million contribution is perfectly timed over a number of years, with industry guiding where it's applied. I say to industry: 'Spend it wisely; it is a significant sum of money. It is $25 million more than you originally asked of government.' Indeed, it was members of the government of the day: me, Senator Ruston in the other place—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGowan</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Independents too!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will include the member for Indi; I wasn't aware of her advocacy on this, but I accept it was there—saying to industry, 'Be more bullish about what you want out of us, because I think you're to be rewarded for what you have done and the mature way in which you have gone about this debate.' I do say to industry: 'Please spend this money wisely. Make sure we and the industry get real value for money from this $50 million contribution.'</para>
<para>It is important that we acknowledge that the wine industry is a significant employer in my electorate. It's a significant, indeed, almost foundational industry in South Australia, and it makes a significant contribution to our national economy. It is one of the great winners and one of the great success stories of Australian agriculture. I am very pleased to stand here commending this bill to the House, thanking Minister O'Dwyer, thanking the Treasurer and thanking everyone who has lent their support to this bill, including the opposition. But principal in that is a note to the industry saying: well done, you have set the standard for other industries to come to government, identify a problem, formulating a solution and, indeed, in some cases, realising that not all government largesse is good and that there was an example here of rorting. There were other examples that, whilst not amounting to rorting, fell outside the spirit of what was intended, and the industry wanted to clean it up. They wanted to clean it up because it was harming every single industry participant. I had farmers who just desperately wanted the WET rebate reformed. It has happened now. I congratulate the industry, senior members of the government and, indeed, everyone in this place. It's a pretty good outcome.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am beyond delighted, immeasurably delighted, to rise in unison with fellow members across the aisles, even the Independent crossbenchers, in support of a bill which has an awful lot of merit and makes an awful lot of sense. You can't always say that about this place. I don't pretend to have been here for a long time, but I think it's fair to say that I have been here for long enough to get a sense that the vibe in this place can be a little willing and a little torrid. What's terrific, though, is that every now and again along comes an innocuous little piece of legislation that actually brings people together. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017 does that. It is refreshing. It is heartening. It does send a terrific message to those out there in the community that this isn't always a place of jousting sticks at 12 paces. It's not always a place where there is a line in the sand which neither side will cross. It is a place where occasionally we come together. What better place to come together than over the subject matter of wine.</para>
<para>If one had to use a few hashtags and dad-joke puns about where we find ourselves insofar as this legislation and this place goes, one might say that most of the time this place resembles <inline font-style="italic">The Grapes of Wrath</inline>—as we slug it out in the heat, sand and wind, slowly taking ourselves from one policy position across the harsh California arid landscape in the middle of the Depression to a nirvana or promised land. Hopefully, for us, it will be over there on the government benches before too long. If we have another couple of citizenship stumbles, it could be sooner than we thought!</para>
<para>The other wine based saying that comes to mind in relation to this piece of legislation is 'in vino veritas' or 'in wine, there's truth'. I will tell you where the truth starts. It must be said that there are those out there who suggest that the relationship I have with the member for Riverina, who is my opposite number on the government front bench insofar as consumer affairs goes, is close and constructive. The legal term is 'close, constructive and loving', but I'm not sure—that might be overreaching! But it is certainly very close and constructive, that's for sure. I was perusing his second reading speech in relation to the introduction of this legislation. It certainly is the case that it is 'in vino veritas' because, in relation to the subject matter of wine, he was telling the truth. I had a look at a couple of his statements and I could easily adopt them. As a matter of fact, I actually might, now that I think about it. He talked in his second reading speech about the WET tax. Isn't that a fantastic name, too, by the way? Has anyone noticed that? The acronym—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGowan</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a WET rebate, not a tax!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, the rebate—of course. One doesn't want to get bogged down by the language in relation to where we're at. The WET rebate—it's terrifically named, I reckon—was introduced in order to try and support small Australian wine producers, as the member for Riverina outlined at the start of his second reading speech, and I certainly agree with him. He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The wine equalisation tax rebate—</para></quote>
<para>He says 'WET tax rebate', so that might be controversial—</para>
<quote><para class="block">supports the Australian wine industry by providing wine producers with access to a tax rebate on sales of eligible wine.</para></quote>
<para>Absolutely. Why does it do that? It does that to support small business. Again, we are in heated agreement in relation to how we can try and shape this legislation in order to achieve that aim. What better way is there to try and achieve that aim of supporting small business than the appropriate modification of the WET rebate? The member for Riverina went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A wine producer will need to own at least 85 per cent of the grapes used to make the wine throughout the winemaking process.</para></quote>
<para>That just makes sense; that's a good initiative. He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Wine producers will be required to sell wine packaged in a container not exceeding five litres …</para></quote>
<para>I noticed that the member for Brand also emphasised that aspect of the legislation. I think five litres is an interesting volume. As I understand it, it was a volume of wine that was often purchased, particularly during university days, to ensure that, through the moments of extraordinary hard work and stress, there was a little bit of light in the shade. So, again, that would seem to make sense. It's good to see that some traditions may continue. Again, it's a situation where I'm delighted to see that we have significant common ground in relation to supporting this legislation.</para>
<para>You have already heard, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, and those present in this debate have already heard, how important supporting the small wine producers is in relation to our great home state of Western Australia. The member for Brand, the member for Forrest and even, as the member for Brand indicated, the member for Kingsford Smith have remarked on the great whites both in and out of the water in the Margaret River region. That is certainly the case. Margaret River produces some spectacular chardonnay, which is terrific for those chardonnay socialists who probably inhabit the other benches as opposed to ours. We are the real deal over here. That's not to suggest chardonnay is not the real deal, but you know what I mean. That's together with chenin blanc—there's a terrific chenin produced by a winery in the Margaret River region called Aravina Estate, which is absolutely tremendous—and other white blends, such as sem sauv blanc, verdelho, of course, and the like.</para>
<para>Let's not forget that there is a burgeoning wine industry closer to the CBD and, actually, in a part of the world that used to be part of the federal electorate of Perth. That is my electorate. That is the wine industry in the Swan Valley. But, in relation to the Western Australian wine industry, one of the things that we can be very proud of is that it certainly punches above its weight in relation to not only quality but also value. What we see with the Western Australian wine industry is that it produces about 45 million litres of wine annually, and, whilst it only represents five per cent of Australia's wine production, it represents 12 per cent of its value and over 20 per cent of its fine wine. That's really saying something about why it is so important that this measure backs in those small producers that focus on quality as opposed to quantity.</para>
<para>What we also see, of course, is that a lot of this stuff really comes back to jobs, and we're not doing our jobs properly in this place unless we remain razor-sharp focused on all legislation that comes through here that is designed to promote jobs. The wine industry in Western Australia employs over 52,000 people directly, let alone the countless thousands and thousands that it employs indirectly. Western Australian wine exports amount to around $50 million per annum—a significant number. Wine grape plantings in Western Australia were about 13,000 hectares in 2012, and about 70 per cent of that is in the Margaret River and Great Southern regions. Let's not overlook the other burgeoning regions in the Great Southern, such as Denmark, Mount Barker, Porongurup and Albany, all producing terrific wine. The value of the industry in 2015 in Western Australia was estimated at $2.8 billion. Almost half of that value in Western Australian wine is generated through sales to consumers within the state.</para>
<para>Let's go a bit closer to home. Let's not forget the Swan Valley. A little-known fun fact: the Swan Valley was the first ever wine-producing region in WA, planting in 1834. It is also one of the warmest viticultural regions in the world, which means some of the wines it's able to produce are absolutely unique to that area. With a good set of lights, you can probably get to the Swan Valley in about 17½ minutes. I tell you what: I would encourage anyone who's coming to Perth to make a beeline north, before they head down south, to experience some of the unique wines the Swan Valley produces. They do a Verdelho liqueur, which is tremendous, and a liqueur shiraz as well. Again, it is also very well known for some of its warmer climate white wines: Chenin blanc, Verdelho, shiraz and Petit Verdot, some of the best in the country. Some of those iconic Western Australia wine labels, such as Houghton, Sandalford and Lamont, all hail from the Swan Valley.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Husic</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a Western Australian wine you haven't sampled?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If there is a Western Australian wine I haven't sampled, I would be delighted to hear about it, because in my role as shadow minister for consumer affairs, I'm not doing my job properly unless I am open to consumption. One must always ensure that is done, like all things, in moderation.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Madeleine King</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about your running?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Moderation is the key to why this legislation is so heartily supported. I've been asked if I'm prepared to moderate my running. One should always be running: we're running for our seats, we're running for government, we're running for good policy and we're running for consumers. That's what we do if we're doing our job well. I'm delighted to keep running, as they say in the classics. But that's why this legislation is so important: the fact that it supports local manufacturers, industry and business.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at some of the minutiae of this bill and why we all sit here in heated agreement that it's a good idea. Here we see something the Labor Party has as a core value—that is, a trigger designed to get a level playing field in which corporates don't have the chance they currently have to claim this rebate anywhere along the wine manufacturing process. We don't want to see a situation where the market is distorted in favour of a large corporate, which makes it harder for those boutique vineyards to do what they do so well. That's why Labor is prepared to support this rebate: it restores in many ways the integrity and original intent of the WET rebate. As we know, the WET rebate was introduced in 2004. The idea was to support independent and small regional winemakers. It's very important that they are backed in.</para>
<para>Why is this reform needed? As we've heard from previous speakers, we see here an emphasis placed upon wine produced by winemakers who have the pride to put their label on the wine. There will be less incentive to introduce bulk or unbranded wines into the market. If it does its job well, it ought to reintroduce the brand power that comes with particular brands of wine. Again, this is why it plays to the strength of energising the economy insofar as the burgeoning and continually improving wine industry of the great state of Western Australia goes: it is because the brand power it already enjoys, not only in our great state of Western Australia and across Australia but across the world, will be enhanced and go on to bigger and better things.</para>
<para>Another important thing here, of course, is the savings. One must keep an eye on the savings. I can't help but think that, if only the government had adopted the same approach to its whole-of-government financial reforms as it does in this piece of legislation, we might not be in the pickle that we're currently in and we might not be in the challenging situation foisted upon those such as the member for Rankin, who now has so much heavy lifting to do, as a result of this government's financial ineptitude in all forms, shapes and sizes. I only wish the government had adopted the kinds of savings measures across the board as it has in this bill. The poor member for Rankin might not have to do as much heavy lifting as he has to do. The economic fate of this country might not be so dire as to create such a heavy burden on great people like the member for Rankin if the government had adopted the approach that it took in this bill, which is in savings. Fifteen million dollars a year will be the savings able to be claimed as a result of the restrictions around the benefit of the rebate for unbranded, or cleanskin, wine.</para>
<para>In conclusion, it is terrific to be up here in agreement on a bill which will further the prospects of success for small businesses.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to stand here today in the House and support Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017, particularly in relation to the wine equalisation tax, known as the WET rebate. I'd like to acknowledge two colleagues in the House, my neighbours the member for Farrer and the member for Riverina—lovely to have you here.</para>
<para>In support of this legislation, I want to make three main points. I'd like to acknowledge the leadership shown by Senator Anne Ruston in this process. I'd like to acknowledge the role of the leaders in the wine industry, particularly in my electorate, for the work they've done. I'd like to point out how, when government has strong process, we get good results. And I just heard the member for Perth's comment about how often it is in parliament, actually, that we do come together in agreement around legislation. So I want to talk a little bit about process and how important it is for outcomes.</para>
<para>The amendments to the wine equalisation tax act will provide the integrity to the wine equalisation tax producer rebate that we've heard about. There are many, many advantages in it. Like the previous speaker said, the wine industry is really important in my electorate. It's important as an agricultural, tourism and regional development success story. In my electorate of Indi, viticulture and tourism are two of the biggest industries. Of the 21 official wine regions found in Victoria, six of them are in north-east Victoria. In addition to producing high-quality wine, they provide high-quality vineyard dining, behind-the-scenes tours and cellar door experiences. Together, in regional Victoria, they generate $13.3 billion in revenue; 13,000 direct jobs; and over 32,000 indirect jobs, mostly in the tourism sector. So, as we have been saying today, it is really important. And the wine industry has strong leadership.</para>
<para>I mentioned briefly Senator Anne Ruston. I would like to also acknowledge her chief of staff, Con. To the leadership team in the departments, who I know have played a really significant role in bringing this legislation to today: I acknowledge you and congratulate you.</para>
<para>The process commenced in March 2015 with the Senate inquiry into the Australian wine industry. This inquiry looked at, among other things, the impact and application of the rebate on grape and wine industry supply chains. The committee heard evidence from a large number of sources that the rebate was working against profitability in the industry, and reform was needed. This was followed in May 2015 by the Treasury preparing a discussion paper examining the WET rebate, and the paper formed part of the tax white paper process. And do I like a white paper process! I say to the ministers at the table: give us a white paper on regional development; give us a really thorough policy development process. White papers—great!</para>
<para>Following the wine industry's response to the 2016 budget, ministers Anne Ruston and Kelly O'Dwyer led a national consultation program with the wine industry that resulted in key changes to the eligibility criteria. Do I like a national consultation process? I have to say yes. Give us a white paper, or give us a national consultation paper, led by the two relevant ministers, and involve industry. It was really well done. The result was a clear demonstration of how vigorous process and a clear framework gave us genuine engagement. Industry got behind this in a big way. Local leaders became involved in the conversation, became involved in politics, and became involved in parliament.</para>
<para>Particularly, in this instance, I want to acknowledge the leadership in my own electorate: a huge call-out to Colin Campbell as a board member of the Winemakers' Federation of Australia, and to Belinda Chambers as chair of Winemakers of Rutherglen. In the initial days, they called me to a meeting, sat me down as a new member of parliament, and explained how it worked for the industry. They worked at the local level not only to bring me into the debate but also to bring the industry together to discuss key issues, and identified mechanisms required to address barriers. We worked bottom-up, middle-up, and then top-down.</para>
<para>I'd also like to acknowledge the work of Janelle Boynton in her role at that time as chair of Regional Development Australia. A huge call-out to the minister: Regional Development Australia, a terrific institution, needs all the support it can get. Janelle was the chair at the time. She brought her experience of the wine industry, her links with tourism, and her commitment to regional development. She came to my office as part of our volunteer program, spent a week here in parliament and advocated strongly across political lines for this legislation to be considered as part of broader challenges facing the industry. She did a mountain of work. So, thank you, Janelle, for your time.</para>
<para>I have to say that during all this time, industry people worked for free. They were not paid. They gave up their time. There were numerous meetings and numerous trips to Canberra, and they all covered their own costs. For that contribution that leaders in rural and regional Australia make out of their own pocket to work the politics of the country, I just think we can never say thank you enough. I particularly want to name some of the leaders, again in my electorate, who wrote to me, organised meetings, provided input into the debate, came and visited me all over the place, and got their committees together. So, at the risk of leaving some important people out: Michael Freudenstein from Alpine Valleys, Simon Grant from Beechworth, Michael and Nancy Reid from Glenrowan, John Darling from the King Valley, John Adams from Mansfield, and Belinda and Michael Chambers from Rutherglen, thank you for your work, your time and your dedication.</para>
<para>The benefit of a process like this is twofold. It allowed for rigorous discussion on the issues, but it also provided an opportunity to identify other issues that needed to be picked up by the industry. In this case, the other issue was picked up for us—particularly for me as a border member of parliament. If I could just draw attention to my colleague the member for Farrer, we have a particular issue on our border that came up as part of this inquiry regarding the mutual recognition of the accreditation for people to work in the wine industry around the responsible serving of alcohol—the RSA certificate. For the benefit of the parliament, if you work selling wine in Victoria, you have to get an RSA in Victoria, and if you work selling wine in New South Wales, you need an RSA in New South Wales—and a separate one for Canberra, and around the country. The high cost to the industry of getting all the staff their respective RSAs, the duplication and the red tape came up during this process.</para>
<para>I have long advocated for a nationally recognised RSA certification. But I fear that, in the many years we have come through the process, getting harmony between New South Wales and Victoria—well, let's see if we can just get Victoria and New South Wales working together rather than the nation. I have written to the Victorian Premier on this, and I'd be seeking the support of my colleagues in New South Wales, if I could—the members for Riverina and Farrer—to work together with me on this crossborder anomaly and on how we can get harmonisation of certificates between Victoria and New South Wales so that our industry workers do not get disadvantaged by the overduplication in this particular area. I issue that call-out to the industry to see how we can continue to work together on this one.</para>
<para>In closing my comments, I would like to say how much I have appreciated this particular process. Not only, as the member for Perth said, has it resulted in savings, but it has also done something that the community of Australia is constantly asking us to do: to have good governance; to have good, clear process; to work with industry to get a result; to work with our communities. And I think with this particular legislation we have done it. I'd like to acknowledge the minister at the table, the member for Higgins. I thank you for your role in it, because I know that, together with Anne, you've worked superbly well on it, and we've really appreciated it. So, the process has been good, the collaboration has been good, and the leadership has been strong and consistent, as well as the outcomes we've got as a result of it.</para>
<para>I'd like to make a final call to the members on the government side. We really do know how to do this. We're good at it. But we don't do it nearly enough. And my particular call is in the area of regional development—this ability for leadership, this ability to consult and to have good government processes so that the bigger areas that we're now looking at can actually come to the parliament and we have clear agreement across the parliament about how we need to work together. I'm currently involved in an inquiry headed by the member for Groom. We're looking at regional development and how it works. Perhaps I could use this opportunity just briefly to call on my colleagues in the parliament to get behind this inquiry. If we can actually learn the lessons from this WET rebate and bring it to regional development, bring small business together with industry, with parliament, with the Treasury, with the Public Service and look at what the grand picture is, if I could dare be bold enough to say that, and then have a white paper process and have the consultation process and then bring in a long-term view—more than three years—of how we actually want rural and regional Australia to work, then I think we could do some good work.</para>
<para>But, in bringing my comments to a close, congratulations to all concerned, particularly my electorate, because I know they did a huge amount of work, and I know that other winegrowing areas clearly did their heavy lifting as well. But particularly to the ministers at the table, congratulations; well done. I'm absolutely delighted to support the legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. I know that the member for Indi has been very passionate in her support of these reforms. I also acknowledge, as she has done, Colin Campbell, who is a doyenne of the industry and who has been an absolute force in making sure that we could come to a very sensible resolution on these issues that will benefit the industry overall. And I would like to acknowledge all of those who have worked so productively in this process. It has, as the member for Indi pointed out, been a very collaborative process. Senator Anne Ruston, the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, together with my office and together with those in the industry and interested members like the member for Indi, have all worked incredibly hard to get something that will actually set up the wine industry for future years to make sure not just that they can be profitable but also that our wine can be celebrated right across the world, as it should be, and that we can encourage and support particularly small wine producers. So, I want to congratulate all of those people who have been involved in this process. It has been quite a significant period in which we have undertaken the consultation, and I think we have got a very good outcome as a result of that.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of this bill introduces changes to support the integrity of the wine equalisation tax rebate and better target the rebate to its original intent of supporting small wine producers. Eligibility for the rebate will change to ensure that the rebate is targeted to producers that have a genuine investment in the industry. To be eligible, 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 prevent the rebate from being claimed multiple times on the same parcel of wine. Packaging and branding requirements will be introduced to target the rebate to legitimate producers rather than traders who buy and sell wine in bulk.</para>
<para>A transition period for rebate eligibility will apply to allow producers sufficient time to adjust to the changes. In addition, from 1 July 2018 the rebate cap will be reduced from $500,000 to $350,000 and remain at that level. Through these changes, the government is addressing industry concerns about the misuse and exploitation of the rebate and the distortionary effect these practices have on the Australian wine market.</para>
<para>The tax relief for intrafund MySuper transfers in schedule 2 of the bill will make sure that superannuation fund members are not disadvantaged by tax liabilities as they move to MySuper accounts. As part of the transition to the MySuper rules, superannuation funds are required to transfer the existing balances of their members' in-default products to new MySuper compliant products. This ensures that these members get the benefit of lower costs and more transparent superannuation arrangements. The amendments in this bill provide tax relief to superannuation funds that transfer their members' balances to MySuper products, within the same fund, by providing an asset rollover. This asset rollover will defer any tax payable on the transfer of assets until the time the asset is ultimately disposed of by the receiving entity. Current rules provide this relief where the transfer is to a different fund, but not where the member stays within the same superannuation provider. This measure extends the relief to these intrafund transfers. Extending this tax relief will ensure that neither members choosing to move to a new provider nor those choosing to move to a MySuper product with the same provider will have tax liabilities crystallised on the transfers of their balances and the assets supporting the balances. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting no.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>28</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5920" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>28</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1917. I was fortunate over the last week or so to have two terrific schools from my electorate visit us here in the parliament. I had St Stephen's from Algester last week, and I had Stretton State College yesterday. They are terrific schools and there were some very sharp young people who asked some great questions, but it was also a reminder for them when they come to this building and see question time, see the fireworks of the higher-profile issues and see all the things that the two sides disagree on, that—I'm sure others in the House at the moment take the opportunity to remind these young Australians about this—there are other things that we agree on. They might not be always the high-profile things, it might not be, by any stretch, big news when we do agree in this building, and there might not be a long list of speakers for bills like the one that I'm speaking on right now, but what we're doing here is pretty important. It is about the management of the precious taxpayer dollars that these kids' parents, neighbours, friends and teachers pay as the price of living in a good society with decent services.</para>
<para>The Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill makes technical amendments to 13 different acts. It is part of that objective of ensuring that we have our public financial arrangements as good as they can be. The amendments harmonise 13 different acts with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Commonwealth's broader resource management framework. Labor supports these technical amendments that will consistently prescribe listed entities, correct references to the old pieces of financial management legislation, repeal provisions in a number of acts for issues that are now covered by the PGPA Act, such as disclosure of interests and annual reporting requirements, and make minor amendments to legislation consequential to the sale of Medibank Private Limited in 2014. As I said, these are not front-page issues, especially in a week like we're having right now—a week of turmoil and chaos and controversy and uncertainty—but that doesn't make this bill any less important. It is important in ensuring that taxpayers get value for money and that they get the best and most efficient management of their public funds.</para>
<para>I now turn to a bit of history. Labor undertook some pretty significant reforms to the Commonwealth's financial management arrangements when we were last in government, and I am pleased to say that to some extent these changes we are debating today continue in that direction. We are always on the lookout for more that can be done in this general area. The work that we did in government improved—if not established—a framework necessary for a more modern public sector. Those reforms were based on a number of key principles: firstly, that government should operate as a coherent whole; secondly, that a common set of duties should apply to all public resources handled by Commonwealth entities and these should be managed prudently and officially; thirdly, that the performance of the public sector is about more than just financial matters and management; and, fourthly, that engaging with risk is a necessary step in improving performance.</para>
<para>We will be supporting the amendments in this bill, as I said, because they are generally consistent with the directions we set and our broader objectives. That doesn't mean that we don't have some concerns with the way this government has managed our public resources and public governance arrangements in other areas, or that the job is finished with the passage of this legislation. It is a matter of public record, for example, that the Commonwealth budget has deteriorated substantially on this government's watch. The deficit for this year, just to take one number, is 10 times bigger than it was predicted to be in Joe Hockey's first budget. We have gross debt of around half a trillion dollars for the first time in Australian history, an amount that one of the Treasury ministers described as 'a truckload of debt' and 'an extraordinary, an absolutely extraordinary, amount of debt'. Another thing that is not well appreciated in this place, and certainly not in the community, is that gross debt is accumulating at a faster rate now, with good global conditions, under this government than it accumulated under the former Labor government, despite the global financial crisis. We are accumulating debt at a faster rate now than we were then, which should be concerning to all of us here and is concerning to the broader Australian community. It is no wonder that our AAA credit rating, which is coveted and which was hard-won in the course of the last Labor government, is now at risk because of the fiscal performance of those opposite.</para>
<para>We have a big challenge when it comes to the management of our public resources, our precious taxpayer dollars, and I think it is also fair to say—it is probably not a unanimous view in here but certainly fair to say in the broader court of public opinion—that decisions taken in the last couple of weeks have made that financial position, that fiscal position, worse than it needs to be. I notice I have with me in the chamber my colleague the member for Griffith, who has been doing a lot of work on the postal survey that those opposite have proposed as it relates to marriage equality. That is an example really. In this case it is $122 million of precious taxpayer dollars being wasted on what is effectively a harmful and divisive non-binding opinion poll. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see why the budget is in the condition it is in now.</para>
<para>More specifically as it relates to this bill and my portfolio, the Minister for Finance advanced those funds without the usual process. He appropriated $122 million using one of the mechanisms available to him, which is supposed to be justified by the expenditure being urgent and unforeseen. If those opposite think that this is an issue that should be dealt with urgently, let's deal with it urgently, not by wasting $122 million but by doing our jobs and voting for it in this place.</para>
<para>A government member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member opposite can vote his way and we will vote our way. We could get it done and we could save $122 million. These bills are about the proper management of public money and public resources. It is pretty hard to imagine a worse use of that money. This is something that isn't urgent and isn't unforeseen. The so-called postal vote was flagged by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in March this year. Having a postal survey is not an unforeseen proposal. It was even mentioned in the statement of risks in the Treasury's own budget in May. This is not an urgent or unforeseen event that we're having now; this postal survey is an unnecessary event that we're having now. It is very divisive, very harmful. It's non-binding—unless the answer is no—so there are substantial problems. And that's an example of the fact that we have more work to do to ensure that we are spending public money in the best possible way. Wasting $122 million on that purpose is certainly not a good use of taxpayer arrangements.</para>
<para>A final point on this: it was astonishing to hear the Treasurer say on breakfast television last week that he considers that $122 million to be money well spent. If he considers it to be money well spent, it's no wonder we have half a trillion dollars in gross debt for the first time in Australian history.</para>
<para>More specifically, this legislation is important. Although it doesn't solve any of the broader problems in the budget. It won't safeguard against the Treasurer's incompetence—I don't think anything could, if I'm honest about that. And it doesn't fix some of the other issues we have with transparency. We'll have more to say about the issues, for example, around remuneration for places like Australia Post and other agencies. You will recall, Deputy Speaker Vasta—of course, you would have followed this very closely—that the PGPA Act provided more flexible arrangements for entities and relied on a number of subordinate rules and regulations. An important part of that effort is that officials are expected to be held to a high standard of accountability. Yet, quite recently, we have seen attempts to hide the remuneration of senior executives on some of our boards. This was enabled by changes to the reporting rules made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. This bill does not fix that problem, but there are other things we can do to fix that problem.</para>
<para>The government has informally requested a number of Commonwealth entities revert to the previous regime of remuneration reporting. The Auditor-General looked at this and considered that there would be benefit in making the aggregate level of transparency for key management remuneration in the public sector consistent with that required for listed entities. That means that we will have good public standards to match some of the standards we have in the private sector. We welcome the work that the Auditor-General did on this. We welcome the release of those reports, but the government should now act to ensure these are formally required of all Commonwealth entities if they are serious about some of the measures which are dealt with partially in this bill. They could go further. They haven't acted on it. It's an example of some of the further steps that we can take, and we will have more to say on it.</para>
<para>But we do support this legislation. We are always onboard for further improvements to public governance and the management of public resources, especially when they build on the good work of former Labor governments, as these amendments do. There will be even more to do after these bills pass with the support of both sides.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Rankin who contributed some pertinent points to the debate on the Public Governance and Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017. The bill would, if enacted, amend 13 acts across the Commonwealth to harmonise them with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the PGPA Act, and its related rules and instruments designed to improve governance, transparency and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth entitles within the Australian government. I commend the bill.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5921" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>248006</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to rise to speak in relation to the Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017. It's quite pertinent to talk about skills, because I've just come from a conference of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, a group of people in their late teens and early 20s who are very worried about the future of this country and the future that they each face, given some of the economic circumstances we are in at the moment. We have a situation now where people under 40 have incredibly high levels of household debt and at the same time very low levels of home ownership, where incomes have slightly declined since 2012, according to HILDA, and where this year the wage price index, which has been at historic lows—the lowest it's been since we started keeping it in 1997—fell below the CPI, so wages grew less quickly than consumer prices. These are all very important concerns that should be on the minds of young people.</para>
<para>It is important that this government seek to focus on the full gamut of education: vocational education, higher education and, of course, schools and early learning as well. It is incumbent on this government to do something meaningful when it comes to skills. We need people to have the skills they will need not just for the jobs that exist now but for the jobs of the future. We need that so they will have lives that are lived in relative comfort and so that this economy will have a workforce able to fulfil the jobs that exist. We want to be in a situation where we have full employment in this country, rely less on temporary skilled immigration, and have a workforce in a position to make that contribution and, as a consequence, live the sort of good life that comes from having a secure job. That's a benefit that comes only if people have the skills they need to hold those jobs. It is important that this government focus on skills.</para>
<para>This particular bill is a non-controversial one in the area of skills. Part 1 of this bill repeals four obsolete acts made under the Howard government: the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001; the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005; Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005; and Skilling Australia's Workforce (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005. Part 2 of the bill includes a consequential amendment to the definition of VET provider used in the Social Security Act 1991. Part 3 contains a savings provision applicable to any outstanding agreements under the ATC legislation. The legislation we're debating today also provides that the minister may by regulation make rules prescribing matters of transition. As I said, this is a non-controversial piece of legislation and therefore Labor supports this bill.</para>
<para>In repealing and tidying up these pieces of legislation which have become obsolete, this bill is an important part of the legislative process. The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005 underpinned the Australian Technical Colleges program which was wound up by the end of 2009. Any continuing functions were rolled into the broader education and training system. Australian Technical Colleges, which are referred to as ATCs, were to provide trade training pathways to year 11 and 12 students while they simultaneously completed a secondary certificate of education. ATCs were a coalition government creation that, unfortunately, proved to be both expensive and ineffectual. They suffered from low enrolments and problems sourcing staff, and contributed very little to filling the trade shortages they were funded to reverse. We've seen the consequences of that now, 10 or 12 years later, where there are still significant skills and trade shortages in this nation, to the extent that we are continually relying on temporary skilled migration when in fact we need to have the necessary skills present in our workforce. The ATC program was yet another attempt by the coalition government to undermine TAFEs and public schools. The government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on poorly-thought-through ATCs while underfunding public provision of vocational education and training.</para>
<para>I am very pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition's first significant speech this year, which was held at the National Press Club, had a very strong focus on skills and training. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would also be aware that Labor has held a very successful skills summit to bring together people from various stakeholder groups who are interested in skills for the future. In the Leader of the Opposition's speech at the Press Club, he talked about the importance not just of vocational education and training but of publicly funded vocational education and training. I believe the focus on public TAFE has been very warmly received by the Australian community.</para>
<para>Repealing the now-obsolete ATC act serves as a reminder of the coalition's past and current failure to develop and implement a workable means of improving the provision and uptake of trades training. I have got to say it has been a great shame to see this government, since its election in 2013, seek to continue to further dismantle trades training in this country. For example, I thought the decision to not continue to fund trades training centres was a very sad one. Balmoral State High School, which is very close to where I live, has an excellent trades training centre with really good facilities. Centres such as this one assist with the integration of vocational education and training into schools. I'm very pleased that the centre at Balmoral State High School is a legacy of Labor's work in trades training. It's a great school. It has a partnership with Boeing Australia and there is an aerospace program with an aerospace club. The kids are so enthusiastic. When I visited the program, the kids were there at lunchtime. It was incredibly impressive. One of the most impressive things about it was that there were a lot of girls in the program. It was not a male-dominated program by any stretch. In fact, I suspect the girls slightly outnumbered the boys when I was there. It is great to see schools embracing industry partnerships and it is great to see schools embracing vocational education. As I said, that particular school has a great trades training centre.</para>
<para>It is a shame that the coalition has done very little to promote school based training and to promote connections between schools and vocational education. More to the point, unfortunately it has done a lot to undermine publicly funded TAFE and has failed to properly invest in skills in this country. The consequence is that there are 148,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in training across Australia, including some 46,900 fewer trade apprentices, which is a drop of 22 per cent in trades training since the Abbott-Turnbull government took office. It's concerning to me, because in my electorate the number of people in apprenticeships has fallen through the floor since the election of this coalition government.</para>
<para>It is wonderful to see trades training. When I was at a plumbing and gasfitting industry awards dinner recently, I was so fortunate to get to see some of the incredible apprentices that are working in the industry. The apprentice of the year was an amazing guy. He had gone to university and done a degree in hydraulics but had decided that what he really wanted to do was to get a trade in plumbing so that he could have a really intimate knowledge and understanding of the practicalities involved. Having gone to university, he was a little bit older—not much—than some of the apprentices there. I think he was in the fourth year of his plumbing trade. It's really inspirational to see people who are committed to the trades. The trades are so important. Of course, they're important economically, but it's important for all of us that we have very safe, high-quality professions, particularly in plumbing and electricity. These are trades where failure to have high standards, high quality and great training can lead to genuine risks to public health and safety. It was great to be at the plumbing awards to see people like the apprentice of the year being recognised for their work in the trades. We need to acknowledge that this doesn't happen just by accident. It takes investment in skills and training by governments to ensure that we have people learning the trades and in apprenticeships and, more broadly, that we have people in vocational education and training.</para>
<para>I talked about the trade training centre at one of my local schools—Balmoral State High School, which is very close to where I live—and I mentioned that this was a legacy of Labor's policy of supporting trade training centres. I think it was really disappointing to a lot of people that, when this government took office, one of the first things it did was cut funding to trade training centres and also get rid of trade cadetships. There's been continuous chopping and changing in relation to vocational education and training in schools policy areas because I don't think this government cares whether vocational education and training in schools succeeds or fails.</para>
<para>One of the most gut-wrenching things for me was when the government scrapped the Tools for Your Trade grant and decided to make it a loan instead. I had a mother contact me. Her daughter was 16 years old and had planned on how they were going to engage with her apprenticeship around having that Tools for Your Trade grant. So it wasn't just that future apprentices and trainees would no longer have access to the grant. They cut it from people who had entered into their apprenticeship on the basis of those then current policy settings. They were just told out of the blue: 'You know that payment you were getting? You're not getting that anymore. Go get a loan for your equipment.' People just don't have money laying around. It's not the case that people have spare cash they can draw on for these things. It is actually really important, when people go and make plans based on a set of circumstances in relation to the support that they'll get in order to get their trade, that the rug not be pulled out from underneath them. That is a really important issue. If you are a 16-year-old apprentice, you might be wealthy, but you're probably not particularly wealthy, so I thought changing the goalposts, pulling the rug out from underneath someone in that way and changing that policy, was really disappointing. That poor mother who contacted me was beside herself. They didn't know how they were going to be able to manage this, and I think asking young people to take on more debt is just really disappointing.</para>
<para>This is a government that seems to have completely failed to notice that, by shirking the responsibility of the Commonwealth and trying to take responsibilities that we have as a Commonwealth and shift them onto the shoulders of teenagers and people in their 20s, they are actually failing in their obligations as the custodian of this nation and of its future. They're doing the same thing in higher education. This idea that we're going to take less responsibility as a nation for the future of higher education and for the future of skills, knowledge and the sorts of qualities that you get from higher education and that we're going to shift that responsibility from the shoulders of the nation onto the shoulders of 16-year-old, 17-year-old, 18-year-old and 19- to 25-year-old school leavers seems to me to be highly irresponsible and reckless. There's this idea that what we really need to do for young people today is say, 'It's really great that you've got massive levels of debt and it's really great you've got very little prospect of being able to afford a house, so what we're going to do is increase the debt that you have while at the same time doing nothing about the fact that your incomes are declining.' That seems to me to be very disappointing, upsetting, reckless and irresponsible, but that's precisely what this government is doing at the moment with its higher education package.</para>
<para>To me, the combination of the cuts to vocational education and training, the cuts to higher education, the increased debts that young people are being expected to carry for many years and the economic circumstances in which they find themselves, including, as I said, high levels of household debt and low levels of ownership et cetera, demonstrates a government that is not really paying attention to the concerns of people, and you can see why. This is a government that are spending all of their time wondering whether their Deputy Prime Minister is validly in the parliament and spending all of their time trying to find ways to prevent marriage equality from being passed. That's what this government is focused on. They're focused on themselves, and they're focused on trying to stop progress. What they should be focused on is the very real problems that young people—and, in fact, everyone in our community—are facing today. Just as a citizen, I don't mean as a member of parliament, I hate the fact my national government is spending all of its time carrying on with nonsense instead of actually coming to grips with these problems, including high household debt, low home ownership, declines in incomes et cetera.</para>
<para>To return to this bill, the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act, one of the bills being repealed, provided grants to the states and territories to support the National Training System from 2005 to 2008, after which it was superseded by payments arrangements under the Federal Financial Relations Act in 2009 via the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development. It is an obsolete Act. Unfortunately, the government is focused on doing things other than acting in the best interests of Australians. It's great that they are repealing these obsolete acts, but they are not focusing on the genuine substantive skills issues that we're facing. There's no agreement with the states and territories to replace the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, which expired at the end of June, for example. Both the ATC program and the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act are reminders of this government's ongoing obsession with destroying unions and compelling organisations to adopt the government's ideologically driven implementation framework.</para>
<para>Funding to the states and territories under the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act was contingent on a range of ideologically driven reforms designed to damage TAFEs, and education unions for that matter. It was reminiscent of the university space. This was about requiring take-up of so-called workplace reforms for increased employment flexibility—which of course is just code for reduced employment security—and encouraging the uptake of Australian workplace agreements. Remember those individual statutory instruments that allowed employers to cut penalty rates, annual leave loading and a range of other conditions? If I remember rightly, about 67 per cent of those Australian workplace agreements cut those types of conditions, and here was a piece of government legislation from the coalition aimed at forcing people into those individual agreements in which, of course, they had substantially less bargaining power than they did in collective agreements; and also including performance-based pay. This bill was actually aimed at trying to impose the government's ideological industrial relations agenda on unsuspecting TAFEs. I think that was very unfortunate. The then Department of Education, Science and Training guidelines for the Australian Technical Colleges stated that operators of ATCs were required to offer AWAs to all staff as well as offering performance-based pay.</para>
<para>As I've said, it's very disappointing that this government has such a woeful and inadequate record when it comes to skills and training in this country. I'm pleased that we're supporting the repeal of these bills, but the government needs to get its act together when it comes to education and training in relation to vocational education and training. It also needs to get its act together on higher education, schools and early learning, stop the politically driven ideological nonsense and focus on better outcomes for Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As my colleague, the member for Griffith, has said, Labor supports the Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017 because it tidies up a number of acts that are obsolete. But I would like to start by saying that vocational education and training works. It works for students, it works for employers, it works for the economy and it works for the community. I have said before in this House that not everybody needs to go to university, not everybody wants to go to university and not everybody should go to university. With that in mind, we really should pay heed to the fact that a comprehensive education system in Australia that affords the opportunity for every Australian to participate fully in our social and economic life should include, at its heart, a strong and robust training framework.</para>
<para>A strong economy requires a skilled workforce. Currently Western Australia is facing increased unemployment rates as the mining boom winds down. We need to make it easier for people to get new skills. We need to support vocational education and training, and public vocational education and training at that, to ensure that students walk away with high-quality education that gives them the best opportunity for meaningful employment. Vocational education and training is, indeed, an important pillar of our community.</para>
<para>From my personal perspective, starting off in the VET sector first as a teacher and then as a policymaker at what was then the department of training within the WA state government has given me an appreciation of just how key the VET sector is, not as a gap-filler for those who can't attend or don't need university but as a critical component of our broader education sector. The importance of vocational education and training makes it critical to highlight the coalition's past, present and ongoing failures to support vocational education and training. In short, the coalition has demonstrated time and time again that it can't be trusted to deliver a strong public vocational education and training sector.</para>
<para>This bill repeals the now obsolete Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act. That legislation was introduced by the coalition in 2005. Its intent was a noble one—it was to provide trade training pathways to years 11 and 12 students while they simultaneously completed their secondary certificate of education. That meant students who were in years 11 and 12 who did not want to or did not need to or had no desire to go to university could complete a trade certificate alongside completing their high school education certificate. The problem is that this legislation was a failure—the provision was a failure. It suffered from low enrolments, there were problems sourcing staff and the colleges contributed very little to filling the trade shortages they were funded to reverse. Australian technical colleges were yet another attempt by the government to undermine TAFEs and undermine public schools. They wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on poorly thought through actions while at the same time underfunding the public provision of vocational education and training.</para>
<para>The need to repeal this now-obsolete act, as the bill before the House does, serves as a stark reminder of the coalition's past and current failure to really support training. But it also serves as a caveat—a caveat reminding us that this government's track record on training has been quite appalling. Those opposite don't respect vocational education and training, they don't know how to support vocational education and training, and it shows. Whether it is the Howard government of 2005 with its failed Australian technical colleges experiment or the Abbott-Turnbull government's ripping $2.75 billion out of TAFE, skills and apprentices, this much is clear: this government, the Liberals, do not care about Vocational Education and Training and I would go even further to suggest that they don't even know how to care about it. There are around 148,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in training across Australia since the Abbott and Turnbull governments took office, including 46,900 fewer trade apprentices. That is a drop of 22 per cent in trades training. Yesterday I met with a group of train builders and they told me that recently one company received 1,100 applications for only 10 apprenticeship places. That's a startling ratio—10 places and 1,100 applications. Under the WA Liberals, if I can return to the situation in WA, some TAFE fees have increased by more than 500 per cent, and dozens of courses have been cut. I have met time and time again with young people who simply can't afford training anymore. There was one time when Australia's training framework was held up as one of the best in the world. Now we have a situation where training fees have increased by more than 500 per cent, courses have been cut, and the whole sector is in absolute disarray, having been undercut and undermined by this government.</para>
<para>While the government is busy repealing these obsolete education and training acts, the fact is that the real business of ensuring ongoing skills development in Australia is being ignored. As it currently stands, the government still has no agreement with the states and territories to replace the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, which expired at the end of June. There is no sense of urgency here from this government about addressing these issues with the provision of training and the availability of training in different states.</para>
<para>One of the other things that this bill does in relation to that is to repeal the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act. That act provided grants to the states and the territories to support the national training system. The act was superseded in 2009 through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development. But funding under the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act depended on a range of ideologically driven reforms that were, in their essence, designed to damage and undermine TAFEs and education unions. Here's the thing: even today, the government continues to place ideology above pragmatism, effectiveness and outcomes. They continue to pander to minority interests and ideological divisions within their own party, instead of putting the needs of Australians first. Those needs seem to come a shoddy second to dealing with the party's own divisions.</para>
<para>I'm approached almost daily by parents and young people who are unable to secure training, unable to take training opportunities, unable to afford training qualifications and unable to find an apprenticeship or a traineeship that suits their needs. As a mother, as a parent, let me say this: there is nothing more disheartening than watching your child's dreams disintegrate and feeling absolutely powerless to do anything about it. There is nothing that touches me more than listening to a father whose 16-year-old son wants nothing more than to become an electrician, and hearing the story of how he has had to give up that dream because he can't access the training that he needs. I feel it as a parent, and I have seen my own children being unable to find jobs in the areas that they were trained or educated in. As a parent, it breaks your heart. It breaks your heart when you see that your kids' dreams can't be fulfilled.</para>
<para>The Liberal Party really do need to leave this damaging ideology of privatisation at the door. They need to realise the importance of vocational education and training to create jobs, to support communities, to build our community and to build our economy. Give our young people hope. Give our young people some hope for their futures. Go and talk to these young people, these young people who are unable to access training, and watch their faces as they tell you how they've had to let their dreams go because they don't have those opportunities. As somebody who has been blessed with opportunities for education and training, I speak from experience: it can be very life changing.</para>
<para>We need to start paying attention to the fact that some our manufacturing industries—some of our very iconic manufacturing industries—are at risk of disappearing here in Australia because of the failure of this government to deliver effective reforms in the vocational education and training sector. We're losing skills; they are dying with generations of tradespeople who are no longer able to pass on their skills through an effective training apparatus. Years ago I did a study looking at the building trades in Western Australia. I spoke to builders of the baby boomer generation who had gone on and were training young apprentices. They were expressing to me then that some of the artisan qualities that they had learnt were not being handed down or passed on, because of the disintegration and the undermining of our training sector. So I really want to make this point strongly: we need to ensure we recognise that vocational education and training is at the heart of keeping our manufacturing industries strong, and it's at the heart of ensuring sustainability for our manufacturing. It's important to ensure we have skilled tradespeople, and that the tradespeople who are out there now are able to pass on their skills to future generations.</para>
<para>I will end by making this point: young people are—I hear it every day—missing out on opportunities; they're missing out on opportunities for education; they're missing out on opportunities for training, and it's impacting on them. It's impacting on their wellbeing, it's impacting on their self-esteem, it's impacting on their hope for the future, it's impacting on our community more broadly and it's certainly impacting on our economy. The government needs to get its act together on vocational education and training reform and make some meaningful changes in this area. It's all very well and good to start by repealing these obsolete acts—and that is why Labor supports this bill—but let's get a move on. Let's make some real impact in the VET sector, and let's recognise just how important this sector is.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5921" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5873" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>34</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This statute law revision bill is called the Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017. The parliament has introduced these sorts of bills regularly since 1934. They deal with uncontroversial, technical matters which will not, in substance, change the operation of the law. They all correct drafting errors, remove spent and obsolete provisions and update cross references.</para>
<para>Statute update bills are different from statute law revision bills because they are intended to make minor changes to the substance and legal effective provisions. In contrast, statute law revision bills contain measures that do not alter the substance of the law but rather make minor technical corrections of a purely formal nature. In his second reading speech for the bill, the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These update bills are an essential tool in the process of keeping an orderly, accurate and up-to-date Commonwealth statute book.</para></quote>
<para>In the previous parliament, statute law revision bills were introduced as part of a regular repeal day package. The Abbott government claimed that they had a regulatory reform agenda and were cutting red tape, when actually they were merely engaging in the routine work of the parliament. I suppose we should be grateful that the current Prime Minister hasn't trumped up this bill as part of his 25-point battle plan for legislative reform, supposedly to be expedited through the parliament.</para>
<para>As part of the 2015 Autumn Repeal Day, the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 was heralded as one of the Attorney-General's Department's deregulation measures. It was estimated that this bill would lead to an annual saving of $100,000 in compliance costs. The report of the 2015 Spring Repeal Day said that the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015 would lead to an annual saving of $50,000 in compliance costs. None of these claims have been independently verified, as was recommended by the Australian National Audit Office in their report <inline font-style="italic">Implementing the </inline><inline font-style="italic">d</inline><inline font-style="italic">eregulation </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic">genda: </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">utting </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">ed </inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">ape</inline> as well as the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The Prime Minister should be embarrassed that his stocks have sunk so low, that his government is so adrift, that he has dressed up routine legislative work like this as some kind of policy masterstroke. It's clear this government still has no agenda.</para>
<para>Labor is happy to support this bill, which corrects technical errors, makes other minor amendments to statutes, and repeals spent and obsolete provisions and acts. Many of the amendments do not affect the substance of the law but are intended to enhance their clarity and accuracy. Some amendments make minor changes to the substance of the law. The bill contains four schedules: schedule 1 amends technical errors and makes other minor amendments to 18 principal acts, schedule 2 makes amendments to six principal acts consequential to the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Act 2015, schedule 3 repeals spent and obsolete provisions in five principal acts, and schedule 4 repeals four spent amending acts. None of this is groundbreaking; it is just part of the government's routine work. Far from being about deregulation, this bill does nothing that has not been done regularly by governments and by this parliament since 1934. This bill does not reduce the regulatory burden on Australian business. Nor does it remove or streamline any operative regulation. I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for their hard work in maintaining the Commonwealth statute book and for their work on this bill, as on all other statute update bills. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5926" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017. This bill seeks to make the Migration Act 1958 preserve existing decisions under section 501 of the Migration Act. These are decisions of refusal or cancellation of visas on character grounds. These decisions are often made whilst relying on information provided by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which is protected from disclosure to courts, tribunals, parliament, parliamentary committees or any other person, under section 503A of the act. Labor has referred this bill to the Senate for an inquiry, which is due to report on the 4 September 2017. Labor will support this bill through the House today. I note that the minister has in the media and social media demanded that Labor support this legislation. The irony is the minister already knows that Labor supports this legislation; indeed, our offices have negotiated that a short Senate inquiry take place, with a reporting date of 4 September 2017. It might pay for the minister to stop preening, posing and parading for the position of Prime Minister of this country and actually do his job.</para>
<para>Labor regards the security and safety of all Australians with the utmost seriousness. That's why Labor supported the amendments made to section 501 of the Migration Act in 2014 and continues to support them to this very day. Labor supports the refusal or cancellation of visas of noncitizens on character and criminal grounds and the removal of criminals from Australia. The community expects to be kept safe from serious offenders, and Labor is committed to this outcome. Section 501 of the Migration Act sets out when a visa can be refused or cancelled on character grounds, when a person fails the character test or when the minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test. A person can fail the character test in a number of ways, including having a substantial criminal record; if they are a member of a group or organisation involved in criminal conduct, such as an outlaw motorcycle gang; if there is a risk that, while in Australia, the person would engage in criminal conduct; or if there is an Interpol notice that the person presents a risk to the Australian community.</para>
<para>Immigration ministers have the critical responsibility to make decisions relating to immigration matters. This includes making decisions to cancel visas where appropriate, decisions made on the best information available to the minister and the Commonwealth's interpretation of the Migration Act. These decisions can often include protected information from our security and intelligence agencies. Section 503A of the Migration Act protects this information supplied by law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies from being disclosed where that information was communicated to authorised migration officers by an agency on the condition that it's treated as confidential information. Labor notes that there has been some reporting of cases before the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 503A. It would be inappropriate to comment on these cases, but Labor agrees that it's in Australia's best interests to preserve the validity of affected past decisions made by previous immigration ministers, both Labor and Liberal, to refuse visa applications on character grounds. That is what these amendments seek to do, and that's why Labor will support the legislation in the House today.</para>
<para>The new section 503E, validation of decisions, is being inserted before section 504 of the Migration Act. The new subsection 503E(1) provides that if section 503A is not valid law of the Commonwealth, in whole or in part, the new subsection 503E(1) will prevent decisions made by a minister under section 503A from being invalid, because the decision relied upon or had regard to confidential information protected or supposedly protected by the existing section 503A subsections (1) and (2). This information can come, as I said, from the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. The new 503E(1) applies to decisions made by the minister in a whole range of sections, including section 501. It also includes decisions made by the delegate of the minister. The new subsection (2) in 503E ensures that subsection (1) doesn't apply to decisions that are subject to court proceedings where judgement is reserved by a court as at commencement of this item or in which a judgement has been delivered by a court before commencement of the item, setting aside declaring an invalid decision.</para>
<para>I do note that the provisions for disclosure of information by immigration ministers already exist in subsection (3) of section 503A of the Migration Act. For the benefit of the public, the immigration minister may declare certain information in certain circumstances and disclose that information to a court or a tribunal, but the immigration minister must consult with law enforcement agencies or intelligence bodies before doing so. The amendments before the House today also do not affect a person's ability to seek judicial review of a decision. Nor do they affect a person's right to seek merits review of a relevant decision, to the extent that such review is provided for under existing law. An individual has the ability to have visa decisions reviewed by the AAT if they're not satisfied with a visa decision. Character cancellations can often be very complex matters, and it's incumbent on ministers to be aware of their responsibilities and act in a timely way on visa decisions and with the best possible information provided.</para>
<para>In January the Commonwealth Ombudsman released two reports investigating the administration of Australia's immigration system. The first report examined the administration of section 501 of the Migration Act, a matter before the House today, and the second examined the administration of people who have had their bridging visas cancelled due to criminal convictions—another germane factor today. The reports highlighted significant failures by the immigration minister and his department to adequately manage the volume of people in detention, leading to the ongoing mismanagement of cases. There is no denying that noncitizens who commit serious offences in Australia know that they will be deported under either side of politics. Noncitizens cannot remain in Australia if they seek to do harm to our country or its people. However, that doesn't mean that immigration ministers can leave children and families in limbo, and there's simply no excuse for poor administrative processes that create uncertainty and distress for families.</para>
<para>The reports I refer to contain a number of damning findings regarding the management and documentation of people held in detention, pointing to 'a case management system that is struggling to adequately manage the volume of people in immigration detention'. The report into the administration of section 501 of the Migration Act also pointed to people being held for 'unnecessarily prolonged and potentially indefinite periods of immigration detention'.</para>
<para>Labor will not stand for mistakes or errors by the immigration minister and will continue to hold the government to account. Labor has consistently demonstrated our bipartisan commitment to keeping Australia and Australians safe. It's absolutely crucial to protect the ability of our law enforcement agencies and intelligence bodies to freely provide information to immigration ministers to make decisions. Labor wants to uphold the integrity of the Migration Act and ensure this bill is absolutely watertight. That's why this bill has been referred to a short Senate inquiry with the timetable agreed with the government, as the minister well knows. This vital parliamentary process is really important to ensure proper oversight, allow the public to make recommendations and raise concerns in relation to the legislation and make submissions to guarantee appropriate scrutiny. It's a process we deal with every day in this place.</para>
<para>Labor requested a briefing on this bill. We did so in mid-July. After the briefing was provided last week, we advised the minister's office of our preference to have the bill referred to a Senate inquiry. The government agreed in relation to that, and it will come back on 4 September, which is the first siting day after this week. Labor believes it's essential to preserve the validity of affected past decisions to refuse visa applications on character grounds. There is simply no question of that. That's why Labor will support the passage of the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017 through the House today. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017. As my good friend the member for Blair has indicated clearly and consistently, Labor strongly supports this legislation. Labor will always take our national security seriously. In fact, we take our national security so seriously that we would never use it as a cheap political tool, as Minister Dutton has done on this occasion by using fake patriotism and fear as a way to attack the Labor Party.</para>
<para>I know that playbook well. You can see that playbook when you read back through the pages of history. Minister Dutton got a few facts wrong. We saw that when he put out a press release saying that the member for Blair and the Labor Party should support this legislation, when he had already had meetings with the Labor Party where we had an agreed process. That shows the cheap political opportunism of this minister. We can see that this minister is not competent when it comes to doing his job. This minister is about to enter his fifth year in government, and what have we seen? We have not seen him act appropriately and do his job in terms of dealing with asylum seekers and dealing with appropriate processes. He's sitting on his hands. I long ago gave up on the idea that he would have compassion, but I will never stop asking for a minister to be competent. At the moment, we have a minister who stands up every day in question time, beating his chest, saying how tough he is and how strong he is on borders and throwing accusations at the Leader of the Opposition, but fundamentally this minister has not been competent when it comes to doing his job.</para>
<para>As I said, and as the member for Blair made clear, the minister did this sneaky political trick of leaking information to the newspapers about a piece of legislation that was introduced in June, was shown to us in July and then is suddenly urgent in August. This is cheap political tactics when we should take the security of the nation much more seriously.</para>
<para>Who we allow to stay in Australia is one part of our security that we can have substantial control over. It's important that we get the visa process right. I know there is a process to simplify that, and obviously the Labor Party will look closely at that. We will always do that. But it's important the immigration minister, whoever they may be—be they Liberal or be they Labor—have the capacity to refuse a visa to a noncitizen if they do not meet the character test set out in the act. Obviously that's important. So Labor support the refusal or cancellation of visas to noncitizens on character or criminal grounds and the removal of criminals from Australia under section 501 of the Migration Act.</para>
<para>Some of the decisions to be considered were actually made by Labor ministers. I note that there are cases before the High Court at the moment that will involve some consideration of sections of the Migration Act, and I won't be inappropriately commenting on those cases. I did see on Monday in question time that we had 'Chief Justice Turnbull' announcing what the High Court would decide, but I actually do respect our judicial process and know that the High Court will do its job.</para>
<para>There is no doubt, though, that it is in Australia's best interests to preserve the validity of decisions that have already been made to refuse visa applications on character grounds. So I say again for the benefit of the minister, who has walked in, Labor does support this bill. I say that in the presence of Minister Dutton because what we have is a minister walking around with a wedge and a sledgehammer. He's desperately swinging this sledgehammer and trying to drive a wedge somewhere between the Australian people and the Labor Party by saying: 'Labor is not strong on national security. Labor is not strong on immigration.' We have seen this behaviour from this minister day after day in question time.</para>
<para>If this minister were a bit more competent and able, I might be able to talk through the legislation a bit more, but I want to say a few things on the checks and balances that are appropriate in the Westminster system of democracy. There are some concerns about this legislation, raised significantly by the member for Moore, who is the chair of the human rights committee, in his report that he tabled this week in parliament. I will take the parliament to some of the concerns raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. That is a committee that Labor does not have the majority of numbers on. This bipartisan committee, with a Liberal majority—including people such as Senator Paterson, not exactly well known as a left-wing member of this parliament, and Senator Reynolds, to name just a few—has recommended that the minister provide further advice on a number of human rights compatibility issues. The minister has been asked to provide advice as to the compatibility of the measures in the bill with the right to due process prior to expulsion.</para>
<para>We have a long history of balancing the rights of the parliament and the judiciary and making sure that every man, every woman—every person—is treated equally before the law. In fact, article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An alien unlawfully in the territory of a State party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with the law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise required, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.</para></quote>
<para>There is clearly an exception contained in article 13 where there are concerns about national security. That is an important safeguard. But due process is still important, particularly when the outcome of the process may be expulsion from Australia.</para>
<para>The committee, chaired by the member for Moore, a member of the Liberal Party, has requested that the minister particularly advise on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… inability of affected individuals to contest or correct information on which the refusal or cancellation is based …</para></quote>
<para>Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits the arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of liberty. This right to liberty extends to all forms of deprivation of liberty, including immigration detention. Arbitrariness may also include elements of injustice and lack of due process. The Migration Act provides that, upon the cancellation of their visa, a noncitizen will be classified as an unlawful noncitizen and will be subject to mandatory detention prior to deportation. Generally, it would not be arbitrary to detain a person for a reasonable time while they await their deportation; however, it may become arbitrary in circumstances where a person is subject to a significant length of detention without knowing or being able to contest the information on which their detention is based before an independent body. Where a person is deprived of legal safeguards to effectively challenge the basis for their detention, such as access to the information that was relied on to support their visa cancellation, the report advised the minister that there may be 'a risk of arbitrariness'.</para>
<para>The statement of human rights compatibility accompanying this bill, provided by the minister's department, said that the measures contained in the bill are reasonable and that the detention of a noncitizen would not be considered unlawful or arbitrary under international law, and certainly ensuring the safety of Australians and the integrity of the immigration system may be legitimate objectives under international human rights law. However; the bipartisan committee—as I said, chaired by the Liberal member for Moore, with a Liberal majority—have requested that the minister provide advice about the compatibility of this bill with the right to liberty, including:</para>
<list>why the broad legislative validation of a class of decisions is required, when it appears that the minister could make a renewed decision to refuse or cancel the visa of an affected person on an individual basis;</list>
<list>any alternative means that may be available that would protect such information only to the extent required for national security or alternative processes …</list>
<list>the availability of less rights restrictive criminal justice or national security mechanisms to address any risk posed by affected individuals.</list>
<para>The protection of the family is also an important consideration enshrined in article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—that is, family members should not be involuntarily and unreasonably separated from one another. The human rights committee was concerned that 'the validation of a visa cancellation could operate to separate family members'. On most occasions, obviously, there would be, on balance, good reasons for so doing, but the committee have requested that the minister provide advice about what advice there will be in terms of safeguards for families.</para>
<para>Non-refoulement is an important obligation under the Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. Australia is under an obligation not to return any person to a country where there is a real risk that they would face persecution, torture or other serious forms of harm, including the death penalty. The bipartisan human rights committee, chaired by the member for Moore, continually stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Effective and impartial review by a court or tribunal of decisions to deport or remove a person … is integral to complying with non-refoulement obligations.</para></quote>
<para>A possible consequence of confirming the validity of decisions to refuse or cancel a visa may be removal from Australia. The statement of compatibility provided by the minister's department acknowledges that this would engage the right to non-refoulement. The committee report scrutinising this legislation notes that the obligation of non-refoulement is absolute and may not be subject to any limitations.</para>
<para>There is a right to freedom of movement, which includes the right to leave Australia as well as the right to enter, remain or return to one's own country. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects this right. With regard to the proportionality of the bill before chamber, the committee sought further information:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… in particular regarding any safeguards applicable to individuals for whom Australia is their 'own country', such as ensuring their visa is only cancelled as a last resort where other mechanisms to protect the safety of the Australian community are unavailable.</para></quote>
<para>The human rights committee raised serious issues with this bill that need to be addressed by the minister. Obviously, it is a report provided to the parliament, but the minister no doubt would have close regard to the concerns raised by the human rights committee.</para>
<para>I say again that Labor support this bill. Why? Because national security is crucial. It's crucial that criminals, people not of the right character, are refused entry to Australia or, if they have committed those crimes here, that they can have their visas cancelled by the minister, whether that minister be a Labor minister or a Liberal minister. But the issues raised by the human rights committee need to be addressed. We support this bill being referred to a short Senate inquiry where these issues could be further canvassed. We all know that in parliament checks and balances are important—crucial, in fact; an essential part of our democratic process—so we have committees like the human rights committee and the Senate inquiry process to look at legislation and make constructive recommendations. We have seen that in our security legislation, where recommendation after recommendation has come from the Labor Party. They are important in the review process for any decisions made by a statutory body, or if there is ministerial discretion.</para>
<para>We see that the minister who has brought this legislation to the chamber is now setting up a super ministry—the home affairs department that will centralise the existing Border Force, immigration department, Customs, ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. It is appropriate, when we look at the range of powers they will have, that we look at the checks and balances. There will be visa applications, cancellations and appeals; immigration detention centres; deportations; border protection; intelligence gathering; counter espionage; protective security; investigations into departments and agencies; counterfeit operations; disrupting human trafficking; criminal records and criminal history checks; missing persons coordination; airport security and policing; and international crime and policing—all under this super ministry with Minister Dutton responsible. This is a minister who could not organise a chook raffle when it comes to getting people out of our detention centres. This is a minister who is about to start his fifth year in government and we have people in detention who have not moved.</para>
<para>We also hear people saying—as the wheel nuts have come a bit loose on the current Prime Minister's motor vehicle—that Minister Dutton is the great hope for the Liberal Party. Oh my goodness, if he is the great hope, this nation is really going into some serious territory. As I said, I don't expect this minister to have compassion—I would love him to have more compassion—but I do expect him to be competent and I do expect him to provide a detailed response to the Senate inquiry and to the human rights committee that have raised these concerns.</para>
<para>I go back to the essential opening comment that I made: Labor will support this legislation; we didn't need to read about it in <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline>. The minister knew this before he put out his press release saying that this was an important piece of legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all of those members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017. I also acknowledge the very different opinion of the member for Moreton when he is outside this chamber—when he thanks me for matters we were able to help him on in relation to constituents. He is nodding now. Thank you for being genuine outside this parliament. We just note that difference in your stance here in your contribution—the theatrics that go into it.</para>
<para>It was an interesting point made by the member for Moreton about getting people out of detention, because when he was a member of the Labor government thousands of children were put into detention on his watch, with not a word from him during the course of that. That was pretty outrageous and shows the hypocrisy of the member for Moreton. He was the person who was in a government that set up 17 detention centres and put people into those detention centres. I have got children out of detention and closed the 17 detention centres. We have not had a death on my watch as Minister for Immigration, whereas, under the member for Moreton and his government, 1,200 people drowned at sea, including women and children. The fact is that he, like many who sit beside him and around him, would go back to that terrible, horrible policy disaster tomorrow if they were elected at the next election. Don't look at the hypocrisy and grandstanding from some of those who see themselves as righteous in the Labor Party; look at what they said and, frankly, what they didn't say when the Labor Party was in government. It shines a light on the fact this Leader of the Opposition has a complete inability to rein in people like the member for Moreton, who would close the successful Operation Sovereign Borders and we would again see the deaths at sea and the children back in detention. Frankly, he has no more credibility on this than the Greens do.</para>
<para>This bill addresses the potential risk of people committing crimes in our community, and the current proceedings in the High Court of Australia deal with some of the issues that we seek to address in this bill. The purpose of the bill is to uphold the visa cancellations and applications refusals, on character grounds, of certain noncitizens who have committed very serious crimes in Australia or pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community. These include organised crime figures and those who pose a threat to national security.</para>
<para>Specifically, the bill amends the Migration Act of 1958 to preserve existing section 501 character decisions which have relied on information that is protected from disclosure under section 503A of the act. Section 503A protects information from disclosure when it is provided to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection by gazetted law enforcement or intelligence agencies to support a section 501 character visa application refusal or cancellation decision. This protects the information from disclosure to a court, a tribunal, a parliament or a parliamentary committee or any other body or person. The ability to protect information from disclosure is critical to the continuation of our highly successful relationship with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Continuing to successfully counter crime is dependent on agencies like the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission being able to share information on the activities of non-citizen criminals with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection while their intelligence and sources remain protected.</para>
<para>The strengthening of the character test in late 2014 has led to the cancellation now of over 2,500 visas, including more than 140 held by organised crime figures. Without the information supplied by intelligence agencies, these criminals may have kept their visas and been free to continue their illicit activities. The amendments in this bill proactively address the risk to the safety of Australians and reflect the government's and the Australian community's low tolerance for criminal behaviour by those who are given the privilege of holding a visa to enter into and to stay in Australia. This is not the first time the parliament has considered validating legislation. In 2008, with the support of the coalition, Labor, then in government, passed similar amendments to section 501 of the Migration Act in response to an adverse decision in the Federal Court. The full Federal Court later upheld the amendments. We expect Labor's support today for these proposed amendments, and on that basis I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">V</inline><inline font-style="italic">otes and </inline><inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">roceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting no.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>40</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5906" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>40</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind members that I have moved a second reading amendment in my name which makes this a wide-ranging debate. Before I was interrupted by the adjournment debate last night, I was solemnly reflecting on the very, very poor performance of this current agriculture minister over the course of the now last four years and the extent to which the boondoggle that is the Regional Investment Corporation reflects his whole approach to this portfolio. In other words, it is a total focus on spin and the development of false hope among farming communities and rural communities generally by constantly talking about projects which will never manifest themselves—dams being the most glaring example—and by trying to lead people to believe that if you put a government agency in a town—an initiative which of course can do no harm and, indeed, can do some marginal good—that will somehow transform the fortunes of that local community. When you think about it, it's a bit like saying, 'We're going to increase the Centrelink staffing levels in your town by 20 per cent and that will lead to an economic recovery.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will resume his seat. I call the honourable minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is an important bill, a bill that has a range of—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill covers a range of issues. It establishes the Regional Investment Corporation, which has—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fitzgibbon</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is an abuse! He's trying to waste my time. He hasn't even raised a point of order. He knows it's a free-ranging debate—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to draw the member back to the bill and also back to the letter of the amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hunter.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Cowper might struggle to read, but, if he has a look at the second reading amendment, he will know I've extended the scope of this debate very, very broadly—in fact, as broad as the debate can go—and he is now protecting his failed agriculture minister by taking up my time. That's the tactic.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.</para>
<para>(<inline font-style="italic">Quorum formed</inline>)</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It says it all about the state of mind of this government. It now has to protect the current Deputy Prime Minister. It cannot take it. The member for Cowper knows that I moved a second reading amendment. He knows that I broadened the debate on this bill as broad as it can possibly go. He will get a wake-up call tomorrow, because tomorrow I'm in the Federal Court against this Prime Minister and I'm very hopeful that, as a result of those proceedings, we will get to see the secret coalition agreement. Then we will know the extent to which this Prime Minister has been prepared to go to hold on to power in this country, and the extent to which he was willing to do deals with the now Deputy Prime Minister and the National Party simply to cling on to power. I look forward to tomorrow's hearing in the Federal Court and ensuring that this Prime Minister stops using taxpayer money—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hunter will resume his seat. I call the member for Hughes on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Craig Kelly</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hunter has widened the range of this debate, but I struggle to see how the topic he is talking about has any relevance whatsoever to this subject.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously the member for Hughes has struggled with his reading as well, but if he reads the second reading amendment he will know quite clearly that this is a wide-ranging debate. This tactic is all about protecting the Deputy Prime Minister. They have him in witness protection. I saw him turn up for the Australian Farmer of the Year awards upstairs. I've never seen him camera shy before, but around the loop he went, with the journos and cameramen running after him. How embarrassing it has become for this Deputy Prime Minister. Just when you thought he couldn't be any more hopeless, he turns up day after day to prove it yet again. His performance in the agriculture sector has been hopeless. I am ready to say now that Barnaby Joyce will go down in history as the worst agriculture minister this country has ever had.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hunter is reflecting constantly on another member. It's most inappropriate and most disorderly. I think it is a terrible display. He's reflecting on a member.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the member not to reflect on a member.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He has no point of order, but to assist you, I will be cautious in my approach. The point of order is wrong because I'm reflecting on the minister's policy performance in this portfolio. I'm making no personal attack or reflection on his character; I'm talking about his performance in this portfolio, which has been abysmal. I was sitting there recently trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, trying to think of one thing the minister has done for the agricultural sector. I came up with one. I will give him credit: we had an accelerated appreciation provision in the 2014 budget, I think, which helped farmers with water infrastructure, but that's it. I was unable to think of one other initiative. His white paper is a joke. The industry knows it. He's hopeless. He's a failure. I move my amendment, once again, to allow the member for Lingiari to second it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to second the amendment and to make some observations about that amendment. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">the House declines to give this bill a second reading as it places the Government's political interests ahead of the interests of Australia’s farmers.</para></quote>
<para>Nothing could be further—nothing could be stronger in terms of—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hartsuyker</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Nothing could be further from the truth! You were right the first time.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The only thing that can be further from the truth here is the way your minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, comes into this place and parades himself as a virtuous member of this parliament, yet, as we now know, has issues. Instead of fronting up to those issues, accepting responsibility and making sure he doesn't participate in cabinet discussions about issues of relevance and importance to this country whilst his position is in doubt, he fronts up here as if nothing has happened. Things have happened, and we know he has lost the faith of many across the community. He's an appalling minister for agriculture, as we well know. As we see every day in this place, he gets up to the despatch box in a raucous display of intemperate behaviour, dribbling, spitting and carrying on like a pork chop, yet when he's taken to account and questioned about his behaviour, his citizenship, and his right to be in this place, he doesn't demur. It's as if nothing has happened.</para>
<para>We know things have happened, because of what's happened with our former friends in the Greens, who, when they recognised they had dual citizenship, did the right thing and stood down from the parliament. What we're seeing now from the government is a very clear representation of the appalling state of the government, its disarray and the fact they can't rely on support internally. We know the Prime Minister is stuck with the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister, his National Party partner, is crucial to his ongoing leadership issue, to his ongoing role as Prime Minister of this country, and he's protecting him. While so doing, he's making us look like absolute galahs, because of his own poor behaviour. We know what's happening in this place. This is a protection racket for the Deputy Prime Minister, which is being fronted by the Prime Minister and other senior ministers.</para>
<para>As you know, as a member of the—I shouldn't say that, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you're not part of this debate; you are the Deputy Speaker—however, I will make this point: the people who live in cockies corner in this place understand the disrepute the leader of the National Party has brought them into. The leader of the National Party has made rural Australians think twice about why they should be saying anything in support of the National Party in this country. Whilst the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, stands up in this place and continues to defend the Deputy Prime Minister, the rest of Australia knows, as can be seen just by looking at the media—I don't look at the media every day as some others do—what a joke this Deputy Prime Minister is and what a joke the government is for its poor behaviour.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Lingiari will be allowed to conclude his remarks then.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Marriage</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have been hearing all week about the marriage postal survey and how the government is very confident, as the Prime Minister himself vowed, that this would be a very respectful debate and that people deserve their say. For the vast majority of people, this will be a respectful debate—they will make their contribution, if they make a contribution at all, and they will do it respectfully. I've got to say the way this postal survey has licensed the fringes of the commentariat and the meanest elements of the Australian community to say some quite shocking things is already becoming apparent. We had Bronwyn Bishop relating marriage equality to bestiality, polygamy and killing disabled children, we had Fred Nile calling homosexuals an abomination and we had Lyle Shelton describing the children of rainbow families as a new stolen generation.</para>
<para>The subjects of these comments are deeply hurt and offended. I spoke to Leila from Leichhardt recently. She was trolled on Twitter, with a photo of her and her partner with their four-year-old daughter being posted online and Leila and her partner being called paedophiles because they are two mums with a daughter. Adam and his fiance, from Sydney, wrote to the Prime Minister saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I’ve spent my whole life trying to make myself good enough, strong enough, equal to those that I’ve been told I’m not equal to.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I thought that fight was over for me …</para></quote>
<para>Constituents of mine, Tim and Shawn, who live in Waterloo, have had 'fag' scratched onto the front of their house. There are so many examples like this, and the reason is this absolutely unnecessary $122 million survey. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digeorge Syndrome</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BANKS</name>
    <name.id>18661</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The unconditional love of a mother and grandmother came to my office in Chisholm in recent weeks. A very worried Oakleigh grandmother, Charlotte McLatchie, needed our urgent assistance and support to enable her newborn baby granddaughter to travel to Melbourne from Vietnam for life-saving treatment. Charlotte's son Tim, currently working as a teacher in Vietnam, and his partner Tram, experienced the joy of the birth of their baby girl, Caroline; however, their joy was short-lived as Caroline suffered seizures and other signs that something was horribly wrong. She was diagnosed with digeorge syndrome, a rare chromosome defect that causes congenital heart disease and numerous autoimmune disorders.</para>
<para>Caroline needs to be transported to Melbourne for lifesaving specialist treatment, a move that would cost the family $140,000. The Paediatric Infant Perinatal Emergency Retrieval team—PIPER—and the Royal Children's Hospital are working hard to ensure baby Caroline's safe journey back home for this treatment. Baby Caroline's parents' and grandma Charlotte's strength in the face of such adversity is an inspiration to us all. The community support shown to baby Caroline is testament to the Australian spirit of generosity and a GoFundMe campaign has been set up. But more money is needed. If you'd like to add your support for baby Caroline and her family, please go to www.gofundme.com/babycaroline.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The triangle of power will be visited by Mr Anthony Albanese, who will follow on from Barnaby Joyce's visit up into the area and the visit by the Premier of Queensland as well. The triangle of power is becoming very famous and it consists of (1) Hells Gate Dam, (2) the big Kennedy wind farm and (3) the Kidston pumped hydro. What the Prime Minister is trying to achieve Australia-wide is being achieved in Northern Australia by the triangle of power, which is attracting international attention. Hells Gate Dam is not far to the west of Townsville and, along with the big Kennedy wind farm and the Kidston pumped storage, it produces 2,000 megawatts of base load power. This is five per cent of Australia's entire energy electricity requirements. The project Hell's Gate will produce $1,000 million in ethanol, $240 million in electricity, $3 million in biodiesel, $200 million in diesel and $900 million in beef from algae and forage sorghum production and, for trees, $700 million. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Asylum Seekers</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>McMillan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>David Marr can be pretty hard when he writes. It comes out of his life experiences, and I accept that. I think I know him reasonably well. But there was one line in his article of 9 August I couldn't walk away from. He was talking about same-sex marriage. The article says this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If only Christians fought like this for refugees. Imagine if the Coalition’s big men of faith threatened to tear down their own government unless it brings home the wretches we’ve imprisoned in the Pacific.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Surely there couldn’t be a greater service for Christ?</para></quote>
<para>I couldn't walk past it. Eventually you come to a place in your time here when, as a former member said in this House, 'There's a rubbish bin there and it smells and you can't walk past it.' Enough, El Shaddai. Shaddai, Shaddai, enough. I'm happy that the process with the Americans is working its way through, very effectively, at this time. And there will be a resolution. Once that time comes, it will be time for this nation, through its parliament, to act and resolve the situation on Manus and Nauru. Shaddai.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Shortland Electorate: University of the Third Age</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I associate myself with the fine remarks by the member for McMillan. I rise today to talk about a great local organisation in Shortland, and that is the University of the Third Age. This is an organisation that was founded in 1972 in France. There are chapters all around Australia doing a great job, letting semi-retired or retired Australians pursue education and other pursuits in their days. I'm proud to say Eastlakes U3A is the largest U3A in the country, with 800 members. I'm delighted to say that 50 of them have come to parliament today, led by my predecessor, Jill Hall, the former member for Shortland. They had a great tour of Parliament House. They got to meet some great parliamentarians, including the members for Bennelong and Lilley. There are too many to name. I know the Chief Opposition Whip dropped in on them. They had a great time. They had some really great questions, and I apologised in advance for question time! They're a great organisation that I've worked closely with in the four years I've been in parliament and an organisation I want to work closely with in the time I have remaining here. To pursue education at any stage of your life is a great, great, pursuit, and to do it when you have time to give back to the community, as so many members of U3A do, is especially applaudable. Welcome to parliament, members of U3A. I hope you had a great time and have a safe journey back to Lake Macquarie.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wright Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to inform the House about two new schools and some improvements to one of the oldest schools in my electorate and some of the great things that the government is doing in and around that education space. I recently attended the official opening of St Clare's Primary School, a cornerstone of education in the growing Yarrabilba community, with Principal Chris Thomas at the helm. They did an outstanding job at their official opening last week. I'm so pleased that the Australian government has been able to make a contribution of $1.25 million for the construction of St Clare's and support the learning and teaching of not just the foundation classes but a generation of future students in that local community which I know will make a contribution.</para>
<para>McAuley College in Beaudesert, led by Deirdre Young, have also accepted their inaugural class of year 7 students. Our contribution to that place was $3.5 million worth of federal government funding. I hope these new first-class facilities will encourage students to pay a little bit more attention than those on the opposition benches do during question time! Our Lady of Good Counsel School in Gatton also has many reasons to celebrate this year. The students and teachers in that school, led by Nathan Haley, in the next couple of days will be blowing out 100 candles to celebrate the school's birthday this month after it officially opens its new administration centre and learning areas, to which the federal government made a contribution of $1.23 million through the Capital Grants Program. It's an incredibly exciting time to be a student in the electorate of Wright, and it just shows that the government is getting on with the job, recognising the importance of education in the electorate of Wright.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some 700,000 Australians are affected by penalty rate cuts. It's an absolute disgrace, yet we have a Deputy Prime Minister in this parliament who is continuing to collect his pay as an executive member of this government when his citizenship is in no doubt. He has spent his entire parliamentary career as a dual citizen of New Zealand, making him unfit to be a member of this parliament. Yet here he is, collecting his pay as the Deputy Prime Minister of this parliament and this nation, when he has been involved in cutting the pay of 700,000 Australians who depend on their penalty rates to meet the most basic living expenses. Here he is, living high on the hog. This government depends on the tainted vote of this Deputy Prime Minister to keep their show running. This is an illegitimate, tainted government.</para>
<para>Here we have a comment from the Prime Minister about what should have happened:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is pretty amazing, isn't it, that you've had two out of nine Greens senators who didn't realise that they were citizens of another country—</para></quote>
<para>That was in relation to Ludlam and Waters—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and it shows incredible sloppiness on their part. You know, when you nominate for parliament, there is actually a question. You've got to address that Section 44 question, you've got to tick the box and confirm that you're not a citizen of another country.</para></quote>
<para>One rule for others, another rule for this Deputy Prime Minister, who should not be in this place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dawson Electorate: Mackay Skate Park &amp; Wheeled Sports Plaza</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The () (): Now for something that means something to real people. In November last year I had a couple of my younger constituents come to see me about their desire to see a skatepark or some form of youth facility constructed near where they live. About 10 days ago, eight months after that initial visit, I was able to stand with those two young lads to announce $1 million in funding under the Liberal-National government's Building Better Regions Funds for the Mackay Skate Park & Wheeled Sports Plaza project. It was a very rewarding outcome in a relatively short space of time, with collaboration occurring at all levels of government. The Mackay Skate Park & Wheeled Sports Plaza is a $2.2 million project which will deliver the region's first competition standard skatepark and wheeled sports plaza, in partnership with the Mackay Police Citizens Youth Club. The state-of-the-art facility will cater for beginners through to advanced riders.</para>
<para>Ethan Laval and Flynn Bushell were 12 years old when they called into my office to talk about their dream for a skate park. They conducted surveys and met with local councillors. The council subsequently did more investigation of the need and determined that a regional skate park of competition standard was needed in our region. They lodged an application under the Building Better Regions Fund, which I lobbied for as well. It was one of 100 successful applications from a field of around 500. I want to congratulate the council but, more importantly, congratulate Ethan and Flynn on their drive and enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing the completion of their dream in a year's time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For a week now we had a government in complete disarray as they squabble among themselves over policy, over whether they should turn up for a division, over who is entitled to sit in this place and over who is going to be the next Prime Minister. I want to take this opportunity to remind Australians and the Prime Minister there are people out there who want us to focus on the real issues—like Adam Smart, who runs a small business called the Grey Army in Warilla in my electorate. He has been without an internet or phone line for over six months. For over six months he has had to rely on an overpriced mobile handset to get an internet service for a business that is heavily reliant on getting an internet connection with his customers.</para>
<para>I'm calling on the Prime Minister, because the NBN was supposed to be his signal policy. His fingerprints are all over it. Take some responsibility! There are small businesses the length and breadth of this country, like the Grey Army, like Adam Smart's business, who want their phones and internet connected. To be told after six months that you will have no service for another month or maybe two is simply not good enough. Work out who the Prime Minister is, who the Deputy Prime Minister is and who is entitled to sit in this place. Stop struggling amongst yourselves and start focusing on the real issues that people in this country are focused on. Focus on the real issues and get your own house in order so you can sort out the other houses in this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: Lamrock Committee</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to congratulate the Lamrock Committee on its recent successful fundraising event at Georges River Sailing Club, which I was fortunate to attend on 4 August. The Lamrock Committee has existed for more than 25 years in raising funds to support important works at St George Hospital, which is the main hospital for the St George area and the hospital that most residents of Banks turn to when they need medical attention. Over $8,000 was raised on the night. It was a fantastic event and very well organised, as all Lamrock Committee functions are. Since its inception, as I said, 25 years ago, the Lamrock Committee has raised close to a million dollars for St George Hospital, and this is something that is very greatly appreciated in our community.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank the president, Ros Comino, for all her work on the Lamrock Committee; the vice-presidents, Toni Horsey and Marion Smith; and also the organisers of the trivia quiz itself, Liane and Dan Simpson and Richard and Meg Sheahan, who did so much to make this event so successful. The committee does a range of fundraising events—a golf day every year, fashion parades, high teas and other events that are all about supporting St George Hospital. It's a great committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HART</name>
    <name.id>263070</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are serious doubts over the Deputy Prime Minister's entitlement to sit and vote in this place, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's breathtaking declaration that the High Court should find in the Deputy Prime Minister's favour. Those doubts have a very real impact on the lives of Australians.</para>
<para>On Monday, I seconded and spoke on the penalty rate motion vote moved by my colleague and fellow Tasmanian the member for Braddon. She, like me, recognises the economic and social impact that cuts to the take-home pay of our lowest paid workers will have on our communities in Northern Tasmania.</para>
<para>This government has relied on one vote to ensure that workers in my electorate of Bass will have their wages cut. That one vote sees lower-paid workers missing out—a vote that this government has used to block amendments to legislation which would have stopped wage cuts to nearly 700,000 Australians and a vote that will see people like Carol in Launceston, who has worked weekends in hospitality, is a full-time foster parent to her nephew and has chronic health conditions, having to work more hours to make up a difference in lost wages.</para>
<para>Every affected Australian needs their voice heard. I ask, in their name: how can this chaotic and incompetent government continue to accept the Deputy Prime Minister's vote when it means that nearly 700,000 Australians will continue to have their penalty rates cut?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reserve Forces Day</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CREWTHER</name>
    <name.id>248969</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 2 July, I was honoured to attend and represent the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Prime Minister at the Reserve Forces Day parade and commemorative service at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne. I was joined by the Victorian shadow minister for veterans' affairs; the RSL Victorian Branch State President, Dr Robert Webster; the parade host, Brigadier Neale Bavington; Reviewing Officer Major General Jim Barry; and many others. The Reserve Forces Day Council is made up of, primarily, former members of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, who voluntarily run Reserve Forces Day activities, giving up their own time and energy to acknowledge the invaluable work and raise the profile of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Reserves and to thank partners and employers for their support.</para>
<para>Reserve Forces Day parades have been held since 1988, which marked 50 years since the reformation of the Citizen Military Forces after the Second World War on 1 July 1948. The Reserves are, as the Prime Minister said in his message, 'an integral part of our military, ready to step up in response to any challenge and in defence of our national interests,' so I was immensely proud to be able to recognise their work on behalf of the government and the people of Australia not only for those Reserves in Dunkley but also all across Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I went to hospitality today to say hello to a school from the electorate visiting us here in Canberra. They're really excited to be here. They've come to see the country's leaders making important decisions. They come from an electorate that has been heavily hit by the changes to penalty rates and by the pay cuts that are happening to the locals who live in their community—their mums and dads.</para>
<para>There are nearly 9,000 retail workers and nearly 5,000 food and accommodation workers in my electorate. So 13,500 workers are taking a pay cut because of a vote that happened in this place. They, like me, want to know why the tainted vote of an illegitimate member has delivered them a pay cut. Why do they get a pay cut while a minister of the Crown—who, by his own admission, should have stepped aside—gets to keep his pay? It is a fair question. What did they do wrong? Did they neglect to do their due diligence? I don't think so. Did someone give them a piece of paper and, say, 'Tick a box that says that all's clear, and you can be a federal member of parliament'? No. They didn't do thing anything wrong. They get a pay cut and he gets to come into this chamber and pretend he's legitimate. It's his negligence. Take his money from him and get him on the back bench.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We come together as a nation on 26 January to celebrate what is great about being Australian. It never crowds out a conversation that we can have about what we've got wrong in the past and how we will improve. Like any nation, we are not perfect, nor do we pretend to be so. But Yarra City Council's decision to axe Australia Day is using this great day that should unite Australians to simply divide us. Sorrow and mourning must be addressed, but Yarra's symbolic axing achieves nothing. It moves us further from the practical improvements that young, vulnerable Indigenous children in remote Australia have waited a generation for. It's okay to deeply regret and to be sorry about actions of the past, but the privilege of blaming is one that is exclusively earned by first making sure you're not party to your own injustices in the present.</para>
<para>Australia Day can heal the past, unify the present and secure the future. It can be about forgiveness and about reconciliation. Whatever the past, Aboriginal Australians would never seek to deny a young family's celebration of becoming citizens on Australia Day. Yarra has just deepened wounds. They handed a small victory to haters. They renounced that one day of the year for their city—there will be no mature and inclusive conversation—and replaced it with institutionalised protest. Do not be surprised if, on Australia Day next year, we see on the steps of Yarra council the biggest Australia Day celebration of the year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MIKE KELLY</name>
    <name.id>HRI</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about the tragedy of the penalty rates vote in this chamber and the role of the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and his tainted vote in that process—and he is supposedly a voice for rural Australia. Let me tell this chamber that surveys show that 60 per cent of the people of Eden-Monaro demand that those penalty rates be protected. That's a country voice that he chose to ignore. The McKell Institute highlighted the effect of that cut on rural and regional Australia when they said that the retail and hospitality sectors account for 18 per cent of rural workers. As such, any reform to penalty rates would have a particularly severe impact on rural and regional areas. They went on to say that retail trade and hospitality workers in rural and regional areas are the lowest paid in any industry. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In practice, cuts to penalty rates would reduce the income of a group of workers who is already experiencing the lowest income in rural Australia. This would result in a commensurate reduction in the disposable income of those workers, leaving less money available for spending on local goods and services.</para></quote>
<para>And here's this man—maybe in New Zealand you don't get the expanse of countryside we have in Australia. Maybe he was too focused on getting his All Blacks jersey, rather than defending the interests of rural and regional Australian workers, who are suffering because they have now had their penalty rates cut. They can't put food on the table. They are struggling to have a roof over their head. You need to get out there and talk to people in the country and find out what their struggles are.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I remind the member for Eden-Monaro that he should be addressing his remarks through the chair. I will not allow him to get away with that another time. I call the member for Leichhardt.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cooktown Medical Centre</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; we will just lower the tone a little bit now! I am pleased to say that Cooktown residents in Far North Queensland are about to see great improvements in the Cooktown Medical Centre. The practice has been awarded a $300,000 grant, which is one of 67 grants offered under the federal government's $13.1 million Rural General Practice Grants Program. This will make a big difference to the lives of Cooktown locals as well as Dr Des Hill, Dr Bill Liley, registrar Ebony Vandameer and the nurses and staff who work at the centre.</para>
<para>The centre currently has three rooms for doctors, and one shared room for its nurses. This grant will allow the practice to expand to eight rooms and hire an extra person. This means the practice can now have a dedicated room for telehealth, which will give patients suffering chronic diabetes or renal or cardiac disease access to specialists in Cairns Hospital without leaving home. There is also a room for minor operations such as skin cancer removal; an extra room for nurses; space to accommodate allied health, mental health and diabetes services; and a room for Indigenous health workers. Work will begin in October and is due to be completed in June next year.</para>
<para>I would like to congratulate Dr Des Hill, a long-time medical practitioner in Cooktown, and his team at the Cooktown Medical Centre for their vision and commitment to providing quality medical services to the people of Cooktown.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't have to spend long in this place to realise this Prime Minister is not backward in coming forward in relation to giving us the benefit of his legal opinions. What was the latest opinion of 'Chief Justice Pontificate'? He said: 'We've got very strong advice that the Deputy Prime Minister will be safe as houses.' Well, let's try this at home. Let's try a good, old-fashioned document called the Constitution. Here's what it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Any person who … is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.</para></quote>
<para>If this so-called Deputy Prime Minister—this illegitimate Deputy Prime Minister—couldn't get it right in 2004, he could have got it right in 2013. He didn't get it right then. 'What is the practical effect of his negligence, of his shame, of his illegitimate vote?' I hear you at home asking. The practical effects are these: 6,745 retail workers had their pay cut; 5,460 food workers in my electorate had their pay cut; and 170,000 Western Australians had their pay cut as a result of this illegitimate vote. Every single day this illegitimate Deputy Prime Minister stays here is a day of shame, a day of neglect and a day of an illegitimate government. The more quickly they go, the more quickly we can get on with the job. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just remind the member for Perth, before I call the next member, that it's highly disorderly to imitate members. I'm happy to take them through the section in the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> on it, if you want. But it's highly disorderly and will lead to an ejection.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr EVANS</name>
    <name.id>61378</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Brisbane knows that the energy debate is about delivering on a detailed plan. Labor in government, and even in opposition today, have absolutely no plan for storage, for dispatchability or for how the transition to Australia's targets will actually take place month to month and year to year. Their lack of planning caused electricity prices to nearly double.</para>
<para>This government is delivering on its plan. Last week, the Prime Minister called on the biggest electricity retailers to ensure that more households and small businesses are moved on to better plans with lower prices. The government is taking action to redivert some of our abundant gas supplies back to meet our country's needs. That's already bringing down the price of gas and, therefore, the price of electricity right now. This government started implementing recommendations from the recently released Finkel report, focused on the engineering and the economics that we need to help guarantee the reliability and the security of our electricity supply. This government is also removing the ability of energy companies to use limited merits review—lawfare, effectively—to undermine the pricing decisions of the regulator. When it comes to future planning, the government are continuing to invest significantly in R&D. And, of course, we're building the biggest new addition to storage and generation capacity that Australia has seen in a very long time: Snowy hydro 2.0. We're getting on with the job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month, the government's brutal choice to strip one in six workers in my electorate of Paterson of their penalty rates began: 11,722 workers will lose up to $77 per week. Even before that cruel cut, Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed that these very people were already earning well below the national average. In my electorate of Paterson, 22 per cent of households have an income of less than $650 per week. That's right—$650 per week to pay the mortgage or rent; to insure and maintain a car; to pay skyrocketing energy bills, electricity or gas; to fit the kids out with school shoes and send them to school; and to put food on the table. I would like to know, Mr Speaker: how far do you think that $650 would go in this room? Not very far.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Paterson can't ask me questions in a 90-second statement!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am enraged that the tenuous one-seat margin that allowed this gormless government to inflict damage on the people of my electorate is in doubt. Doubts about the Deputy Prime Minister's constitutional qualifications bring into question the validity of every bill this lame government has brought down. Every bill that the member for New Zealand—or is it New England?—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Paterson's time has concluded. She is oblivious that her microphone has been off for 15 seconds. I say to members of this chamber, without appearing highly critical: we have some of the best microphones in Australia. They work extremely well. There's no need to shout. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gibson, Hon. Brian Francis, AM</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>49</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Brian Francis Gibson AM be referred to the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>49</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to make a statement on indulgence about the importance of celebrating our national day, Australia Day. On Australia Day, we celebrate the most successful multicultural society in the world. We celebrate a nation that begins with the most ancient human culture in the world.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Dreyfus interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Isaacs is warned. This is not question time. I have not called for questions without notice. Indulgence is granted by the Speaker, and I've granted it. I have not called for questions without notice.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On Australia Day, we celebrate this most remarkable nation of 24 million Australians. It has the oldest human civilisation in the world, that of our First Australians, which is 65,000 years old. Our ceremonies and our celebrations on Australia Day begin with an acknowledgement of country and a welcome to country, and conclude with the newest Australians. And every one of those Australians, our First Australians and the youngest baby in the newest citizen's arms, are all part of our great multicultural nation. We have so much to celebrate and so much of which to be proud.</para>
<para>In a world riven by discord and violence, we are united in our Australian values, and we celebrate those on Australia Day. We recognise that the history of European settlement in Australia has been complex and tragic for Indigenous Australians. We recognise the complexities and the challenges of our history. But on Australia Day we recognise the greatness of our achievement as Australians, we recognise the remarkable nation we have become, we recognise and honour our first Australians and our newest migrant citizens. We bring all that together in a day that is uniquely and proudly Australian, and that is why my government and every government before me in this House has urged Australians to celebrate Australia Day, to get behind it, to be proud of it, to be committed to it. That is why the recent decision of the Yarra Council is utterly out of step with Australian values. They are seeking to take a day which unites Australia and turn it into one which divides us. To change the date of Australia Day would be to turn our back on Australian values, on the great achievement of 24 million Australians, here in the greatest, most successful multicultural society in the world.</para>
<para>Government members: Hear, hear!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For a moment, I thought we were at the Yarra City Council, until I looked at who was speaking. But going to the important issue, there is no doubt, even before the Prime Minister spoke, that Australia Day is a most important national day. It does commemorate the first British penal colony established in Australia, and it also, I believe, is a source of great celebration for Australians right up to the current day. But it does also acknowledge, as the Prime Minister said, that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 26 January can speak of dispossession and sorrow. It also, I believe, needs to recognise that before the British settlement there were 65,000 years of continuous occupation by the world's oldest continuing culture in our country. Now, I do not support changing the date of Australia Day.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Taylor interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a day of citizenship ceremonies, of looking to the future, of celebrating all our cultures, faiths and traditions. The member for Barton, for example, has spoken most eloquently about this. Reconciliation is more about changing hearts and minds than it is about moving public holidays, but, of course, if we look at national days that are important in the history of this country, there is 1 March 1901, when the Australian parliament, the Australian nation, came into being—when our old friend the Constitution came into being! There is, of course, another potential national public holiday, which has not yet been gazetted, and that will be the day when we finally have an Australian head of state.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for the Environment and Energy will be absent from question time for the remainder of the week.</para>
<para class="italic">Dr Chalmers interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Rankin is warned. The Prime Minister is explaining ministerial arrangements. I would've thought those on the frontbench would want to know what they are. The Prime Minister will begin again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for the Environment and Energy will be absent from question time for the remainder of the week, as he has returned to his home in Melbourne, for personal reasons. The Minister for Health will answer questions on his behalf, and the Minister for Defence Industry will represent the Minister for Education and Training.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Brian Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Who's representing the Deputy Prime Minister?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lyons can leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Lyons then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Qualifications of Members</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that he's leading a majority government that meets all of the requirements of the Constitution?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs SUDMALIS</name>
    <name.id>241586</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's policies are growing the economy, generating jobs and reducing cost-of-living pressures for households and businesses? Is the Prime Minister aware of any challenges that will damage the government's strategy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member knows very well that the people of her electorate are determined to see the government deliver on its commitments, and that is what we are doing. We are delivering while the opposition is seeking to obstruct the passage of legislation through this parliament consistent with our promises. Our focus has been making the 45th Parliament work. Jobs, wages, electricity and gas prices, tackling the cost of living for households, families and businesses—those are the issues that matter most to Australians and they are our focus.</para>
<para>The Labor Party, of course, have sought to create dysfunction, tried to create the impression of disorder— constantly standing in the way, abandoning the issues that matter to so many Australians. But you know, Mr Speaker, they have been remarkably unsuccessful. Their attempts to block us from delivering one important reform after another have failed. We have worked with the Senate crossbench and the Independents in this House to deliver on our agenda, to deliver on the promises that we made, because that is what matters to the Australian people, and I want to thank them for their continued cooperation. We have reduced the rate of company tax for millions of small and medium businesses, a measure that puts money back into the pockets of workers and will grow the economy by more than $17 billion every single year when it is fully implemented.</para>
<para>Labor opposed this change, although it was advocated, including by the member for Maribyrnong, when they were in government. Instead of lower taxes, Labor want to slug Australians with an extra $150 billion in higher taxes. They want higher taxes on Australians' pay packets. We have actually reduced income tax. They want higher taxes on homes, they want higher taxes on electricity, they want higher taxes on small and medium businesses and on investment. Despite talking about the need to protect workers, Labor voted against our corrupting benefits legislation and, in so doing, endorsed secret and corrupt payments between big business and big unions—payments that have been used, as we know from the Heydon royal commission, to trade away workers' pay and conditions again and again. They opposed the restoration of the rule of law to the construction sector. They opposed the Registered Organisations Commission, which will require unions to be accountable to their members. They talk endlessly—endlessly—about the importance of needs based funding for schools but they voted against the first comprehensive delivery of national, transparent, consistent needs based funding for schools, endorsed by David Gonski. They called for reform to child care and then voted against it. The Labor Party have no consistency, no integrity, no loyalty to the Australian people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer to my question. Why, then, did the government refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the High Court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have answered that question on several occasions this week and I refer the honourable member to those previous answers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Qualifications of Members</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House of the importance of upholding the noninterference in the domestic political affairs of other nations principle?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Foreign Affairs will stay in her seat. Members on my left interjected right through that question. I'm going to ask the member to repeat it. If I hear any more interjections from the member for McMahon, like 'incoming', he will be outgoing.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House of the importance of upholding the principle of noninterference in the domestic political affairs of other nations?</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney is warned.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for McEwen then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Berowra for his question. Let me be very clear: the Australian Labor Party's conduct in orchestrating for a New Zealand member of the Labour Party to ask a question in the New Zealand parliament designed to undermine the Australian Deputy Prime Minister—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney has been warned. It's her final warning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>is not only highly improper but is in direct breach of the international obligation for noninterference. Labor have now been well and truly caught out. Senator Penny Wong's chief of staff instigated a situation in which the Labour member of parliament in New Zealand was directed to ask questions about the Deputy Prime Minister, and the member for Grayndler let the cat out of the bag today when he said on morning radio that the Deputy Prime Minister's name was raised in the conversation. Of course, he's been monstered now, but he let the cat out of the bag.</para>
<para>That means that the Labor Party are misleading the Australian people, and New Zealand Labour, no less, have judged what they were asked to do by the Australian Labor Party as inappropriate, unacceptable and wrong and should not have happened. The Labor Party have also misled the Australian people by claiming that it was only questions from Fairfax Media to the New Zealand government that sparked this incident. Not so, according to the foreign minister of New Zealand, who has said that it was in fact the questions from the New Zealand Labour member, at the instigation of Labor, that sparked the entire incident. As the New Zealand media are reporting, the New Zealand government is under no obligation to answer questions from the Australian media. But as soon as those questions were put on notice in the New Zealand parliament, the New Zealand government had a legal obligation to answer.</para>
<para>So, the Australian Labor Party set up the New Zealand government. As Prime Minister Bill English said, these are serious issues, and there were significant misjudgements by the New Zealand Labour Party about urging them to interfere in the Australian political process. As the New Zealand foreign minister said, 'This is extraordinary, unprecedented behaviour to seek to invoke the New Zealand parliament,' and as New Zealand Labour have condemned Labor in Australia—unacceptable, inappropriate, wrong behaviour. It should never have happened. Labor stands condemned.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The members for Solomon, Newcastle, Gellibrand and Lindsay, and I mentioned numerous others, will cease interjecting or they will leave the chamber rapidly. Question time is for the parliament and for the public. I won't tolerate a wall of noise through the answers of ministers.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Qualifications of Members</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp> (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:23):</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the Minister for Foreign Affairs please tell the House some more about the evil, treacherous treasonous international conspiracy that she has exposed in this House time and again?</para>
<para class="italic">Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Foreign Affairs will resume her seat. The member for Eden-Monaro can leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Eden-Monaro then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The hubris of the Australian Labor Party on this issue is extraordinary. Apparently the Labor Party believe that they are above the law. There's one rule for the Labor Party and one rule for the rest of Australia. Craig Thomson was allowed to sit in this parliament when he was in clear breach of the law. The Leader of the Opposition condones the lawlessness of his unions. The Labor Party have breached the most fundamental international principle, and they laugh about it?</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Catherine King interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Ballarat is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Prime Minister Bill English said in the New Zealand parliament yesterday that these were serious issues, where the Labor Party had set up the New Zealand Labour Party to undertake a series of actions that the Labour Party in New Zealand have now admitted were wrong, inappropriate, unacceptable, and should not have happened, and it was all at the behest of the Australian Labor Party, who stop at nothing, will trash any principle, trash any promise, trash any element of decency in order to gain a political advantage.</para>
<para>This is a significant and serious issue, as the New Zealand Prime Minister has pointed out. And, for Labor to find it amusing that Senator Wong, who holds herself out to be the shadow minister for foreign affairs, would direct her chief of staff to contact a sitting member of another parliament to use another parliament as a platform to launch an attack on the Australian Deputy Prime Minister is an utter disgrace! The New Zealand foreign minister was asked whether he thought I was correct in raising this issue, and the New Zealand foreign minister said, 'It's a perfectly reasonable reaction, given the fact that a New Zealand member of parliament from the New Zealand Labour Party, under influence from the Australian Labor Party, is asking questions clearly designed to remove a government member in Australia. That is the bigger problem here.'</para>
<para>It behoves the Labor Party not at all well for them to trivialise what is a serious issue. The New Zealand Prime Minister says it's a serious issue and the New Zealand foreign minister says it's a serious issue. The New Zealand Labour Party are furious that they were conned into unacceptable, inappropriate behaviour that was wrong and should never have happened. Shame, Labor!</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before I call the member for Melbourne, whose question it is next, I am not going to keep repeating myself about the level of noise. Members know precisely what they're doing. I will take more severe action if necessary. If members are going to behave in this fashion, frankly, they're snubbing their nose at the parliament, and I'm not going to put up with it.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Great Barrier Reef</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do have a question, but very briefly, on indulgence, I congratulate the Greens leadership of the Yarra Council in my electorate for doing something that will make a difference to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Melbourne.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Melbourne will come to his question or resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. During a recent debate about coal, climate change and the Great Barrier Reef in this chamber, one of your backbenchers, the member for Flynn, stated—and I quote from the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There's nothing wrong with the reef! I live on the reef!</para></quote>
<para>Will you condemn this assessment, or is it now the government's official position? Is this why you're happy for the Deputy Prime Minister to bankroll the Adani coalmine and make global warming worse, using the drug dealer's defence that, if we don't give other countries our products, someone else will? With Adani under investigation for fraudulently siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars into offshore tax havens, why are you leaving a legally questionable minister in charge of giving a legally questionable company a billion dollars of taxpayers' money?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the Minister for Health and Minister for Sport, I remind the member for Melbourne that you seek indulgence; you don't simply take it. But I will be lenient on this occasion. It is certainly not the worst bit of behaviour in the House today. I call the Minister for Health and Minister for Sport, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am delighted to take this question from the Greens today, because they sat there when they were in a partnership with a Labor government which saw the reef placed on the World Heritage in-danger watchlist. They sat there and did nothing!</para>
<para>So when we came to government, the reef was on the watchlist. And they were silent. They were complicit. They were inactive. They were passive. And they were part of a monumental failure of environmental policy on that side of the House.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Bandt interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. He's asked his question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just warming up. What happened on our watch? The reef was taken off the World Heritage watchlist. And what did the head of the World Heritage Committee say? They said that Australia, under our watch, was a role model to the world—Minister Maria Bohmer of Germany—as to how to manage a world heritage property. Why would that be? Because we inherited five major dredge disposal projects in that reef, and we ended them all. We banned capital dredge disposal in the barrier reef, which had been a practice for over 100 years and right through the Greens partnership with the ALP—silence, inaction and passivity on behalf of not just the Greens but their beloved ALP. These two parties are tied at the hip, and they are environmental frauds. Do you hear that? Environmental frauds! They had their chance. They had six long, painful years and did nothing.</para>
<para>We went a lot further though. We put $210 million into the Reef Trust. We're part of a $2 billion investment in the reef over the coming 10 years and this Prime Minister announced a billion-dollar Reef Fund in the lead-up to the election, which has now been put in place. That's what we did. That's why the World Heritage Committee took Australia off the watchlist for our management of the reef on our watch. But they put the reef on the watchlist under Labor and under the Greens. At the end of the day, Labor and the Greens are environmental frauds, and they failed on the reef.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of strong and consistent border protection measures? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question and his genuine interest in, like all members on this side of the parliament, making sure that we keep our borders strong. Thank you very much to the member for Tangney.</para>
<para>This was a big election issue at the last election and the one before that because all Australians, particularly in the modern age, recognise that we have to have strong borders. We cannot have people arriving without documentation, without any story about what country they have come from and the circumstances in which they have come. This country has been very poorly served over a long period of time by Labor governments that have undone successful policies in protecting our borders and allowing people to arrive here in the tens of thousands. We know, for example, that when Labor came into government in 2007 there were only four people in detention, including no children. Yet, under Labor's watch, when they dismantled the successful Liberal government policies of the Howard government, there were 50,000 people who came on 800 boats. There were 8,000 children put into detention, to the great shame of the Labor-Greens alliance. And there were 1,200 people who drowned at sea.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to inform the House that it is 1,116 days today since we have had a successful people-smuggling operation. We have turned back, as part of Operation Sovereign Borders, 31 boats and we have not had any deaths at sea. It's one of the crowning achievements of this government.</para>
<para>When you look at the Leader of the Opposition, you wonder why people don't believe him when it comes to this very issue. Why do people say, 'I don't think this Leader of the Opposition is genuine when he says that they will continue the policies of this government if they are elected at the next election'? I'll tell you why they don't believe this Leader of the Opposition, why they find that he is not a genuine person when it comes to the issue of border protection, and that's because when he was a leader within the union movement he donated $100,000 to the GetUp! movement. He can't find any documentation. He can't find approval for the donation. It comes on top of the $1 million that was donated by the CFMEU to GetUp!. What does GetUp! believe in? GetUp! believes in dismantling Operation Sovereign Borders. The GetUp! movement is a front for the Labor and Green movements in this country. The Leader of the Opposition is saying to the Australian public that's he's tough on borders at the same time as he's donating money to GetUp!, who are absolutely committed to dismantling our policies.</para>
<para>So, if the Australian public at the moment are asking themselves why in their heart of hearts they believe this Leader of the Opposition is duplicitous and can't be trusted, don't look at this man's words; look at his actions, because his actions over his working life have demonstrated that he is untrustworthy. He's been involved in every dodgy deal that his union was a party to and he is misrepresenting the Labor Party's position at the moment, because all of those behind him, as well as GetUp!, do not believe— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to inform the House we have joining us today in the chamber a delegation from the Parliament of Uruguay, led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Jose Carlos Mahia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you and to your delegation.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Yesterday, the foreign minister refused to accept that the conservative New Zealand internal affairs minister was telling the truth when he said it was media inquiries that prompted New Zealand's response on the Deputy Prime Minister's citizenship. On what basis did the foreign minister call the New Zealand internal affairs minister a liar?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding of the time line, as backed up by the foreign minister of New Zealand, is that it was the questions put on notice and raised in the New Zealand Parliament that sparked the New Zealand government to act—because the questions from the Fairfax media in fact do not give rise to an obligation on the part of the New Zealand government to answer. But as Senator Wong well knew, as her chief of staff well knew, it was raising questions in the parliament that put an obligation on the New Zealand government to act, and the New Zealand foreign minister has said that it was the questions on notice, the questions in the parliament, that sparked this incident, not the questions from the Australian media.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Registered Organisations, Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that leaders of unions and employer organisations always act in the best interests of their members? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Forrest for her question. The member for Forrest might like to know that the Leader of the Opposition has in fact been referred to the Registered Organisations Commission for his failure to provide evidence over the $100,000 donation that he gave to GetUp! in 2005, in start-up capital, that was not necessarily done in accordance with rule 57 of the AWU in getting proper authorisation.</para>
<para>Now, if the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to hide, minutes would have been produced which show that the necessary motions were passed. The Leader of the Opposition has yet again adopted the tactic that he always adopts, which is to simply stonewall anything unpleasant—whether it is about the union movement when he was the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, whether it is about the donations that he received from companies like Unibilt or AustralianSuper when he was the candidate for Maribyrnong. There's quite a charge sheet when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition not providing evidence to back up the assertions that he makes.</para>
<para>Yet again we see him being tricky and sneaky with the issue of undermining the relationship between Australia and New Zealand—a very important relationship. Until yesterday, the Labor Party were trying to pretend that they knew virtually nothing about what was going on in New Zealand with the questions that were being asked by a New Zealand Labour MP. They were trying to pretend these stories had come out of the Fairfax media. Then we discovered last night that Senator Wong tried to get the story out as late as possible in the day that in fact her chief of staff was the person who had initiated the questions in the New Zealand parliament.</para>
<para>Today, the member for Grayndler confirmed that, far from these being general questions about New Zealand citizenship rules, the conversation was about the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Quite specifically, he said so on FIVEaa radio this morning and a show with me. We discovered, in fact, that it was the chief of staff to the shadow minister for foreign affairs who was going through the bins in New Zealand, turning over leaves and rocks, looking for dirt on the Deputy Prime Minister. The foreign minister is absolutely right: this is a very serious matter. What the Australian Labor Party has been prepared to do is work with an opposition party of a foreign power, in New Zealand, to undermine the Australian government. Now, you hear all their faux laughter, led by the member for Isaacs. That's his job, as the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, but actually this is a serious matter, and the Leader of the Opposition has to answer for it. The leader of the Labour Party in New Zealand understands it: she said it was inappropriate conduct. Why isn't our Leader of the Opposition here strong enough to say the same thing? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Qualifications of Members</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister and it goes to the extraordinary conspiracy theories the government is advancing in the House as to why Labor is to blame for the government's crisis. Which of the following are Labor's fault? Is it Labor's fault the Leader of the House moved a motion on Monday to refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the High Court? Is it Labor's fault his—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tim Wilson</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not a conspiracy; you've admitted it!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Goldstein is preventing my hearing the question. He's warned. I've warned him a number of times. You know exactly what the next step is.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Champion interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was the member for Wakefield—a very familiar voice! You're warned too. The Manager of Opposition Business will begin his question again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister and it goes to the extraordinary conspiracy theories the government is advancing as to why Labor is to blame for the government's crisis. Which of the following are Labor's fault? Is it Labor's fault the Leader of the House moved a motion on Monday to refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the High Court? Is it Labor's fault his deputy yesterday admitted he was a citizen of a foreign power, right up until the weekend? Or is it Labor's fault that his deputy's father was born in New Zealand in 1924?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The standing orders are very clear about the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, and they don't go to the failures of the Labor Party.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House is right, and I suspect the Manager of Opposition Business knows that.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister inform the House how lower company tax rates will help grow the economy, create jobs and therefore assist Australians with their endeavour to get out of the welfare system and into work? What are the alternative approaches?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're taking your questions off you, Scott!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Rankin has been warned, so he can leave under 94(a). I remind members that I'll take more severe action if they keep interjecting.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Rankin then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Forde, because he shares this view: that the welfare goal for all governments is to create opportunity and improve individual lives by having more and more people each year moving off welfare and into work. Under six years of Labor, the year-on-year expenditure growth in unemployment benefits was an astonishing 13½ per cent. Under our government, the comparative figure has been 3.7 per cent a year. What that Labor figure represents, very sadly, was each year too many people were going onto Newstart and too few people were moving off the payment. Last financial year, our success has been underpinned by job creation. We created 240,000 jobs last year. The government has decreased taxes for 3.2 million small businesses that employ 6.5 million Australians. But, of course, I'm asked about alternatives. The alternative approach by members opposite is that the opposition wants to reverse tax cuts to small business. The formula is simple: competitive business equals more jobs growth equals less welfare dependency.</para>
<para>In the past, the single greatest supporter of that common sense policy proposition was the Leader of the Opposition. We have found a very interesting speech. It took some digging. In fact, we thought the member for Lilley's biography was hard to find, but this took some digging. This was truly a lost artefact. We went onto the Leader of the Opposition's website, and, mysteriously, the speech made days before this is there, available, clear and present, and the speech made days after this is there, available, clear and present. It took some digging to find this mysteriously missing speech, but we found it—we found it, members! In that big warehouse run by Indiana Jones, somewhere between the ark of the covenant and the crystal skull, we found it. We found the lost speech at ACOSS and no wonder it was so well hidden, because this is what it said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… reducing the corporate tax rate … is also an investment in the Australian people— including people who might now be on welfare …</para></quote>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition then specifically rejected an increase to the rate of Newstart, and what he says is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… what it fails to recognise is that we need to encourage employment participation, not greater welfare dependency.</para></quote>
<para>But it got even better, members, because the Leader of the Opposition then went on to give specific policy advice as to how to structure company tax cuts. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only … creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize.</para></quote>
<para>He then finished with a rhetorical flourish, when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Friends, corporate tax reform … creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.</para></quote>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Sukkar interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right. The member for Deakin. The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Qualifications of Members</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In her travels, the foreign minister has made it clear that she is able to have constructive meetings with the President of Iran, the President of Russia, and the President of the Philippines. How can the foreign minister claim any credibility or bring any professionalism to her job if we're meant to believe that she can work with Iran, Russia and the Philippines, but maybe not New Zealand?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, really! This is a question from a member of parliament who called Ariel Sharon a war criminal, and called the state of Israel a rogue state. She has no credibility whatsoever because she thinks Africa is a country. Not once, not twice, but three times she called Africa a country. What is the capital of Africa, again?</para>
<para>The fact is: the New Zealand Labour leader has now distanced herself from the Australian Labor Party. She has said that what Labour were asked to do—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Watts interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Husar interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Foreign Affairs will pause for a second. The member for Gellibrand and the member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The members for Gellibrand and Lindsay then left the chamber.</inline></para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney has been warned three times. She can leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney will leave immediately under 94(a).</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">The member for Sydney then left the chamber</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know how sensitive the member for Sydney is about being reminded of her faux pas in foreign affairs when she was the shadow minister. It was so embarrassing, she clearly had to be moved on. But the fact is that the New Zealand Labour Party leader has said that the incident in the New Zealand parliament—indeed, where the Australian Labor Party put them up to it—was wrong, it was unacceptable, it was inappropriate and it should never have happened. So why doesn't the leader of the Labor Party in Australia admit that what they sought to do, by putting the New Zealand Labour Party up to this stunt, was wrong, inappropriate, unacceptable and should never have happened? I accept, at her word, what the New Zealand Labour leader has said. What the Australian people should never accept is anything that comes out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat for a second. If members think I'm not going to keep removing them from the chamber or I won't take more severe action, they're sadly mistaken. I want them to know that, if they continue to interject, they are determining they will be excluded from the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tourism</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Murray</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the tourism industry to our economy and in creating jobs for hardworking Australians, especially those in regional communities? Is the minister aware of any threats to our vital tourism industry?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Murray for his question about the Australian tourism industry, because Australia's tourism industry is flourishing under the coalition government. We've got a record number of tourists staying for a record length of time and spending a record amount of money—no doubt buoyed by the fact that the coalition are providing record funding for Tourism Australia. We're doing so because we recognise the importance of Australia's tourism industry. It generated some $39.8 billion worth of export income over the 262 million nights that international tourists spent in Australia during the last year. In particular, we are very focused on the benefits that flow to regional parts of Australia off the back of tourism. In fact, in the member for Murray's electorate some 3,029 people are employed directly in the tourism industry across some 1,500 tourism businesses.</para>
<para>The coalition take tourism seriously, and we recognise the value of the industry. But we do unfortunately see from time to time some threats not only to Australia's tourism industry but to tourism across the board. Right now, with 45c in every dollar of tourism spending going into regional parts of the country, we want to make sure that that continues. But when we look around the world, we do see threats, and in particular we have seen in Europe the rise of some anti-tourism and other protests taking place. We have seen examples of where extremist groups have been pushing for people to slash the tyres of tourism buses, and to slash, for example, the bikes that tourists can hire, as a pushback against tourism. These actions have been labelled as extremist. But what we see in this country are supportive measures that are made for these kinds of extreme protests.</para>
<para>We've seen the head of the ACTU, Ged Kearney, tweeting in support of these protesters against the tourism industry, and the reason that's important, the reason why we need to be very aware of the impact of these extremist elements of the trade union movement, is that the trade union movement basically owns the Australian Labor Party. There are 10 million reasons why the Australian Labor Party consistently listens to the views of the Australian union movement, and that reason is that it is the unions who pay the bills. We need to know that Australia's tourism industry simply won't be safe or protected if extreme examples of Australia's union movement are supporting these kinds of activities against the tourism industry. We know fundamentally that the Leader of the Opposition says, as Labor leader, 'I still think like a union organiser.' We need look no further than his activities as Leader of the Opposition to see the character of this man. As Leader of the Opposition, he has done a whole range of things to sell out people to get ahead. He sold out Kevin Rudd, he sold out Julia Gillard, he is prepared to sell out the mining workers of Australia by taking money from the AWU, he'll sell out union members for Cleanevent and he'll sell out Australia's national interests to work with the New Zealand Labour Party. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Qualifications of Members</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<para>That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on Monday, this House unanimously asked the High Court to determine whether the Deputy Prime Minister is constitutionally qualified to be a Member of Parliament;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted he had been a citizen of a foreign power right up until the weekend;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) former Minister Matt Canavan has resigned from Cabinet and will not vote in the Senate until the High Court resolves doubts about his constitutional qualifications to be a Member of Parliament;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) yesterday, the Foreign Minister refused to accept that the conservative New Zealand Internal Affairs Minister was telling the truth; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) this morning, on Sky News, the Foreign Minister refused to answer whether she could now work with a future New Zealand Government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) stop trashing Australia's international relations in order to distract from the crisis the Government is facing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) rule out accepting the vote of the Deputy Prime Minister while his constitutional qualifications are in doubt; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) direct the Deputy Prime Minister to immediately resign from Cabinet.</para></quote>
<para>It is national joke day, and they have delivered. We are watching an illegitimate government—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is only so much faux outrage I can put up with in one week. I therefore move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the member be no longer heard.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [14:59]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>72</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                <name>Banks, J</name>
                <name>Bishop, JI</name>
                <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                <name>Chester, D</name>
                <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                <name>Coulton, M</name>
                <name>Crewther, CJ</name>
                <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                <name>Evans, TM</name>
                <name>Falinski, J</name>
                <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                <name>Gee, AR</name>
                <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                <name>Keenan, M</name>
                <name>Kelly, C</name>
                <name>Laming, A</name>
                <name>Landry, ML</name>
                <name>Laundy, C</name>
                <name>Leeser, J</name>
                <name>Ley, SP</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                <name>Marino, NB</name>
                <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                <name>McVeigh, JJ</name>
                <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                <name>Morton, B</name>
                <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                <name>Pasin, A</name>
                <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                <name>Porter, CC</name>
                <name>Prentice, J</name>
                <name>Price, ML</name>
                <name>Pyne, CM</name>
                <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                <name>Robert, SR</name>
                <name>Sudmalis, AE</name>
                <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                <name>Turnbull, MB</name>
                <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                <name>Wood, JP</name>
                <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>64</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                <name>Aly, A</name>
                <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                <name>Bird, SL</name>
                <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                <name>Brodtmann, G</name>
                <name>Burke, AS</name>
                <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                <name>Butler, MC</name>
                <name>Butler, TM</name>
                <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                <name>Champion, ND</name>
                <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                <name>Clare, JD</name>
                <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                <name>Collins, JM</name>
                <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                <name>Danby, M</name>
                <name>Dick, MD</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                <name>Feeney, D</name>
                <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                <name>Georganas, S</name>
                <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                <name>Hammond, TJ</name>
                <name>Hart, RA</name>
                <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                <name>Hill, JC</name>
                <name>Husic, EN</name>
                <name>Jones, SP</name>
                <name>Katter, RC</name>
                <name>Keay, JT</name>
                <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                <name>Khalil, P</name>
                <name>King, CF</name>
                <name>King, MMH</name>
                <name>Lamb, S</name>
                <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                <name>Macklin, JL</name>
                <name>Marles, RD</name>
                <name>McBride, EM</name>
                <name>McGowan, C</name>
                <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                <name>Owens, JA</name>
                <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                <name>Stanley, AM</name>
                <name>Swan, WM</name>
                <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                <name>Zappia, A</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion. 'Barnaby-gate' has now infected the whole of this—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As much as we are enjoying the member for Hunter's contributions this week, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the member be no longer heard.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the member for Hunter be no longer heard. Again, members need to remain in their seats unless they are changing their vote or did not vote in the previous division, in which case they must report to the tellers.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:06]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>72</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                <name>Banks, J</name>
                <name>Bishop, JI</name>
                <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                <name>Chester, D</name>
                <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                <name>Coulton, M</name>
                <name>Crewther, CJ</name>
                <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                <name>Evans, TM</name>
                <name>Falinski, J</name>
                <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                <name>Gee, AR</name>
                <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                <name>Keenan, M</name>
                <name>Kelly, C</name>
                <name>Laming, A</name>
                <name>Landry, ML</name>
                <name>Laundy, C</name>
                <name>Leeser, J</name>
                <name>Ley, SP</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                <name>Marino, NB</name>
                <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                <name>McVeigh, JJ</name>
                <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                <name>Morton, B</name>
                <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                <name>Pasin, A</name>
                <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                <name>Porter, CC</name>
                <name>Prentice, J</name>
                <name>Price, ML</name>
                <name>Pyne, CM</name>
                <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                <name>Robert, SR</name>
                <name>Sudmalis, AE</name>
                <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                <name>Turnbull, MB</name>
                <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                <name>Wood, JP</name>
                <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>64</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                <name>Aly, A</name>
                <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                <name>Bird, SL</name>
                <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                <name>Brodtmann, G</name>
                <name>Burke, AS</name>
                <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                <name>Butler, MC</name>
                <name>Butler, TM</name>
                <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                <name>Champion, ND</name>
                <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                <name>Clare, JD</name>
                <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                <name>Collins, JM</name>
                <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                <name>Danby, M</name>
                <name>Dick, MD</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                <name>Feeney, D</name>
                <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                <name>Georganas, S</name>
                <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                <name>Hammond, TJ</name>
                <name>Hart, RA</name>
                <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                <name>Hill, JC</name>
                <name>Husic, EN</name>
                <name>Jones, SP</name>
                <name>Katter, RC</name>
                <name>Keay, JT</name>
                <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                <name>Khalil, P</name>
                <name>King, CF</name>
                <name>King, MMH</name>
                <name>Lamb, S</name>
                <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                <name>Macklin, JL</name>
                <name>Marles, RD</name>
                <name>McBride, EM</name>
                <name>McGowan, C</name>
                <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                <name>Owens, JA</name>
                <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                <name>Stanley, AM</name>
                <name>Swan, WM</name>
                <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                <name>Zappia, A</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:08]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>61</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                <name>Aly, A</name>
                <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                <name>Bird, SL</name>
                <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                <name>Brodtmann, G</name>
                <name>Burke, AS</name>
                <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                <name>Butler, MC</name>
                <name>Butler, TM</name>
                <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                <name>Champion, ND</name>
                <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                <name>Clare, JD</name>
                <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                <name>Collins, JM</name>
                <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                <name>Danby, M</name>
                <name>Dick, MD</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                <name>Feeney, D</name>
                <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                <name>Georganas, S</name>
                <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                <name>Hammond, TJ</name>
                <name>Hart, RA</name>
                <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                <name>Hill, JC</name>
                <name>Husic, EN</name>
                <name>Jones, SP</name>
                <name>Katter, RC</name>
                <name>Keay, JT</name>
                <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                <name>Khalil, P</name>
                <name>King, CF</name>
                <name>King, MMH</name>
                <name>Lamb, S</name>
                <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                <name>Macklin, JL</name>
                <name>Marles, RD</name>
                <name>McBride, EM</name>
                <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                <name>Owens, JA</name>
                <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                <name>Stanley, AM</name>
                <name>Swan, WM</name>
                <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                <name>Zappia, A</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>72</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                <name>Banks, J</name>
                <name>Bishop, JI</name>
                <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                <name>Chester, D</name>
                <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                <name>Coulton, M</name>
                <name>Crewther, CJ</name>
                <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                <name>Dutton, PC</name>
                <name>Evans, TM</name>
                <name>Falinski, J</name>
                <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                <name>Gee, AR</name>
                <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                <name>Keenan, M</name>
                <name>Kelly, C</name>
                <name>Laming, A</name>
                <name>Landry, ML</name>
                <name>Laundy, C</name>
                <name>Leeser, J</name>
                <name>Ley, SP</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                <name>Marino, NB</name>
                <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                <name>McVeigh, JJ</name>
                <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                <name>Morton, B</name>
                <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                <name>Pasin, A</name>
                <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                <name>Porter, CC</name>
                <name>Prentice, J</name>
                <name>Price, ML</name>
                <name>Pyne, CM</name>
                <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                <name>Robert, SR</name>
                <name>Sudmalis, AE</name>
                <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                <name>Turnbull, MB</name>
                <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                <name>Wood, JP</name>
                <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government hurting Australians by undermining Medicare.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Going around our communities, we get a lot of feedback about the government. One of the more common questions I hear is: can the Turnbull government get any worse? Obviously, the government has heard this too because this week they've actually taken up the challenge. Just when we thought that they couldn't get any worse, this week, of course, they have. Just when we thought they couldn't be any more chaotic, they are. And, just when we thought this government couldn't get any more dysfunctional and useless, they've rewritten the record.</para>
<para>The behaviour we've seen this week is a new low from a very desperate government—a government lacking integrity and a government that knows that they have an active threat to their legitimacy and a question mark on their majority. But, let's be honest, this chaos isn't anything new. This week has simply added a new chapter—a unique new chapter, I'd have to say—to this government's ongoing record of dysfunction. But the worst part is that, while they are so focused on themselves and their own fortunes, our communities will be paying the price not only today but also for years and years because of policy decisions that have put them and their families last.</para>
<para>This government have only ever cared about themselves, and there is no better example than when it comes to health and to our Medicare system. Every time someone in our community needs to see a GP, every time someone needs to visit a public hospital and every time someone needs to visit a specialist, they are bearing the brunt of this government's continued harsh and unfair health cuts. The government likes to put on a bit of an act and pretend like it's all been fixed, there's nothing to see here anymore and they're committed to Medicare, but there's a very, very simple test—a test that tells the true story about this government's complete neglect of Medicare. Have they dropped all of their unfair cuts that they're making to health that make it less accessible and less affordable for every Australian? Have they dropped every single one of their cuts? The answer, of course, is: no, they have not.</para>
<para>I know that the minister's a bit of a name dropper, and he puts on a bit of an act that he's the superhero in health, but he knows, we know and our constituents know that this is absolute rubbish. The damage done by the government's attacks on Medicare is continuing every day across the country, whether it is in the GP clinics, in the public hospitals or in relation to public dental. People are paying the price for this government's neglect of Medicare, whether it's in waiting times blowing out or the hit to their hip pocket going up every time under this government.</para>
<para>I'd like to particularly focus on dental in this contribution today because it's one of the best examples of why this government can't be trusted when it comes to the health of this nation. If you're looking for more evidence that, when it comes to health, there is nothing that the Prime Minister won't destroy, public dental is an absolute prime example. These are basic dental services that are provided for some of our society's most vulnerable Australians, and they are particularly important because we know that access to dental services is one of the biggest markers of health inequality and, in turn, economic inequality more generally. The most recent statistics from the Bureau of Statistics show that people living in areas of least socioeconomic disadvantage were significantly more likely to see a dental professional than those living in areas of most disadvantage. People living in the areas of most socioeconomic disadvantage were twice as likely to delay seeing or not see a dental professional due to cost compared with those living in areas of least disadvantage.</para>
<para>One study of inequality in oral health in Australia found that the number of middle-aged adults with fewer than 21 teeth was seven times higher in the lowest than in the highest income quartile. That's why the last federal Labor government budgeted $391 million a year for adult public dental services. But the Turnbull government has cut this funding time and time again, with total cuts of around $300 million a year. As a result, every year, more than 300,000 Australians will miss out on critical public dental services. This is a cut that is in addition to the Prime Minister's attempt to abolish the Child Dental Benefits Schedule—a separate program that provides dental care to eligible children. Let me repeat that: that's a program that, in fact, provides basic dental care to children, and this government tried to abolish it. Labor blocked that cut in the parliament, but the adult program is not protected by legislation.</para>
<para>To show you just how damaging this cut is, in an extraordinary step six states and territories recently wrote to this health minister to highlight the disastrous impact of the Turnbull government's latest cuts to dental funding. They were united. This is a major cut to the provision of public dental care across the country. The letter called out the severe funding cut and significant reduction in the level of Commonwealth investment in a national partnership agreement on adult public dental care. This agreement is meant to support the provision of dental care to vulnerable Australians, but the state's letter makes clear that these cuts will lead to fewer people being seen and longer waiting times for dental treatments. And new figures from the department show just how long people are waiting for the dental care that they need. The average wait time across all states and territories is 14 months—and that, of course, is the average; in the Northern Territory it is a staggering 45 months. That's almost four years to get public dental help.</para>
<para>There are more than 409,000 Australians in this situation, on these waiting lists across the country. And how much money did the government allocate in the budget to actually fix the existing waiting lists? Nothing. In fact, they locked in their cuts, which will only make the situation worse. And of course these have come on top of all the cuts across the system that this government has banked in its savings policies. The vulnerable people in this situation are being burnt by the government's cuts. The Medicare freeze will be in place for years to come, with GP items to manage chronic disease, treat pregnant women and undertake mental health assessments frozen until 2020—still banking $2.2 billion of savings cut out of patient rebates. Specialist consultations and procedures continue to be frozen, hitting the 40 per cent of Australians who need to see a GP each year, including some of our sickest and most vulnerable people.</para>
<para>And there has been the abandonment of public hospitals, pushing them to breaking point. We are seeing that across the country—people with higher needs ending up in our emergency departments and unable to access the care they need because of funding cuts by this government. That is the story the government won't admit when it comes to Medicare, our universal health insurance system. It is the story of how they are making it harder for Australians to get the health care they need. This is the story of how health inequality is only getting worse under this government when they continue to put themselves first when it comes to the health care of this nation.</para>
<para>There is another matter I want to raise when it comes to our healthcare system that we've seen today and that I've been incredibly disappointed to see the minister's response on, and that is the issue of vaccination. Whilst we commend the government on the small amount of money it has contributed to running a vaccination campaign, today, again, we have seen One Nation make a statement around antivaccination—Senator Burston, obviously backing in Senator Hanson's previous comments. We have seen again from this government a failure to condemn One Nation for its comments. This is a significant issue. We have a leadership responsibility in this place to ensure that what we say from the platforms of this place is critically important. But in this circumstance we have seen that this government has created a platform for One Nation to continue to spread its misinformation about vaccination. I ask the minister in his contribution to say the words, 'I condemn One Nation's antivaccination comments.' That's what I ask you to say—exactly those words: 'I condemn One Nation for their antivaccination misinformation.' That's what you need to do. I know you've tweeted that you don't agree with antivaxxers; I want you to say that you don't agree with One Nation antivaxxers, because they are the people in this parliament who are using the platform you have given them to actually spruik this misinformation.</para>
<para>It is critically important that we make sure that the message is out loud and clear that we do not support One Nation's comments about vaccination. And I know the minister's embarrassed, because he knows they've done a deal with One Nation on these media reforms in the Senate and they don't want to offend them by saying those words. But I ask him to do that, because it is critically important that we get the message out to parents, even those who voted for One Nation, that on this issue they are wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor aren't just environmental frauds; they are 'Medifrauds', because when they were in government they took an axe to Medicare and they took an axe to many different parts of our hospital system. Most significantly, and this is the greatest point of shame, they deliberately ignored the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and refused to list seven significant drugs, including drugs for lung conditions and schizophrenia. This is an issue that should be a source of absolute and abiding shame for people who claim that they believe in Medicare. When they were in charge, when it was their watch and they were in the role, they failed on every possible front.</para>
<para>Let me run through a series of things. They cut Medicare for GPs by $664 million. We are still feeling the effects of that. They cut pathology Medicare payments by $500 million. They cut the Medicare safety nets by $450 million. They cut a billion dollars—and this is the fascinating thing—from dental care. We just heard a great peroration about the importance of dental care. One of the first things I did was to add $163 million to the dental budget to lift the Child Dental Benefits Schedule from $700 to $1,000. It was one of the very first things that I did—on my watch, in my time, as my responsibility.</para>
<para>What did Labor do? They axed the chronic disease dental care system. And why did they axe the chronic disease dental care system? Because demand was too great—too many people were accessing a form of public dental care. A billion dollars was being rorted! People with broken teeth, with damaged gums, with diseased mouths—these were the people who were rorting it. So they slashed a billion dollars from dental care and dental schemes, and, in particular, from the most vulnerable, the most at risk, and those suffering the most with chronic disease. And Labor say they are smart on dental care? This is the last place I would go if I were the Labor Party—at least out of a sense of decency if not a sense of shame.</para>
<para>But it was worse than that, because they also cut $2½ billion from medicines and delayed seven critical drugs—something that we will not do in our time. Our commitment is to honour and implement the PBAC decisions, which is precisely why we will follow the advice of the independent medical bodies, and why we struck and agreement with Medicines Australia to reinvest every dollar that we were able to secure by having statutory price reductions. That is why we have been able to list drugs such as Opdivo, a drug which was a $1.1 billion investment in reducing lung cancer and renal cancer.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Madeleine King interjecting —</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>These statistics, as you call them, are human lives. Do you think we should, perhaps, not have listed Opdivo? The PBAC is an independent body, and we honour it. You denounced it, you rejected it and you dishonoured it. That is the second point of enormous shame on the ALP's side.</para>
<para>Epclusa is another extraordinary drug. You would not know, generally, that 800 people a year lose their lives to hep C. Those 800 people will now have a real shot at life with the listing of Epclusa. Epclusa helps up to 200,000 people in Australia who suffer from hep C. It covers all the strains of hep C, and, on our watch, we are bringing this in. Most significantly, perhaps of all of the different drugs we have been able to list, this one has an extraordinary outcome: it doesn't just treat; based on all of the medical advice, it is likely to cure 90 per cent of those who suffer from hep C. With 800 deaths a year, we are talking about, potentially, 700-plus lives. That is real medicine, delivering results for 200,000 Australians—and for all of their families and friends. There would barely be an Australian who doesn't know somebody with hepatitis C. In particular, it has an impact in so many different Indigenous communities. This is what medicine is about. This is what managing the health system is about. That is what you should do as a government, not delay seven fundamental medicines that, as advised by the independent medical authorities, should be listed.</para>
<para>Perhaps most significantly, Labor didn't just take an axe to the private health insurance system; they took a chainsaw to it. What did they say before they came into power? I will quote the former member for Gellibrand. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the … Private Health Insurance rebates …</para></quote>
<para>In government they took an axe to the private health insurance rebate. They saved $4 billion. They slashed $4 billion from the private health insurance rebate.</para>
<para>Here is what the member for Sydney said after they left government:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How did I pay for it? I paid for it by targeting private health insurance …</para></quote>
<para>What does that mean? It means that when they next run for office they'll make noises about the fact that they like private health insurance, they want to do something about private health insurance, they'll protect private health insurance. But do you know what they'll do? They will slash it again. Why does that matter? Because if you slash private health insurance support you undermine the ability of Australians right around Australia to access private health insurance, and if you do that you put the private hospital system at risk. If you do that you put the public hospital system waiting list at risk. Waiting lists blow out. They are the real consequences of an alternative view which doesn't value the Australian healthcare system, with its public hospitals that are some of the best in the world, with its private hospitals that are some of the best in the world, and with a private healthcare system that provides an extraordinary balance.</para>
<para>Those opposite hate private health insurance. Let me repeat that: Labor hate private health insurance. How do we know that? Because when they were last in government that's what they did. That was the reality.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Catherine King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am happy to say I love the private healthcare system. I do believe in private insurance, and we have protected it. By contrast, what are we doing? We are seeing Medicare funding increase every year, from $23 billion to $24 million to $26 billion to $28 billion. That's the reality of what's occurring on our watch, in our time. We are seeing hospital funding increase from $19 billion to $20 billion to $21 billion to $22 billion—each year, every year.</para>
<para>But I do want to deal with what our friends on the other side say in relation to hospitals. They talked for a long while about $57 billion, and people could have been forgiven for believing that they would go to the election with a $57 billion increase. But they took to the election only a $2 billion increase—a $55 billion shortfall. Out of $57 billion there was a $55 billion black hole on hospitals. Do you know what is interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker? That is a four per cent success or a 96 per cent failure. Anywhere in the country, four per cent out of 100 per cent is a failure—unless, of course, you happen to be filling in an HSU workplace health and safety survey for a few friends.</para>
<para>Most significantly, by contrast we have put in $7.7 billion of extra funding in the lead-up to and since the election—real funding increases which are seeing real projects being built right around the country. That is what we have done. Those opposite have a $55 billion black hole, which either they are not going to fill, as they didn't last time, or they were fibbing right the way through.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Catherine King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here's a question: are you going to add $55 billion next time? The simple answer is: they're not. At the end of the day, what is occurring? We are making sure that Medicare is guaranteed. We have struck agreements with the AMA, the GPs and the Pharmacy Guild, and we have also struck agreements with Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association, the first time in Australian history that any government has had agreements with all of those bodies at the same time. When it comes right down to it, we have 'medifriends' on this side and 'medifrauds' on that side. If they ever get the chance again they will destroy private health. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para class="italic">Ms Catherine King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Ballarat will not continue interjecting like this for the rest of the MPI.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No matter how hard the minister tries, Australians don't trust the Turnbull government with the future of Medicare. They have good reason not to. The track record of the coalition when it comes to Medicare is appalling. The coalition government has never, ever been committed to Medicare. It began with the coalition government tearing it down at their first opportunity when they came to government after the 1975 election. The only reason this government has not done even more to dismantle Medicare is that they know that the Australian people are watching every move they make. They know that the Australian people voted very clearly in the last election to preserve and safeguard the future of Medicare.</para>
<para>But nothing more undermines Medicare than the government funding cuts to public hospitals, to public dental services and to the MBS rebates. Every time public funding is cut, more of the costs are transferred onto the patient or onto the health professional that is providing the services. And that undermines the universal healthcare system that this country is very proud of. We have a healthcare system that stands amongst the best in the world because it was brought in by Labor and because we have standards that we've been able to meet for decades. When the public health system is under stress, it is the people that are already struggling, the people that are facing hardship, the people that already have chronic illnesses, the people who are already disadvantaged who will suffer the most.</para>
<para>With respect to the Medicare freeze that this government claims it has now lifted, it is the slow thawing of the freeze. We know full well from the government's own documents and from their statements that it's only children and concession card holders that benefit from that thawing of the freeze this year. The GPs and specialists freeze isn't lifted for another 12 months. The specialist procedures and allied health providers freeze comes off in 2019, and only certain diagnostic services will have the freeze lifted in 2020. That means that for some of these providers the freeze has been in place for up to six years and in some cases will continue.</para>
<para>As the shadow minister has pointed out, people who suffer from illnesses like asthma and diabetes, or pregnant woman or those who recently have had a baby, will not be covered by the lifting of the Medicare freeze. Indeed, we have some 300,000 women a year or more who not only have to pay for the direct medical costs but, as we all know, incur additional costs at the time of having a baby that are subject to this freeze. That is because the government is indirectly—in fact, directly—cutting billions of dollars of services as a result of continuing the freeze.</para>
<para>The savings to government that arise from the freeze continuing run into billions of dollars, and those billions of dollars in costs are being transferred to the patients and perhaps, in some cases, to the professionals who are prepared to wear them. The average increase for a service across the country as a result of maintaining the freeze is now over $7 since this government came to office. What it means is people either do not go to see their doctor or they go to the outpatients of the public hospital, in turn putting more pressure on the public hospital services. Not surprisingly, those public hospital services are now being stressed out more than ever before, with elective surgery waiting lists now blowing out to 14 months or more, and so on.</para>
<para>With respect to the $300 million of dental cuts, the reality is that every time a person does not go to the dentist because they can't afford it and have to wait over a year to get public treatment, it affects the rest of their health. So in turn there are other health costs that the nation wears because the government foolishly cuts a service that could have avoided those costs.</para>
<para>The last comment I want to make is about how the government's cuts are affecting people in regional and rural Australia, where people are already at a disadvantage for a whole host of reasons and where most of our poorer people live. If you look at the stats, it's the regional and remote areas where some of the lowest-income people in this country live. For them, the cuts mean even more disadvantage, because the health providers simply cannot continue to provide them, and so their disadvantage is in fact exacerbated.</para>
<para>This is a government that continues to hurt Australians because it continues to undermine the very health services that Australians rely on, and they are the Medicare services that this country has provided for years. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Really, Mr Speaker, they have a hide to talk about us and cuts to Medicare. I think they pulled this out of the bottom drawer. It was a quiet day today. All the other issues of the day don't seem to be cutting the mustard anymore, so they think, 'We'll wheel out Medicare cuts.' You just have to look at the record of the other side, the Labor Party, when they were last in government. There were cuts everywhere. If Medicare and the health system were a patient, they'd still be bleeding in the recovery ward. There were cuts everywhere—death by a thousand cuts.</para>
<para>Look at the dental issue under the former Labor government. They got rid of the chronic dental disease program. That's a billion dollars in itself. In pathology, they cut another $500 million. Medicare payments to GPs were cut by over $600 million. There was the freeze. Who introduced the freeze? It was the Labor Party. If you look at what they cut out of pharmacy, Mr Speaker—it's unbelievable, the chutzpah of the people on the other side who talk about cuts—it was $2.5 billion out of pharmaceutical benefits, let alone blocking Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommendations in cabinet to save money. Then there was the major haemorrhage to private health insurance, which gives so many people access to hospital care because they're on waiting lists for public hospitals; it gives them control over their health.</para>
<para>So, I am certain that, if we put these people back in charge of the health system, they would be back to saying one thing but then delivering another. We in the coalition government have a wonderful record in the Health portfolio. We have supported the four pillars of the health system. With the Medicare benefits schedule, we have started unfreezing the Medicare freeze with a bulk-billing incentive first, then GP rates, then speciality rates and then radiology and diagnostic things down the track. We have put extra money into the pharmaceutical benefits by getting a better, cheaper deal out of the big pharmaceutical providers for the old, cheaper drugs—we got a better deal for them—and we're putting it in the front end so we can get all the wonderful new drugs. You've only got to look at what we have on record: 1,400 new drugs, including all the wonderful drugs for hepatitis C. That is 200,000 people who can now be cured rather than getting cirrhosis and cancers. Look at cancers for kidney, ovary, lung—you name it—renal cancers, the latest announcement of a new drug for chronic lymphatic leukaemia, a common blood malignancy. They all have to be paid for. They're very expensive and we on the coalition side have managed things and got a good deal and have an ongoing funding stream for pharmaceutical benefits and the new drugs that everyone clamours for.</para>
<para>Heart failure—there's another one: hundreds of thousands of people suffer from it, and Entresto is now on the PBS. They talk about cuts to public hospitals. Really, it is just a joke. They say one thing. They're trading off their record from Gough Whitlam's days. They talk up their book, but really what they did in the last government was really disappointing. Public hospitals since 2013 have 64 per cent more funding from the Liberal-Nationals coalition governments. That's another $2.8 billion just in the 2017-18 year, or $7.7 billion since 2016. That's a massive increase: 64½ per cent. And the list goes on.</para>
<para>So we're defrosting the Medicare freeze in a stage fashion. That is how people manage things well. We have the runs on the board. We are delivering in spades for health. It's well managed. We have extra money in childhood cancer treatment. We have extra money for mental health. The huge burden of mental health hasn't been addressed as well as it has with the recent appointment of the member for Flinders as health minister. He realises that the mental health burden in Australia is huge, and we are directing appropriate funds to address that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an astonishing week in politics it's been. First off, we have a Deputy Prime Minister whose legitimacy is currently completely under a cloud. This House has had to refer the case of the Deputy Prime Minister to the High Court to see if he legitimately can sit in this House. We've had the foreign minister creating her own diplomatic incident this week—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Price interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm coming back to health, don't you worry, Member for Durack. I have health firmly in my sights. But these are desperate times for a desperate government. Remember that look of desperation on Malcolm Turnbull's face on election night when he nearly lost?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Newcastle—order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're quite right, Deputy Speaker. He is the Prime Minister, at least for now. He stood before the Australian people. A very distressed Prime Minister, he was—a man with a 'majority of just one, looking really nervous.' He stood in front of the cameras and said, 'I've learnt my lesson about Medicare. Hands off Medicare. I know what we've done is beyond the pale.' Let's face it: if we examined the record of members opposite on Medicare, we'd reveal a truly scary story. It's a 40-year story of ongoing attacks on and undermining of Medicare since day one. It's in the Liberals' DNA. You can't help yourself. And you wonder why Australian men and women don't trust you when it comes to health. Let's just remember why. When—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Newcastle—order! The member for Newcastle will address her remarks through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Quite right. I am pointing out that it is of little surprise that the Australian people do not trust the government when it comes to Medicare or health in general in this country. It's of no surprise. We heard earlier the minister congratulating himself for the release of a whole series of new drugs on the PBS. There's no argument on this side of the House whatsoever. You know what? We actually think it's the job of the Minister for Health to find ways to get new drugs, much-needed medications, onto the PBS list. It's a measure we wholeheartedly support, but we say that that's actually the job of the Minister for Health. So good on you for doing your job.</para>
<para>What we on this side of the House, however, are concerned about is the government's continuing undermining of Australia's universal health system. The member for Macarthur and I have had the extraordinary pleasure of talking with Australian men and women across the country as part of Labor's Medicare task force. Everywhere we go we hear the lived reality of Australian men and women struggling to access quality health care in Australia. We know about the impact of out-of-pocket expenses for Australian men and women. We know, for example, as the speaker before me rightly mentioned, about what I'd call the partial defrost that's going on at the moment—the Medicare slow thaw. Much to the horror of many Australians who were, at first blush, delighted to think that the government had had a change of heart, that they were going to back off having learned their lesson on Medicare, when they tried to actually take advantage of the changes, tried to find and access bulk-billing, they were disappointed. They found, very early in the piece, that if you're a woman—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Littleproud interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Maranoa, you're not a woman, but if you had any experience of trying to get a Pap smear test done in Australia, for example, you would find out, very quickly, that you don't get to bulk-bill your Pap smear test. Now, you might think that 50 per cent of this nation's population don't deserve—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Littleproud interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Maranoa, keep quiet.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What have you got against women, Member for Maranoa? Really! This is simply one more example. Out-of-pocket expenses, limited access to bulk-billing doctors and GPs in Australia, cuts to the public dental health scheme—all of these things undermine Australia's universal health care. Labor created Medicare. It is Labor that will always protect Medicare. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Berowra, I remind the member for Maranoa that he will be getting his turn shortly. Until then he'll remain silent. I call the member for Berowra.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor is hypocritical on health policy. We all remember Labor's campaign launch last year, where, in a zombie voice, the Leader of the Opposition called on Australians to save Medicare. When the zombie voice comes out, the fake news follows. He scared millions of Australians. He is the best friend 'Mediscare' ever had. Labor's announcement at the last election had all the genuineness of a Milli Vanilli single. It had all the truth of the Ern Malley hoax.</para>
<para>It's one thing to disagree with the government's policy; it's another thing to completely make it up. That's what the Leader of the Opposition did with his fractured fairytale that was Mediscare. The 2017 budget put $94.2 billion into health care, with the Medicare Guarantee Fund being established to secure the ongoing funding of the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, guaranteeing access to those services. We provided for the Medicare levy, paid into the fund, topped up by personal income tax, to continue the MBS and the PBS. Medicare represents $1 in $3 of the healthcare budget, and it's increasing every single year.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Hill interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Ballarat for introducing this MPI. It is the perfect opportunity to dissect the utter hypocrisy of the opposition on this and many other fronts. In his budget reply speech just a few months ago, the Leader of the Opposition stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">And a Labor budget will always protect Medicare. This means reversing the unfair Medicare freeze immediately.</para></quote>
<para>I know economics isn't the strong suit of those opposite, but let me give them a bit of a history lesson on this matter. This is the freeze that was implemented by the Labor Party. The Medicare freeze was Labor's freeze. The member for Sydney is the architect of the freeze. The Turnbull government has removed Labor's Medicare freeze. We restored the indexation of the Medicare rebate in the 2017 budget, starting with bulk-billing incentives from 1 July this year, including the retention of incentives for pathology, diagnostic imaging, blood tests, X-rays, scans and pap smears. And from 1 July 2020 we're introducing, for the first time in 15 years, indexation for targeted diagnostic imaging, including mammography, fluoroscopy, CT scans and intervention procedures. Under the current government GP bulk-billing is at record levels. Under Labor it was at 81.9 per cent and under the Turnbull government it's at 85.4 per cent. So all the Mediscare talk is completely wrong. Bulk-billing is going up and up. This means more Australians are able to visit the doctor without having to reach into their pocket. But freezing Medicare was just the tip of the iceberg for Labor's poor record on health care.</para>
<para>When they were last in government, the Labor Party took a scalpel to the health budget, with surgeon-like precision. We had a lecture from the member for Ballarat about dental care. Labor cut $1 billion from Medicare for dental, and means tested it as well. Labor cut half a billion dollars from Medicare for pathology. Labor cut $664 million from Medicare for GPs. Labor cut $450 million from the Medicare safety net protections. Labor cut $2½ billion from pharmacy and medicines.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Catherine King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Ballarat is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor blocked access to life-saving medicines. Labor cut $4 billion from the private health insurance rebate for consumers and means tested it. Not only are we ending the Medicare freeze implemented by the opposition but we have increased funding for Medicare. We're investing an additional $2.4 billion in Medicare over the next four years, and spending on Medicare is increasing every year, from $23.7 billion in 2017-18 to $27.9 billion in 2020-21. The government is also reducing the cost of medicines by $1.8 billion over five years to make medicines more affordable for ordinary Australians.</para>
<para>While we're thinking about Medicare, I thought it was also worthwhile mentioning the NDIS. The NDIS is being funded by an increase of 0.5 per cent to the Medicare levy. This is actually properly funding the NDIS where Labor left a big black hole and, potentially, disadvantaged some of the most disadvantaged Australians in our community. That's how they treat disadvantaged people—by leaving a big black hole. We on our side of the House make sure that our programs are properly funded, and that's why we've increased the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent to guarantee the NDIS into the future. The government is securing the future of Medicare with a strong, stable Medicare with more funding and more bulk-billing, and with the protection of Medicare.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I think I've just about heard everything. We've heard a lot of fake news, we've heard the alt-right and alt-left, and now we've got alt-Medicare. That's what we've dealt with today. We know the government is in chaos and we know there is yet another crisis engulfing this government. But whilst they play the hunger games on that side of the parliament, ripping each other apart, we know that the community has been abandoned by this government when it comes to school funding, abandoned when it comes to standing up for penalty rates, and abandoned when it comes to health and Medicare. What alternative universe, what Orwellian rubbish we've just heard from the member for Berowra. We know, and the people in my electorate of Oxley know, that it was this party, the Labor Party, that built Medicare, and only Labor will protect Medicare.</para>
<para>We got a lecture that we shouldn't go back in time. You need to listen to what former members for Oxley have said, including the great Bill Hayden. It was in the seat of Oxley that the architect of Medicare, Bill Hayden, first developed universal health care for this country, when, during the 1973 second reading speech on the health insurance bill to introduce Medibank—as it was called at the time, before those opposite sold it off—he said it was to provide the 'most equitable and efficient means of providing health insurance coverage for all Australians'. Listen to those words and act: 'for all Australians'—not just for the wealthy, not just for the few, but, as he said, for all Australians.</para>
<para>At every turn, this government has proved they cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting Medicare and the health of Australians. I know this and the whole of Australia knows it. From the secret privatisation task force all the way to extending the Medicare freeze, this government continuously lets down Australians every time it gets the chance. This government is simply not serious when it comes to protecting Medicare. Whilst it might be okay for millionaires living on the North Shore, I ask the Prime Minister and members opposite to spend time in my electorate—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Price interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we have the member for Durack rubbishing the people of my electorate yet again. I ask them to speak to the people who are hurting because of this government's abandonment of its commitment to Medicare. Pensioners living in my electorate in Inala are hurting because of this government, families living in Springfield are hurting because of this government, and parents living in the Centenary Suburbs are hurting because of this government. Every time someone in our community needs to see a GP and every time someone needs to visit a public hospital, they are bearing the brunt of this government's continued harsh and unfair health cuts. That's what happens when a government is focused too much on itself and not on the Australian people.</para>
<para>The government fails the Medicare test by delaying to reverse its unfair cuts to Medicare for three years. The Medicare freeze is still in place for years to come. GP items to manage chronic disease, like asthma and diabetes, are frozen until 2020. GP items to treat pregnant women and women who have recently had a baby are frozen until 2020. Rebates for GPs to conduct pap smears are frozen until 2020. And rebates for GPs to undertake mental health assessments are frozen until 2020. We know the impact that the freeze is having on access to GPs, with bulk-billing for GPs dropping since the election and out-of-pocket costs skyrocketing. But it's not just in the GP waiting room; it also impacts Australians who need specialist care. In the past 12 months, 40 per cent of Australians needed to see a specialist. That's around 7.4 million Australians who need to see a specialist each year. Keeping the freeze in place will continue to impact Australia's sickest and most vulnerable patients.</para>
<para>A couple of years ago, on budget night, we saw the government wanting some sort of congratulations for their supposed Medicare guarantee. This reminds me of all those years ago when we saw then Treasurer Hockey dancing on the night of the election to 'Best Day of My Life', cranking the music up, while he brought the axe through the health services in this country.</para>
<para>This is a government that we know is hamstrung by the extreme Right wing, and cuddling up to One Nation. As we heard from the shadow minister, this is a party and minister who will not condemn One Nation's policy on vaccinations, who will not get up and actually denounce those comments. How can the Australian people seriously take this government at their word when they're in partnership and cuddling up to a party like One Nation? It beggars belief. Let the facts speak for themselves. We know Medicare is still under attack. We know it always will be as long as this government clings to power.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One thing's for sure: 'Mediscare' continues. Those opposite should have been embarrassed about that campaign, but instead they've boldly come in here and claimed the 'Mediscare' all over again. They come back into this place. They like to lecture us about raising the quality of class politics and the debates we need to have across the chamber. Yet secretly they continue a scare—a scare which saw me, during the election campaign, ringing hundreds of pensioners after hours to say: 'Look, I understand you've expressed some concern about the fact that you're being told that Medicare is about to be abolished. Sadly, that's a misrepresentation which is being made by the Labor Party.' And what was so sad about that was that these poor, vulnerable pensioners actually believed it.</para>
<para>Those opposite have a duty to be fair and reasonable, not engage in the spin. If this is a debate about who froze the Medicare rebate: I have young children, girls, and they love that movie <inline font-style="italic">Frozen</inline>. It's a story about Anna and Kristoff, who bravely push onward in a race to save their kingdom from winter's cold grip. I'd like to think that's what we're doing over here. We thawed the Medicare freeze. The member for Sydney's cast in this movie; she's the snow queen Elsa! She froze the Medicare rebate. But it was us on this side of the chamber who were cast in the role of Anna and Kristoff, bravely mountaineering on to unfreeze the rebate. We thawed it. It's an inconvenient truth for those opposite. So, let's face it: you froze it; we thawed it. We can agree on that. Let's move on.</para>
<para>What else have they done? Their record is one of cutting. Labor cut $1 billion from Medicare for dental care and means tested it. Labor cut $500 million from Medicare for pathology. Labor cut $64 million from Medicare for GPs. Labor cut $450 million from Medicare's safety net protections. Labor cut $2.5 billion from pharmacies and medicines. I wish this speech was allowed to go for 15 minutes; I could talk about all the cuts. But I will keep going. I'll try to speed up my dictation. Labor blocked access to lifesaving medicines. Labor cut $4 billion from private health insurance rebates for consumers and means tested it. Labor refused to back its unfunded $57 billion hospital promise—their biggest cut in weighting. Labor promised 64 GP clinics; they delivered only 33. But, to be honest, for the Labor Party, 50 per cent achievement—pretty good! For the Labor Party, that's kind of an A-grade outcome.</para>
<para>But the real issue here is that Labor promised to end the blame game, but we come into this place, MPI after MPI, and they say, 'Oh, it's all you!' Well, I tell you, we agreed about it before. You froze it; we thawed it. What else have we done? Well, those opposite, who froze it—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Shortland, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that remarks be put through the chair, as you have ruled with other speakers.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the member for Barker to address his remarks through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, that just gives me an opportunity to reiterate my point: those opposite froze it; we thawed it. You're Elsa; we're Anna!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, he's outside your ruling.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will decide who's following my rulings.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So I have another opportunity. Let's be clear: those opposite froze it and we thawed it. Those opposite are Queen Elsa; we're Anna. Who is the great heroine in this debate? Anna. Queen Elsa was saved by Anna. The telling fact is this: those opposite are the great champions of bulk-billing, but Labor had a bulk-billing rate of 81.9 per cent—that was Elsa's effort—while Anna's effort, those on this side, was 85.4 per cent. It was more, not less. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was just embarrassing. I'm so sorry that members of the public had to witness that last speech. This government doesn't really care about the retention of Medicare as a universal healthcare insurance scheme. It just doesn't understand it. I know this, and I have seen the various attempts by conservative Australian governments to destroy a universal healthcare system over the last 40 years. From my time as a medical student in 1975, when the Fraser government destroyed Medibank, to the attempts by a variety of conservative Liberal-National Party governments to undermine Medicare in the last 35 years, it has been death by whittling away, by white-anting, by a thousand cuts—whatever you call it, it's the truth. I started my practice in 1984 in Campbelltown when Medicare started. I saw what a dramatic difference it made to health care—and made to health care for the people who were the most disadvantaged. The benefits were real and, unfortunately, we're now returning to the bad old days of the sixties where people—particularly people who are disadvantaged, who are poor, who come from groups that have high levels of disadvantage—can't access proper medical care.</para>
<para>We now have a system that is beset by massive cost shifting, from state to federal, and back again, and around in circles. We now have a system where there are huge increases in out-of-pocket expenses, and I refer you to the article by Stephen Duckett from the Grattan Institute I think only a couple of days ago, demonstrating huge increases in out-of-pocket expenses, particularly to see specialists and subspecialists. We now have a system with extensive waiting lists in public hospital outpatient clinics, sometimes to levels that would be unimaginable for most of us here in this House. For cataract surgery, waiting lists just to see an ophthalmologist in the public system are over 12 months. Waiting lists to see a urologist for some of the most vital surgery, particularly for older Australians, are over 18 months. Waiting lists to see ENT surgeons are at unbelievable levels. In fact, many public hospitals no longer have public outpatient clinics for things like ophthalmology and ENT surgery, which means that the very poorest, the most disadvantaged, just can't access that sort of medical care.</para>
<para>Large sections of the community who have chronic illness can't access the care they really need. I will give you a couple of examples—real examples. During the election campaign, while doorknocking I met a lady at her door who had intractable heart failure. She had heard that there were some new treatments available for heart failure and was referred by her general practitioner to see a cardiologist in his private rooms, but she couldn't afford it. She couldn't afford the over $500 out-of-pocket cost to see the cardiologist, so she just didn't go. This lady could not leave her house she was so breathless. That is disgraceful. It is really affecting people's lives, in case those opposite were wondering. There was another lady who had had spinal surgery and ended up with some spinal damage. She was incontinent of urine and faeces. She could not afford to see a urologist privately, and was told there was a waiting list of over 12 months to get into the public urology clinic at a hospital many kilometres away from my electorate of Macarthur. She was ringing me to see if I could speak to a local urologist to get her fitted in to his private clinic to be bulk-billed, because she couldn't afford the $300 to $400 she was going to have to pay out of her own pocket. She couldn't afford to save that out of her own pension.</para>
<para>These are people's lives. For children who have sleep disorders, I cannot get them into a public sleep clinic with a waiting time under 12 months. So you may as well effectively say they can't access the care. To see an ENT surgeon, in my electorate, they have to see someone privately because my hospital does not have a public ENT clinic. People are faced with costs of $300 or $400, which they cannot afford. This is really affecting people's lives. I want those on the other side to understand that. We also have very poor access to public dental care. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm amazed that not once through the diatribe and vitriol that we have heard did those opposite talk about that great bastion of Labor electioneering, the privatisation of Medicare. Not once. Do you know why? Because it's been over a year and it hasn't happened. Funny about that—it says to me that those opposite have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to Medicare. Nor do they have credibility about how to run an economy or a nation. Let's talk about Medicare.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Macarthur, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Freelander</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How dare the member for Maranoa accuse me of having no credibility in a field that I have worked in for over 40 years.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no point of order. The member for Macarthur will resume his seat.</para>
<para class="italic">Dr Aly interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the member for Cowan that she is out of her place and if she speaks again she is disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's not stop on the health system, because we put this privatisation myth that those opposite perpetrated during the federal election campaign. Let's think about it in real economic and business terms. I have been a small-business owner. Those opposite are normally union hacks, political hacks, never done a day's work in their lives, never had to pay a wage in their lives. Who in their right mind would buy a business that doesn't make a profit? It's not worth anything. No government in their right mind can privatise Medicare. But those opposite have no credibility, not only on the economy but also in terms of health. They're not interested in anything other than playing politics with people's lives. It's an utter disgrace that they come in here and play with the lives of Australians. Since we have been in government we have unfrozen the freeze. Yes, we have! You started it, you started every bit of it!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Shortland, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I request that remarks be put through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Maranoa will address his remarks through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will. Because, again, it was we that took the freeze off. It is those opposite that put it on. Not one of them had the ability to walk into this chamber and admit it, because it's all about politics. It's not about outcomes. This is Labor's way of talking about how they're spending billions of dollars on health. They talk about cuts and, again, we go back to the basics of how to run an economy. There have been no cuts! Another myth, another Labor lie! The reality is that those opposite cannot be trusted. In fact, we have seen an increase in bulk-billing rates since we have been in government. That is an achievement of this government. It is about outcomes, not just throwing money out the window, like Labor does frivolously every time they're given the Treasury benches.</para>
<para>Let me talk about real outcomes. Those opposite talk about cardiovascular appointments. In my electorate only last week we as a federal government gave $1 million to the Heart of Australia fund, to Dr Gomes. He is going to the most disadvantaged places in this nation and allowing them to see a cardiovascular surgeon. That is what we are doing as a real government to get real outcomes, not espousing all these hyperboles about what they can do, but delivering outcomes. That is what a government does.</para>
<para>Let's talk about dental. They wanted to stay away from the freeze, and rightly they should, because they started it. Let's talk about dental. I was in Winton, a small outback town that none of them would know or have ever been to. In Winton in the last couple of months we have had a new RFDS based truck that offers state-of-the-art dental surgery for those in the outback who don't have access to a dentist. That's what we on this side do—not talk about it, not the hyperbole. We deliver real outcomes for people in rural and regional Australia and the disadvantaged that those—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017, Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017, Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <p>
              <a href="r5903" type="Bill">
                <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r5845" type="Bill">
                <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r5846" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5906" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Murray</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When you look at the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, you can see a Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources who is about to get things done. Whatever it takes, he will be the minister in charge of ag and he will get things done. This is an enabling bill that's going to offer his whole sector an opportunity for them to access low-interest loans and to have a support mechanism put in place that's going to be able to assist them. Whenever there is this uncontrollable variation with the climate affecting production, they are going to have this vehicle to access.</para>
<para>The member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon, has simply played politics with his amendment, where he moved that all words after 'that' be omitted and that 'the House declines to give this bill a second reading as it places the government's political interests ahead of the interests of Australian farmers'. So we will not be supporting the member for Hunter's amendment. We are here to get this bill through the House, if we can. We are here to give the people who are involved in agricultural businesses an opportunity to have some assistance, because we know there are a million great things happening out there in the world of agriculture and a whole range of these businesses just need a little bit of assistance along the way.</para>
<para>It's been put to us by the Labor Party that somehow or other we have a very poor minister for agriculture. That is not the message that we hear when we are on the ground. That is not the message that we hear when we go out around regional and rural Australia and talk about farming businesses, farming enterprises and the secondary industries associated with farming, whether they be the transport industries that hang off the back of agriculture, the processing plants that are also directly associated with agriculture, the export markets that are driven by what we're doing with agriculture or the water efficiency contracts that are out there, making sure that we are doing as much as we possibly can to save as much water as we possibly can and still increase our productivity. When we are talking to these people, the people who are actually driving the nation, driving the economy of rural and regional Australia, they are quite proud of the bloke that is known as Barnaby. He doesn't need a second name. They actually love the bloke they know as Barnaby. He's the one who's getting things done. He's the one they can relate to. He's the one who actually works for their interests. He's the one who lives in New England and comes to Canberra to work for the people of his electorate. His electorate extends far beyond that of New England. It extends right across rural and regional Australia. He doesn't need any protecting. He doesn't need any shepherding or assistance in these couple of days that he's going through. He's big enough and tough enough to deal with that himself.</para>
<para>This is a bill about getting things done. This is an opportunity to create the Regional Investment Corporation, a $4 billion corporation which will assist with agricultural industry businesses as they need a little bit of start-up. While I'm starting off this contribution, I would like to read in some of the accomplishments of the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources over the last 12 months since we've been in government and he has been the minister. The ag white paper continues to deliver real, tangible benefits, and that is what this minister is about. $250 million a year is going into farm business concessional loans, and we know how important and successful these concessional loans have been. When the dairy industry hit the hurdles that it did, a little over 12 months ago, its cries for assistance were met with an increase in concessional loans. Barnaby Joyce went down and met with the dairy farmers and was able to push through some of the farm household allowance issues preventing assistance going to farming families that were stuck with either Murray Goulburn or Fonterra and had seen their farmgate milk price slashed to an amount that was actually below production costs. Again, people in real trouble were able to go to a minister who understood their industry and was able to assist with the farm household allowances and/or low interest concessional loans.</para>
<para>We have over 1,200 farming businesses in Australia now accessing low interest concessional loans. There is over $670 million in loans out there right now. Australians who were finding the banks' interest too onerous in these tough times were able to access these low interest concessional loans. That's 1,200 people who are anywhere from around $20,000 to $50,000 a year better off by accessing these low-interest loans. That's not counting the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of farmers who started this process of obtaining a government low interest concessional loan, then took that threat back to their own commercial bank and were able to get them to sharpen their pencils and bring down the cost of their existing loan. Without following through on the full threat of moving their indemnities and assets across to the government funded low-interest loans, they were able to stay with the commercial entities. Tens of thousands of other farming businesses have benefited from the fact that we have this instrument out there and are able to offer it to people in trouble.</para>
<para>We have put another $200 million into strengthening biosecurity in this country. These things have a genuine impact on our agricultural businesses. We have done amazing things with free trade agreements. The boost that has come from our free trade agreements has been phenomenal. The free trade agreements we signed with Japan, South Korea and China have seen enormous increases in our amounts of trade with those countries. We've also seen the food labelling laws—another election promise that Barnaby Joyce was able to push through now that we're in government. He's been able to get it to a stage now where Australians will be able to shop with genuine confidence that the labels on the goods in the supermarket will give them an accurate, simple, basic understanding of the content inside those products on the shelf. They will have a very accurate understanding, with a quick glance, of what percentage of these products were in fact made in Australia, what was grown in Australia, and what's been grown somewhere else and simply packaged in Australia and put on the shelf as a product of Australia.</para>
<para>The wine equalisation tax is another area where this minister has been able to push ahead and reach an agreement. This has been kicking around in the wine industry for 10 to 12 years. A whole range of interests were competing against each other and nobody was quite able to put this one to bed, but Barnaby Joyce has been able to come into this area—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the member for Murray to refer to members by their title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for agriculture has been able to put this issue of the wine equalisation tax to bed and has seen enormous benefits because of that. Now we have an industry that will continue to grow, with the confidence that everybody is paying the right amount of tax. When the sugar industry was having its internal troubles, they didn't run to Joel Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter, to see if he could help; they simply came to Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the National Party, and he was able to put the pressure on the industry to fix this. Again, these are the types of actions that are needed when you are in the industry and looking for genuine leadership and an understanding of the industry and the industry's concerns so that you can fix the problem when the commercialities of the industry are caught between the processors and the providers of the primary produce.</para>
<para>One of the biggest things we have been able to do is put some genuine stewardship around the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan for a balance between environmental water and water for active and productive agriculture. This is an area where we have a whole raft of competing elements. Certainly we have the environmental group, who want unspecified quantities of water returned to the river system so that the Murray mouth can be flushed out. The lakes down around Adelaide are estuarine by nature, but the environmental movement wants to keep these estuarine lakes as freshwater lakes. They want to keep the Murray mouth open, even though historically it has always closed over in times of low flow. These unnatural environmental outcomes are somehow or other the Labor Party's policies. They would have the Murray River doing unnatural things because it suits their green constituency.</para>
<para>The free trade agreements with Korea and with China and Japan have seen incredible results recently in beef, table grapes, macadamias and a whole range of horticultural produce, and these are further benefits we are finding from the leadership of this minister. What we're also talking about is projects that are needed within the irrigation regions, such as the work that Rubicon Water are doing, and not just throughout northern Victoria. They are a Shepparton based company but they are now working in China, India and North America. They are creating thousands and thousands of megalitres of available water because they are creating all these water savings.</para>
<para>There are a whole raft of on-farm efficiencies that are quite expensive, but there are productivity benefits to having your farm properly laser graded and properly channelled, with the most modern fittings and technology. This is where, again, we are going to be able to save literally billions of dollars in water, which can be used either for the environment or for further agricultural production. Although some of these on-farm improvements are very expensive, this is where an instrument like the Regional Investment Corporation will be able to offer businesses an opportunity to invest in agriculture at a lower interest rate. That is something that will be snapped up. It will be very well received. That's why when people look at what the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources is doing they say: 'Here's a minister who's actually getting things done. He's giving us a chance.'</para>
<para>We have seen gene technology come to the fore in relation to the dairy cattle industry. Artificial insemination has been around for many a year, but it has got to the stage now where you can actually take the genes from a $250,000 heifer, mix them in a test tube with the semen of a $200,000 bull, and start rolling out a production line of dairy cattle. Where they were once only able to produce the heifers, the females, the ability that science is now offering agriculture in gene technology is unbelievable. Again, this type of work is expensive, and industry needs to have a vehicle such as the one the minister for agriculture is presenting to the Australian people.</para>
<para>If you want to make a difference in ag and you want to work your way through to the top, these technologies and advancements and this introduction of science into agriculture shouldn't be available just for those who have enough money to do all this themselves. And this is what Barnaby Joyce, the minister for agriculture, is doing. He is offering low-interest loans, offering finance to these businesses that have an opportunity to put food on our table and to increase productivity. He's the one who is actually getting this work done.</para>
<para>When you look at the Labor Party, they have no credibility when it comes to agriculture. The biggest decision the Labor Party made when they were last in government was that they stopped the live cattle export trade because of a <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> story. They just stopped it. They banned it for months, and then they decided they'd get it up and going again, and they were surprised to see that Indonesia wasn't quite so readily accessible anymore. That decision from the Labor Party cost beef producers in this country tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. No-one can find the minister who did this. No-one can find anybody who actually made this decision. It must have been made by someone who was invisible. Whenever you put the Labor Party in charge—we've seen what they will do with water; we've seen what they did with the live cattle exports, and they need to be protected— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to actually speak about the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 and to give some context about why we are debating this bill today. Listening to the member for Murray, he basically went around the world—I would say more of a eulogy to the Deputy Prime Minister—and spoke about the wondrous greatness of the man that is Barnaby Joyce. Listening to him very carefully and sitting through that speech, I noticed one thing: he listed a great list of achievements, but the one achievement the people of Australia and the people of New England would like to know about their member is: is he able to sit in this House? Is he legitimate? Can he serve as the agriculture and water minister? Can he serve in the cabinet? Can he serve as a local member? That's the question. He is so—</para>
<para>A government member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll get to you in a second. Listening to the member for Murray, he spoke about everything except the sheer and utter incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister—the potentially invalid Deputy Prime Minister.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I direct the member for Oxley back to the legislation—the substance of the legislation he's actually debating.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I think it is important to note that the former speaker spoke on everything other than this bill. You may have missed that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! That doesn't give you the opportunity to stray from the substance of the legislation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, we need consistent rules across both sides of the chamber. You're correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. And if there was ever a case of pork-barrelling to the electorate, this bill is nothing more than a pork barrel. We know that this government works from inept policy to inept policy. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister can't think of anything better than wasting taxpayers' dollars in what can only be described as a senseless move to set up the Regional Investment Corporation—we didn't hear about that from the member for Murray or any of those opposite—at a cost to taxpayers of $81.4 million over the forward estimates. We know the Deputy Prime Minister has a lot on his plate, but reading this bill and going through what it's going to mean, the purpose of this bill is to establish an organisation to do something that the states and the Northern Territory are already doing. The RIC will administer farm business loans, as we heard, and, on behalf of the Commonwealth, administer grants of financial assistance to the states and the Northern Territory for water infrastructure projects, concessional loans, from 1 July 2018. But the loans have already been delivered by the state and Northern Territory governments and will continue to be administered by the states and the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>So this can hardly be true, when, as a result of all of this, taxpayers are going to be sent a bill of $81.4 million. Further to this, the Regional Investment Corporation, put forward by the potentially invalid Deputy Prime Minister and invalid government, has been developed with no cost-benefit analysis as to whether the corporation will actually deliver on any of the claims—a great idea apparently by this Deputy Prime Minister, backed in by members of the government more desperate to prop up the problems of the Deputy Prime Minister than actually talk about the bill, but without any cost-benefit analysis put forward by the government.</para>
<para>We know they have some form in this area, because there's been no transparent or fair process undertaken by the government in determining where to locate the Regional Investment Corporation. The bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, and they tabled their findings only a matter of days ago. The committee recommended the bill be passed in its current form, yet the government has already made amendments to its own bill. We know there's a lot of confusion on that side of the parliament, whether it be about legitimacy to serve in the parliament, about turning up to vote or about seconding and moving the wrong motions. A Senate standing committee recommends passing the bill in its current form, yet the government is making amendments.</para>
<para>The Deputy Prime Minister, we know, has been declared a New Zealand citizen, yet the Prime Minister says he can stay, when we know the other senior minister responsible for this has had to stand down. It hasn't been a great week or month for the National Party. Where's the consistency there? The government knows that the corporation is going to be established in the member for Calare's electorate. We know this isn't a coincidence, but we know that the government is claiming that the establishment of the RIC is 'the logical step in meeting the government's commitment to agriculture, as set out in the landmark    Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, in excess of $4 billion.'</para>
<para>This statement is exaggerated and gives the impression that somehow the government has provided meaningful investment in agriculture. It has not. In fact the bulk of the $4 billion is made up of concessional loans that farmers are currently not taking up. We know this is because of the design of the program, with the government failing to properly consult or understand if their new drought loan scheme would be attractive to drought-affected farmers.</para>
<para>The RIC will face the same difficulties. Its role will be to provide loans to farm businesses subject to the applicant meeting certain criteria which will be centred on the viability of the farm business. It's important to understand that the RIC will be bank 'of last resort', but the farm businesses will need to be assessed as being viable. Whether a farm business is determined as being viable has been a major issue for the states when developing the guidelines for concessional loans, with no signs that this will be resolved under the new proposed RIC. On top of all of this, the government has not taken any genuine consultation about the functions and responsibilities of the RIC, and is establishing the RIC in Orange with no cost-benefit analysis about the outgoing costs either.</para>
<para>What's more, the government has chosen to establish the RIC in Orange using the same type of government policy order that was used when the then Deputy Prime Minister announced the decision—and who can forget this one—to move the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to the northern New South Wales town of Armidale, in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate of New England, by 2019. As reported by the independent government news website, the APVMA relocation, which involved about 190 staff, mostly highly specialised, failed a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis.</para>
<para>We get lots of lectures from those opposite about reining in expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, and about government efficiency, but when the rubber hits the road, time and time again they've just been found nothing more than professional pork barrels. We know that that decision led to many staff walking out the door, including the chief executive and some of our top regulatory scientists and lawyers. The government also conducted its own $272,000 cost-benefit analysis, which found there were no material economic advantages to support the relocation. Think about this: they are making decisions in their own interests, not making decisions in the national interest.</para>
<para>Further to this, Ernst and Young established the move would cost at least $23.19 million. This includes redundancies for 85 per cent of the APVMA staff the report identified as unwilling to move to Armidale. The plan to move the agricultural chemicals regulator exposed the government, we know, to further ridicule after it was revealed that the Canberra based public servants were working out of Armidale's McDonald's, using the free wi-fi because they had nowhere else to work. That came out at a February Senate estimates hearing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What's this got to do with the legislation?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm speaking to the amendments. Perhaps you could help the assistant minister, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, just to keep up with the process of the parliament. It might be useful. He is in charge of something; I would hope that he could understand how the parliament works. But, then again, he was one of the rogue 15 who refused to turn up to vote yesterday, when the government again lost another—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I draw the member back to the substance of the amendment and the legislation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take the interjection each time they raise it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Mallee of the National Party defended that decision by saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I guess much public policy is constructed in coffee shops around Canberra by public departments.</para></quote>
<para>It's good to know that the government is happy not only to slug the taxpayer with expensive and unneeded relocation costs, much like in the bill that is before the House, but to leave public department workers with nowhere to work.</para>
<para>Who could forget the government document that was leaked to Fairfax in April which gives the APVMA staff suggested scripted replies to recite if they were asked about the relocation? Do you remember that one? They were for use during 'barbecue conversations' and 'other social settings'. The guideline came from the chief operating officer, under a section headed 'Script and Standard Words', a series of bullet points offering conversation suggestions to use for 'all audiences'. One piece of barbecue banter included:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's no secret the agency is changing—and that doesn't have to be a bad thing.</para></quote>
<para>Employees unsure if they will make the move are advised to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm listening to what our executive have to say about the transition, but for the moment I'm getting on with the job.</para></quote>
<para>What episode of <inline font-style="italic">Utopia</inline> did this government rip that out of? Talk about unwilling to listen, talk about unwilling to govern—now they're just simply willing to pork barrel.</para>
<para>On top of that, we've seen a Senate committee report, <inline font-style="italic">The operation, effectiveness, and consequences of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 2016</inline>. We note the terms of reference for this report noted the committee would focus on the policy of relocating Commonwealth corporate entities with agriculture policies or regulatory responsibilities. In the report handed down on 9 June, the recommendations included:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the move of the APVMA be paused until the APVMA concludes its review of its business model.</para></quote>
<para>And it recommended that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Finance Minister apply greater scrutiny to future requests or orders to be made under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 with a specific focus on consideration being given to the following:</para></quote>
<list>the financial and governance implications on an agency from an order under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and</list>
<list>a cost-benefit analysis.</list>
<para>They're a bit anti a cost-benefit analysis on the other side. They don't like the taxpayer getting value for money.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How did your cost-benefit go for the NBN?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take the interjection from the genius at the despatch box, the member for Hume. We're now getting lectures about how great the NBN is and how much the government is to be congratulated. I have heard it all. I have heard the minister and future leader ranting and raving about how the regional communities which she allegedly represents have never been so lucky as under the NBN and that they should be grateful for an inferior service, delays and inferior delivery—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the member to come back to the subject of the legislation or I will sit him down.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was just taking the interjections from the minister at the table, but I'll continue. Thank you for your protection. The committee recommended:</para>
<list>a cost-benefit analysis. In the event that a cost-benefit analysis does not identify a net benefit from the proposed order, the Finance Minister should require the relevant minister to explain the grounds on which the order should be made.</list>
<para>So I ask—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—the assistant minister at the table: where's the cost-benefit analysis for this bill? If he would like to jump up now and table it, I will yield the balance of my time to the government. If he can jump up now and provide that, I will remain silent.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not a project. It's not a project; it's a policy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's just yelling out now, 'It doesn't exist and we don't have to provide one. We don't have to answer to regional Australia.' I say government should answer when legislation and proposals are put on the table. He claims that the government knows best. Well, we on this side know from listening to our communities, from listening to regional and remote Australia, that they are being badly let down by this government. They are being badly neglected by a government and, let's face it, by a Deputy Prime Minister that we don't even know should even be in this parliament.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The guardians of rural Australia!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The assistant minister is still interjecting, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons—defying you, defying everyone else. But, then, we know arrogance is a sign of this government. From listening to them today and listening to them speaking about this bill—not providing evidence about what the benefits are, certainly not providing a cost-benefit analysis—we know that, when it comes to delivering for regional and rural Australians, they talk big, they talk a big game, but they deliver very, very little.</para>
<para>We know, when it comes to delivering for those on the ground, including my own home state, this government simply cannot be trusted—a bit like a Deputy Prime Minister unable to fill in basic forms, and no-one is able to determine whether he should be the responsible minister. It will be interesting to note whether he comes into this parliament and actually makes announcements. We know he's gone into some sort of witness protection program. But we know that this bill is nothing more than the pork barrel that the government has been continuing on, and we will continue to expose that every single time. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr McVEIGH</name>
    <name.id>125865</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to return this debate to some facts—the fact that the coalition government is delivering on its election commitment to establish a Regional Investment Corporation, to streamline delivery of up to $4 billion in farm business concessional loans and the national water infrastructure loan facility. The corporation, as we know, will be established in Orange, in the central west of New South Wales, and it will be open for business from 1 July 2018.</para>
<para>The corporation will be established as a separate entity within the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio, the concept being that farmers will be able to access farm business concessional loans quickly and easily with a streamlined and nationally consistent application and approval process. The corporation will also provide the flexibility for the Australian government to respond quickly and efficiently to emerging issues such as drought or even an industry crisis. Quicker and easier access and more flexibility are envisaged through the Commonwealth being able to act directly—rather than, as was the case previously, through state based agencies. The corporation will administer up to $2 billion in concessional loans designed to encourage growth, investment and resilience in our rural and regional communities. Concessional loans support the long-term strength, resilience and profitability of farm businesses by helping them to build and maintain diversity in the markets that they supply domestically and internationally.</para>
<para>The corporation will also, as I said, deliver the $2 billion national water infrastructure loan facility, which has been established to provide concessional loans to the states and territories to fast-track priority water infrastructure projects. The facility provides the incentive, therefore, for states and territories to get priority water infrastructure projects underway in order to increase agricultural productivity, generate local jobs and simply create more opportunities and growth for regional communities.</para>
<para>Labor says it will scrap the Regional Investment Corporation. Following the 2017 budget, Labor announced they would not support this corporation in the future and proposed to pocket $28.5 million, they said, in establishment costs as budget savings. However, over the past four years, the Commonwealth has paid $37.65 million to the state governments and the Northern Territory government to administer various programs. Therefore, establishing the corporation will be, in its own right, a significant budget saving, to the benefit of the Australian taxpayer.</para>
<para>Of course, Labor falsely claims farmers are choosing not to take up these loans. The reality is that 1,342 farm businesses have been approved for $724.4 million of assistance. In contrast, therefore, to Labor's bleatings and continued lack of understanding of agriculture and its importance to our economy, the government, through the Regional Investment Corporation, will be focused on assistance that includes the Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme, drought assistance concessional loans, dairy recovery concessional loans and business improvement concessional loans. The Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme assists eligible farmers to continue to improve their farm businesses and to become financially self-reliant—helping their local economies and communities, therefore, to prosper. Drought assistance concessional loans can be used by a farm business so it can maintain operation during a drought, to recover when that drought breaks and to prepare for future droughts. Dairy recovery concessional loans are available to assist commercially viable dairy farm businesses affected by the retrospective decisions in 2016 by Murray Goulburn, Fonterra and National Dairy Products to reduce farm gate milk prices. I note, as a former state minister for agriculture in Queensland, that at the time our state agency, the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority, or QRAA, was the leading agency in the country and was asked by the federal government to administer schemes in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I also note that Queensland farmers were collectively the largest recipients of some of the concessional loan categories.</para>
<para>It should be noted that the Commonwealth's drought policy program seeks to help build the sustainability and resilience of farmers, to help them to prepare to manage through droughts and other challenges that affect farming industries. When the coalition came into power in 2013, we inherited essentially an empty cupboard on drought policy. Labor had abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy and cut the then agriculture department's budget in half. They abolished Land & Water Australia and threatened the longstanding policy to match farmers' research and development levies, with the former Labor agriculture minister at the time, Tony Burke, asking the Productivity Commission to review the rural research and development system. Labor wanted to review it such that research and development funds, which are matched by taxpayers, would end up going towards their own government priorities, in contrast with the policies identified by farmers themselves, who pay those levies.</para>
<para>Exacerbating those problems under Labor—particularly in the drought-ravaged regions of Northern Australia, in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia—was Labor's economic and trade catastrophe of the live cattle export ban. That has been documented widely as an exemplar of Labor's ignorance of agriculture, regional Australia and our international trade relationships. Certainly on the eastern seaboard, and elsewhere in our country, the beef industry—and not just the live cattle export industry—continues to recover from that catastrophe. By contrast, the coalition has confirmed that farmers' research and development funds should continue to be prioritised, on behalf of the levy payers that pay levies into those funds, towards projects that have the intention of boosting farm gate returns, of putting in place assistance measures where needed for this very important sector of our economy that is the basis of most, if not all, of our regional communities, and developing the trade deals vital for our future prosperity.</para>
<para>In terms of the Regional Investment Corporation details, first of all can I say that concessional loans is an issue in which we must have a government focus to support and facilitate an industry that is first and foremost focused on productivity through production and marketing systems throughout such systems. I'm talking there, of course, about production related research and development; the trade deals for which our government has gained accolades from the agricultural industry right across Australia; the detail of trade protocols that must then be worked through and are being worked through with the likes of Korea, Japan, China and other countries that our Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and his cabinet colleagues continue to focus on; and small business support in regional areas, especially ones that are farming and agribusiness focused, through taxation relief, the instant asset write-off, of course, and the like. In terms of agriculture and agribusiness in our country, the government must be there to support, where necessary, regional communities through the programs that will come under the purview of the Regional Investment Corporation, such as the ones we are discussing today, for drought and other negative impacts, industry issues and, at times, market failure.</para>
<para>The second key area I want to address in a little further detail is the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, which I think provides an exciting basis for regional development in the future across the country. Unfortunately, the likes of state Labor in my state of Queensland, for example, are proving to be totally unwilling to participate in the scheme to the detriment of regional economies in our great state, such as that in the region around the Rookwood Weir proposal that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources promotes vigorously at every opportunity. We know that Labor and the Greens don't like the idea of catalytic infrastructure projects, such as weirs, dams and water pipelines, that promise so much to the productive future of regional Australia. The facts clearly reveal the coalition government, in contrast to those opposite, through the Regional Investment Corporation, are very much focused on such productive infrastructure to support such industries, producers and regional economies alike.</para>
<para>The latter period of my term as agriculture minister in Queensland coincided, if you like, with the member for Hunter's brief stint as the federal Labor Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. He and I very clearly discussed the utter confusion created by his Labor predecessor, the then Senator Ludwig, by announcing suggested assistance programs that had no details and no time lines and were all done, I can confirm, with no reference to industry across the country, including AgForce and the Queensland Farmers' Federation in my state of Queensland, the National Farmers' Federation itself, of course, and other state agencies right across the country. I was pleased to see, therefore, that, upon the change of government and the appointment of the member for New England as our Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, that we saw immediate moves towards clarity on assistance schemes for rural producers and regional communities. He, I and colleagues across the country moved very quickly through detailed and constructive conversations about the contrast between state-based farm assistance delivery mechanisms, as I said in our case to QRAA, or the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority, and the processes that he quite rightly was focused on in his reinvigorated federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.</para>
<para>As I said, at one stage, such was its expertise, QRAA was the leading state agency and was required to administer schemes for other regions, such as the Northern Territory and Western Australia. But I could very clearly understand the federal minister's frustrations, though, with some state agency processes that simply did not facilitate the timely and responsive distribution of federal assistance that he, as federal minister, was and remains intent upon. I therefore congratulate our Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources on this move towards national consistency, responsiveness and, ultimately, fair dinkum service to farmers and regional communities in each state and territory when the need presents itself.</para>
<para>As a passionate regional member of this House, I also wish to make comment on the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation in the location of Orange in the electorate of Calare, represented by my colleague Mr Andrew Gee. Here is our government walking the talk in terms of encouraging regional development and decentralisation through our country. I'm aware that such topics have been considered over recent terms of government and through various inquiries, and I acknowledge that the current Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, which I chair, will undertake its own considerations of such matters in the coming months. But I believe the establishment of the corporation in a regional location such as Orange should be recognised as a very commendable move, and something that any regional member of this House would welcome in their own electorates—certainly I would in Groom. I congratulate the member for Calare on his successful advocacy in this regard.</para>
<para>The Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 gives effect to the coalition's election commitment to establish such a corporation. As I've outlined, as a Commonwealth corporate entity, it will deliver our farm business concessional loan and water infrastructure loan programs. And the fact that it will do so from a regional location such as Orange represents an appropriate and welcome move from the minister for agriculture. I, therefore, congratulate him on behalf of regional Australia and producers from one end to the other. I thank him and his team for delivering on this government commitment that will benefit all of us throughout the nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand to support the amendment that opposes the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, which is before us. It is another demonstration of pork-barrelling by this Deputy Prime Minister, and this government, in a way that is just trying to shore up his mates in the National Party. The Regional Investment Corporation is first and foremost a pork-barrel exercise by this government. That's what it is. I'm also going to set out in my contribution today why this is actually a very bad example of decentralisation: Orange is the wrong town.</para>
<para>Can I begin, though, by saying loudly and clearly that regional development is important. However, I want to put clearly on the record that it should never be about taking public sector jobs—jobs that are in established networks—and resources from Canberra and dumping them in regional areas like we have seen in Armidale. There needs to be research, support and evidence and a process in place to demonstrate that the place where we're establishing our public sector and our public sector jobs is actually going to work.</para>
<para>The Regional Investment Finance Corporation, which this bill seeks to create, will administer farm business loans on behalf of the Commonwealth—well, it will try and do that—when our state governments are already doing this. This is an example of creating more bureaucracy. That is what this government has done. It also doesn't address the core issue that we have with the Drought Concessional Loans Scheme, which is that it was set up poorly by this government, and, therefore, it has been poorly taken up. I have met with the dairy farmers, who the previous member spoke about, in the Murray region. Time and time again, they told me that one of the fundamental problems with the way the government had designed the concessional loan scheme was they couldn't get their bank to be involved. They weren't willing to be part of the refinancing process. The banks themselves weren't interested in the way the government had set up the Drought Concessional Loans Scheme. Farmers also told me that what they didn't want was more debt. They were over government policy that was all about extending their debt. It wasn't what they wanted. They wanted support in upgrading and updating their infrastructure, but what they didn't want was more debt. That was just another problem that they identified in the government's approach to agriculture.</para>
<para>So, why is it that I am arguing that Orange is not the best choice for this new Regional Investment Corporation?</para>
<para>I point out that the government did very little research. The <inline font-style="italic">Bendigo Advertiser</inline>said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Bendigo was one of seven regional centres considered for the new bureaucracy along with Albury-Wodonga, Wagga Wagga, Bathurst, Lithgow and Toowoomba.</para></quote>
<para>Yet the government didn't ask the City of Greater Bendigo how we could best host this facility, didn't engage with Bendigo Bank, the largest bank outside a metropolitan city, with its head office in Bendigo, and didn't consult with Rural Finance, also based in Bendigo. It was just a gift to a National Party mate. They didn't do their homework or make the business case as to why Orange should be the home for the Regional Investment Corporation. The article continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Bendigo has missed out on being the home of a new $28 million Commonwealth regional banking agency to deliver $4 billion in loans.</para></quote>
<para>I've already established there's a real question mark about that, because our farmers don't like the way it has been structured. We were one of seven areas to be considered, but how were we considered? What work was done? What research was done?</para>
<para>At the time I also asked what impact this would have on the jobs already in Bendigo. What functions will it try to take over that Rural Finance and the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, both based in Bendigo, are involved in? The comments at the time, from the Nationals senator whose office is in Bendigo, were disappointing:</para>
<para>… the government body would bring jobs to Orange—</para>
<para>Not Bendigo; Orange. The senator went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">[Bendigo] weren't successful this time, but we'll just keep on batting.</para></quote>
<para>That doesn't give much comfort to the people who work for the Bendigo Bank or the people who work for Rural Finance. This is what the senator said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Having a facility like the Rural Investment Corporation in a place like Orange, there might be people growing up … in regional Victoria that, once they go to Melbourne or Sydney, and get that commerce degree, they'll be able to seek out a job opportunity … in the Rural Investment Corporation in Orange.</para></quote>
<para>You have to do better than that. That is an appalling response to the people of Bendigo—that your kids might move to Melbourne or Sydney to study at university and then one day may go to Orange. That is not how it works.</para>
<para>We have La Trobe University's Bendigo campus, whose finance degree already has graduates. When they finish their studies, they transition into working for Bendigo Bank and Rural Finance. We already have established pathways. In fact, Bendigo Bank and the Rural Finance Corporation, both based in Bendigo, comprise the largest financial sector hub in regional Australia. It's not Orange, it's not Wagga Wagga; it's Bendigo. Over a thousand people are employed at the head office of Bendigo Bank, and a couple of hundred are employed in Rural Finance—the state based enterprise that the former Liberal-National government in Victoria, respecting the work of Bendigo Bank and acknowledging the expertise in our town, sold to Bendigo Bank.</para>
<para>It's not just our finance sector that is strong in Bendigo. The Vic Farmers Federation is based in Bendigo. A large network of financial planners are based in Bendigo. We have all the support services for not just Victorian based farmers but South Australian and southern New South Wales based farmers, all who engage with and have their finances organised through Bendigo. When I met with Rural Finance during the Sheep and Wool Show that was hosted in Bendigo, they said that they have customers and clients throughout Australia. They already have the network. They can't work out why the government would plonk this new bureaucracy in Orange when they could've brought it to Bendigo's financial sector.</para>
<para>The other thing it demonstrates is the unwillingness of this government, when it comes to decentralisation, ag finances and our farmers, to work with our state governments. In a meeting with the Prime Minister, the Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews, said that if he's looking at creating a body such as this, he should consider Bendigo, because we have 'expertise in finance'. Dan Andrews first suggested to the Prime Minister that Bendigo would be a prime location to host this facility. But no: rather than working with the states, looking at best practice, and working with the bodies who will ultimately still deliver these loans this is, instead, another pork-barrelling exercise whose impact on current jobs in the finance sector is unknown.</para>
<para>In raising the concerns on behalf of my community I did write to the Deputy Prime Minister back in May. I'm still waiting for a response. I did ask these questions. Why was Bendigo overlooked, given the workforce that we have, being the home of the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, which is the only Australian bank headquarters located outside a capital city? We have a highly skilled workforce with expertise in the health, finance and education sectors. So why was Bendigo overlooked? I also asked about whether the new corporation would have a negative impact on the functions and the jobs at Rural Finance, which is part of the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank. Rural Finance offers agriculture-related services such as a drought concessional loans scheme, a farm business loans scheme and other industry and business loans. So I want to know the impact that this government will have on the people and jobs at Rural Finance.</para>
<para>I'm still waiting for a response. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has been quite distracted—perhaps he knew back then of the problem with his citizenship—but quite frankly it's not good enough for the people of Bendigo and central Victoria that they continue to wait for answers from this government.</para>
<para>This is one reason Labor is opposed to this government's approach to agriculture and decentralisation. Time and time again we have seen pork-barrelling from this government. It's the only way to describe it. We see policy on the run, belated coming out, changing the rules, setting up new rules. They first of all said that to be considered for a shift of public sector agencies and jobs you needed to have a stand-alone university and you needed to be more than 100 kilometres from a metropolitan city. Well, that original proposal put forward by this government ruled out every single part of Victoria, because while Bendigo is more than 100 kilometres from Melbourne its university is a satellite campus of a university based in Melbourne. So then they said, 'No, we're going to change that.' Their policy on decentralisation and regional development is a shambles. It is nothing but a smokescreen to try and cover up the fact that they are just pork-barrelling for their own electorates.</para>
<para>Don't get me wrong: I support the concept of growing public sector jobs in the regions. However, what this government does time and time again is shut down jobs in one part of the community in regional Australia and open them up in another. That's not creating new jobs, that's displacing jobs. That's creating uncertainty within those agencies, creating problems and then moving them somewhere else. An example from my electorate is that we used to be the home of the Australian Emergency Management Institute on Mount Macedon. In an area that was devastated by bushfires we had world-class experts and a place for training management expertise in emergency disasters. Lots of people who work in the emergency services space spoke very highly of the quality and skill of this institute. Then one night, in a federal budget, they announced they were closing it and turning it into a virtual institute so that people could do the training online, missing the critical fact that they were losing 60 jobs in the Macedon Ranges and losing the ability to debrief, train, discuss and develop expertise and excellence in terms of emergency management face to face. Later we found that they established a new part of it in Brisbane. That's not new jobs for Brisbane—that jobs stolen from Bendigo.</para>
<para>They did the same with the ATO. They shut down the Bendigo ATO office, as well as other ATO offices around the country, and announced great news: 600 new ATO jobs in Gosford. Again, all they did was move jobs around, displacing families, sacking workers and creating instability in delivery of service. That is not good decentralisation policy; that is chaotic policy, which is about nothing but trying to deliver votes and save your own job.</para>
<para>Labor is opposed to this bill because it establishes the Regional Investment Corporation but there was no business case done and there was no decent consultation work done with the states. You have to be able to partner with the states for this to be successful. It also doesn't address the underlying problems that we have with the drought concessional loan scheme, it doesn't go to the core needs of the farmers, and it moves people away from where the expertise is in rural finance. People of Bendigo and central Victoria shake their heads at the way in which this government is behaving, particularly when it comes to our town and particularly when it comes to jobs. We on this side call on the government to do better. When you are talking about establishing an institute like this, do the research: is it necessary? Will it add value? Will it create jobs, not take away jobs? Will it build upon the expertise we have in our regions?</para>
<para>I would like to think that in Bendigo we are experts at everything, but we're not. We don't have a good dairy footprint. Bendigo would not be a good place for the headquarters of a dairy institute. However, what we are very good at is rural finance. What we are very good at is making sure that we support farmers, support innovation and support people's access to capital so they can grow their businesses. Having a facility like the Regional Investment Corporation in Orange does only one thing; it satisfies National Party voters. It satisfies the Deputy Prime Minister's push for decentralisation but it doesn't actually demonstrate best practice in decentralisation or regional development. I encourage all those in this House to rethink the move the government is making and to support the amendment moved by the member for Hunter. We are serious about regional development. This is not it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to start my contribution by reflecting on the speech that the member for Bendigo has just given in the parliament. I must say I'm quite confused. The member spent the first half of her contribution talking about why the Regional Investment Corporation should be in Bendigo and then the second half of her speech talking about why the Regional Investment Corporation should not exist at all. So, really, it doesn't make a lot of sense. What was most significant about the member for Bendigo's contribution was that she spent no time talking about our farmers. She spent no time recognising the incredible contribution that they make to this nation and the incredible importance of agriculture to our nation. That's of course what the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 is all about.</para>
<para>The member for Bendigo was also very critical of the Deputy Prime Minister and his focus on decentralisation. Well, that's not surprising from one of the members opposite, who are, particularly in Victoria, so city-centric that they even forget farmers exist half the time. We have heard that time and time again. And under Daniel Andrews we have seen an incredibly city-centric state government with an incredible focus on the needs of people living in metropolitan Melbourne and not nearly enough focus on those living in regional Victoria. What a shame we didn't hear the member for Bendigo take the opportunity to support decentralisation, which is a very important part of our government's agenda. I am very, very proud of how we are supporting decentralisation, because it is delivering, in spades, an important policy for our region, in Corangamite and across the greater Geelong region.</para>
<para>While this was a bipartisan decision, it was with great pride that the Minister for Social Services joined me in Geelong to turn the sod on the beginning of the construction of the National Disability Insurance Agency. I take issue with the member for Bendigo's reflection that it's not really appropriate to move public servants out of Canberra. We think it's very important that we spread these agencies around the nation, and Geelong is a very significant example. That is going to be an incredible organisation in Geelong. It is already up and running, of course, but the new national headquarters, once they are built, will bring literally hundreds of jobs to our region. We have also brought to Geelong the Australian Bureau of Statistics National Data Acquisition Centre—another great investment of the Turnbull government bringing hundreds of jobs to Geelong and, again, another example of how we are working hard to embrace decentralisation, to stand up for regional communities, to stand up for farmers and to make sure that the regions are not forgotten, as they were under Labor.</para>
<para>The Regional Investment Corporation Bill delivers on an important election commitment that we made to establish a Regional Investment Corporation to be the single delivery agency for the Commonwealth's Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme, the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility and any other future programs. This is incredibly important, because it means that in the future farmers will be able to access farm business concessional loan funding quickly and easily, with a streamlined and nationally consistent application and approval process. In the wake of our very important announcement prior to the election last year of the dairy concessional loan package and the dairy rescue package, we saw issues with the Victorian government failing to deliver that program as it was intended. So we think that this is going to be much more efficient. We saw that previously, with each state delivering the program, loan decisions were not being made in a consistent way across the country. The Regional Investment Corporation will administer up to $2 billion in concessional loans and that's designed to encourage growth, investment and resilience in our rural and regional communities. The RIC will also deliver the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. Again, it is very, very important that we have a streamlined and more efficient approach than we have had in the past.</para>
<para>To date, almost $725 million in farm business concessional loans have been approved to over 1,340 farm businesses, with over 1,100 farm businesses being approved for a drought related or farm finance concessional loan as well. And 228 farm businesses, which equates to some $129 million, have been approved for a dairy recovery concessional loan. So, once again, we see the Turnbull government standing up for regional communities. I'm incredibly proud of this particular announcement and the fact that we are, again, delivering another one of our important election commitments.</para>
<para>As I said, we received a tirade of complaints from the member for Bendigo, but there was very poor focus on the needs of regional communities. Perhaps there is no greater example of need than when the dairy farmers in Victoria hit very tough times. That was very much exacerbated because of the actions of companies such as Murray Goulburn and Fonterra and those terrible clawbacks, which have, in part, been remedied. I certainly welcome the ACC's decision to commence legal proceedings, because the actions of Murray Goulburn, frankly, were utterly disgraceful. Legal proceedings are on foot where Murray Goulburn has been accused of unconscionable conduct and of making false or misleading representation. When that occurred, we moved very quickly as a government to stand up for farmers. $550 million in Recovery Concessional Loans were announced. We also announced $900,000 for an additional nine rural financial counsellors, $900,000 for Dairy Australia's Tactics for Tight Times and various other measures to support the farmers. I have to say, while there are still challenges ahead, the dairy farmers in Corangamite and in south-west Victoria are certainly doing a lot better.</para>
<para>They are also doing a lot better because we are investing right across the board in regional communities through our Building Better Regions Fund, a very significant fund investing in community infrastructure and local programs to ensure that every single regional community has a voice. In Corangamite we are investing the total value of this program—more than half a billion dollars—in duplicating the Princes Highway. That has absolutely inspired business investment and confidence with a road from Geelong to Colac. Now we see a situation in Colac where there is a housing shortage because of the amount of employment in the town and because of the fact that unemployment has gone from double figures, when Labor was in power, down to under five per cent. That is why we invest in this important infrastructure. It is because it drives jobs, drives investment, brings industries into the regions and, of course, builds that much-needed confidence that did not exist under the previous Labor government.</para>
<para>We have put record funding into the Roads to Recovery Program—$40 million. We're upgrading the Great Ocean Road. This is the road that Labor forgot. This is the road that the previous Labor government refused to fund. This government, recognising the national significance of this road and the geotechnical challenges in maintaining this road, have now put in $50 million. That has made an incredible difference to communities along the Great Ocean Road and, of course, to our tourism and visitor economy, which is so important for Victoria.</para>
<para>One of the greatest contrasts between our government and those opposite is investment in mobile communications. What a poor reflection it is on the Labor Party that they did not see any value in investing in improving mobile communications in Australia. We are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into that program. Some 18 mobile base stations are being funded in Corangamite. There are many challenges, of course. That program, too, is making a significant difference because, for the first time, regional communities feel that they have a voice under the Liberal-National federal coalition. The NBN is being rolled out. That was a very paltry performance under the previous government. Over 50,000 homes are now NBN-ready in Corangamite.</para>
<para>Another incredibly significant investment in regional communities is the regional rail program across Victoria. I commend the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the member for Gippsland, for his commitment as well. In Corangamite, right through to Warrnambool and Wannon—there was great support from the member for Wannon as well—we are investing $224 million in upgrading passenger rail. I campaigned night and day for this investment, and I'm very, very proud that the track between Waurn Ponds and South Geelong is being duplicated. Mind you, we are concerned about the state's slowness in delivering its business plan. But we are pleased that, after a lot of campaigning and advocacy, this program has been accepted by the state government and we're now seeing those critical upgrades.</para>
<para>We need a fast train between Melbourne and Geelong. The Regional Rail Link—another absolutely dismal Labor project, frankly—is a multibillion dollar project that has now delivered a suburban rail service to the people of Geelong. The Regional Rail Link has been a disaster for regional communities in Colac, Birregurra, Warrnambool and Geelong whereby the rail is now going via places such as Tarneit. It really has been a monumental waste of money. It needs to be fixed.</para>
<para>Another big focus that I have been working very hard on is the delivery of a city deal for the Geelong and Great Ocean Road region. I'm pleased the state has finally determined that the Geelong and Corangamite regions should be the priority location for a city deal in Victoria. But, of course, there is a lot of hard work to be done and we're still working very hard to deliver a city deal for our regions.</para>
<para>So I commend this bill to the House. This is another example of our government standing up for farmers. This comes on top of some other very significant national programs and national initiatives led by our very significant free trade agreements, which have opened up new export markets for our farmers. Those free trade agreements have also delivered great new confidence for agribusinesses and our farmers. I represent many small towns. I have a strong mantra: community first; politics second. But, also, in a place like Corangamite, where there are so many small towns, every community matters. That's why, in another example of how we are standing up for the regions, our Stronger Communities Program is making such a difference. That's been a great success, providing matching funding to community organisations and volunteer groups around the country, with a maximum of $150,000 per electorate. It's making a real difference. Communities under this government feel that they have a voice at last, and their projects are recognised and they are being funded. I'm delighted that I've received some wonderful applications for the next round of the Stronger Communities Program, and that that program has been embraced so widely.</para>
<para>It is very disappointing that Labor has announced it will not support the RIC. It proposes to pocket the so-called savings. Once again, we see Labor members opposite failing to understand why streamlined programs and the delivery of these important programs is so important, particularly in times of crisis when you can't get caught up in bureaucracy and when farmers can't go through the rigmarole of dealing with state and Commonwealth agencies. We just can't tolerate that. So it's really disappointing that Labor is not interested in the more efficient delivery of these important programs that make such a difference to regional communities.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House. Once again, I recognise just how important it is that the Turnbull government is standing up for regional communities, including in my electorate of Corangamite.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I really wish that that was true in relation to regions in my part of the world, but we're yet to see it. Perhaps, as I go on, you will see how the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is an example of those opposite being full of talk, but, at the end of the day, having a serious problem with transparency, and pretending that they're actually doing something to help people on the land. I want to put on the record from the start how important our farmers are. They are economic drivers in our regions. Of course they're essential to our country; that's why we support them. But they deserve better than they're getting from those opposite.</para>
<para>The previous speaker, the member for Corangamite, was talking about the fact that her region has not been forgotten by the current federal government. I guess that's part of the problem, because that's the pork-barrelling that we're getting used to seeing, and it's not good for our country. It's not good for the economic development of our country for someone to just decide to move government agencies to areas where you have, say, the Deputy Prime Minister. We all want to see federal investment in regional areas of our country. That's why it would have been good to see something come out of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund by now. It was announced two years ago, and still not a dollar has been spent. Those opposite want to give away perhaps a billion dollars to a coal company called Adani, but, as far as helping people in the regions of the north, there is nothing—zero, zilch. This Regional Investment Corporation exercise looks like another run of that.</para>
<para>I don't know what it is with this government and transparency. What is it with this government establishing boards and organisations that are effectively able to operate opaquely and without any real oversight? How come we're seeing, yet again, an organisation being set up that will not be subject to reasonable scrutiny? How is it that the government can keep setting up organisations, stacking them with their mates and having those organisations operate in the shadows, without any credible form of oversight at all?</para>
<para>As mentioned, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has had some difficulties in actually helping businesses—small businesses, medium businesses, even big businesses—thus far. We're not happy with the $5 billion NAIF—it is yet another blatant exercise in pork barrelling.</para>
<para>Of course we're for regional development and regional investment—that's why we wanted to see something come out of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It's a national imperative but it's also really important that the communities in our part of the world, the regions of the north, see some investment from the federal government. Developing the north is not a new idea, but it's certainly one whose time has come. Agricultural businesses across the north could really do with a helping hand from the federal government but they're yet to really see any assistance. I reflected just the other day on the absolute shambles that was the handling of the backpacker tax by the exact people opposite who now want to set up another corporation that's going to pretend to assist.</para>
<para>If anything like this new corporation is going to be set up, it needs to be done in a way that's transparent. Obviously it needs to be done in a timely manner, to minimise the amount of money spent on administration of that fund—unfortunately, the only money spent on the NAIF is for the executive and board; as I said, not a dollar has come into the territory or across the north—and, perhaps more importantly, it needs to be done in manner that actually works and is actually taken up by the producers. They're the people that the previous speaker, the member for Corangamite, said they were supportive of, but there is no evidence of actions or outcomes matching the rhetoric. As I said, we're not seeing that with the NAIF at all. We're not really seeing it in this bill, either, and it's not really what we've been seeing from this government. This entire bill has been drafted with no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever. That's disgraceful, but no-one knows if this bill will actually deliver on the claims the government has made. No-one knows if we'll fast track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure; no-one knows if it will stimulate investment and economic growth and increase agricultural productivity in rural and regional communities. But that hasn't stopped this government from banging the drum, as they did with the $5 billion NAIF, that this corporation will bring productivity, investment and economic growth. I query why they think this is going to happen, and I query where the government has got the information from that it is going to bring economic growth.</para>
<para>Maybe that's what will happen where the corporation will be established, Orange—and we see the government establishing yet another government agency in a government electorate. First it was Armidale in New England and now it's Orange. I like Orange. It's a nice place if you like the cold. It gets bitterly cold in Orange, but it's a nice place with good people. But, as the member for Bendigo said, you've got to worry about the rationale. So first there is no cost-benefit analysis and then there is no real rationale for locating it in the city of Orange. There was no transparent or fair process undertaken to determine where to base this corporation so, unfortunately, just as we saw with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority that was moved to the current Deputy Prime Minister's electorate, we have seen no rationale whatsoever. It's even worse because what it is proposed that this corporation does is exactly what all the states and territories are already doing. What's the point of doing something that is already being done by state governments? We heard before that it would be happening more speedily than what the states and territories are doing. But I can tell you that, if the NAIF is anything to go by, I currently have a bit more confidence in the states and territories working with the regions than I have in the current federal government in actually getting some support out the door for our regions.</para>
<para>There are proponents across the north of Australia that are keen for this concessional loan assistance so that they can drive their regional productivity and have successful businesses that do well and bring prosperity to our country. I'm just saying that it's an example of where it's not happening. The Northern Territory government, for example, is running the Drought Concessional Loans Scheme, which already provides concessional loan support to farmers in the Territory. So it's already doing that. What my concern is, and the concern of many on this side, is that those opposite want to set up a process that is duplicating what is already being done to provide a veneer of them actually doing something productive to help out farmers and others on the land. So I don't think that anybody will be taking this up.</para>
<para>It's supposed to be a loan scheme of last resort, but at the same time the farm business will need to be deemed a viable operation. Whether a farm business is determined as being viable has been a major issue for the states and territories when developing their guidelines for concessional loans. This will still be a problem with the new concessional loans scheme. It just looks like a policy for appearances. I remember well when the NAIF was launched and deliberately deceptive statements went out on all media across the north of Australia: $5 billion for the north. It's the appearance of things. What I'm concerned about is that those opposite are not fair dinkum. There has failed to be a consistent, coherent rationale for the establishment of this corporation. There have been mixed messages about the policy objectives of the establishment of this corporation.</para>
<para>Further, the concessional loans are only for a period of 10 years. What happens to these farmers after the 10-year period? Where do they go after that? Will they need to go back to their old banks and ask if they can go back on the books? The government is claiming that the loans offered will not be the same as those currently being offered through state and territory governments, but it has completely failed to explain the differences. The government has not undertaken any genuine consultation about the functions and responsibilities of this corporation. The NAIF was launched two years ago, and the only thing we have seen come out of it is the wages of the executives, with no real output. I fail to see why this new Regional Investment Corporation set up by the government will be any different. The board of this corporation have extended powers and even less oversight. That's a concern, because when you're talking about millions or billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds there needs to be sufficient oversight and transparency. But the government has completely failed to ensure safeguards from political influence. This is very concerning and adds to the worries we have about the effectiveness of this scheme.</para>
<para>I am not convinced that this agency will be any better at delivering for Australians than the NAIF currently is. It needs a review and it needs to be assessed again. This fund is supposed to provide emergency relief to farmers, but if it's administered the same way the NAIF has been, as we fear it will be, in a year's time all those farmers will still be waiting. This government has shown how incompetent it is in delivering these funding agencies. We know that from our own experiences in the north. It's also shown how opaque and how far removed it has made these agencies from proper scrutiny. It's shown it can't be trusted to establish these agencies.</para>
<para>As I mentioned at the outset, people on this side support working people in our regions in producing for our country. One example is the agricultural output of the rural area just outside Darwin, which is incredible. They're producing more than the Ord River system is producing at this point in time. We're fair dinkum about supporting people on the land. We want to make sure the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility works. Should we come into government at the next election, we'll be working with the NAIF to get it working properly, to make sure there's proper oversight and to ensure that it's not just jobs for the boys but that it is actually helping proponents on the land.</para>
<para>Our concern with this bill is that, again, we have a suggestion of a corporation which appears to be helping people in the regions but which seems to be another exercise in creating agencies to go into electorates held by those opposite. That's not a way to develop our regions. It seems that this bill is designed to come up with an organisation that duplicates what states and territories are doing and that doesn't have proper oversight, and, for that reason, we're not supportive.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. The introduction of this bill into parliament is another significant step towards seeing the $4 billion Regional Investment Corporation open for business by July 2018. Before I talk about the Regional Investment Corporation, I want to make a couple of comments about the contribution by the member for Bendigo. When I listened to that speech, I thought it was a long and meandering contribution. On the one hand, she seemed to be saying that the Regional Investment Corporation was a bad thing and that it shouldn't be supported. On the other hand, she was saying that it should have come to Bendigo. Well, member for Bendigo, I've got some advice for you. I'm trying to get the member some jobs in her own seat through the Murray-Darling medical school. If she is serious about building employment in her region, she should get up, put her shoulder to the wheel and do a bit of fighting and lobbying for projects like the Murray-Darling medical school, instead of coming into this place and giving long and meandering incongruous contributions, like that which she gave this afternoon.</para>
<para>The Regional Investment Corporation is one of the key election commitments of the Liberals and Nationals. It will improve the delivery of funds to farmers and ensure greater national consistency in farm business loan assessments. It will determine guidelines, policies and procedures needed for the delivery of farm business and water infrastructure loans. It will assess farm business loan applications. It will make decisions on farm business loan approvals, and it will work with states and territories and other parties on water infrastructure proposals. It will also provide expert evidence to the government on water infrastructure proposals. It will enter into agreements, on behalf of the Commonwealth, with states and territories for those water infrastructure loans and it will administer approved farm business and water infrastructure loans. It will provide advice to the government on the needs of the agricultural sector and opportunities to improve its programs.</para>
<para>While it's not a bank in a formal sense, the RIC's delivery of loans makes it a significant financial institution. It won't mean the Australian government becomes a lender of last resort. It is expected that the eligibility criteria will require applicants to be viable businesses, with the support of their existing commercial lenders. It will be administering $2 billion in concessional loans, which are designed to encourage growth, investment and resilience in our rural and regional communities. To date, more than $725 million in farm business concessional loans has been approved to over 1,340 farm businesses, with over 1,100 farm businesses approved for drought-related or farm finance concessional loans.</para>
<para>As we've heard in this House today, currently the Australian government's farm business and concessional loans are delivered through the states and territories. But we're committed to $350 million in farm business concessional loans per year for 10 years in the agricultural competitiveness white paper. It's fair to say that, in the past, the delivery of these loans has proved very challenging, which is why we need the RIC, because we've had protracted negotiations with the states on loan guidelines and administration funding, and they've led to delays in making loans available to farmers experiencing drought and hardship. The different state assessment processes have also resulted in a lack of national consistency in the delivery of these loans, and some states have even refused to make some loan products available, denying farmers access to the same facilities that are available to farmers in other states. That's just not right. We need to be getting help to farmers when it's needed and we need to get them that help quickly. It needs to be done as efficiently as possible, and that's what the RIC will do.</para>
<para>Additionally, the RIC will deliver the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, providing concessional loans to the states and territories to fast-track priority water infrastructure projects. These loans will provide an incentive to states and territories to get these projects cracking. Water security is vitally important to our country communities, and a lack of water security is one of the biggest impediments to growth in regional Australia. I'm speaking here of economic growth, population growth, and the development of these communities generally. Indeed, in 2010 Orange itself almost ran out of water. Water security is very close to the hearts of country people, and this facility can make a big difference to country communities. There wouldn't be a country community anywhere in Australia that wouldn't support this facility and this initiative.</para>
<para>Now, the introduction of this legislation of course follows the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister on 16 May that central western New South Wales will host the Regional Investment Corporation. I have to say that that announcement was warmly welcomed by the communities of the west. We need all the help we can get out there. I heard the member for Hunter say in this House last night how well Orange is going economically. The inference was that the Regional Investment Corporation isn't really needed there, because Orange is going okay and it can take care of itself. When I heard those words, it sounded to me like an excuse for inaction. It was very disturbing.</para>
<para>Let me tell you what's happened economically in our area in recent times. Orange is resilient, but it's taken its knocks and so has the whole area. Electrolux was once one of the largest employers in our area. It was Australia's last fridge-making plant. The factory had been operating in Orange since the Second World War, and it was making a healthy profit. It was making millions of dollars in profit every year for its owners, and that was thanks to the great work of its managers and its wonderful local workforce. But in a boardroom in Sweden, the management of Electrolux decided that, despite the Orange operation being profitable, more money could be made in Thailand, where the workers are paid $2.50 an hour. In the blink of an eye, 550 jobs were gone. We not only lost those jobs, but we lost another 100 to 200 contractors as well. Up to 750 jobs were lost in one hit. Tens of millions of dollars in wages alone was ripped out of the local economy—that's tens of millions of dollars gone every year. The knock-on effect from the closure has been keenly felt. There are still ex-Electrolux employees looking for work. There have been a number of major closures around Australia in recent years, including those relating to the car industry and the power industry. But if you look at the job losses on a per capita basis in Orange, there would be few areas that have copped a bigger hit in recent times. On top of the Electrolux hit, we've had other losses, such as the rail engineering firm Downer EDI pulling out of Bathurst—with the loss of 100 jobs—and the downturn in mining, and there have been others.</para>
<para>The RIC will initially mean 25 to 30 jobs, but, in country communities, those jobs matter. Given the economies of Bathurst and Orange are now so closely connected, with hundreds of people commuting between the two cities every day, there is no doubt that folks from Bathurst, Blayney and Cabonne will certainly get a chance to apply for, and indeed bag, one of those jobs. The Labor Party should be supporting jobs in Orange. The member for Hunter can be sure that at the upcoming local government elections, the state election in 2019 and the next federal election, I'll be reminding the communities in our area which party turned its back on these communities and these jobs.</para>
<para>Following the 2017 budget, Labor announced it would not be supporting the RIC and would be pocketing the $28.5 million in RIC establishment costs as budget savings. But, over the past four years, the Commonwealth has paid $37.65 million to the states and Northern Territory governments to administer the concessional loans. Labor states such as Victoria and Western Australia want to be paid even more to deliver these loans by up to five or eight per cent, which would cost the Commonwealth between $59 million to $89 million over four years. So the RIC will save the Commonwealth government money. It's a good deal for taxpayers. It's also revenue neutral. The interest rates it will charge are intended to be set at a level that covers the cost to the government of raising the capital for the loans and also the corporation's operating costs. I note that Labor has falsely claimed that the farmers are choosing not to take these loans up, but the reality is that 1,342 farm businesses have been approved for $724.4 million. So the RIC will stimulate growth and development in country communities, and that's precisely what the Australian government should be doing. I note that the recruitment for the RIC board positions and chair has already started, which is very positive news.</para>
<para>This announcement has had widespread support from Regional Development Australia. The RDA vice-chair, Reg Kidd, said that the announcement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… represented a huge boost for the region and was recognition that Central West NSW was one of the most suitable and attractive regions in the country for investment and the location of government agencies.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">It not only benefits our regional communities, but it provides the government with much stronger regional partnerships and taps in to the expertise we already have here.</para></quote>
<para>I think that that was very well said by Mr Kidd and Regional Development Australia.</para>
<para>The National Farmers Federation has welcomed the announcement. President Fiona Simpson has stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It just make sense for an agency charged with administering concessional loans to farmers to be based in the regions where farm businesses operate.</para></quote>
<para>What she says is true. She knows country Australia. She's from the New England area herself on the Liverpool Plains.</para>
<para>Orange is an important agricultural hub in our region, and the Orange branch of NSW Farmers has also been very supportive. Bruce Reynolds, Peter West, Fiona Hall, Sim Gaeta and Annette Brown have all been very positive about this. One of the reasons that Orange has been chosen is its proven track record in agricultural and rural financing. It's renowned for its rural-financing sector, with the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority; the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries; Macquarie bank's rural investment arm, Paraway Pastoral Co.; and NAB's rural-banking arm all based in the area. In 2015, Paraway Pastoral Co.'s head office was decentralised as well from Sydney to Orange. It's a huge operation in terms of its large-scale sheep and cattle enterprises across Australia, and it has become one of the largest pastoral landowners in the country with over 4.4 million hectares.</para>
<para>So we have this track record, and we have the expertise out here. The member for Hunter said in his offering last night that it's because of political threats that it's coming to Orange. Cast your mind back to the last federal election, Member for Hunter, where we were fortunate enough to win every booth in Orange, including those booths that the Labor Party used to call their own. They are some of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia, and they don't vote for the Labor Party anymore. The reason they don't vote for the Labor Party any more is that the Labor Party have forsaken them. The Labor Party don't represent country people anymore, don't represent people of disadvantage in the regions and don't speak for them.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What nonsense!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't. You turn your backs on them, you ignore them and you take them for granted. That's not the way we operate in country Australia. As I've indicated, the people in Orange will remember who has supported them and who is not supporting them.</para>
<para>This is just part of the wider decentralisation strategy of the Australian government, and we need to support it. And when the opponents of decentralisation in the Labor Party stand up and say that we shouldn't be doing it, that we shouldn't be moving jobs out of capital cities, to people in the country, they're talking a totally different language. It just epitomises the great divide between the cities and the bush, the way the Labor Party talks about decentralisation. I just don't understand it. People in country New South Wales and country Australia understand the value and importance of decentralisation, but every time you say you want to decentralise a government department those on the opposition benches scream blue murder and say the sky is going to fall.</para>
<para>The member for Hunter should take note of a number of those councils in Labor controlled seats that made submissions to the recent Senate inquiry supporting decentralisation. People support it, and they want it, and they want their elected representatives to go in and fight for it. By not supporting decentralisation the member for Hunter is failing to back the country communities he claims to represent. Those on the opposition benches who continually oppose decentralisation are selling regional communities out; you really are. That's why you're losing touch. It's because of the influence of the city interests, which have basically taken hold of the opposition benches, which is very disappointing. There was a time that, when they had these seats, they used to stand up and fight for them, and they'd back them. But they don't anymore.</para>
<para>The Liberals and Nationals have a very strong record of standing up and fighting for people in the country. We've got the backpacker tax sorted; we've got the wine equalisation tax sorted; the instant asset write-off has been sorted; Gonski funding has been sorted, with country schools being the biggest winners; and country-of-origin labelling laws—the list goes on and on. And this latest decentralisation initiative is part of a wider Australian government policy of decentralising departments to country areas and letting all Australians share in the wealth of this nation, which is what we should be doing, and I commend this bill to the House. I also commend it to other members and hope that they will support it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's great to follow the new member for Calare—an absolute fighter for regional Australia and of course following on from the former member, Mr Cobb. I'm sure that the new member for Calare will be just as consistent, just as strong, and will do a wonderful job in his role.</para>
<para>But I do rise to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, which is another important 2016 election commitment that we, the coalition government, are delivering. By establishing this corporation the government is recognising the significant contribution that regional communities, where about 33 per cent of the population live, make to Australia. The Regional Investment Corporation will deliver up to $4 billion in concessional loans under the government's farm business concessional loans program and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. It will streamline the administration of farm business loans, delivering national consistency and ensuring that loans are carefully and promptly assessed to help farmers in need.</para>
<para>Currently there are different agreements with the states and territories, and there has been inconsistency with loan decisions. The corporation will have a client focused culture that is receptive to and understands the unique nature of farming. As a former farmer, I can tell you that it is unique. It certainly teaches you a couple of things, and the first one is resilience. You absolutely need resilience to be in that game. The second is acceptance—to manage the things you have no control over, particularly the weather.</para>
<para>The corporation will also provide independent advice to government on projects for consideration under the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility and then deliver approved grants of financial assistance loans to the states and territories to fast-track the construction of priority water infrastructure projects. The Commonwealth has offered concessional loans since 2013-14 to help farm businesses through these difficult times. Farmers have many variables to deal with in their business—the weather, which of course affects growing conditions, and fluctuations in price. Having been in the game most of my life, I can tell you that it was on only one occasion that I saw all those things come together—price, crop, delivery, and in the bank. But at the moment agriculture is the shining star of our economy, along with tourism. Our growers are going incredibly well, and I congratulate them on their persistence. In recent years the canegrowers in my electorate of Hinkler have been faced with the decision to either irrigate or hold off and wait for rain, because electricity costs are playing a huge role in those decisions as to whether they even turn the pump on. At the start of this year, a third-generation Bundaberg farmer, Dean Cayley, told me he's not sure that there will be a fourth generation of cane farmers in his family due to electricity prices. In his view, electricity prices are out of control. Of course, it's not just cane farmers; it is right across rural production. One of the electricity bills for a 90-day period in which he estimated that he only irrigated for about half of that time was $20,307. He was expecting the bill for the next quarter to triple to $60,000 just in electricity costs for irrigation.</para>
<para>Farmers live and work with this type of uncertainty every single day. There are occasions when they do need a hand. There is no doubt these loans are successfully providing practical support to the farm businesses that have received them, with over $680 million in loans approved to 1,275 farm businesses as at 30 April 2017. The farm business loans offered by the corporation will help viable farm businesses return to normal operating conditions. That's important. They will also boost farm productivity and cash flow and provide positive economic and social flow-on effects for regional Australia. They will help those businesses take advantage of emerging opportunities at a time when the ag sector is performing incredibly well.</para>
<para>Ag is a key pillar of our economy. It is performing extremely well, and, in fact, had record farmgate production value in the last 12 months. In June the gross value of farm production was forecast by ABARES to reach $62.8 billion in 2016-17. Ag is growing faster than any other sector at 15 per cent in the 12 months to the March quarter. While a slight dip is forecast for the gross value of Australian farm production in 2017-18, it is still expected to be nine per cent higher than the average of $55 billion over the previous five years. The gross value of livestock production is forecast to increase by 3½ per cent to $30 billion in 2017-18, driven by forecast increases in prices for livestock products, particularly wool and dairy. Export earnings from farm commodities are forecast to remain at $48 billion for 2017-18. A number of agricultural commodities are expected to see rises in their export earnings—beef and veal up four per cent, wool up six per cent, dairy up 14 per cent, cotton up 34 per cent, wine up five per cent, lamb up four per cent and rock lobsters up two per cent. Export earnings for fisheries' products are forecast to increase by 1.2 per cent to $1.5 billion in 2017-18.</para>
<para>Last year I visited the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative in North Fremantle. It is the world's largest processor and exporter of rock lobsters. The cooperative has a membership of some 200 fishermen, employs 350 Australians and currently sells around $450 million worth of rock lobsters every single year. It's benefited greatly from Australia's free trade agreement with China, which has seen the tariff for fresh or chilled rock lobsters reduced to just six per cent. For the first six months of 2016, direct Chinese imports of live, fresh and chilled Australian rock lobster more than tripled compared to the same period in 2015 to reach $20.7 million. GFC have invested heavily in response to ChAFTA. They have a live lobster facility within the grounds of Guangzhou airport in China. I also visited that facility last year. Another live lobster facility is under construction at Perth international airport and, once complete, will aim to have the shortest tank-to-tank flight time, just 14 hours. They are an absolute success. They are an export success story. I have seen it firsthand. I congratulate them on the work that they do in delivering live rock lobsters to Chinese consumers.</para>
<para>Coming from a farming family, as I said, and having a major primary producing region in my electorate, I understand firsthand the vital role that ag plays in our economy, our communities and our way of life in regional Australia. I know all too well that water is absolutely critical. I certainly remember well having very little water supply—20 per cent of allocation—drought-stricken crop and a price which was the worst that the world had ever seen for sugar at 4½c a pound. That certainly left me and my wife scratching our heads. But, like many others, we worked our way through that. But these are the challenges of agricultural production.</para>
<para>Water and water infrastructure is critical for our future prosperity not only for ag industries but right across regional Australia. So we as a government are committed to working with the states and territories to identify and build water infrastructure for the 21st century. We need to secure Australia's water resources. The coalition government has committed $500 million under the National Water Infrastructure and Development Fund, including $247 million for priority projects committed to in the 2016 election, $130 million for Rookwood Weir, $59.5 million for 39 feasibility studies across the nation and approximately $30 million for 16 studies in Queensland, and 15 feasibility studies and one water resource assessment have been undertaken by the CSIRO.</para>
<para>One of those projects is a feasibility study into upgrading the capacity of the Bundaberg Channel in my electorate of Hinkler, which has been around for many decades. The study will look at the most effective options for channel upgrades and improve water security and augmentation of the Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme, with the possibility of 100,000 megalitres of additional water becoming available for use. That is a substantial boost to the local economy, if we can manage to pull that project off. Also, we will look at the potential for the additional water to supply new and existing customers within the scheme, or new areas outside of the scheme, because, clearly, efficiencies make all the difference. We can expand our agricultural area if we have less loss. The first milestone for that project was completed in April 2017 with the payment of $140,000 to the Queensland government. This included completion of a demand assessment for uptake of allocations for Paradise Dam and the review of previous supply studies completed by Psi Delta for SunWater. The demand potentially includes supply of water from the Paradise Dam to the Gayndah regional irrigation district. The demand assessment also identified possible infrastructure required to enable water supplies to potential new demand areas and customers. The business case to examine options for system upgrades and expansion, including into underdeveloped cropping areas, is underway right now. The business case will examine the development costs, the approvals, the benefits and what the expansion options are for phase 1. That business case and study are due to be completed by 30 April 2018.</para>
<para>Another feasibility study we have undertaken is into the Gayndah Regional Irrigation Development project. This is an incredibly important project for Central Queensland, particularly for the sugar industry. The study will look at the feasibility of new water storage and irrigation infrastructure options which could provide up to an additional 28,000 million litres to develop 6,400 hectares of sugar cane in the Gayndah region of the Burnett River catchment. That would boost production for one of our local mills by some 500,000 tonnes of cane. That is a substantial investment. That cane would be then sent by rail to the Isis Central Sugar Mill, just outside of Childers, for processing. This could result in the creation of an estimated 92 jobs and an injection of $60 million a year into our regional economy. This project will investigate reinstating the crest level of the Claude Wharton Weir, utilising existing water reserves and the transfer of un-utilised water allocations to service priority irrigation areas in the Reids Creek and Byrnestown/Wetherton areas to expand cane production to that 6,400 hectares. The first milestone was completed on time in May 2017 and the first payment of $600,000 has been made to the Queensland state government. This included analysis by GHD to identify options for increasing the supply of water to priority bring irrigation waters in the North Burnett, including Reids Creek, Byrnestown and Wetherton. Options assessed as technically feasible include either harvesting water from the Burnett River at Mount Lawless or accessing water for the Paradise Dam via pumping releases from the river at Mingo crossing to Byrnestown. The business case will assess all of those and will be completed by April 2018.</para>
<para>We've committed 100 per cent for the funding for these feasibility studies. However, the Queensland state Labor government had to be forced into committing to deliver the projects—for free money! There was 100 per cent funding from the Commonwealth and we still had challenges with the Queensland state government. The Queensland state minister for water supply attempted to accuse us of failing to tell proponents of water feasibility studies that funding would be once yearly in arrears. This was despite the same minister actually signing, on behalf of the Queensland government, the National Partnership Agreement for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund in May 2016. So, clearly, the minister really should read his contracts a little bit more closely.</para>
<para>The agreement sets out that the federal government will make annual payments for projects on the advice from the Queensland government that the agreed milestones have been met, and that's exactly what happened. Under that fund, the state or territory government is the project proponent and funding is provided to them directly. The fund is intended to support state and territory governments to deliver key water infrastructure projects, which is their responsibility, and to help them attract co-investment from project partners. The feasibility studies are an important step. They will create the groundwork for states to draw on the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, for which $2 billion has been committed as concessional loans to accelerate the construction of new water and infrastructure into the future.</para>
<para>Regional Australia deserves well paid and highly skilled jobs just as much as any other area of the country. To achieve that, we need to deliver consistent water supply and infrastructure. It will allow regional Australia to expand and provide more jobs, and we can continue to produce the wonderful produce that everyone around the world desires and wants to pay a premium price for. It is up to us to ensure we deliver the infrastructure that is required, and certainly this bill is part of that process. I commend to it the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
    <electorate>Wakefield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was an extraordinary double punch from the National Party. I really struggled to listen to much of it. We had the member for Calare—I thought some of his contribution regarding people in Orange was worthy of listening to. I understand exactly the sort of king-hit that communities can get from losing manufacturing industries. We're about to lose a car industry, thanks to this government, so I feel very keenly for those people in Orange who lost their jobs at that plant. It's all the more galling when you know that the plant was profitable. But that wasn't a decision of government; that was a corporate decision. It should be condemned for the profit-chasing, job-destroying rationale that it was. But the rest of his speech was a replication of the normal National Party talking points, which we got a bit of from the member for Hinkler and which, no doubt, we'll get a bit of from the next speaker as well. It is all this sort of stuff about Labor not knowing the country, blah, blah, blah. I grew up in a rural community. I grew up with farmers.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mildura.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, Kapunda. I do know something of Mildura. I spent my time picking apricots and peaches up and down the river. I understand the wealth that irrigation can produce. I understand the wealth that farmers create for this country and just how hard they work and the conditions they work in. I can remember people going broke. People I went to school with—their parents going broke. And it is a very difficult, harrowing experience for everybody in the community. So we don't want to lessen some of the emotive stuff that gets talked about in this chamber. But we do have to acknowledge the other thing that country people tend to hate, in my experience, which is boondoggles. They don't like boondoggles, they don't like waste and they don't like chaos. They tend to be pretty orderly people.</para>
<para>And what do we see from this government? This week we have seen complete chaos—chaos flowing on from a government that's essentially had two prime ministers and a Leader of the Opposition in it. I think they've had three Defence ministers, 14 or 15 other ministerial changes—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Tehan interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course, those opposite sitting at the table—the Minister for Veterans' Affairs likes the chaos because he's been promoted through it. It's been a great boon to his career. He wouldn't have gone very far if there had been stability in their ranks. I'm not so sure about—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr McCormack interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>According to the next speaker, it was just merit.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think there's a bit of jealously because there was chaos on your side too.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is an interjection I will take. I have reflected on that from time to time! The point is: chaos is not good for the country, farmers, in particular. I go out to the country, and they ask me, 'What the hell's going on?' They are certainly not impressed with loose accountability in the Commonwealth government. They don't like it under a government of any shade. And that is essentially what we have here. We have decentralisation on the back of an envelope, decentralisation for the National Party, which, of course, represents a sectional interest of farmers—east coast farmers, east coast communities, upriver communities.</para>
<para>I remember vividly that at Balaclava—a great country town, a very conservative place, a lot of good farmers—they had a meeting before the 2007 election, and one of them got up and said, 'I'm voting Labor.' There was a hush in the room. He said, 'I hate the way the Liberal Party always outsources agricultural policy to the National Party.' The reason that point had such power is that it's the truth. There's this outsourcing of agricultural policy, every time, to a section of the rural community—certainly not the whole rural community in the seats they represent, and certainly not the rural community of Australia. We saw that in the wheat bill very many years ago, and we see it here too.</para>
<para>Basically we're opposing this bill because of the serious governance issues. There are governance issues that have been pointed out by the National Farmers' Federation and there are governance issues that have been pointed out by the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA. They're all in the report of the Senate committee inquiry into this bill. So it is a very serious thing.</para>
<para>These are some of the things in the dissenting report, and I don't mind reading them. There is no coherent policy rationale for the establishment of the RIC. There have been mixed messages when enunciating the policy objectives for this. The government's failed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis, to give us some confidence that spending $28 million of taxpayers' money establishing and operating this delivers good value. It goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the government:</para></quote>
<list>Has deliberately structured the enabling legislation to minimise Parliamentary scrutiny and/or veto of Ministerial directions …</list>
<list>Has failed to provide sufficient oversight for the activities of the corporation;</list>
<list>Has failed to properly consider the effectiveness of the size of the board with regards to the range of expertise requirements and safeguards against political interference;</list>
<list>Has extended the scope of the Board's and/or the CEO's capacity to delegate powers and functions beyond what is prudent governance …</list>
<para>They've had to use the external affairs power to give this constitutional underpinning, and there are some doubts about that. Also, essentially, ministerial review will be kept secret. We have to remember that this corporation will effectively operate as a bank underwritten by the Commonwealth. Coming from the state of South Australia I can tell you there are some risks in that, if you don't have proper oversight. We have seen those risks over time, and they can be as devastating for rural communities as they are for city communities.</para>
<para>So this is a very concerning bit of legislation, put up by a minister who, let's face it, has had better weeks and is not really across the details—not quite across the details of the Constitution, for instance! There is a bit of a difficulty there. You can feel those at the table espying a few more opportunities to slide up—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr McCormack interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You'll have 7½ minutes in your speaking opportunity. I'm sure you can set us right about how you really don't want to be promoted and you are happy where you are! We don't need to talk about the leadership of the National Party—a return to the grey conservatism; no more colourful leaders for the National Party.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just remind the member for Wakefield we are discussing the Regional Investment Corporation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is a fair point. But the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, talked about water infrastructure and you gave him wide latitude, so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed wide latitude—not that I'm dissenting from your ruling. I'm just pointing out that the previous speaker, in a very calm voice, talked about all sorts of things, such as water infrastructure, and I know a bit about water infrastructure, because there's a project in the north of my electorate which is very important to South Australia. This project is so important to South Australia that the government, at the last election, basically made an election promise to provide funding for a feasibility study into this. Now the feasibility study is in, and guess what? This thing adds up: 3½ thousand jobs, lots of investment. All it needs is $110 million from the state government and $46 million from the Commonwealth government.</para>
<para>I've written to the Deputy Prime Minister about this project. I know many other people have put in their two bob's worth about this project. It's a very important project because it takes treated effluent water which is currently discharged into the gulf and, protecting the environment, pumps it north onto farming land which is, I suppose, less productive than some of the farming land in my electorate, and it can be used for intensive horticultural purposes. This project, the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme, also has a commitment from the opposition. Bill Shorten came out about three or four weeks ago now and committed to this project. He said, 'If the government doesn't do this, we will.' I might add that we committed to it at the previous election as well, because South Australia needs jobs. Just like Orange, which the member for Calare was talking about, we're about to get king hit. Why are we about to get king hit? I'll tell you why: because of this government.</para>
<para>We would still have a car industry today if the investment decision hadn't lined up with the prime ministership of Tony Abbott. That's actually what cost this country the car industry—those two things lining up. It is a devastating king hit to my electorate, to South Australia, to Victoria and to our manufacturing ability, capacity and coherence. So many things hang off the car industry. There are rural communities affected, too. In my home town of Kapunda, the hay mill used to take all the empty shipping containers from Holden and fill them up with hay to export. Now they have to import empty shipping containers, from Victoria or somewhere else, presumably, to go out again. So there were all these economies of scale that hung off the car industry.</para>
<para>This is a very serious issue. We need jobs in South Australia. We don't need criticism, which we constantly get from the Commonwealth government. We don't need platitudes, which we constantly get from the Commonwealth government. What we actually need is jobs. Here is a situation where you have the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme sitting there ready to go—jobs, investment, improvements, all the things the previous speaker talked about—and why can't we sign off on it? I'll tell you why: because this government's paralysed by the intransigence of the member for New England. He's putting his own interests ahead of the government. We all know what the honourable thing is to put the government out of its misery. We all know what the sensible thing would have been to do: to say, 'I'm a New Zealander; technicality; I will honourably resign and go to the people.' Let them return him, if that's the case. But he doesn't do that. Instead he holds the government and the country to ransom, and in the process he's holding this project to ransom. Let's be clear about this. There are projects all over this country which require his undivided attention, his undivided authority, his uncompromised authority.</para>
<para>So there are some very serious issues in this bill about governance. It tells you a lot about the National Party and how they operate; how they operate for one group of farmers, the silver circle that you will find in any country town and any rural community. They don't operate for everybody in rural communities, and they certainly don't represent South Australian farmers. The problem with the Liberal Party, particularly the South Australian Liberal Party and the Liberal Party out west, is they don't do a very good job of standing up to the National Party. It's always been the National Party tail wagging the Liberal Party dog.</para>
<para>With those kind comments about the government, its coherence, its prospects and its performance, I will say that we oppose the bill. We oppose it for good, sound reasons, reasons that my conservative grandfather would have been happy to say: don't waste money on boondoggles and don't have what effectively are government-owned banks let loose with little oversight. With that I will conclude my remarks.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's agricultural production under the Liberal-National government has experienced strong economic growth. The strong performance of the sector is support by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, forecasting the gross value of Australian farm production to reach $61.3 billion in 2017-18. The agricultural sector is the pillar of rural and regional communities, with the effects of a poor or good season being felt far beyond the farm gate. The men and women—I would say boys and girls too, because farming is a family enterprise—cultivate the land, feed our nation and sell high quality food and fibre to the world. They're the ones who keep this nation going. The economy is all the better for it.</para>
<para>In my electorate of the Riverina and the central west, our local economy is backed by a thriving agricultural sector and diverse small businesses. From Yerong Creek to Peak Hill and everywhere in between, from canola to barley, wool to dairy and food processing to winemaking, produce of almost every variety is grown in that fine area in south-west New South Wales. As one of the nation's most important food bowls, the region makes a mighty contribution, growing some of Australia's best fresh food and produce. But we also recognise that with the good seasons invariably also come the bad.</para>
<para>The Regional Investment Corporation, a commitment made before the last election—and we won the last election—will continue to back our regional and rural communities. We want to support the hardworking farmers and their families who turn the land every day to feed our nation and the world. The establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation will help secure economic growth and investment in rural and regional Australia whilst also supporting our country communities to become more resilient in times of hardship. In the 2017 budget, handed down on 9 May with such aplomb by the Treasurer, the member for Cook, we delivered on this commitment. The Regional Investment Corporation will deliver up to $4 billion in concessional loans under the government's farm business concessional loans program and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. The establishment of the corporation will streamline Commonwealth financing and concessional loan processing to enable new dams to be financed quickly and ensure drought loans are speedily approved to help farmers in need.</para>
<para>The corporation has been a long-time goal of the Deputy Prime Minister. Some have called it the 'Barnaby bank'. He is of course the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and the member for New England. His work to get it established is a testament to his advocacy, determination, drive and vision. It will operate as a separate entity within the agriculture and water resources portfolio. When hardship occurs or unforeseen circumstances such as a drought or industry crisis hit, the corporation provides the ability to act swiftly to respond and support our farmers as required.</para>
<para>I was born and raised on family farms. I understand the challenges faced when a whole season is at stake due to low rainfall. I get it. Pressures at home rise and families come under severe financial strain at times. The Nationals in government have a strong record of delivering assistance to farmers when times are tough, and we're helped all along the way particularly by regional Liberals such as the member for Wannon, the minister at the table. He's the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.</para>
<para>More than $1.1 billion has been provided to support farmers since the coalition was elected in 2013. This is in direct contrast to Labor. Labor has a shell of a drought policy, demonstrating its lack of support for farmers, regional communities and agriculture more broadly. Under Labor, the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy was cut. Under Labor, the department of agriculture's budget was slashed—indeed, cut in half. Under Labor, the former agriculture minister, the member for Watson, directed the Productivity Commission to review the rural research and development system, threatening longstanding policy which matched the investment from farmers' R&D levies. Instead, Labor wanted the R&D funds to be directed towards government priorities rather than matters put on the table directly by the farmers who pay the levies. There's a good reason that farmers cannot and do not trust Labor. There's a good reason for it.</para>
<para>Labor have said they will scrap the Regional Investment Corporation and pocket the budget savings. They will do what they always do. They make up these pretend numbers, they spend the money and then, when the money doesn't come in, the money is gone and the economy is the worse for it. But, hopefully, they won't get back into government any time soon.</para>
<para>Last year, the Victorian Labor government delayed delivery of dairy recovery concessional loans by playing crude political games. The Regional Investment Corporation is the solution to address the politics from Labor, whether it's federally or whether it's at a state level. The corporation will administer the $2 billion in concessional loans to support the long-term strength, sustainability and profitability of farm businesses. And farm businesses, I have to say, are the backbone of the economy—just like all small businesses are—and they're benefitting from the tax rate going down to 27½ per cent, the lowest it's been since 1940, the lowest it's been for 77 years. They're also benefitting from the redefinition of what a small business is, from a $2 million turnover to a $10 million turnover, and that enables tens of thousands of small businesses, many of them farmers, to take advantage of this fantastic initiative and of the Regional Investment Corporation. They are also taking advantage of the instant asset write-off, of our fencing programs and of our programs funding water infrastructure, and they're benefitting as a result. They're also taking advantage of the free trade agreements we have been able to broker with China, South Korea and Japan. There's never been a better time to be a farmer, never been a better time to be a small-business person, certainly in regional Australia, where we have a decentralisation plan which is working.</para>
<para>The Regional Investment Corporation is the solution, and it's a good one. The corporation will administer the $2 billion in concessional loans, and it supports country communities. This assists them to grow and build while maintaining diversity and competition in the markets they supply. The Regional Investment Corporation will also deliver the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, to provide concessional loans to the states and territories to fast-track priority water infrastructure projects. What could be more pertinent in this day and age than building water infrastructure? I have heard the member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister, talking about that ad nauseam—as he should be. We want a secure water supply to unlock even more potential in the agriculture sector and to drive investment across regional and rural Australia, whether it's northern Australia or southern Australia, or in your own area, Deputy Speaker Hogan.</para>
<para>Building and securing new investment in water infrastructure projects will generate local jobs—that's what this government is all about: jobs, jobs and more jobs—and open new possibilities for regional communities. The loan facility will provide an initiative to the states and territories to pursue priority water infrastructure projects. With the successful passage of this bill, the Regional Investment Corporation will be open for business next year, in 2018. That's because our nation is open for business. It was a closed shop under those opposite, but we're open for business. There are trading possibilities and, with small business front and centre of this government's priorities, we are open for business.</para>
<para>Located in Orange in the Central West, it's estimated the corporation will directly employ up to 30 people. That might not seem a lot, but 30 people in a place the size of Orange is significant. Not only has this been met with excitement by the member for Calare, who described the move as the 'country version of Wall Street', but the move is backed by Orange city councillor and local real estate agent Chris Gryllis, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These are jobs that we can do with and as a real estate agent, as a citizen of Orange, and as a councillor, we welcome this initiative.</para></quote>
<para>Of course he's optimistic; of course he's enthusiastic about this. Why wouldn't he be? Establishing the corporation in Orange in the Central West of New South Wales also fits within the government's decentralisation agenda—and what a good agenda that is. President of the National Farmers' Federation, Fiona Simson, supports the move. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It just makes sense for an agency charged with administering concessional loans to farmers to be based in the regions where farm businesses operate.</para></quote>
<para>Moving government departments to the regions puts money back into towns, and local business benefits. We want to see regional communities reach the greatest potential for economic growth and agricultural productivity.</para>
<para>Over the longer term, decentralisation of government agencies such as the Regional Investment Corporation will create new career pathways and build local capacity for our young people to live and work in the communities they grew up in. Sadly, sometimes in country communities our best exports are our young people. We want to give them the incentive, if they have left, to come back; but better still we want to give them the incentive to stay and not leave in the first place. Our regional towns and communities will now become centres of excellence—they always were, but they just need a bit of prodding sometimes—creating long-term confidence and sustainability within regional Australia.</para>
<para>We know that the contribution that agriculture makes nationally to our bottom line and locally in our regional towns and communities is enormous. The Nationals and Liberals stand united with farmers, and we have the record to prove it. We've delivered a $4 billion agricultural competitiveness white paper, the most substantive investment in agriculture to date. We've strengthened the rural research and development system, with the $190 million Rural R&D for Profit initiative and confirmed that farmers' R&D funds should be prioritised towards initiatives to boost farmgate returns.</para>
<para>Protecting commodities from pests and diseases is an ongoing challenge, and we're delivering $25.8 million for the control of pest weeds and animals in drought affected regions. There was also a boost of $200 million through the agricultural competitiveness white paper. I have often heard the member for New England in question time come to this despatch box and talk about the eradication programs we're funding to eliminate wild dogs and the like and just get mocked by those opposite, who don't understand what those dogs do to regional communities and the regional stock on which we all rely.</para>
<para>We're providing security of future funding for the Rural Financial Counselling Service and extra resources to ensure that farmers have the support that at times they desperately need. And drought affected communities are supported by the $35 million Drought Communities Program to help fund local projects and provide employment opportunities in 23 municipalities across Australia. We have strengthened the Farm Management Deposits Scheme to help farm businesses deal more effectively with fluctuations in cash flow due to environmental and market changes.</para>
<para>We have delivered other policies that will directly benefit farmers. Developing northern Australia is part of the government's vision to unlock new opportunities in the north. The northern Australia white paper provides $700 million—they're big numbers, but they're what we're delivering—for priority road projects in the north, including $100 million to improve northern cattle supply chains. Beef roads—how important!</para>
<para>Throughout my electorate, on my small business roadshow, I have spoken with farmers in dozens of communities and heard just how helpful the instant asset write-off is for investment in capital equipment and in the office. That is why the government extended the instant asset write-off in the budget this year—because it's just so valuable to small businesses. Farmers and stakeholders told us so. That $20,000 makes all the difference. Farmers can fully deduct the cost of water facilities and fencing in the year those things are purchased, and fodder storage assets over three years. It is important stuff, good stuff.</para>
<para>Through our reforms to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, which were passed in the Senate last night, we're levelling the playing field for small business, including farm businesses. The government have a proud record of delivering the policies to support farmers and farm businesses to manage through drought. We know how important cash flow and equity are. Unlike Labor, the Liberals and Nationals are committed to investing in agriculture and supporting it through hardship. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has forecast significant growth in global food and fibre demand, which will require a 70 per cent increase in food production alone by 2050 compared with average 2007 levels, and that's not including fibre production. Building sustainability in the sector will boost future productivity and provide economic stability.</para>
<para>Our agricultural industries are fundamental to the prosperity of regional Australia and the nation. They are part of our plan to create more local jobs in country communities. Ag is the fabric of our country communities, an important pillar of our economy which has the support of this government. Through this bill we'll continue to back farmers, day in, day out.</para>
<para>Connectivity and synergy are not just buzzwords. It's all about trading partners, it's all about regionalism and it's all about decentralisation. I particularly like the story of Craig Shapiro, a financial services, city, big end of town boy—he wouldn't mind me calling him that. He's one of a growing number of city investors looking to regional Australia. He's the CEO and co-founder of the Blue River Group, which last year purchased the 94-year-old Wagga Wagga dairy company Riverina Fresh. He understands how important regional areas are. He is a fantastic corporate decentralisation story, and we want to see more of it.</para>
<para>That's why this bill is so important. I condemn the member for Hunter's stunt, his second reading amendment, but I do commend the motion. It's a good motion. Parliament should get behind it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to be speaking on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 and speaking in favour of the member for Hunter's excellent amendment to it, which should be passed by all members of this House. It should enjoy their support.</para>
<para>I'll be voting against this bill, and I will be voting against this bill for three reasons. The first is the irregular fashion in which it comes to the parliament, and I want to have a bit to say about that. The second reason that I want to put to the parliament is some of the deep concerns that have been raised by stakeholders and experts about the structure of the bill, the lack of a cost-benefit analysis, and the fact that the structure being established by the bill could be deeply flawed from the get-go. The third reason I want to bring to the fore in this debate is that any bill that has 'development of regional Australia' as its title and objective needs to have at its core the objective of dealing with the growing inequality between Australians who live in some of the richest suburbs of our capital cities and those who come from regional areas such as those that you and I represent, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan. I want to address that issue.</para>
<para>My first objection is the irregular fashion in which the bill comes before the House. The bill was introduced into the House by a minister who, by his own admission, is not eligible to be elected as a member of this House. We know, through the minister's own admission, when he stood up in question time yesterday, without urging or provocation, that each and every time he put his hand up to be elected to the other place or this place, he was a citizen of a foreign power: he was a citizen of the wonderful country of New Zealand. I have nothing against the great country of New Zealand, unlike some of the members opposite who have made utterances. I have to say, I envy their rugby playing abilities; I'd like to win a Bledisloe Cup sometime this century. But being a citizen of a foreign power renders you ineligible to be a member of this place or the other place.</para>
<para>There are many who argue that we should give the member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister, the benefit of the doubt. That's not the standard the government set for the unfortunate senators who have been caught by section 44 of the Constitution. To his credit, the senator for Queensland, Matt Canavan, has done the right thing. We can only imagine the conversations that went on behind closed doors, in the Prime Minister's office, between the Prime Minister and the senator for Queensland. We can only imagine that he was leant upon: 'We do not need a scandal over this; we're calling upon you to no longer exercise a vote in the Senate and step down from your role as a cabinet minister.' That was the standard the government set for their own senator. Why is it different for the Deputy Prime Minister?</para>
<para>If you don't judge the member for New England by the standard the government set for the senator for Queensland, you should at least judge the member for New England by the standard he set for himself. When the unfortunate Greens senators from Western Australia and Queensland were caught by the provisions of section 44(i) of the Constitution, it was none other than the member for New England who said: 'So sad, too bad; these people have to go. It's not an academic requirement; it's an actual requirement.' He said, effectively, 'They should've done their homework; they are ineligible to stand, because of their own sloppiness and carelessness.'</para>
<para>This is no ancillary issue. If this legislation is to be voted on by this House, we need to be assured, as members of parliament, that it has been brought to this parliament in the proper way. If it's found, as in all likelihood it could be, that the member for New England is ineligible to be a member, let alone a minister or a Deputy Prime Minister, it is not proper that members of this House are asked to vote on this bill this evening or tomorrow. It is not proper that we're allowed to do that. The government should either get another qualified minister to come before us today and move this bill, or they should let it stand on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> until they're able to clear up the situation of the member for New England.</para>
<para>It's not as though section 44 of the Constitution has crept up on us. And I see the member for Flynn in the House today. He's had a bit to say on this as well—a good man, an honest man, a straight speaker. I like that sort of National Party MP—somebody who speaks his mind, whether it's in the interest of his party or not. I heard his comments in relation to the senator for Queensland. Those very same comments could be made in respect of the leader of his own party and the Deputy Prime Minister. It's not as though section 44 of the Constitution has crept up on us. It has been there since 1901. And it's not as though it's unknown to members of this place, either, at least after 1987, when the then senator for the Nuclear Disarmament Party, Robert Wood, from New South Wales, was elected to this place. He was a citizen of the United Kingdom at the same time as he was a citizen of Australia, a dual citizen. The High Court in the case of Robert Wood found that he was ineligible.</para>
<para>Now, you could say that 1987 was a long, long time ago. You could be forgiven for saying that it was maybe sloppy, that he had a bad memory, that it could be forgiven. Well, if that was the only case that had been considered by the High Court on section 44, you could say, 'Okay, they're sloppy, but give them the benefit of the doubt.' That is not the case. In the case of Sykes v Cleary, in 1992, the very same section of the Constitution was considered. And I've got to say: not one, not two but three candidates in that election were rendered ineligible because they fell afoul of section 44 of the Constitution. Three candidates were rendered ineligible—a message to all parties to do your homework. In considering that application, the High Court gave quite detailed instructions on what a diligent candidate should do prior to nominating to stand in this place or the other place so they did not fall afoul of the constitution. Even if your memory does not go back as far—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are there any more cases?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked by the member for Wakefield whether there are any more cases. Well, it just so happens that there are. In 1996 one member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly—and I see that the current member for Lindsay is in the chamber today, and an excellent member for Lindsay she is as well; I know the very detailed steps she went through when she filled in her application form prior to the 2016 election. I'm sure she was asked by her party organisation: 'Where were you born? Where was your mother born? Where was your father born? Where was your mother's mother born and your mother's father born? Where was your father's father born and where was your father's mother born?' I could go on, but I make the point: each and every Labor member on this side of the House filled in such a form, and if they tripped any of the wires set out in that form, we got a bunch of lawyers on our doorstep. How difficult is it to do the basic homework?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But wait: are there any more cases?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are they more cases? Well, there's going to be a rash of cases. I'm asked whether there are other cases after Free v Kelly in 1996. There was an unfortunate senator from the One Nation party by the name of Hill, in Queensland, who made the same fundamental mistake. Now, you could perhaps be a little bit understanding if you were considering the situation of a minor party and a relatively new party, such as the Australian Greens. You could understand that they haven't been around a long time. And perhaps, run in the way they are, they haven't got the professional infrastructure in place to ensure that they get their nomination forms right.</para>
<para>You might also say that in the case of a relatively new party, as the Nuclear Disarmament Party was back in 1987, you could forgive them. You might also say to the Liberal Party of Australia, 'Well, you were a bit sloppy back in 1996, but you got your house in order.' But the National party, which prides itself as being one of the oldest parties in Australia—one of the oldest—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They used to be called the Country Party.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They used to be called the Country Party when they truly represented the country people. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, you might say that they have had plenty of time to study the case law, to read the Constitution and to understand what it says and how it operates.</para>
<para>There are two things that should not come as a surprise to most members—I say 'most members'—in this place: there is an Australian Constitution; and, if you know your father, where he was born. These are two things that should not come as a surprise to most members of this place. Against that background, I simply make this point: we can judge the member for New England, if indeed he is entitled to bear that title, by the community standard, and the community standard I dare say is going to be a bit harsh. They're going to know that the average cost of a by-election over the last five years is $1 million. I'm quite certain that the great citizens in New England will be saying, 'If I had $1 million to spend, I probably wouldn't want to spend it helping Barnaby Joyce'—sorry, the member for New England—'get his homework right.' There are a lot better uses for $1 million throughout the towns in the electorate of New England.</para>
<para>So our objection to this bill, quite apart from the substance of it, is the manner in which it has been brought before the House. It is irregular. It is not on all fours. There are great doubts about the minister who moved the motion in this House—and that alone should be enough for members in this House to ask themselves: 'If the minister who moved this bill in the House didn't do sufficient homework to ensure that he's eligible to stand for election, should we be confident that the bill that he brought before the House has got all of the i's dotted and the t's crossed?' It so happens that that is not the case.</para>
<para>The bill has been subject to some inquiry and some scrutiny, and there are many stakeholders who are deeply concerned. They rightly point to the fact that, if we are going to spend $4 billion worth of taxpayers' money, we are going to want to ensure we have governance structures in place that give us sufficient confidence that this money is going to be well spent.</para>
<para>If we then turn our minds to the details of the bill, we see that the board is relatively small—relatively small for an organisation which is going to be disbursing around $4 billion. In the analysis that I have done, it is quite possible for these funds to be disbursed with the say-so of only two members of the board.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Champion</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Two people?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Two people—$4 billion, two people. That alone should be enough for all right-minded members of this place to have deep concerns about it. Indeed, these concerns were echoed by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development of Western Australia, who made these very same points. They were one of many stakeholders who said there are deep concerns about the governance structure set up by the bill. If time permitted, I would talk about the deep problems we have with inequality in this country that this bill does not deal with. All members, for the three reasons that I have set out, should reject the bill before the House.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I call the member for the beautiful seat of Richmond.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be following the member for Whitlam, who really gave a good analysis of the current constitutional situation that we do have with the Deputy Prime Minister's invalid status as we know it. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, as you know, I am critical of the National party on some occasions in this House, but even I was surprised when the Deputy Prime Minister stood up and basically said that he doesn't really have a right to be here because he is in fact a citizen of New Zealand. Even I was surprised at the extent of the sloppiness of such an incident.</para>
<para>As the previous speaker highlighted and outlined, how could it have come to this? How could this be the situation that we are facing in our current parliament? It really reflects on the lack of detail by the Deputy Prime Minister, and he is quite rightly being constantly criticised for that—it was a massive oversight, and it does reflect on the status of the bill as well, not just the House. That is a starting point that we should be looking at—we do need to highlight the fact that we are in a very difficult constitutional position, with perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister's election being invalid, and perhaps he shouldn't actually be in the House at all.</para>
<para>Having said that, I will turn to the Regional Investment Corporation Bill. I support the amendment moved by the member for Hunter. It's important to note that this bill is all about the government putting their political interests ahead of Australia's farmers and people living in regional Australia. That is essentially what it is about. As I have pointed out in this House many times before, the National Party regularly fails regional Australia on so many issues. I've also said many times that National Party choices hurt—and, indeed, they do across a whole range of issues. But we have to remember that this bill is all about political interests, not actually about protecting those people who live in regional and rural Australia.</para>
<para>The bill seeks to establish the Regional Investment Corporation, and supposedly this entity will hold responsibility for administering farm business loans and, on the government's behalf, will administer grants of financial assistance to the states and territories for water infrastructure projects. Let's have a look at the background. It was back in June 2016 that the Deputy Prime Minister said the coalition is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… committed to streamlining Commonwealth financing and concessional loan processing to enable new dams to be financed quickly and ensure drought loans are speedily approved to help farmers in need.</para></quote>
<para>Later on I will get to the issue of the coalition's, and particularly the National Party's, obsession with dams, and I would like to highlight one of their previous attempts to build a major dam in my electorate of Richmond in northern New South Wales 10 years ago. It is still a major issue within our region and one of the many reasons the National Party aren't trusted with their plans to build a major dam. We will get to that in a little while. I will go back to what the Deputy Prime Minister said. He went on to state:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Regional Investment Corporation will be established as the single administrator for the $4.5 billion in Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio financing and concessional loans initiatives.</para></quote>
<para>That is what he said as background, but in actual fact the Deputy Prime Minister wants to spend $4 billion on a federal government organisation that will replicate what the individual states and Northern Territory are actually already doing. So, in fact, the Regional Investment Corporation is just another pork-barrel by the Deputy Prime Minister and the National Party, which only aims to serve a political purpose—that's it. They have $4 billion for these political purposes and $4 billion to replicate what the states are essentially doing. But, whilst they are doing that, we're seeing a lack of investment in the communities that need it, particularly in our rural and regional areas. What about seniors, many of whom are struggling to get access to basic home care packages and are often forced to wait to access their age pension? What about locals in my home state of New South Wales—your home state too, Deputy Speaker Hogan—who have got increased electricity prices due to the Liberal-National Party sell-off of the poles and wires? What about support for them? It's all about priorities.</para>
<para>What we are seeing with this bill is priorities about political purposes, not priorities about services that people throughout the country and regional Australia need. Remember, this is the government that's also cutting funding for our TAFEs, our apprenticeships and our schools. It's a government that's got plans for $100,000 university degrees. Indeed, the government could be using these much-needed funds to protect Medicare or invest in our hospitals. The Deputy Prime Minister wants to spend this money on a federal government organisation that will replicate what's already in place. I think many speakers have highlighted that. As we have said, this organisation will administer the loans for water infrastructure projects, and these concessional loans will be administered from 1 July 2018, but they have already been delivered by the states and Northern Territory governments and will be continued to be administered by them.</para>
<para>The government contend that the establishment of the RIC will pressure the banks to provide increased support for farmers doing it tough, and the Deputy Prime Minister assures us that the process of financing dams and approving drought loans will be made a lot easier—that's what he's saying. He alleges also that the RIC manifests their commitment to agriculture. They would like us to have the impression that this supposed largesse represents a significant investment in agriculture, a claim that was further outlined in their self-titled 'landmark' agriculture white paper. They are saying that the investment is in excess of $4 billion. The white paper was not only long overdue but monumentally disappointing. It was in short a huge calamity, a failure of epic proportions. The bulk of the $4 billion actually consists of concessional loans that farmers are not taking up. This begs the question: why are farmers choosing not to take up the concessional loans in their current format? It is because both their design and the application process have been problematic. As per the Liberal-National government's usual ad hoc approach, they failed to properly consult or to understand whether their drought loan scheme would be attractive to the drought affected farmers, those who actually need it the most.</para>
<para>The RIC would pose the same challenges, given that it is basically the same scheme. The most important criteria that applicants need to meet concern the viability of the farm business. By the time these businesses get to the RIC, meeting these criteria would, indeed, be almost impossible. This is just $4 billion of administrative pork barrelling that will not really assist or streamline the process of farmers getting the help that they need.</para>
<para>We are, of course, talking about investments in dams and water infrastructure. As I said earlier, I want to highlight a big issue in relation to this in my electorate. We will turn our minds back 10 years when the then environment minister, now the Prime Minister, wanted to put a massive dam in the middle of my electorate. It was a huge issue that really goes to the heart of the coalition's obsession with dams. It still is a major community issue. The then environment minister in the Howard government was leading the charge to build a massive dam on the Oxley River, near the beautiful village of Tyalgum, in order to pipe water to South-East Queensland. There was a huge community response. We had massive marches, community meetings and petitions. The community were absolutely opposed to this and made their voices clear. Labor came out early and said we wouldn't allow that to happen, that we were opposed to building the dam in Tyalgum. As I said, it is still an issue that comes up quite a lot, and it really goes to the heart, particularly in my electorate in northern New South Wales, of the National Party's obsession about dams. In fact, they still have an obsession about building a dam at Byrill Creek. The National Party, at all levels of government, are pushing very hard to build another dam there, which is my electorate, and I can report to the House that Labor, at all levels of government, whether federal, state or local, oppose this dam as well for a whole variety of reasons. First, of course, are the environmental concerns, but there are financial concerns as well. It would be a massive impost on ratepayers in our area. This will continue for many years as well, and Labor are very clear on our position. We will continue to criticise the National Party's obsession with the dam at Byrill Creek, just as we continue to highlight their actions back in 2007. Many people in my region remember that the current Prime Minister was the one who wanted to dam northern New South Wales.</para>
<para>It is important to highlight that in the context of this bill. It is a stark reminder that the National Party do not have the farmers' best interests at heart. They simply don't care about the needs of those people, because they continue to assert that the RIC loans will not be the same as those currently offered by the states and the Territory. As we have said, there is no discernible difference. In addition, the loans are for a period of 10 years and, following that period, the farm business will need to negotiate with the bank for further assistance.</para>
<para>As per its usual fiscal irresponsibility, the government has not undertaken genuine consultation about the functions and obligations of the Regional Investment Corporation, including where it will be located. We have had a number of people raise this issue, and we have raised it because it is of real concern. The Deputy Prime Minister has been traipsing around Orange declaring that having the RIC there makes sense. It is hard to see how he can make these sweeping statements when there's been no discernible cost-benefit analysis of the ongoing price tag. The government has chosen to arbitrarily establish the corporation in Orange, where—what a coincidence!—the National Party member for Calare has his seat. This random resolution was obviously made using the same type of decision or order used to relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate of New England—or 'New Zealand', as everyone's been saying today.</para>
<para>Of course, the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee found that decision should be rescinded and also recommended that the finance minister should apply greater scrutiny to future requests such as these, and this would and should include a cost-benefit analysis. In circumstances where that cost-benefit analysis could identify a net gain from the proposed order, the finance minister would then compel the relevant minister to explain the grounds on which the order was made. For a person from regional Australia, of course, it is always good to see new entities there, but what we also have to have is transparency and a clear process. Obviously, we haven't seen it in either of these cases, and it is something this government seems to keep doing. What we need to have is a clearer, transparent process.</para>
<para>The Senate committee's inquiry into the relocation of the APVMA also heard evidence provided by key scientific industry and agriculture stakeholders about their real concerns about the loss of expert regulatory scientists. Such concerns that are raised with the Deputy Prime Minister tend to get ignored. He is just not interested in hearing any of these claims. He's claiming that the RIC will help fast-track the construction of all these projects and provide all of this investment and economic growth to so many regions, and it really shows, yet again, this government's lack of understanding or concern for transparency, oversight and proper planning. They lack an appreciation of what's really needed in those regional areas.</para>
<para>In contrast, under Labor, we will ensure that farmers do not have to go through another expensive government organisation for vital assistance. The government are just providing another roadblock for people to get assistance. We have said we will continue with those loans in full, and instead of wasting time and money on new organisations we will seek to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery by working with the states on this to try and streamline the process, to make it easier and to make sure help is getting to the areas where it is required. It is only Labor that can be trusted to look after our farming communities and regional and rural Australia. We have said that we can deliver much more cost-effective, efficient and much needed assistance to the farming and agricultural sector.</para>
<para>The Deputy Prime Minister and those in the National Party are consumed with all of their internal concerns, starting with their leader, who, as we've said, is not even validly in the House. It continues on to all of the concerns and the internal infighting within the National Party. They are totally consumed with themselves and have no concern at all for what's actually happening. There are so many real issues in regional and rural Australia, many of which have been imposed by this government and by this National Party. They need to take full responsibility for all of those funding cuts in vital areas like education and health. They are responsible for the cuts to penalty rates, which are destroying regional economies. We are seeing a whole range of issues. In my state, New South Wales, we are seeing that at a state and a federal level as well.</para>
<para>So, people in country areas are really saying that they are fully aware of what the National Party are not doing for them, and they are also fully aware that the National Party are very consumed with their own internal dynamics. People in country areas are angry and disappointed, particularly with the Deputy Prime Minister's actions of late and his sloppiness with his citizenship issues. It has made the National Party a laughing-stock in the state and the country, and obviously within his electorate as well. It highlights all the issues that many of us have raised about the fact that the National Party are just not up to it. They can't even get their paperwork right, for goodness sake. How can they govern the country? They can't even get the basics right. And they have stopped listening to what people are saying—they have stopped listening to their concerns.</para>
<para>But I can tell people in country Australia that Labor continues to listen, because we do have a strong commitment to what they need within the regions—to what families who are doing it tough need. Labor is listening and we are delivering so many policies that will help regional and rural Australia, because we understand, because we listen, and because our job here is to deliver for them. There is a very stark contrast between us and the National Party, who are consumed at the moment with the Deputy Prime Minister and the invalid status of his presence in this House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As very passionate and powerful regional Liberal member—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Powerful! Give yourself a rap!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm definitely powerful; I have a very large electorate, and a very large agricultural sector. I can assure the last speaker that we are very focused on the needs of regional Australia, together with my National Party colleagues. I must say it was very pleasing to hear the last speaker actually talk a little bit about farmers, because I was a bit concerned that maybe we weren't even going to focus on farmers in this debate—so, credit to the last speaker.</para>
<para>But anyway, let's get to the bill. We know that this bill establishes the Regional Investment Corporation, which I will from now on call the RIC, which will deliver the Commonwealth's concessional loan scheme, removing this funding from the state bodies that currently administer them. This is simply because the current system significantly inhibits our ability as a government—that is my personal view, given I'm from Western Australia, and I'll talk about that a little later—and this bill will allow us to respond to changing conditions on the ground for farmers, which, as we know, will change from season to season. For example, in my electorate of Durack, we know that the Wheatbelt and the Mid West have had some excellent years in a row—not so at the moment; it's a bit patchy. The rain has arrived late for many of the farmers in the Mid West of my electorate and also in the north-eastern Wheatbelt and it may have arrived just in time for many of the farmers in the central Wheatbelt, but it certainly won't be the bumper season for wheat and canola that we've seen of late.</para>
<para>Our ability, as a government, to assist those farmers in the north-eastern portion of the Wheatbelt and throughout the Mid West is hampered by the current model for distributing these concessional loans to our state governments, who in turn distribute it to the farmers. In short, it's going through a second pair of hands. When you're a farmer in need of help, you need direct help; you don't want to wait for another layer of bureaucracy. We all know that cutting out the middleman is going to quicken the process. We're ensuring that, by cutting out the middleman, the loan decisions are being made on the same criteria and basis across the country. I can guarantee you that is not happening at the moment. This means that the federal government concessional loans will be on the same terms, no matter which state or territory of this country you live in. That is, simply, fair and reasonable governance of Commonwealth taxpayer funds.</para>
<para>Further to its function of delivering concessional loans for farmers, the RIC will also be able to deliver loans for state and territory governments for water resource management projects in the future. I encourage the Western Australia government to put their thinking cap on and start thinking about the types of projects it may wish to have the federal government involved in. Personally, I'm thrilled that my electorate is now going to have this facility available for concessional loans for water. I am lucky enough to have a fantastic example in my electorate of the federal and state governments working together to manage and enhance water resources. I'm talking about the Ord River project, up near Kununurra. This is a great example of both levels of government coming together to develop a real, thriving, diverse agricultural industry in a very remote part of the east Kimberly. In fact, I had the pleasure of being there only a couple of weeks ago. I went out to the end of Ord stage 2, to the Northern Territory border, and had the obligatory photo taken. What we've been able to achieve out there is truly remarkable. I'm very pleased that the federal government continues to support the Ord River development. We have committed $5 million to a feasibility study for Ord stage 3. We'll take the Ord River development across the Western Australia border into the Northern Territory. The Western Australia government and the Northern Territory government will need to work together to bring the benefit of Ord stage 3 to Australia.</para>
<para>We know these concessional and water infrastructure loans are important for many reasons. They will facilitate further investment in the agricultural industry. At a local level they will support businesses and communities against the devastating effects that drought can bring—we've seen that just recently—but they will also support the farming businesses where, for whatever reason, they're in need of a concessional loan. That's what we are doing, and we've heard from all our speakers on this side about how we all think this is a very good idea and is supporting the farming industry.</para>
<para>But let's talk about those opposite, because I think it's worth having a look at their record and their support for the agricultural industry in this country. Let us not forget the past actions of those members opposite. How could we forget that knee-jerk, community-destroying decision on the cattle live export ban, over which this government, as we stand here today, is being sued for an amount of $600 million?</para>
<para>I mean, how careless can you be? They are the party ripping money out of the agricultural sector so that they can prop up their legion of other policy failures, which of course include things like the 5,000 people who died at sea and also those young men who died installing pink batts. They literally cut the federal agriculture department's funding in half. Yet the member for Hunter has the gall to enter this House and propose an amendment that calls this government self-serving in terms of this piece of legislation. We all know what he would do if Labor were on this side of the House. The regions would again be an afterthought. We have seen that time and time again here, as part of this debate, where there's been no focus on exactly what we're talking about here. Rather, they are talking about politics and issues relating to the Deputy Prime Minister. That's not what we're here to do today. We're here to talk about how as a government we can actually help the agriculture industry. We know that the regions would again be an afterthought, as the Labor Party would pick up where they left off, destroying our economy with their economic vandalism. Those members opposite don't care about drought relief. We saw that when we came to office in 2013, because there was nothing in place to support farmers in trouble; nothing for us to inherit that was going to support the agricultural regions.</para>
<para>Let's look at what Labor did cut during their six years of government and perhaps do a bit of a comparison. As I said previously, they cut the ag department's budget in half. The live export ban could cost the Australian public some $600 million plus the damage done to international supply chains, regional communities here and investor faith in government stability in Australia. All of that was put at risk. They removed the exceptional circumstances drought support policy and they abolished Land and Water Australia. They wanted to remove the research and development levy from the control of farmers so that they could decide what to spend the farmers' money on. This is Labor's agricultural record. No wonder we didn't get much of a contribution from those opposite today, because, quite frankly, they don't get the agricultural region and they don't get farmers, so they have nothing to contribute.</para>
<para>The Australian public and Australian farmers deserve better than what they were served up. Interestingly enough, in 2016, when I was manning a polling booth in Geraldton, which is in the heart of my electorate in Western Australia, a gentleman came up to me, shook my hand and told me he was voting Liberal. I said, 'Thank you very much, that's good of you.' He said, 'Well, I wouldn't be voting Labor.' I said. 'Why is that?' He said, 'Labor's live export ban.' I can only assume he was a farmer. It was some five years ago when Labor signed off on that policy, but farmers don't forget. Why would they, when the government turned its back on them? The member for Hunter and the rest of those opposite should heed that warning. Farmers have very long memories and they won't forget.</para>
<para>In fact, we've seen this with many of the contributions here today. As I said earlier, the member for Bendigo didn't mention farmers once. I would have to go through <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, and I'm happy to be corrected if I don't get it right, but I think she did not mention farmers once. This particular corporation we are talking about—the Regional Investment Corporation—will actually be there to serve. That is the point of this legislation: a corporation which is there to serve. It should not have been about the public servants within the corporation, but unfortunately that's what the member for Bendigo was more interested in talking about.</para>
<para>Let's talk about why this bill is required. In our current system, which the coalition had to fix up in 2013 when we arrived, we knew that there were no concessional loan schemes. So we negotiated with various state and territory governments. This system may work great if your state government has reached a suitable agreement with the federal government. But, sadly, in Western Australia we witnessed a very slow and cumbersome system, despite everyone's best efforts, which led to minimal take-up from our farmers. So the system that we've currently got would, if Labor had their way, be to say to a farmer in Victoria or New South Wales, 'Well, you're okay, because the current system suits you, but if you happen to be a farmer in Kununurra, or if you are a farmer from the Wheatbelt, or if you are a farmer from the midwest, then we, the federal government, will not be there to support you.' And I think that's quite absurd. We actually need to fix the current system that we've got.</para>
<para>Those opposite who are arguing against this legislation—or, frankly, not even talking about the legislation—are really arguing that the farmers of the Northern Territory—because they've also suffered the same—and Western Australia are not worth helping. Well, quite frankly, I think that's ridiculous, and I don't agree with that. I believe that all farmers in Australia should be treated equally by our government, which is why I'm a supporter of removing the concessional loan scheme arrangements from the states and returning them to the federal government with the creation of the new Regional Investment Corporation. This will ensure equity in the system across states and territories, ensuring that federal money is spent equitably.</para>
<para>The current system we've got is not the federal government's fault, as the government has negotiated in good faith with all states and territories, and it's certainly not Labor's fault either. They had no real agricultural policy when they left office, so we can't exactly blame them for the current mess—especially for those farmers in Western Australia—because we started from a standing start. I don't believe it's the Western Australian government's fault either, because these things happen, it isn't always the way we would like it to be, and I think they used all their best efforts. But that's beside the point: it's not about whose fault it is, because the only people who are currently suffering from the current arrangement that we have are the farmers of Western Australia. Some of the hardest working men and women in one of the biggest growth industries in the country are currently being hamstrung by our current arrangements, and I don't think that's good enough.</para>
<para>With the time remaining, I just want to be able to assure the farmers and the pastoralists of my electorate that I'm doing everything I can to ensure that the federal government supports them with respect to the concessional loan scheme. It's also a shout-out to the Western Australian government, because I would like them to get organised with respect to what water policies they might be coming to talk to us about. By July 2018, we will have the federal concessional loan body set up to deliver this service to the farmers. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm proud to rise and talk about the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 and the challenge that farmers face and their abandonment by the current government. There is a giant elephant in the room whenever we talk about the agricultural industry, and that's climate change. Climate change is the single greatest challenge to the prosperity of farmers. Quite frankly, if you don't have farmland that can produce things, we're not going to have many farmers in this country. The Garnaut review in 2008 found that unchecked climate change will destroy 98 per cent of the farming land in the Murray-Darling Basin. Whenever I talk to farmers, they're already recognising the impact of climate change. You have only to look in the Hunter Valley, where I go to talk to the winemakers. Their harvests are coming early, their growing seasons for grapes are getting shorter, and they are having to develop very different strategies to manage the impact of climate change on the winemaking industry—an incredibly important industry to Australia.</para>
<para>I find it farcical that this government claims to be the best friend of farmers—and that's what the second reading amendment moved by the member for Hunter goes to—when it doesn't talk about the single greatest challenge facing farmers in any of its policies, and that's climate change. You only have to look at its complete abandonment of its emissions reduction fund, supposedly the centrepiece of its efforts to combat climate change: a policy that the current Prime Minister—and I say 'current' intentionally—said is a fig leaf for doing nothing and is fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. Well, it's been so fiscally reckless that the government has stopped funding it. There was no additional funding for it in this year's budget. The money will run out quite soon, and experts have demonstrated that they are leaving massive gaps in emissions reductions if we are to meet our 2030 targets—even the government's own inadequate 2030 targets.</para>
<para>So, all we've got from those on the other side are lies and obfuscation on this very important issue. They've got a so-called review into the emissions reduction fund, but we've seen nothing out of it. All we've seen is a party riven by divisions, where the minister for energy gets overruled by the member for Hughes and the member for Warringah on a regular basis, and where the minister got rolled on an emissions intensity scheme within 12 hours of floating the possibility. I've got zero confidence that this government will be able to combat climate change, which is singlehandedly the greatest issue facing farmers in this country. That's what we should be debating in this bill and in this chamber.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>103</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Batman Electorate: Preston Market</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FEENEY</name>
    <name.id>I0O</name.id>
    <electorate>Batman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over a year ago, at a public meeting in Preston attended by several hundred locals, including Robin Scott, the MP for Preston, and me, a community group was formed, named Save Our Preston Market. This community has since worked assiduously to bring attention and support to a simple but very important goal—to preserve the much-loved character of our market and prevent it from becoming yet another bland, featureless suburban shopping mall. The campaign to save the character of Preston Market is one that I have proudly spoken about in this place and that I proudly support, as someone who loves to spend time there with my wife and son.</para>
<para>At the outset of the Save Our Preston Market campaign, I believed that success would be reasonably straightforward. The group articulated a simple and widely supported set of goals. It was supported by me, the local state MP and the relevant planning authority, the Greens party dominated council, which was also eager to offer its support—or so it seemed. Darebin council was in a powerful position to extract key concessions in exchange for planning approvals and investment certainty. Those concessions concerned undertakings about meaningful community consultation, reasonable height limits on any development, the provision of car parking, providing a masterplan so that the community would understand the future vision for the market and preserving the character and authenticity of the market spaces themselves.</para>
<para>But the Greens on Darebin council proved unwilling to use this moment of enormous leverage to the benefit of our community. Instead, the Greens party were obsessed with only one objective: how to weaponise the Save Our Preston Market cause for their own partisan purposes. In pursuing that objective, the fate of the market was apparently expendable. Rather than deploy their powers as the planning authority, the Darebin council simply refused all relevant planning applications. This had the effect of sending the developers off to appeal the decision at VCAT, taking Darebin council out of the position of actually having to negotiate or play a leadership role. The Greens-dominated Darebin council then devoted its energies to calling upon the Victorian government to call the project in, to do what they refused to do and save Preston Market. Instead, the Greens party councillors, having liberated themselves from any responsibility for the future of the market, returned to their political comfort zone—sloganeering, attending rallies and attacking Labor.</para>
<para>The sheer cynicism and hypocrisy of the Greens in this matter became manifest on 22 June when they signed an agreement with the developers. The Greens rely on the fact that the agreement is protected by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act of 1988 to evade scrutiny and avoid transparency. But, today, I seek leave to tender a copy of that agreement.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FEENEY</name>
    <name.id>I0O</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the House. This is a document of an agreement made between the developers and the Greens-dominated council, and it's a document that can explain the chasm that exists between the Greens' words and the Greens' deeds. This agreement is an instrument of surrender and a betrayal of the Save Our Preston Market cause. It might have been better rendered on a white flag. The Greens party capitulated and colluded at every point. They have capitulated on parking, they have capitulated on the request to require a master plan and, most appallingly, they have capitulated on building heights. We now find ourselves in the absurd situation where the Preston Market redevelopment will be battled out at VCAT with the council and the developers on the same side. The truth is that the Greens have again and again shown themselves to be more interested in talking about values than acting on them. They are more interested in virulent anti-Labor-Party politics than progress. This Greens deal is a grave betrayal of our community.</para>
<para>Fortunately for the market, Victorian Labor did act. In July, the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, and the MP for Preston, Robin Scott, intervened to impose strict height controls to prevent overdevelopment of market buildings. In announcing a forthcoming review of planning controls in a proposed masterplan, Richard Wynne said he would safeguard the iconic market from inappropriate development. While the Greens councillors wash their hands of responsibility, Labor has acted in the interests of the community. The Greens should now reflect on how they have bungled this moment, on how they have let our community down, all in the pursuit of politics and seeking to transform a broad based community campaign supported by all of us into their own partisan plaything. Shame!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gilmore Electorate: Politics in the Pub</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs SUDMALIS</name>
    <name.id>241586</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the hurly-burly of this bizarre space we call the House, at times we need a reality check: the political bubble talk here has about as much relevance to the voting Australian as talking to a three-year-old about the imagery in Shakespeare's play <inline font-style="italic">King Lear</inline>. So my team and I decided to have some 'politics in the pub' sessions to make sure we are connecting with the reality of the need of the people who live in Gilmore. While I initially apologise for all the p's I'm going to use, it's likely to make what I say just that much more meaningful.</para>
<para>At Catalina Country Club, Batemans Bay, I was privileged to meet up with the local Parkinson's support group. They'd come for their session of pub politics. More importantly, they wanted me to talk to the health minister and plead their case. We have a really great neurological nurse in Gilmore, and she's working over a very large area, yet the PHN will not allocate a permanent budget for this position. Her worth has been proven time and time again—reducing hospital admissions, preventing contra medication, recognising early symptoms, assisting carers to maintain their own mental health whilst caring for a partner with a degenerative illness, working with other services to get some fun and gentle exercise classes, and the list goes on. However, in Batemans Bay, there is no such assistance, and the carers are ageing and they feel totally unsupported.</para>
<para>Isn't it about time the benefits of neurological nurses are examined more closely, especially in electorates with an ageing demographic? There's an increasing incidence of Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, motor neurone disease and dementia, and the expertise and assistance of a neurological nurse is such a benefit to these people. There's significant evidence to show that the return on the health investment dollar is of a high order. And, while this is not the motivator, it is certainly a factor worth considering in future health allocations.</para>
<para>These small support groups are all suffering, and some are in danger of folding; and then where will we be? The get-together with the Parkinson's support group was softly interrupted by an older gentleman. He introduced himself as Roy Phillips, and his concern was for his granddaughter Gigi. Gigi has a rare genetic disorder and will most likely pass from this life before she turns 16. He's having problems negotiating the NDIS. Some of his words that he presented to me in a letter, as he almost wept in frustration, are as follow: 'From what I can see, there is no indication of any application for necessary home modifications, despite her plan being some eight months into its duration. These modifications were relatively straightforward and would allow her to move freely in her wheelchair around the home. The plan for some way of getting her from the garage into the family home seems to have come to a complete halt. Information has stalled between the providers and the NDIS.' Coincidentally, Roy's daughter has now developed a chronic back condition due to the constant lifting of the seven-year-old child. Roy's tears were contagious, and I assured him I would follow up on his behalf. I would like to thank Assistant Minister Jane Prentice and her staff for the rapid escalation of this situation and the development of a resolution pathway.</para>
<para>At times like these, small wins are a great reminder that, each day, we can make a difference in the life of a family, an individual or a community. It is our task to work on the micro level, the community level, the national level and the international level.</para>
<para>The legislation on Australian motor vehicle standards was another way that a local politician could work and achieve for her community. In response to the desire to retain in our community the strength of our car yards, which are often medium sized enterprises in the electorate and, in Gilmore, employ around 250 people, there was a battle to make sure that parallel imports would not be part of the legislation. This part of the proposed legislation would have damaged our local industry. The minister, Mr Paul Fletcher, was open to suggestions put forward by both industry members and backbench colleagues, and we now have the best outcome.</para>
<para>In the meantime, I continue to advocate for significant changes in the directions taken by the ATO when recovering debts from businesses and individuals. They sometimes just don't get it right. Some other changes that need to be made relate to the subcontracting regime in the major contracts in government departments. And there is still much work to be done. It is agonisingly slow, but I believe these fundamental changes are not just preferable but essential. There is a need to open the pathways for innovation and not have old-fashioned processes applying that have no relationship to the need for cash flow. There is a huge need for a cultural mindset change to take place in our banks and at ASIC, the ACCC and the ATO, just to name a few. These changes are big-picture visions, and I recognise that they will take time. In my book, the only fair way to fix things is to keep pushing for change. From wheelchairs to support nurses, from legislative tweaking to an overhaul of the way we treat business, it's all in a day's work for someone elected to the House, and it's our duty to make every minute count.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians believe in a fair go. Australians believe in giving someone in need a helping hand, yet today on the Central Coast another worker will find themselves retrenched, with medical bills piling up and lengthy delays accessing Centrelink. Today on the Central Coast, another young carer will have to explain that they won't be back at uni this semester because their parent is sick and they have to pay the mortgage. Government should support those in need, the young, the elderly, the sick and those caring for them, not make them wait months for a carer's claim, not make them submit and resubmit documents because they've been lost in the system, and not push them onto online services.</para>
<para>The gap is widening in Australian society, and those most in need are being hardest hit—people like Kim and her daughter, Sam. Kim works in aged care. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in April this year. Treatments started straight away with rounds of chemotherapy, breast surgery and radiation. Kim's employer has promised that, when she's better, she'll have a job to come back to. Radiation treatment and a port inserted into her neck mean that that's not possible soon—maybe by Christmas. After complications and further surgery, Kim now expects to be back at work this time next year, all going well. Kim had just bought a new car and was paying down the mortgage on the two-bedroom unit she shares with her daughter, Sam, when she was diagnosed.</para>
<para>She had private health insurance but the bills piled up, and Kim had to drawdown on her super to make ends meet. Then, Kim applied for the disability support pension, but she doesn't meet the 'diagnosed, treated and stabilised' criteria because, ultimately, she will, we hope, get better. Kim can't work, and she can't access the safety net. Kim's daughter, Sam, isn't back at uni this semester. She's looking after her mum. She's jugging a few casual shifts and, with a part-Newstart payment, is worse off than she was as a student. Sam can work but has less money each week to support herself and her mum. Sam is eligible and deserves support, but a carer's claim, which was lodged within weeks of her mother's diagnosis, has still not been processed today. This isn't good enough, and they're not alone.</para>
<para>After decades with the one employer, David was shocked when he was retrenched just a few years out from retirement. Neither David nor his wife, Lesley, had previously dealt with Centrelink. It was difficult and hard to get information about redundancy or support for older workers. When the preclusion period from the redundancy expired, they sought assistance. This started a chain of events that saw David and Lesley forced to use online services, spend hours on hold to call centres and submit documents three times because their information kept being lost in the system. After hearing nothing for months, they were devastated when they logged onto the myGov portal to find an automatically generated letter. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Rejection of your claim for Newstart Allowance</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We cannot pay you Newstart Allowance because we did not receive the documents we requested from you.</para></quote>
<para>They sent them three times. In Dave's wife's words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Dave has been a hardworking man for his entire life and never expected to need help, but we now find ourselves in a situation where we are both physically, financially and emotionally crippled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Dave doesn't want a hand-out; he wants to work but we keep hitting roadblocks.</para></quote>
<para>We must do better than this. If we can't support people who have worked all their lives and prepared for retirement, what are we doing? I constantly hear stories of lengthy delays processing straightforward claims. There are stories like Jacqui's, whose age pension application is still outstanding from November 2016, and Corinne's, who was asked to submit further documents, only to have those lost by Centrelink, and then forced to wait a further four months for a problem to be fixed. There are stories like Denis's, whose wife was told that her application for the age pension was approved, only to receive a letter two days later telling her it was denied. Every person who walks through the doors of Centrelink or picks up the phone has their own story to tell. No two lives or circumstances are the same. These are real people. They're doing it tough. Staff cuts and the casualisation of the Department of Human Services workforce is making a tough situation worse. When you cut the public service, you cut services to the public. We must give everyone a fair go. This must be fixed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair. I would like to take this opportunity in the adjournment debate to reflect on the decisions made by the Australian government following the global financial crisis compared to those made by the New Zealand government. I say this in the context that I am aware that there is a lot of discussion around allegiance to New Zealand at the moment. I do not seek to fan it, and, just to be clear, I have no forebears who were born in that country and there are no issues around my allegiance. But sometimes we can reflect on decisions that have been made in the past to help us inform decisions for ourselves in the future. The frank reality is that it gives me no joy to say this, but it has become increasingly clear that their decisions were much wiser than ours, particularly those taken by the then Rudd government. We are now paying the price, with inflated asset prices, sluggish growth and unrestrained public debt as a consequence of decisions made then, which have been very difficult to unwind since.</para>
<para>At the time of the financial crisis, our economy featured a robust banking system, floating exchange rates and openness to international trade, most notably our mineral exports to Asia, but also the opportunities presented from a growing service based economy throughout the world. So we have enormous bounty and opportunity, both in human capital and physical capital, as well as our manufacturing sector. The evidence now shows that our safety from technical recession at the critical juncture in the 2008-09 period was due principally to lower interest rates because of the flexibility the Reserve Bank had at the time, the huge drop in exchange rates, a more flexible labour market and continuing demand for our mining resources. It was not—I need to stress this again—due to high household consumption off the back of cash transfers and largely unproductive government spending, championed by the previous government. And we shouldn't be afraid to say it. I know some members opposite will provide a rallying cry in defence, but unfortunately it is not true, and the narrative they have set in is false.</para>
<para>We should never be afraid to stand up and say that the previous government's $100 billion fiscal stimulus has done more harm than good, by simply entrenching spending and entrenching costs we continue to live with today. In the aftermath of such decisions, we all have to look at ourselves and make judgements about what we are doing to fix this situation. One of the things about which the Turnbull government can be proud is that it has tried to address that. Unfortunately, the intransigence of the Labor opposition has made it very difficult to be able to do so. In the end, they would rather trade off the benefits of the people they can sell votes to today than protect Australians in the long term.</para>
<para>The stimulus helped heighten the exchange rate, which reversed the contribution of net exports to aggregate demand. The uncertainty that mounting public debt creates has stalled business confidence, inflated asset prices—particularly for young Australians who want to get into the property market—and left future generations to pick up the bill—a shameful act. On top of that, quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve and Bank of England has also hindered our competitiveness, at the same time as adding to asset inflation, making housing even more expensive, again to the detriment of future generations.</para>
<para>New Zealand's approach was much different. They embraced tax relief and supply side reform to meet the challenges of the crisis they faced. Investment in productive infrastructure was boosted, income taxes were lowered and restrictive business regulation was reduced. Unsurprisingly, it had a good effect. New Zealand has now managed to return to a per capita growth rate comparable to pre-2007 levels. Business profits are boosting tax revenue, and unemployment recently fell to one of its lowest levels in years. The New Zealand National Party's budget discipline is truly admirable, with no net new spending and limited new spending envelopes. I hope, as I am sure everybody in this House does, that, when it comes to New Zealand's election shortly, that discipline will be rewarded, because they are a reformist government and focused on the task at hand.</para>
<para>The New Zealand government's surplus is almost $1 billion ahead of forecast. Compare that to the situation we now face, where public debt has continued to grow and we have done everything we can to try to stifle and limit it, despite the obstruction we have faced from those opposite. We have failed to return to trend growth, despite the assumptions made at the time of the stimulus spending. Two-thirds of our public debt is now owned by foreign entities. The servicing of this debt is depriving national income. Tragically, it will mostly be incurred and repaid by future generations. Our annual GDP growth per capita has been halved compared to the pre-GFC years, from over two per cent in the five years preceding the crisis to around one per cent. And there should be no cause for pride for how we handled the GFC.</para>
<para>We have let Australians down, particularly young people. At the very least, they remain locked out of the inflated housing market, which fiscal stimulus did nothing but entrench. If we do not address this handbrake on growth now, we are letting millions of young Australians down. That requires serious tax reform; it means dealing directly with the challenges of housing affordability and creating economic opportunity for every Australian.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paterson Electorate: Influenza, Paterson Electorate: Broadband</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate of Paterson falls within the Hunter New England Health District. This winter, people in our region have been hit hard and early with influenza. At this time in 2016, there were around 400 cases of the flu. This year, so far, there have been 1,200—quite a considerable rise. While influenza can manifest with cold-like symptoms in some people, it is highly contagious. The same virus that causes a respiratory infection or cold in one person could prove fatal to a person in a high-risk group. It is times such as this that the importance of primary-care providers really comes under the spotlight. You want to be able to get into your doctor.</para>
<para>I stand before you today to share the story of Dr Chander Kantta who runs a general practice in the suburb of Woodberry in the electorate of Paterson. Woodberry is a quiet little suburb but a terrific place between Newcastle and Maitland. It has very little in the way of services, and a large percentage of its population of 2,700 people are people who have known the knocks in life. They come from some disadvantage. Dr Chander, as he prefers to be known, is the only doctor in this community, and he does a terrific job. Woodberry is almost located equidistant—20km—from both the Maitland and John Hunter hospitals. Public transport from Woodberry to the John Hunter takes up to one hour 50 minutes and around an hour to get to Maitland. These services are, of course, intermittent. Dr Chander's practice is, not surprisingly, fully booked. As such, he made the decision to expand to better respond to the health needs of our community—and good on him for doing that! He located to premises just two doors away from his current site at 30 Kookaburra Place, Woodberry.</para>
<para>This six-room surgery offers provisions for three doctors, a nurse, a pathology outlet and a dietitian. Dr Chander employed a female doctor, arranged for the services of a dietitian and locked in the pathologists. This new expanded surgery, however, sits idle. There is no room for the female doctor to operate nor the dietitian nor the nurse. Meanwhile, Dr Chander pays rent on the expanded, empty premises as well as his existing practice. And why? Wait for it—it is extraordinary—he cannot get his Telstra service moved to the new address. In May, Dr Chander contacted Telstra to move his telephone service, which comprised two landlines and one fax internet connection, two doors down. In Dr Chander's words, he could stretch a wire between them—and he might as well put a couple of tin cans on the end of it while he's at it.</para>
<para>When he contacted Telstra in early June, he received an order number and was told it would be acted upon before the scheduled relocation. When this date grew close, with no action, he called them again. He was told the order had been cancelled. The telephonist couldn't tell him by whom or why. He went through the process of raising a new order, only to be told it would take two weeks to action. Dr Chander called my electorate office, extremely concerned, and a member of my team raised a constituent escalation request with Telstra on Friday, 28 July. One week later, Telstra called to inform him that he would be contacted again on 11 September, with the view to an assessment on 18 September and commencement of work on 26 September.</para>
<para>In a nutshell, Doctor Chander will wait four months to move his phone two doors down. Mismanagement of his case will mean that his new expanded, refurbished premises sits idle for almost two months. He will pay rent, insurance and electricity on two premises. The female doctor he had appointed to join his practice is only able to work one day a week instead of four. This delay to a critical community service provider is totally unacceptable. From what my team and I can gather, Dr Chander is in a Telstra-NBN catch 22.</para>
<para>The Woodberry service was recently switched over to the NBN, but NBN activation can only take place at a premises with an existing service. Therefore, Dr Chander's service must be moved to the new address before an NBN order can be raised. Regardless of the circumstances, this situation arises through no fault of Dr Chander, and it is unacceptable that he and the members of the Woodberry community are being inconvenienced in this way. I again say to this government: what you have done with the NBN is quite deplorable and largely inexplicable, in many ways, and it just goes to show that the multi-mix fix is certainly not that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robertson Electorate: Veterans</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to pay tribute to our incredible veterans community in my electorate on the Central Coast. As a community it is incredibly important that we continue to honour the service and sacrifice of the men and women who have served and continue to serve in the defence of our country. At present, the Department of Veterans' Affairs supports more than 290,000 Australians, including more than 2,400 in my electorate of Robertson, so it was fantastic to hear the comments made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in parliament recently—including the ministerial statement on veterans and their families. The minister gave a commitment to three key areas, which are worth emphasising now: firstly, a standalone Department of Veterans' Affairs; secondly, a department that focuses on the needs of the veteran first; and, thirdly, a stronger voice for the veterans community—which I can also commit to for veterans in my community.</para>
<para>I would also like to recognise the importance of veterans' health. Part of the process is about raising awareness, for example through Veterans' Health Week in October, which has the theme of 'physical health'. But there's also a role for the government to assist. Last year, the Turnbull government committed to providing veterans with free and immediate mental health treatment. In this year's budget the scheme was expanded to cover all mental health conditions, meaning that any veteran of the full-time ADF will have access to free and immediate mental health cover. This is considered the biggest change in veterans policy in decades. But we must continue to build on it—such as through the investment of $9.8 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and to improve the care and support available to veterans. This will include funding to increase support for those discharging from hospital and who are at risk.</para>
<para>These issues and more were raised with me just last weekend at Ettalong Beach at the service for our Vietnam veterans, which was well attended by a cross-section of our Central Coast community. It was, as always, an incredible honour to attend the annual march and ceremony along the Ettalong foreshore, and to lay a wreath in remembrance. Much of the advocacy for veterans in this area is done by the Vietnam Veterans, Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association of Australia, Central Coast Sub-branch. I'm pleased to be able to announce that the sub-branch has received more than $17,000 to help cover some of the costs of their Ettalong office. This funding will be delivered through the Building Excellence in Support and Training, or BEST, grants. The BEST program helps provide support for our veteran organisations that assist the community through pensions, advocacy and welfare work.</para>
<para>Woy Woy Ettalong-Hardy's Bay RSL Sub-branch will also benefit from the latest round of the BEST grants. The sub-branch has received more than $6,000 to contribute to the costs associated with its veterans advocacy services, which is great news for veterans associated with the hard work, service and support that happens every day around the peninsula. As part of the latest round of BEST funding, Brisbane Water Legacy has also received more than $10,000. Peter Lawley, the CEO, told me that in the case of Brisbane Water Legacy the grant will help support staff in preparing all the paperwork for applications for war widows pension claims for recently widowed individuals. Peter said that the assistance means they will be able to help those dealing with the confusion and stress of suffering from the loss of a loved one by ensuring they have the support they need.</para>
<para>This comes at a very good time for Legacy, too, with next Sunday 24 August the start of Legacy Week around Australia. Legacy Week aims to raise funds to assist around 70,000 widows Australia-wide, including nearly 2,000 on the Central Coast. During Legacy Week, I'll host a roundtable for veterans from across the electorate in my office to hear their stories, listen to their concerns and be able to better advocate on their behalf. I look forward to meeting and hearing from representatives across our electorate and listening to how we can best support those who need help the most.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to recognise veterans groups across our electorate who do so much each and every day. These organisations include the Vietnam Veterans, Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association of Australia, Central Coast Sub-branch, at Ettalong; Gosford RSL Sub-branch; the Terrigal-Wamberal RSL Sub-branch; Veterans Plus; Gosford's 311 Squadron of the Australian Air Force Cadets; Brisbane Water Legacy; the Central Coast subsection of the Naval Association of Australia; the Central Coast Interactive War Exhibit; Davistown RSL Sub-branch; Partners of Veterans Association Central Coast Sub-branch, and the New South Wales National Servicemen's Association & Affiliates Incorporated.</para>
<para>I pay tribute to each and every organisation—and individual—that works so hard to ensure that veterans and their families continue to be supported. Thank you for all that you do for our community.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>108</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing">
        <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-MCJobDate">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 16 August 2017</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-Normal">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mr Buchholz</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 10:00.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>111</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Tree Day</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm delighted to inform this place that, just before returning to parliament, I was able to participate in Schools Tree Day in one of my local primary schools, the wonderful Highgate Primary School, on 28 July. For those who aren't aware, Schools Tree Day is a fantastic initiative. It appears to me to be the evolution of the good old-fashioned Arbor Day back in the day, but it is a terrific initiative taken by Planet Ark in conjunction with local businesses. In this case, City Toyota provided the sponsorship to provide hundreds and hundreds of native plants for the students at Highgate Primary School to plant to celebrate Schools Tree Day.</para>
<para>National Tree Day was created by Planet Ark in 1996 as the focal point for a nationwide campaign to promote community tree planting. It engages schools, local councils and communities. Toyota and its national network of dealers became a principal sponsor in 2000 and have worked with Planet Ark ever since. Each year, over 200,000 Australian school students participate in National Tree Day, and it is a cracker. We were all out there—me and all of the kids, led from the front by the school's wonderful principal, ‎Stephen Ivey, and his noble associate principals, Sheri, Danika, Gerard, Liana and Donna—getting our hands dirty in the most constructive way. We were digging, we were planting and we were fertilising and making a wonderful school even better.</para>
<para>What was fantastic about National Tree Day is that, when I looked around at all of these kids, they were not only planting new plants to take a bit more pride in their school, to make the school look a bit better and to participate in something constructive in relation to addressing climate change; they were also engaging with each other. This is a school which has an incredible amount of diversity, and it brings in kids from all nations, of all types and of all backgrounds. To see them all pitching in together planting trees was an absolute sight to behold.</para>
<para>What's even better about all of that is that the position of the trees, as they were being planted, directed by Principal Ivey, in a masterful way, led to a new school block. The new school block, which is right on the corner of Lincoln Street there in Highgate, is about to be opened, and it is an absolute tribute to everyone there at the school, the way in which it integrates the environment with the community to make the learning environment for these kid the best that it can possibly be. It may well be that when we were taking the photo, I got slightly carried away with the 'oh, what a feeling' Toyota leap. I haven't lived it down. But I tell you what: we had a great time. For anyone who's in any electorate in the federal seat of Perth, come through and have a look at what these great kids have done for National Tree Day at Highgate Primary School. Well done to them all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Daniher's Drive</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Murray</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about a very dear friend of mine who I had the opportunity to meet on Monday night, Neale Daniher. Neale and I have been friends since we were 15 years of age, when we went to boarding school at Assumption College with the same group of guys. After that, Neale headed off to play AFL football with Essendon and I with Geelong. We maintained this friendship through our playing careers. At the end of our playing careers, we ended up having a season together at Werribee in the member opposite's electorate—a great season. Neale went off to be an assistant coach with Fremantle and I went off to Sydney. It ended up with Neale going to coach Melbourne and myself heading off to coach Fremantle. We've always had this amazing friendship. However, when Neale rang me to tell me about his disease that he had contracted, MND, it was simply shattering, and you would have expected someone, like all of his friends, to wallow in the horrible outcome that we know is awaiting this great Australian.</para>
<para>However, Neale took a different tack to wallowing and feeling sorry for himself. In fact, he set about trying to raise awareness of this horrible disease and raise money for clinical trials. With Daniher's Drive, he's taken 50, 60, 70 and 100 cars all the way around Victoria and up through New South Wales, raising money as he goes, raising awareness and bringing people into the fold so they can help in this quest to find an answer, to find a cure for this horrible disease.</para>
<para>Neale has held Daniher's Drive and he held the Big Freeze at the G, where he effectively ambushed the whole Australian Football League community into making sure they're aware, making sure the big crowds at the MCG are getting behind him, with celebrities coming down into a giant bucket of ice—again, raising awareness and raising money. To the credit of this coalition government, they've matched that money dollar for dollar. In the first year it was $2.5 million to $3 million—matched by Sussan Ley when she was the health minister. This year Greg Hunt came to the fore and matched the over $2 million that Neil Daniher and his organisation, Cure for MND Foundation, had raised.</para>
<para>It is very exciting that, in conjunction with the University of Sydney, clinical trials are starting shortly. Here is a man who has had this disease for four years now and is looking to see if these clinical trials are in fact going to bear fruit, if they're going to come forth with a cure and an answer for this most terrible disease. I take my hat off to a great Australian, someone who we're going to cherish forever and ever. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Media Laws</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak today on the outrageous proposals by the One Nation party to trade off the independence of the ABC and SBS for agreeing to pass the government's new media laws. One Nation has already shown itself to be antiscience and now it's shown itself to be anti-free speech quite clearly. The Turnbull government has connived with Ms Hanson and her One Nation party to compromise the integrity of the ABC and the SBS into becoming the tool of political parties and give unprecedented power to a few privileged media companies. This is disgraceful. This deal puts the Turnbull government in the same basket as the One Nation party—heavily compromised; without integrity; for sale to the highest bidder.</para>
<para>The Turnbull reactionary government has stopped short-wave transmissions to some of our most remote areas, traded off media independence to a few large companies and shown utter contempt for our public broadcasters. This is a disaster for free speech, and it continues the gradual decimation of the ABC. This is shameful. The move to force the ABC into becoming answerable at every level to political parties will compromise its ability to report accurately. The fact that One Nation, and Ms Hanson in particular, have received some criticism from the ABC and the fact it now appears that she has been able to exert control over the ABC is very, very worrying and should strike fear into all those who believe in free speech and freedom of eyes.</para>
<para>I personally believe this to be a time when all those from across all political parties should rally together in the name of free speech and try and prevent this happening. This terrible prospect should not come to pass. I call on all my colleagues of all political persuasions to rally against this reactionary move. Clearly, the media barons have worked on the Turnbull government, because they realise that the public broadcasters are trusted, are the best providers of knowledge and are impartial in the general community, and they're now keen to damage them. Please do not let this happen. I call on all my political colleagues, including those in the Liberal Party, not to let this happen. The Turnbull-Hanson government has formed a coalition. The government has formed a coalition with One Nation. Can they go any lower? Please do not allow this to happen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lamont, Mr Andy</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In March this year I spoke in this chamber about Andy Lamont, an intrepid adventurer from my electorate of McPherson, on the Gold Coast. Andy Lamont is a 54-year-old husband, father and grandfather from the southern Gold Coast. A pest controller by trade he also holds an honours law degree. In October last year he set off in an attempt to become the first person to sail solo non-stop and unassisted around the world in a boat under 40-feet long or 12.1 metres travelling in a westward direction, against prevailing winds. He had to take with him all food, water and other supplies to sustain him for the duration of the voyage. Andy first began thinking about undertaking the record attempt, which is described as the Mount Everest of sailing, 25 years ago. But he wasn't just motivated by personal achievement; Andy used his world record attempt to raise money for the Fred Hollows Foundation, which is continuing the work of the late Dr Hollows, fixing the eyesight of people from Eritrea and Nepal.</para>
<para>On the night before I addressed this chamber on Andy's attempt in March he encountered significant problems with his autopilot and communications system after days of being buffeted by strong winds and big seas. As he approached the most treacherous part of his journey, Cape Horn, he was forced to abandon the world record attempt to try to get to land for repairs. Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I believe you were in the chair when I gave that speech, and I indicated at the end that I would report back later on on Andy's progress. So today I'm fulfilling that commitment to update the Chamber on Andy's courageous venture.</para>
<para>Well, Andy is back. I was so excited to be one of the people there to welcome him as he sailed back into the Gold Coast on Saturday for a very emotional reunion with his family and friends. After lots of hugs and kisses, Andy actually enjoyed his first beer in many months, I suggest. I'm pleased to report that, despite the ordeal, he was physically in very good shape and, in fact, during the entire voyage he used just one bandaid from his extensive first-aid kit.</para>
<para>We are also very proud of what Andy achieved. He raised some much-needed funding for the Fred Hollows Foundation and his journey epitomised the Australian spirit of having a go. Andy did say that the best part about being back home is spending time with his family, especially his baby grandson Archer, who was only four weeks old when he left. There was certainly a large crowd waiting for Andy to return, including the media, and he was asked the obvious question: will you make another attempt on the record? He looked at his wife, Deb, and replied with a grin that he wasn't allowed—and Deb certainly agreed with that response. However, I would not be surprised if some time down the track he announces another attempt.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for that contribution and updating the House. Great story.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Colleagues, my conversation topic today, representing my constituency, is about what's happening on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. The planned closure of the regional processing centre and the withdrawal of medical care, trauma support and security services by the end of October are adding to a highly stressful situation for those asylum seekers remaining there. I find it personally extraordinarily distressing. But, much more importantly, as a member of parliament, my constituents find it distressing. My office is flooded with letters, with phone calls and with calls of the heart, 'Cathy, what are we as a nation doing?' So I say to my constituents: I'm bringing this case to this parliament.</para>
<para>I'm talking on behalf of the members of Rural Australians for Refugees based in Wangaratta. Bernadette, Liz, Jackie, Margaret, Marie, Linda, Patrick, Vanida, Delphina and Ken, I hear your call. The large number of people in my electorate who have come together under the Northern Victoria Refugees Network, I hear your call. John and Heather Myer of Yackandandah tell me of the 'unbelievable inhumane and criminal treatment on Manus occurring right now'. They tell me that they are 'totally shocked and appalled' and they say that for 'anyone to be denied access to water, food, shelter and sanitation' is not right.</para>
<para>I have sought and received a briefing from the relevant minister and his office, and his staff have explained to me the process and the logic of what's going on. While I totally get the logic of it, I don't get the heart of it. I don't get how we, as a nation, can be so legalistic in our approach. Of course it's important to follow the rules—but to lose our heart, to lose our care? So to my community, to Helen Morris, to Candi and to Elaine Mann I say: I don't know what else I can do. I bring your call of the heart here to the parliament and I have talked to my colleagues here in the parliament. I say, 'We as a nation are much better than this; we are so good at solving so many complex problems and we have a problem in Manus. We know we do, but it's not a reason not to apply our best selves. It's not a reason not to apply our Christian principles of love your neighbour as yourself.'</para>
<para>I stood in the House this morning and said the Lord's Prayer with my colleagues. I'm proud to be part of a Christian nation, but I don't see that what we're doing in Manus is that. I think we're a legalistic nation and we're forgetting that, while the law is important, the heart is more important. As a nation, we need to hear the call of the heart of my constituents. I know every single member of parliament is hearing the same call.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ireland, Mr Ronald Keith, OAM</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We all meet people in our life, and particularly so when you're a member of parliament representing all constituents in an electorate, but only a few will stand out and leave a lasting impression that will extend beyond a lifetime. Ronald Keith Ireland OAM was one of those people. On Monday 24 July 2017, a great life came to an end. Ron Ireland passed away at the age of 90 after a long battle with persistent health problems. I'd like to pay tribute to Ron for his outstanding community leadership and honour the many great achievements and legacies he's left behind for the people of Cairns, Far North Queensland and beyond.</para>
<para>Born in 1927, Ron started as an apprentice mechanic at his father's garage at the age of 15 before going on to become one of the most influential businessmen in Far North Queensland. He was a true gentleman, very quiet, private, generous in spirit, community-minded and a great family man with very strong business ethics. Although Ron wasn't the type of person who would seek public attention, it always managed to find him for his outstanding work in driving the Cairns economy and inspiring leadership and philanthropy. Ron was awarded the Order of Australia Medal in 1997 and was named as Cairns Citizen of the Year in 2001. In 2004, Ron was awarded an honorary doctorate in commerce by James Cook University. Ron was the last surviving director of a company that built Lizard Island resort and was the former chairman of the Cairns Port Authority.</para>
<para>He also played a critical role in raising funds to establish the Cairns Regional Art Gallery. Ron was a past president, vice president and founding patron of the Far North Queensland Youth Assistance Fund and helped establish the Drug Assistance and Referral Centre and the Mareeba Youth Farm. Ron was an active member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Rotary Clubs of Cairns and a long-serving member of the Cairns Masonic Lodge. He also worked as the patron, member and trustee for a variety of other community groups, including the Cairns Professional Game Fishing Association, Cairns International Speedway, Cairns Orchard Society, Cairns Combined Schools' Band and the Endeavour Foundation.</para>
<para>Lastly, I cannot forget the success of Ron's own business, Ireland's of Cairns motoring company, which is now run by his sons Richard and David. The company has amassed some 50 awards in the past 20 years for excellence in sales and service. Ron leaves behind his wife Marion and five children, Rhonda, Tony, David, Wendy and Richard, 10 grandchildren and a great grandson. Ron Keith Ireland, you'll be sorely missed, but your memory will live on forever, mate. Rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legal Advice</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a member of parliament, I'm approached regularly by constituents having issues with our justice system. My office fields calls and emails on such topics regularly as well, but this is not new for me. I started out in legal practice over a decade ago, working in a suburban practice originally established by my grandfather. There were many occasions when clients would come to me looking for assistance, and I would have to tell them that, yes, it looked like they had a valid claim and could be successful in court, but that we should try through negotiation to get back those funds they were entitled to. But, when push came to shove, the combination of even my lowly junior legal fees and court costs would amount to more than the value of their claim and it would not be worth pushing the matter through the courts. This sad situation is unfortunately all too common. We regularly had clients in the area of family law where, with all the goodwill in the world on their behalf, an obstinate former partner with really no prospect of success in their claim for more property or more access to their children would hold out and delay, causing our client to have to spend thousands more dollars on legal fees.</para>
<para>Instead, our justice system should treat people fairly and equally, offer results that are fair, be accessible to people who need it, respond to people's different needs and have enough support so that it can work well. The thing is that, while we do have a Rolls-Royce justice system in terms of its integrity and quality of outcomes, this also makes it quite inaccessible to many Australians. Justice that is inaccessible is effectively justice denied, which fundamentally undermines the principle of the rule of law that underlines our democracy.</para>
<para>In particular, people who experience disadvantage—being those who are even more likely to need to access our justice system—should not miss out. The laws, policies and systems should not be a barrier that stops people who experience disadvantage from accessing justice. While we have systems like Legal Aid, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and family and relationship services, the honest truth is that state and federal governments—in particular, Liberal federal governments—have chronically underfunded these services, to the extent that they are servicing but a fraction of those who need to be helped.</para>
<para>This is why, in my view, the Law Council of Australia's Justice Project, launched this month, is so important. This project is being conducted in collaboration with law societies, institutes and bar associations across Australia, and is chaired by former Chief Justice of Australia the Hon. Robert French, AC. I quote from the Justice Project:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The aim of The Justice Project is to understand the issues that stop people from accessing justice. We believe that all people should be treated equally by the law and be able to use the justice system and would like to ensure that everyone has equal access to justice.</para></quote>
<para>The Law Council is currently conducting consultations with communities around Australia as part of this project. It wants to hear from everyday Australians about their interactions with the law, what barriers they face and also recognise the unsung heroes involved in providing that access. I encourage everyone to get involved in this vital project and for government to heed its lessons.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brisbane Electorate: Water and Energy</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr EVANS</name>
    <name.id>61378</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday I spoke here briefly on the topic of household bills in my electorate of Brisbane, and I noted how, in Brisbane, everyone's water bills are much higher as a result of Labor's incompetence when it comes to planning and delivery. The costs of that desal plant and the recycled water scheme, which were built in a Labor panic after years of a complete lack of planning, effectively doubled the cost of water in South-East Queensland. Brisbane residents and businesses are now paying the cost of that every quarter.</para>
<para>It's a similar story when it comes to electricity bills. Labor governments in the past have had targets—they've had good intentions—but have had no real detailed plans behind them. Labor have demonstrated incompetence in their delivery. They've set targets without any idea about what would happen on the road towards trying to achieve those targets. They didn't plan for storage. They didn't plan for dispatchability. They didn't plan for how the transition would actually take place month-to-month, year-to-year. Labor's lack of planning is costing Brisbane households and businesses every quarter. The cost of electricity effectively doubled under those Labor years. It went up by 94 per cent during that period.</para>
<para>You can compare that to how, last week, the Prime Minister very decisively called the country's electricity retailers to Canberra to ensure that more households and small businesses get put on better plans with lower prices. The government is obviously taking action to redivert some of our abundant gas supplies back to meet our own country's needs. That's already bringing down the price of gas and, therefore, the price of electricity right now. We're already implementing many of the recommendations from the recent Finkel report, focusing on the engineering and economic solutions we need to help guarantee the reliability and security of our electricity supply. This government's also removing the ability of energy companies to use merits review—lawfare, effectively—in tribunals to undermine the pricing decisions of the regulator. We're continuing to invest significant amounts right now in R&D so that emerging technologies can continue to come quickly down that cost curve and become financially viable alternatives. Of course, when it comes to the longer term, this government is building the biggest new addition to storage and generation capacity we've seen in Australia for a very long time: Snowy Hydro 2.0.</para>
<para>The energy debate is not about ideology; it's about having a plan and having competence in delivering that plan. When people in Brisbane look at their next water bill, they should remember that half of that bill is about repaying Labor's planning mistakes, like the desal plant and the recycled water scheme. And, when they look at their next electricity bill, they should remember that half that bill is repaying Labor's mistakes—caused by Labor not having a plan and the incompetent delivery of Labor's targets. This government has a plan for energy prices, and we're getting on with the job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fowler Electorate: Multicultural Eid Festival and Fair</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAYES</name>
    <name.id>ECV</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month I had the pleasure of attending the Multicultural Eid Festival and Fair in the Fairfield Showground. It is an event which is held annually in my community to celebrate the end of the holy month of Ramadan. The event, hosted by the Australian MEFF Consortium, provides a wonderful showcase of multiculturalism in Australia and a great display of diversity, peace and tolerance. It is an event which welcomes Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It was a delight to take part in this terrific event, a very festive occasion celebrated with fine food, entertainment and various cultural displays. It was a genuine family and community event.</para>
<para>This year's event marked 34 years that the Multicultural Eid Festival and Fair has been occurring. It is an event which was first celebrated in my community back in 1985. This festival is one of the first, largest and longest-running Eid festivals held in Australia, bringing together families and friends from over 35 different cultural communities. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the commitment, dedication and hard work of the organising committee and the various volunteers who put this event on each and every year.</para>
<para>MEFF continues to grow and spread the word of peace and social harmony, whilst at the same time combining fun, family entertainment and celebration, which is very much the basis of our community. The festival also provides the opportunity for all Australians to join with those of the Islamic faith in celebrating the diversity and vibrancy of our culture and traditions, showing the benefits of our multiculturalism and encouraging interfaith dialogue and cross-cultural understanding.</para>
<para>In this regard, I congratulate the MEFF Consortium for its excellent community reputation, which comes from its extraordinary efforts and a dedicated team who work tirelessly throughout the year to encourage social inclusion throughout our local community. In particular, I would like to congratulate Mr Zia Ahmad and his wife, Mehar, for their ongoing commitment to MEFF and its services to my local community. I'm honoured to represent the most multicultural community of the whole of Australia, and it makes me proud to know that multiculturalism, our diversity and the vibrancy of our community in Western Sydney makes it one of the best in the country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mackellar Electorate: Northern Beaches Local Area Command Awards</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand before you today to recognise some of Mackellar's most courageous men and women. They have recently been commended at the Northern Beaches police awards ceremony. These individuals, both civilians and law enforcement officers, have placed their own lives in danger for the betterment of society, and they deserve our greatest appreciation. Senior Constable Thomas McKinnon received the commissioner's unit citation for outstanding service and devotion to his duties during Strike Force Durkin, a strike force set up to apprehend a violent offender who had been on the run for over six years. Senior Constable McKinnon, I thank you for your service. For courage and dedication to their duties as members of the Frenchs Forest police rescue squad, Chief Inspector Graeme Pickering, retired Senior Constable Janine Probst and retired Sergeant Stephen Spencer were all awarded the region commander's unit citation.</para>
<para>In March 2013, following an argument with her boyfriend, a 40-year-old female ran towards the Avalon headland in an attempt to jump off the cliff. Mr Ian Streeter, a brave resident of my electorate of Mackellar, witnessed this unfold and, without any regard for his own personal safety, ran to restrain the woman. He placed himself on the ledge of this cliff, risking his life to save hers. Thanks to his courage, no-one was injured in what could have been an awful loss of life. Mr Streeter was deservingly presented with the region commander's certificate of commendation, and the people of Mackellar thank him for his bravery.</para>
<para>In June of this year, while on patrol, two brave police officers, Sergeant Nino Jelovic and Detective Senior Constable Jennifer Thom, identified a vehicle containing two offenders wanted for a number of serious assaults in the Northern Beaches area. While the suspect's car was stopped at traffic lights, these two police officers descended on the vehicle and subsequently placed the two wanted individuals under arrest. Thanks to their brave police work, two violent criminals were arrested and subsequently charged and taken off the streets. Sergeant Nino Jelovic and Detective Senior Constable Jennifer Thom were each presented with the local area commander's commendation. Brave and selfless acts such as these don't happen all the time. It was my great honour to be a part of recognising some of our local heroes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If no member objects, constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been standard practice for parliamentary committees to take testimony from judges about important legal matters. This is especially true of the House's Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which I have been deputy chair of since 2013. The testimony of judges has long been crucial in helping committees to come to informed decisions and make effective recommendations. But last month the scheduled appearance of Chief Judge Pascoe and Chief Justice Bryant at the committee's inquiry into family violence and the family law system was canned with less than 24 hours notice. These judges submitted to the inquiry and agreed voluntarily to appear. As far as I am aware, neither raised concerns about the appropriateness of appearing. Indeed, it is a matter of record that both have appeared before parliamentary committees on multiple occasions in both private and professional capacities. Yet today we have the Attorney-General's advice suggesting it is no longer appropriate for judges to appear before parliamentary committees. This represents a drastic and detrimental departure from what has been a longstanding practice in this parliament.</para>
<para>How can committees make serious recommendations about reform of family law without speaking to the very people that see the human face and consequences of these laws every day? I have seen nothing in the Attorney-General's advice to explain why this longstanding practice has suddenly become inappropriate or, if it is so inappropriate, why he has done nothing about it for the past four years. This Attorney-General is a laughing stock amongst the Australian legal community and this letter shows why. He tries to justify his untenable position by citing generations-old comments from a British aristocrat that directly contradict our own parliament's <inline font-style="italic">House of Representatives Practice</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline> which refers explicitly to the voluntary appearance of judges before House committees about matters of law and policy. Let's be clear: judges are highly competent professionals with eminent legal minds. They are entirely capable of deciding what is and what isn't appropriate. They don't need the Attorney-General to tell them how to do their jobs or to protect them from themselves.</para>
<para>This leads me to wonder if there is something else going on here. It is a matter of public record that various judges at different times have spoken out publicly or provided evidence to committees about serious matters facing our courts and our legal system. I can't understand why judges are now being silenced from committee hearings and committees are being limited in their capacity to fully examine issues that go to matters of law and policy. Is the Attorney-General really concerned about what is appropriate or is he more worried about what his chief legal officers might reveal about what is happening on his watch?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Page Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>( This Saturday I have the privilege of attending the 40th anniversary of the Casino Baptist Church Christian Community Preschool. It's a wonderful community-owned and operated preschool that has deep roots within the local community and, in particular, the local Indigenous community. I was recently happy to present the preschool with an Australian Aboriginal flag, and the school has also recently installed artwork by local Indigenous artist Noel Caldwell. The preschool's director, Anne-Maree Jackson, says it's all about connecting with the Casino community and instilling in the 59 children under their care that sense of community.</para>
<para>One remarkable thing about this close-knit preschool is the very low turnover of teachers. They simply don't want to leave. One staff member, Jane Cowan, has been with the school for 30 years. I thank the other teachers: Robyn, Sylvia, Mikala, Sonya, Kirsten, Teressa, Lauren, Judi and Lance. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Anne-Maree and Jane as well as the management committee that is led by chairperson Louise James.</para>
<para>Our Lady Help of Christians Parish School in South Lismore more is turning 100. The school was inundated by the Lismore flood. The close-knit school community rallied to reopen the school as soon as possible and, at the same time, rescheduled the school's planned 100-year anniversary. The celebrations are now to be held on the first of next month, and I am very much looking forward to attending.</para>
<para>As the school was looking forward to marking this milestone, many former students and their families contacted the school to donate memorabilia. The family of former student Mrs Barbara Thacker donated a set of rosary beads worn by her teacher, Sister Clare Noonan. Graham Ahearn kindly made and donated a model of the original church school building, which was built in 1916-17, to show current students what their school originally looked like.</para>
<para>The school is constructing a centenary rosary garden to honour the contributions of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart and parish priests who founded the school. Many members of the community as well as families of former students and teachers have contributed by purchasing a paver to create a path around the garden. The rosary will be inscribed with the names of past parish priests, principals and sisters who were involved.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge the great work the centenary team has done in organising next month's celebration. I thank the parish priest, Father Peter Karam; Principal Brendan Malone; Assistant Principal Katie Rose; and the team of teachers, past teachers, students and parents who generously gave their time. This school has provided faith based education in our community for over 30 years, and I thank all past and present people who have been involved in that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadband</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FEENEY</name>
    <name.id>I0O</name.id>
    <electorate>Batman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Communications, the current Prime Minister, promised all Australians that they would have access to download speeds of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by the end of 2016.</para>
<para>An opposition member: When?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FEENEY</name>
    <name.id>I0O</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The end of 2016.</para>
<para>An opposition member: Wow!</para>
<para>An opposition member: How's that going?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FEENEY</name>
    <name.id>I0O</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sadly, the Prime Minister's outdated infrastructure model has resulted in the collapse of this lofty ideal. As the NBN rollout is using tired copper technology, it continues to be struck with delays, and examples abound of failed availability and dismal speeds. Adding to consumer frustration is the lesser known difficulty of gaining ADSL access while waiting and waiting and waiting for the NBN. Remarkably, in my electorate of Batman, residents of Reservoir, a suburb a mere 13 kilometres from Melbourne's CBD, have had to play pot luck with ADSL access. Reservoir, the largest suburb in Melbourne, now finds itself unable to establish ADSL connections on demand. With the combined predicted NBN connection in early 2018 and the suburb's growth, constituents now have been left without any connection as they wait for an ADSL port to become available. Who would believe that people moving to a suburb like Reservoir in the city of Melbourne, a global city, would be told: 'Sorry, there are no ports available. You will not have internet access'?</para>
<para>What is happening here is that, while Telstra, on the one hand, is uninterested in investing in expanding capacity in a suburb that is supposed to have the NBN by early 2018, families moving into the suburb of Reservoir are told they will have to wait for a family to leave before they can get access to a port—so, one in, one out. For families that rely on the internet—and, as we know, that is an ever-growing proportion of our people, and the Prime Minister used to boast this was part of the economy that he cherished—this can be catastrophic. Families, who rely on the internet for income and for assisting with education of their school-aged children, small businesses, innovators and part-time consultants—all of these people—have been devastated by the failure of this government to live up to its rhetoric.</para>
<para>While Telstra says it's working towards increasing the number of ADSL ports and NBN says it will be there by 2018, the people of Reservoir are left without choices. However, for those who are connected, the incoherence of the service they receive is staggering. Another distressed constituent, Mrs Pozzi, who is 83 years of age and living in Northcote, was alarmed when she was contacted by NBN and told the internet was coming and it would cost her $200 a year. She was most upset that she would have to pay this when she didn't want the internet and doesn't own a computer. In the northern part of my electorate, they can't get internet access and, in the southern half of my electorate, they are conscripted to it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm a proud Australian, as are all members on this side of Chamber, and I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber are also proud Australians. I believe in mateship, inclusion, democracy, the rule of law and a fair go for all. Last night, the City of Yarra voted to remove all references to Australia Day, and it decided that it will not hold a citizenship ceremony on Australia Day. Shame on them! Under the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Citizenship ceremonies are non-commercial, apolitical, bipartisan and secular. They must not be used as forums for political, partisan or religious expression or for the distribution of material which could be perceived to be of a commercial, political or religious nature.</para></quote>
<para>The code notes that there are two significant days on which people can become an Australian citizen: one is Australia Day on 26 January, and the second is Australian Citizenship Day on 17 September. Everyone who has attended a citizenship ceremony—and I'm sure those opposite have presided over them—would be very familiar with this: a presiding officer must be authorised by the minister. Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, a person before whom the pledge is made 'must be authorised by the Australian government minister responsible for citizenship matters'. These people are usually referred to as presiding officers. Authorisation is given to Australian citizens only and is specific to a position or a person, so there are very specific legal requirements as to what can and can't be done and who can and can't do it.</para>
<para>It's interesting to note that, just prior to the citizenship pledges being taken, there is a preamble, and the presiding officer says this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.</para></quote>
<para>It goes onto talk about the pledge to loyalty to Australia. But it says, 'uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.' The Yarra City Council stands condemned today for its actions last night. If the Yarra City Council is not prepared to abide by its obligations under the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code</inline>, then the council and, indeed, the mayor, Amanda Stone, should have their position as presiding officer revoked. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme, National Science Week</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some of the most frustrating, confronting and even distressing experiences I've had as a member of parliament have come when I've dealt with families of someone with a disability or, indeed, directly with someone with a disability. I'm frustrated by my limited capacity to help as much as I would like to help—and I know that every member of this place would have had similar experiences.</para>
<para>I'm so proud that in government Labor built the NDIS. We all saw it as the circuit breaker. We all saw it as the opportunity for us as parliamentarians to do more for those challenged by mental or physical disability. Yet I am devastatingly disappointed by what's happening in my electorate at the moment, as people, frustrated by the inability to get the assistance from the NDIS that they were so hopeful for, stream into my electorate office. This is a real concern. They have concerns about planning processes, the quality of the plans, the rushed planning conversations and the need for more specialised trainers and planners. We need to collectively do something about this. The implementation of the NDIS over recent years has been a failure. It's failing the people who need help the most.</para>
<para>We all should be doing something more in our electorates, and I'm holding an NDIS information session on Monday, 28 August in my electorate at the Cessnock Leagues Club between 11 am and 1 pm. I'm encouraging all stakeholders to come along and have the conversation with me to see what we can do at the local level to improve the services available for people who are reliant on others to help them in life.</para>
<para>On another note, it's National Science Week. This is an important platform that helps us showcase the real contribution that science, technology, engineering and maths are making to both emerging industries and the diversification of traditional industries—and I'm the shadow minister for agriculture—and nowhere is that more true than in the agricultural sector. Science forms the basis of all innovation. On Saturday I'll be going to one of my local vineyards to participate in an event called Drones in the Vines. It is a perfect example of how the viticulture sector is embracing technology and innovation. I thank the Hunter Innovation and Science Hub for organising that event, in cooperation with the producers. I'll be very happy to be there celebrating Science Week, the contribution of science and the innovation that's taking place in the agricultural sector.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Black Rock House, Glick, Mr Mendel</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'd like to celebrate the achievements of the Friends of Black Rock House in the wonderful Goldstein electorate. Black Rock House offers a unique view into the 19th century Victorian lifestyle. It was built to offer a retreat from town life by Charles Ebden, who happened to be the first Auditor-General in the great state of Victoria.</para>
<para>Despite nearly being demolished in the Great Depression and again in the late 1960s, Black Rock House survived to remain a permanent reminder of what life was like back in the early settlement days in the colonies. With a redevelopment in 1983, the first stage works received an award of merit from the Australian Institute of Architects. Friends of Black Rock House is comprised entirely of volunteers, who work together with the Bayside City Council to promote Black Rock House's architecture and history, to organise community events and to preserve the historic house for future generations.</para>
<para>Black Rock House is a living monument within the community and is used regularly for community events such as fairs and fetes, which obviously are used to not only support it but also bring the community together. It's included in the Victorian Heritage Register and the Register of the National Estate and is classified by the National Trust. Today Black Rock House flourishes by running tours for school groups and hosting a market on the first Sunday of every month. As well as maintaining the heritage of the house, the Friends of Black Rock House are focused on helping the environment by introducing Boomerang Bags to phase out the use of plastic bags.</para>
<para>I'd personally like to commend President Carolyn Brown, Minutes Secretary Sandra Collins, Membership Secretary Deirdre Lynch, Treasurer Debbie Gruneklee, Assistant Treasurer Peter Millikin and committee members Helga Anderson, Gudrun Gawantka, Eryl Harris, Jayne Richardson and Tracey Scharenguivel. They are doing a fantastic job. Further supporters of Black Rock House include Beaumaris North Primary School, Black Rock Primary School, Siren Marketing and St Joseph's Black Rock. The magnificent thing about the electorate of Goldstein is, of course, that everybody gets to share and enjoy in its beauty, and Black Rock House is a charming reminder of that beauty for the community to enjoy.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to pay respects to Mr Mendel Glick, the founder of Glick's bagels, who died at the age of 92 this year. Mr Glick was widely recognised as the father of the European-style boiled bagels in Melbourne. Anyone who's been to Melbourne, particularly around the Elsternwick area, would know Glick's bagels very well, probably to the detriment of their waistlines. Despite persecution during the Second World War, including six years in a concentration camp, he came in 1949 with his wife and two eldest children. They have had immense success with six stores in Melbourne. He epitomised resilience and enthusiasm for life. He was a contributor to the building of the great state of Victoria and Melbourne today. On behalf of the Goldstein community, we share thanks for his wonderful life.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for that heartfelt contribution.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chifley Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, Western Sydney motorists, unbelievably, had to confront the reimposition of tolls on the M4—a road they paid off back in 2010. They're paying $50 a week now on tolls. These tolls will hang around. I'll be a 90-year-old before the tolls go. It is phenomenal that yet again they're forced to pay for this road. Western Sydney residents are the most tolled residents in the country and some say the world. When you look at the per-kilometre tolling of roads in Sydney and compare it to other parts of the world, it's likely that we are the most tolled people, not only in a city but on the planet. Western Sydney residents are being punished. They are forced to move out to the urban fringe because that's where land is the cheapest and then they're punished, if they dare try to travel from the west to the east, with these tolls.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a tax. Residents in my areas pay nearly $10,000 a year in tolls. This is a tax on them. A state Liberal government has done this, aided and abetted by the federal Liberal government. The money for WestConnex did not have a condition, like federal Labor imposed, to say, 'Do not put tolls back on the M4.' The federal Liberals handed $1.5 billion over to the state government. They did that straightaway. Look at the companies that are benefitting from this. Transurban had an 850 per cent leap in profit last week. Their share price went down because investors thought they weren't fleecing enough out of Western Sydney residents. Transurban's hunger for profit knows no bounds. These people are tollway ticks. They will keep feeding off Western Sydney residents and they will not reinvest back into the network or deliver better services. They keep feeding off this. This is simply wrong.</para>
<para>Three things need to happen. The first is that Transurban should not get access to WestConnex. They have had enough. That's the first thing. The second is that IPART, the independent pricing watchdog, should be given oversight of pricing and the way in which the pricing on toll roads in Sydney is managed. Luke Foley, the opposition leader, was right in saying that the toll should not be sold off before the next election. The third thing that should happen is that the government should start investigating a new model for toll road management that will allow the profits to be reinvested into either maintenance or expansion of roads. I get it that road building is expensive, but you cannot tell me that we do not have the wit or wherewithal to come up with a system that does not see all this being privatised and all the profit going to private investors. It's all coming out of the pockets of Western Sydney motorists.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moore Electorate: Skilling Australians Fund</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews, for recently visiting my electorate and briefing local employers, industry groups and training providers on opportunities for workforce development available under the federal government's vocational education and training programs, and in particular the new Skilling Australians Fund. The Skilling Australians Fund is designed to support apprenticeships and traineeships in Western Australia as our state transitions away from the mining and construction boom to new and emerging industries. It will provide practical opportunities for those seeking to change their career in related industries. The government has committed to ongoing engagement with industry, closely collaborating with employers to ensure that training projects supported by the fund are able to deliver real employment outcomes.</para>
<para>The Skilling Australians Fund will target growing and emerging industries and occupations, such as those in technology and tourism, to ensure that our nation has the skilled workforce which employers need. Local stakeholders in vocational education and apprenticeships met with Assistant Minister Karen Andrews around the boardroom table to discuss the government's strategy to promote renewed interest in apprenticeships and traineeships. Vocational education and training organisations based in Joondalup will benefit from this initiative, including both campuses of the North Metropolitan TAFE, the College of Electrical Training and a range of registered training organisations providing certificate and diploma-level qualifications.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth will commit an estimated $1.5 billion over the next four years under the Skilling Australians Fund, which will be matched by state and territory governments, to support 300,000 apprenticeships, traineeships, pre-apprenticeships and higher-level apprenticeships. Western Australia will be eligible for an estimated $38 million in 2017-18 through the fund. The Skilling Australians Fund represents a great opportunity for our state and for the electorate of Moore, providing a much-needed boost to the local economy and delivering valuable opportunities for those looking to start a new career. The fund will be complemented by the new $60 million Industry Specialist Mentoring program, which will provide 45,000 mentoring places for Australian apprentices and support the supply of skilled workers in industries undergoing structural change. This fund will prioritise projects in Western Australia that support apprenticeships and traineeships in high-demand areas, with a strong emphasis on accountability, transparency and the delivery of clear outcomes.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'Freedom, hope, independence, flexibility, people-centeredness, self-management, control and choice'—these are the words written by 26-year-old Gretta Serov only last week. They're the words she had hoped would describe what the NDIS would bring, but, sadly, they are not the words she now uses to describe her experience of the NDIS. In 2011, Gretta had high hopes. She has cerebral palsy and speaks using her nose on an iPad touch screen. She's studying journalism at university and lives between her mother's house in Bowen Mountain and her dad's house in Leura. Both those places are a long distance from her university and she needs transport to get there. But she has been battered down by the relentless fight to get fair transport funding from the NDIA so that she can simply do the things she was doing before the NDIS came in.</para>
<para>Before the NDIS came in, Gretta was self-managed and she had enormous flexibility to be able to adjust her transport allowance. She could use it to get to university each week and she could use it to take her mates away on holidays with her so she could have a holiday with friends. She needs transport that accommodates her large, very automated wheelchair and that allows her to adjust heights and get around and be part of the community that she's visiting. All that has stopped because of the NDIS—and we are so frustrated. The minister doesn't seem to be able to help. Nothing seems to be able to work.</para>
<para>Her mother says that it is disgusting that they can continue making people jump through hoops—collecting paperwork, writing emails, taking phone calls from people who don't know what they're talking about—without anyone making a decision. Let's be really clear: Gretta doesn't want more money. She's happy with the package she's got. She just wants to be able to access some core funding to supplement the really pitiful transport allowance that she got. At the moment, either her mum has to skip a day's work to get her to uni or her dad has to skip a day's work. It's completely unacceptable.</para>
<para>That's just one example of the sorts of things we're finding with the NDIS. It isn't working the way it's meant to. We in my office will be fighting for fair funding for every person in Macquarie who is eligible to be on the NDIS. Gretta emailed me this morning. She remains hopeful that yet another meeting with the NDIA today will resolve the issue, but we've had this hope many a time. It's not because there aren't good people working there; it's because the system is not working, and it is up to the minister—please!—to fix it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prostate Cancer</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr McVEIGH</name>
    <name.id>125865</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, at the risk of being seen by some to be politically incorrect, I would like to talk about a bloke thing. It's a Bloke's Thing is the name of a fundraising lunch that was held in my electorate of Groom just yesterday. It was the seventh iteration of this fundraising lunch, which is all about raising awareness and funds for prostate cancer. Yesterday it raised $1.5 million out of my own community of Toowoomba and the surrounding district, bringing the funds raised over the years since 2011 to $5.8 million. This makes the event one of the most significant lunchtime fundraisers in this nation. Not bad for a day's work, you might say, but we all certainly know that the organising behind such events takes much longer than just one day. I, therefore, want to particularly recognise the major sponsor, QantasLink, and the gold sponsors, including Range Event Hire, The Springs Garden World, Create Financial Solutions, Grand Central, Joyce Mayne, Creevey Russell Lawyers, Savanna, Queensland Truck Centre and Telstra. Other partners worthy of mention include Wellcamp Airport, the venue for the lunch; Stonestreets; The Punch Group; Salt Studios; Potters Hotel; Thru A Lens Media; Round Square Marketing; Snap; Signs N' Lines; Greenridge Press; and Visual Focus. They are worthy of mention because of their support for this very significant event.</para>
<para>The It's A Bloke Thing lunch yesterday, which, as I said, raised over $1.5 million, was attended by about 500 people. It featured food from celebrity chef Alastair McLeod. Journalist Ray Martin was there, as were yachtsman John Bertrand, singer Harrison Craig, and the Queensland world boxing champion, Jeff Horn. Moneys raised from this lunch—supported by those sponsors, the organisers and, of course, those VIP guests—will fund a full-time nurse in the region as well as ongoing research into the scourge of prostate cancer.</para>
<para>Some 16,665 males were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2017. It's a tremendous effort by groups such as mine in Toowoomba to fund ongoing information and research. This cancer is certainly requiring of attention, and therefore I support very strongly the upcoming barbecue lunch by the Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness here in Parliament House in the next sitting.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>121</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I commend both the minister and the shadow minister for their speeches in the parliament just a day or so ago. Coming to this statement, as a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I was delighted to see the bipartisan fashion in which the matters which have been raised in both speeches are being addressed. I do notice that there are some initiatives which the shadow minister referred to, and I'll come to those shortly. I want to make some observations about aspects of both speeches, in particular concentrating on the transition out of the Defence Force to the civilian community for Defence Force personnel and also on issues to do with mental health. I note, in particular, the release yesterday of the report by the Senate inquiry on suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel and its recommendations.</para>
<para>I think it's worthwhile acknowledging for a moment some of the data which was introduced in the statement by the minister himself. This is pretty compelling information. On average—this is not new to me, but may be new to many—our ADF personnel serve around 8½ years, and each year about 5,200 will leave the ADF. This data is from the minister's speech. Over the last 12 months 1,400 members of the Defence Force separated for reasons not of their choosing. That's important because that means, effectively, that they were shown the door. Then there's the whole issue of who serves, how they've served and what age they are.</para>
<para>We know that the Department of Veterans' Affairs—again, this is important—supports over 291,000 veterans and their families. That number has come down over recent years simply because the Second World War veterans are dying, but there are many veterans' spouses who remain alive and they obviously become part of the veterans community for the purposes of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Over half of those people are veterans or currently serving members of the ADF, and around 48 per cent are women and around 82,000 are widows or widowers. That just gives you an idea of the magnitude of the work that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is required to do, and that of itself raises serious questions about how the department is able to be adaptable, flexible and provide the services that are required at the time for a range of people. Effectively, the department is looking after the children of veterans from birth, potentially, until their death. Once you march into Kapooka as a recruit, you are a potential veteran from the day you arrive, and you will be at some time point, whether you're a serving veteran or an ex-serving veteran, someone who will be in the frame for veterans services or veterans support till the day you die. That's important.</para>
<para>What I particularly want to talk about here, and it's a really complex issue, is suicide. This document, the minister's speech, raises this important question. An AIHW study commissioned by the government has told us that the suicide rate is 53 per cent for men serving full time in the ADF and 49 per cent for men in the Reserve, and that compared with the general population these suicide rates are lower. In all male ex-serving members, the rate of suicide is 13 per cent higher than the general population. However, men who have left the ADF between the ages of 18 and 24 have twice the risk compared to their peers. To me, that raises a really big red flag. As I said earlier, the average length of service is 8½ years. So, if you're recruiting people when they are 18 or 19, you can expect that most of them will be out of the Defence Force by their mid-20s. Those people who have had a career in defence are clearly covered by the data that I have just referred to about the lower rates of suicide, but there is a higher rate of suicide for young serving and ex-serving people—primarily men.</para>
<para>This is a really complex area, but it does raise the question about the transition space and how you actually look after people who are in their early to mid-20s who have decided they're leaving or have been told they have to leave the Defence Force. They depart the defence community and they may be lost to us in the sense that they don't have any attachment; they're not necessarily at that point of being clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs but they may well be in the future. One of the problems which Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs are trying to address, I know, is how to follow these people who have left the Defence Force and how to help them transition to a space which is safe, comfortable and where they have got opportunity. That opportunity is really very important. I know from the work which has been done previously and is currently being done that this transition space is really challenging the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Both agencies know they have a shared responsibility, and that shared responsibility is very important. I support the views of both the minister and the shadow minister about ensuring the Department of Veterans' Affairs stays as an entity and is not subsumed by another agency, which was on the cards at some point and I know work has been done—nefarious work, I must say—in this space by the current government in terms of looking at that possibility. Nevertheless, it is not going to happen, and that's very important. It means that there should be an absolutely symbiotic relationship with the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs when it comes to dealing with veterans who may be serving as clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and people who leave the ADF out of uniform, who may not at that point be clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs but who one day may be, or their families may well be.</para>
<para>The issue about these young people who are at twice the risk of suicide compared to their peers in the general community raises really a serious and very difficult question: how do you look after the interests of these people? How do you make sure that the transition period is long enough so that they don't just hand in their card and walk out the gate and that's it? There is a process they're required to go through when they're exiting, so we have a way to track what they're doing and look after their interests, should that be required. That means making sure they get access to other job opportunities, professional counselling and education opportunities—guaranteeing them a pathway beyond the gate.</para>
<para>Some of them will have chosen that pathway, but we do know that there are people in the Defence Force who've done eight, nine or 10 tours of active duty and we know from the figures that, whilst they're in uniform they're relatively safe but, once they leave, God knows what their state of mind might be in five or 10 years time, when they need assistance. So it is absolutely imperative to make sure we have a capacity to track those individuals when they leave, as they leave, and work with them together with the organisations in the broader defence community. One of the issues, of course, is the plethora of defence-based organisations assisting these veterans. There needs to be far more unity among them, so they share the responsibility. I know there are great organisations out there, such as Soldier On. The RSL needs to do a lot more. Frankly, over recent years, it has failed many younger veterans. We have to do a great deal more to guarantee that the transition space is properly addressed and that the mental health issues are properly addressed.</para>
<para>I commend the recommendations of the Senate inquiry which I referred to earlier. I say to members of parliament, some of whom may have no experience of veterans or the defence community, that we all have an obligation here. Let's make sure we fulfil that obligation and look after our men and women in uniform, when they leave the defence community, and their families. That's our primary obligation here in the parliament. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs SUDMALIS</name>
    <name.id>241586</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are few events in the calendar of a federal member that are both significant and poignant, and veterans' commemorations are some of the best. With the sunrise of the Anzac ceremonies in Kiama, Gerringong, Garena Point, Huskisson or Batemans Bay, the sky is spectacular and made more vibrant and more meaningful by hearing 'The Last Post' and seeing our national flag lowered and then raised in honour of our veterans. We watch our ageing veterans and families with respect and awe as we sing <inline font-style="italic">Abide </inline><inline font-style="italic">w</inline><inline font-style="italic">ith Me</inline> in memory of those servicemen and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.</para>
<para>There is so much more that we're doing for veterans and their families and more we should be doing, and we recognise we can do things better. At the 2016 election, the coalition committed to give a ministerial statement on veterans and their families each year. The first ministerial statement of its kind on veterans and their families was delivered to parliament this week, and I speak in support. The government is committed to serving all defence personnel, veterans and their families. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has held forums for veterans and their families to get firsthand feedback, including forums for female veterans and family forums.</para>
<para>In addition, there has been the first meeting of the state and territory veterans ministers to provide input on how we can work together across all levels of government on issues such as veteran homelessness. The government has introduced free and immediate treatment for all mental health conditions for any veteran, even those with just one day's full-time service. The minister has committed to a stand-alone Department of Veterans' Affairs, a department that focuses on the needs of the veteran first and a stronger voice for the veteran community.</para>
<para>Our Defence Force has around 58,000 serving personnel and, whether or not they serve overseas or in the barracks or bases around our nation, like HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Albatross</inline> or HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Creswell</inline>, they become veterans. In the Australian community, there are about 320,000 veterans who've been deployed. Many thousands will not have seen service outside of Australia. In Gilmore, we have around 4,000 DVA clients.</para>
<para>For some time we have recognised that there can be difficulties for our veterans moving from defence life to the general community. This transition has become a key focus of our government. We absolutely want to make sure that no-one falls through the gap between defence and civilian life. Currently, the Department of Veterans' Affairs supports about 291,000 Australians. Today, more than 203,000 of DVA's clients are more than 65 years old, and about 23,000 are under the age of 40. We're told that, in a typical nine-to-five day in a five-day week, DVA will process about 95 compensation or income support forms every hour, receive two letters or emails every minute and take a phone call every couple of seconds—though I suspect the emails and phone calls might be around the wrong way.</para>
<para>The administration costs of the department represent less than three cents for every dollar it spends. So that means that most of that money is actually going to our veterans. This year, DVA will provide over $11 billion in payments and services, including pensions, income support, compensation, healthcare, rehab, counselling services, transport, transition assistance, home care, housing, commemorations, education and grants funding. Of this, more than $6 billion will be spent on providing veterans and their families with income support and compensation. Around $5 billion will be spent on meeting the healthcare needs of our veterans and their families. DVA also allocates funds towards the construction and maintenance of memorials. Most importantly, there are provisions set aside to allow some uncapped amounts to be expended, especially in the area of mental health services.</para>
<para>The most recent budget delivers over $350 million of new money to give completely free mental health support and better services to veterans. It is the largest investment by the department in over a decade and will lead to reduced wait and claim times. No other government has invested, as we have, in veterans' mental health. The government is also expanding our non-liability healthcare program so that it will be available for any mental health condition, including phobias, adjustment disorder and bipolar disorder. I believe everyone in our community will welcome the significance of this program for veterans and their families.</para>
<para>Previous to our legislated changes, anyone who had served only one day in the full-time Australian Defence Force had to prove that their mental health condition was linked to their service. For those already suffering, the added stress and anxiety added to their condition rather than assisting them to a health pathway. They would have to wait to have their eligibility and claim approved from the department, which meant a time lag that would see their mental health deteriorate or them not receive the support that they desperately needed. And, as we all know, mental health is best treated as an early intervention.</para>
<para>Last year, this government provided a new approach: free and immediate treatment for depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcohol abuse and substance abuse, without the need to prove the condition was service-related. In this budget, the government has gone even further. Now we will commit to provide this immediate response for all conditions. It will mean that, from now on, veterans and defence personnel can get free and immediate treatment without the burden of proof and without the need for a bureaucratic barrier. Most importantly, this policy is uncapped. If it's needed, it will be done.</para>
<para>The Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service saves lives, and we know it's critical. The government understands that partners, families and former partners are all part of the ex-service community and that they too can be affected by the military service. In recognition, the budget provided extra funding so that partners, dependants, immediate family and divorced or separated parents for children up to 18 could also access that help.</para>
<para>During the last 12 months, the government has received a report from the National Mental Health Commission on services provided to defence personnel and veterans, and a preliminary report on suicide rates from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Suicide prevention is a complex issue, and, as the reports have shown, there is no simple solution. It requires a multifaceted response. So $9.8 million is to be provided to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and to improve the care and support available for the veterans. Some of our veterans are most vulnerable when they leave the health care of a hospital. So the mental health clinical managing pilot is designed to actually assist them.</para>
<para>Another aspect of listening to veterans' forums and hearing their ideas to make positive change is their suggestion about the need to reform the department's processes and systems. I don't think they were alone in trying to get this change happening. It's been a stumbling block for some time. As part of the veteran-centric reform, the government has committed the significant amount of $166.6 million towards making DVA a 21st century department with 21st century service. Claim wait times will be greatly reduced by this investment, and it is something that is long overdue.</para>
<para>The amazing skills that our defence personnel gain as they work and serve diligently for our nation are not always recognised in the civilian world. This leaves the veteran facing a bleak future. They're smart and well trained, but the essential recognition is not available. The government is further supporting veterans' employment opportunities through funding that has been allocated to the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program, which we hope will address this difference between their qualifications and those in the community. As many of you would be aware, this initiative is aimed at raising awareness with employers in both the private and public sectors of the enormous value and unique experience that veterans possess. This is a truly significant step in the right direction, although we all know there is still a way to go to achieve greater results than we currently achieve.</para>
<para>An additional $19.6 million over two years has been set aside to support domestic and international commemorative activities—for Anzac services just past and, for the future, on Remembrance Day on 11 November. One other little known extra budget measure for veterans includes $18 million as part of the government's Energy for the Future Package so that more than 235,000 DVA clients will be able to access a one-off payment for energy bills. Indeed, all 4,180 DVA clients in the Gilmore electorate will benefit from this investment and also from change to the DVA system, because that has been a problem. The time taken to transition records or prove locations of overseas service when, in the past, records were still paper and could have been lost was indeed upsetting for many.</para>
<para>Each of the volunteer welfare officers who work so hard in each of our RSL sub-branches will welcome the change, as it will make an incredible difference to the way they deliver their service. I am still yearning to find a space for my motorcycle veterans to have as a refuge and counselling hub—a centre for companionship and support, a place to call their own—so they can help their own. We in the civilian world cannot ever relate to their experiences. We can sympathise and we can listen, but if events like the unexpected click of a door lock can send them into a response of attack wariness and then PTSD symptoms set in because it sounds like the click before a rifle is fired, then we have a long way to go to make them feel totally supported. We should explore every possible avenue to assist them. We have made great inroads and terrific advances in computing, but we cannot sit on our laurels. We must continue to work together at all times. Our veterans and families deserve it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no higher calling than military service, no higher calling than being prepared to defend your nation and no higher calling than being prepared to put your life on the line for your country, for your values, for your beliefs and for your democracy. That is what members of the Australian Defence Force do each and every day, and that is what our veterans have done. That's why we need to provide them with respect, we need to honour them and we need to support them not just when they're in uniform but also when they're transitioning out of uniform and once they have left the ADF.</para>
<para>Since being Member for Canberra, I have met many broken ADF men and women. They have served their nation in Iraq, they have served their nation in Afghanistan, they have served their nation in Vietnam, and they are broken; they're lost in a civilian world. They see their military service as a calling that defined their very being, and they are lost out in a civilian world. They took their calling very seriously. They felt deeply honoured to serve their nation through the Australian Defence Force, and they feel deeply let down. They feel that the ADF, Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs let them down when they weren't able to continue to serve their nation. It is a very confronting issue for them. Their aspiration, usually since they were small children, was to serve their nation through the Navy, Army or Air Force. That's all they wanted to do. They went through cadets and then they went on to ADFA, or to training somewhere, and they went throughout the nation in their particular service. Their calling, from when they were small children, was to serve their nation in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, with many of them following traditions—it was an intergenerational calling.</para>
<para>You can imagine how betrayed and bewildered they are when they unfortunately incur some injury during their service and they are basically commissioned out of service. It is a huge challenge for our veterans to be able to survive and thrive in civilian life. We've heard so many stories over the course of this debate about the physical impacts on them. Many of them have been broken physically during the course of their experience and service to the nation, but many of them have also been broken mentally. That's why it's very important that we, as a nation, take their challenges seriously and take their issues seriously. My late father-in-law was a Vietnam vet and I'm married to an Army brat. My late mother-in-law said that she got a very different man back from the Vietnam War.</para>
<para>The impact of the Vietnam War has only been realised in the last 10 years. We should be learning from the lessons of forgetting about the impact of war and what that did to Vietnam vets. We should be learning from their treatment and ensuring that we do not repeat what happened to those Vietnam vets. There are people who have served not just in Afghanistan and Iraq but also on peacekeeping missions in the Pacific, Africa and elsewhere. We must ensure that lessons are learnt from the treatment of Vietnam vets so we do not make the same mistakes again.</para>
<para>All of us in this chamber would have had experiences and conversations with veterans, both men and women, who unfortunately have experienced a repeat of the experiences our Vietnam vets went through. I know of veterans who have been fighting for the right to study. This is just as part of their transitioning-out process. Vietnam veterans who have significant mental health and physical health issues are fighting for the right to have a hearing aid or are fighting for the right to have decent rehabilitation treatment. We cannot do this to our veterans.</para>
<para>We are talking about significant numbers. Currently, the Department of Veterans' Affairs supports around 291,000 Australians, and just over half of those people are veterans or currently serving members of the ADF. Around 48 per cent of them are women. Around 82,000 are widows or widowers and around 2½ thousand are children of veterans. On average, our ADF personnel will serve for around 8½ years, and each year around 5,200 will leave. That's 5,200 new veterans every year who require respect, who require the right to be honoured for their service and who require adequate support to transition from life in the defence force to civilian life. It's vitally important.</para>
<para>Numerous studies have been done on this issue. In 2013, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade looked into the care of Australian Defence Force personnel who were injured on operations. It was noted the rehabilitation programs and the return-to-work programs could be improved. A particularly major point of that review was the lack of seamlessness between Defence and DVA. The review was conducted in 2012-13. We are still dogged with the same problem of lack of seamlessness. Essentially, as vets move from being serving members to veterans, they are lost in translation, in terms of the move to new systems. That has to end, particularly in 2017 with the range of systems that we have in place now. It has to stop. We have to provide greater transition support to these veterans and greater support through the systems—acknowledging that they exist and that they're being moved from one part of Defence to another part of Defence.</para>
<para>Yesterday, the Senate inquiry's report into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel was released. The inquiry received 443 submissions. Many of those submissions expressed their frustration at a number of processes, which I have just highlighted, including the transition from ADF to civilian life, and how this can be compacted with complicated processes within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Labor will work through the evidence provided to the Senate inquiry, carefully consider the recommendations and continue to work with ex-service communities, the government and the parliament to address the critical policy gaps when it comes to providing better support for our veterans and our ex-service personnel.</para>
<para>In speaking about our veterans, I do not want to overlook the significant contribution of families of veterans—like my late mother-in-law and like my husband's family—and their support not just during their life in the ADF but also, importantly, when they're making the transition out of the ADF into civilian life. It can be very, very tough, particularly if your husband, wife or partner has come back from Iraq or Afghanistan a different person—as was the case for my late father-in-law when he came back from Vietnam. It can be very, very challenging for a relationship, particularly for partners and children. So we need to pay as much attention to the families as we do to the veteran, because it's the families that are left behind when the person has served. They've done the hard yards.</para>
<para>There are a range of challenges in terms of supporting families in a modern Australia, in 2017, and ensuring that those who are working are not having their careers in any way ruined, because their partner is serving in the Australian Defence Force—and we see that time and time again. We need to have a very close look at the support that we're providing to families—not just the families of current ADF members but also of veterans. That's why I welcome the shadow minister for veterans' affairs proposal, Labor's proposal, to develop a family engagement and support strategy for the families of our defence personnel and veterans.</para>
<para>As I said, these families—these men, women and children—are the unsung heroes of our defence forces. A number of reviews have highlighted that there is currently a lack of emphasis on the critical role that they play in the life of current and serving members. Developing a family strategy also acknowledges the importance of families in the rehabilitation of ADF members and veterans. We owe it to our ADF members and to our veterans to acknowledge, honour and respect their service, and we do that by providing them with the appropriate support.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>McMillan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The first thing I would like to do is identify with the member for Canberra, who obviously speaks not only from her personal experience but also from the heart with regard to veterans. Canberra would be a place and an electorate where these issues are at the forefront, rather than at the minimal. It is the same in places like Townsville, Cairns and right around our country. The member for Canberra described the family experience of a returned soldier from the Vietnam War, and I would say to the member for Canberra that this family experience would be shared right across the country, but they made it. They made it through.</para>
<para>On Sunday, I'll be immersing myself in veterans on Long Tan day at Longwarry North hall. The hall was given to the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Gippsland Chapter, and they have a very, very big event where riders come from all over the state, and especially all over Gippsland, to be part of the commemorations for Long Tan day. Denny will be there as will 'T Rat' and 'Buzz' Kennedy—a long-time associate of mine. Most recently, I sat down with a Vietnam vet—and I am not naming any names—who, to all intents and purposes, on the occasions I have met him, has been an entirely articulate, friendly, warm and engaging gentleman. He was affable. He was kind and supportive of his fellow man. He said, 'I want to have a cup of coffee with you.' I said, 'Fine.'</para>
<para>We went up to Neerim South and we sat down and had a cup of coffee in a little coffee shop there. He explained to me the truth of his life and how it had worked out, from the time he'd left the Defence Force as a Vietnam vet to this day—the marriage break-ups, the business turnarounds, his life with a new partner and the way she managed him and he managed his life. It turned out that I was old enough to be connected to his father. I remembered his father very well, but I hadn't connected the two people. As he told me his story, that this facade that was him in life—as we saw him, as the community saw him, as his friends saw him, as the people saw him—was just that, a facade. Underneath that, he was living a completely different life, unknown to the broader community. His story as a Vietnam vet is not unusual. What we've got to give them is some hope in their lives, some control of their lives and a sense of belonging, which they had in the Defence Force. The relationships they formed in the Defence Force are removed from them. I am really no expert in this field. I am a local member only, simply dealing with issues that are raised with me, as far as veterans affairs go, and we do our very, very best to accommodate them.</para>
<para>As I stand here today and hear the bipartisan nature of this address and the care about our veterans and their families from the member for Lingiari, a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I am reminded that, when I first came to this place in 1990, Robert Ray was the defence minister and the late Con Sciacca was the excellent Minister for Veterans' Affairs. His offsider, who I became quite close to because of the veterans affairs issues that I was dealing with all the time, was a fellow named Greg Rudd. I had never put together the fact that the Greg Rudd that I knew, who worked for Con Sciacca, was the then Prime Minister's brother. It was not until the former Speaker pulled me aside at a function one time and said, 'Look at that profile and then look at that profile.' I hadn't known that, and we had been friends for a long time. That friendship was borne out of Con Sciacca and Greg Rudd, who was prepared to work with every member of parliament in this place to get an outcome on behalf of veterans.</para>
<para>It was the same with Robert Ray. I remember going to Robert's Ray's office and being quite in awe. I was a new member of parliament and I had to go and see a minister over a land issue in my electorate with the Defence Force. I was five minutes late. I walked in and he said, 'It is absolutely correct to be five minutes late in this place; it gives everybody a few minutes to pull themselves together before a meeting.' He put me at ease straight away. Like all the ministers that come into this place to do their best, Robert Ray—Senator Robert Ray at that time—just said, 'Yes, we can resolve this issue, and here's the way we're going to go about it.' We worked closely with one another to resolve an issue that was important to a community that was directly related to Defence. That's what members do. I am blessed that I have a fellow named Bill Westhead, who's a former serving officer, who is directly interested in all of the issues surrounding this debate, as a branch member of my party. Any time we meet, he is prepared to raise issues with me. I have heard many ministers talk about this.</para>
<para>This is an excellent statement by the minister about veterans affairs and their families, and the way the government is going about addressing their issues. One of the problems that we always have when somebody has their own personal issues is marrying them with the services we provide, getting them to cross that bridge. We say, 'This is what the government have done. These are the services we have got there for you.' We then get the person to acknowledge there is a problem and enter into the service that we provide. We have Vietnam vets, welfare associations, RSL welfare and a myriad of organisations that try to bridge that gap, and that gap is quite often getting people, men and women, to have an advocate to help them cross the bridge to the services that we provide. Getting people who have issues to cross the bridge to say, 'I acknowledge I need help,' has been an ongoing difficulty for every government that I have ever seen in this nation, be it state, federal or local. I can only encourage veterans and their families. If there is an issue, there is a phone line, there is a welfare agency and there is somebody who actually cares about you to give back your hope, to give back your control and to say that you belong to our community, equally, as anybody.</para>
<para>I stand in this place where Bruce Scott, the former member for Maranoa, had such an influence in changing the ambience of this chamber. Bruce was a highly regarded veterans affairs minister. People have known through the times that all veterans affairs ministers have a real heart for veterans as individuals. They really do. They go out of their way. Every one of the veterans affairs ministers I have seen over the years has been honourable in this place and—as does Dan Tehan—done a marvellous job. We support what you do as ministers. We support you in your endeavours on their behalf and we plead with those people who are in need to take a look at the services provided and enter in. Please, cross that bridge.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am privileged to have in my electorate one of the oldest RAAF bases in the country, RAAF Richmond, as well as RAAF Base Glenbrook, home to Headquarters Air Command. That means that many of the 2,000 men and women who work at these bases also live in my electorate. I have the same number of returned service personnel living in Macquarie, so that means we have thousands of people who are being or have been asked to risk their lives now or in the past in service of their country. They either are or will be veterans.</para>
<para>Last Sunday in the Blue Mountains, my community honoured not only those who served in the Vietnam War but also those who currently serve at our annual Vietnam Veterans Day march. I would like to congratulate and thank the Blue Mountains Vietnam Veterans Association for the work they do as well as the local RSL sub-branches for the support they give. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Day Parade and Service commemorates the Battle of Long Tan, one of the most significant engagements by Australian forces during the Vietnam War on 18 August 1966. Each year in Springwood on the closest Sunday before that date, Vietnam veterans gather for a commemorative service and wreath laying. It is one of the largest events of its kind in New South Wales and it is always a very moving event. This year War Memorial director, Brendon Nelson, spoke about the reception Vietnam veterans received on their return to Australia, which we all know was much less than anything that anyone serving at behest of their country should experience.</para>
<para>Mr Nelson shared the story of one of our locals: Katoomba resident Bob Bowtell, who died of asphyxiation in a tunnel complex close to what we then knew as Saigon and whose body was recently repatriated to Australia. It was a sad story and one of the real tragedies of that particular encounter. But only a year earlier, I heard the story not just of Bob but also of one of the men who survived and, in fact, had tried to rescue Bob Bowtell. He told us his mental health had suffered as a direct result of those efforts and of his Vietnam experience. That's the reality of what our community was honouring at the Vietnam Veterans Day march. It was a gathering of hundreds of people, and they all believed that respecting the sacrifices that our defence personnel have made and continue to make is one of the best things that we can do as community to honour what they've done.</para>
<para>I think our community recognises, either from personal experience or from the experience of family and friends, that there can be a very heavy price to pay for serving your country. It isn't just the physical wounds but also the mental ones that truly baffle families, which is why we welcome the government's introduction of the recent expansion of non-liability health care. We have offered our support to the government and want to make sure that people are aware of this program and that it is available to everyone who has served even one day in the ADF.</para>
<para>Those in my electorate are probably more aware than some in other communities of the cost to people's mental health, partly because we have one of the leading veterans' treatment hospitals, St John of God, in North Richmond. This facility has specialist expertise in PTSD, alcohol and drug treatments. It takes a holistic approach.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline> </para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:46 to 11:55</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, when I spent time at St John of God a few weeks ago, I had the chance to admire the artwork that patients do as part of their treatment. In fact, a lacquered tray now has pride of place in my Parliament House office on the coffee table. It's a reminder of the work that veterans sometimes need to do so that they can feel that they can fit back into society. I really praise the work St John of God does.</para>
<para>We were there for a service to honour veterans. Guest speaker Paul Field, who is also known as the manager of the Wiggles, has turned his hand to capturing the stories of veterans and others who've experienced PTSD in a new book called <inline font-style="italic">Gimme Shelter</inline>, which is a collection of interviews. I think the deeply personal stories that he shared really do bring to light the struggle that people have, whether it's as a Black Hawk helicopter crash survivor or as witness to a friend's death in an explosion in Afghanistan. Certainly, for the veterans and their families who were at St John of God, the experiences of rebuilding a life after serving in the armed forces were very close to home.</para>
<para>It is vital that veterans have access to the health services they deserve. Not everyone will want to be in a hospital situation, but it's so important that primary health care is readily available. That's why the government's indexation freeze on the DVA repatriation medical schedule is troubling. That fee schedule has remained stagnant. The feedback we're getting is that it's acting as a disincentive for some medical specialists to provide treatment for veterans. We would really like to see that addressed.</para>
<para>In the time that I have left, I want to share some of the insights that I had during my week-long stay at RAAF Base Amberley recently as part of the Defence parliamentary program. I certainly walked away with a deeper understanding of the commitment people make in signing up to be part of the armed forces. I think there are some lessons there about how we move forward about transitioning people back into civilian society.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity, during my week, to meet the incredible individuals who make up the Air Force, from the ground defence team, the medics and the firefighters through to pilots and aircrew flying the C-17A Globemasters, the KC-30s, F/A-18 Hornets and the Super Hornets. I think what impressed me most about being part of it was the culture of training that permeates every aspect of the base—certainly how I experienced it. It was repeated time and time again, whether I was in a simulator flying a plane, or being walked through the fire services facilities. As a trainer with 25 years experience, I was really impressed with the high-quality adult education that was being imparted.</para>
<para>While the machines are really impressive and the equipment's great, it was the conversations that had the most impact. The reasons that people gave me for being in the RAAF were obviously many and varied. What everyone talked about, though, was the impact that it has on their family and friends. Whether it's their mum and dad, whether it's their siblings or whether it's their partner and their children, families clearly pay a very high price for their member's service. They have long times apart and they have little control over where they live. While that is something that they choose when they go forward, I think there are then consequences from that when people transition back into society as veterans.</para>
<para>Certainly, the RAAF base at Amberley gave me an idea of the sense of community that is created. I can only imagine what it's like to suddenly not have that community around you: to one day be in the ADF and the next day to be a veteran. There doesn't seem to be the cross-over that we need between those two services. I can only imagine what it's like to suddenly find you need to sign in to go back onto base to see friends and be a part of something, because you have lost your access. All of those things, I imagine, are very confronting.</para>
<para>That's why I am pleased Labor has already committed to the National Mental Health Commission's recommendations around family engagement and support. We need to work with families to identify how we can smooth this transition. This was highlighted even more last night when I was able to meet Mark Wales, a former SAS member and famous for his role on <inline font-style="italic">Survivor</inline><inline font-style="italic">.</inline> Last night, in this place, he talked about transition and the challenges. He highlighted the role that education plays in that transition.</para>
<para>Another conversation I had was about how challenging it can be to get an education while you're still serving in the Defence Force, yet that education is absolutely vital for your transition into civilian society. They're the areas I would really like to see all of us, both sides, put attention into. We will certainly be very keen to identify the things that will make life just a little bit easier. As parliamentarians we make decisions that greatly impact people's lives and their families, and we should take that responsibility for their futures seriously.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CREWTHER</name>
    <name.id>248969</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like, firstly, to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his outstanding work and commitment to this area. We certainly owe so much to our veterans. I'm very proud to be part of the first government to make a formal ministerial statement on veterans and their families—the first of what will become annual statements to ensure transparency on services and the sector more broadly. This was a commitment that we took to the federal election last year.</para>
<para>The recognition of the unique needs of veterans and the requirement of ongoing support is a key objective of the direction that the government is taking, and it is one that is not only critical but also owed to our veterans. The first female veterans forum and the first veterans families forum that were held in the last 12 months make it clear that this government recognises that our veterans are now a much more diverse group of individuals and that the impacts of service extend beyond the veterans themselves. Unfortunately, the veterans affairs sector has been long and often invisible in the conversations around mental health and in the societal conversations about homelessness. Consistent with the fortitude that our troops display throughout their service, many of our veterans have suffered in silence.</para>
<para>Our government has committed to a stand-alone Department of Veterans' Affairs: a department that focuses on the needs of the veteran first and a stronger voice for the veterans community. A key focus of this government is on how these men and women transition out of the Australian Defence Force and the resources and services that are there to meet them when they do. Some 5,200 ADF personnel leave the forces every year after an average of around 8½ years of service. The number of servicemen and servicewomen who leave the ADF involuntarily has doubled from the figure that it was 10 years ago. We know that some veterans have fallen through the gap between defence and civilian life, and we are committed to doing all that we can to narrow, and eventually close, that gap.</para>
<para>Many of us will never fully comprehend the impact that service and the various reasons for leaving the ADF will leave on our veterans. The Department of Veterans' Affairs, for example, typically receives two letters or emails every minute, a phone call every couple of seconds and processes around 95 compensation or income-support forms every hour. The department currently supports about 291,000 Australians, with 82,000 of them being widows or widowers and around 2,500 of them being children of veterans.</para>
<para>We know that these support networks need to be wide-reaching. I was very pleased to meet with the fantastic people of the Australian Kookaburra Kids Foundation, when they visited parliament just a few month ago, joined by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs as well as the Treasurer and others.</para>
<para>The resources to address the needs of veterans and their families are certainly increasing, and the minister's commitment to meet the needs of veterans with whatever funding is required, I know, will be welcomed by the veterans community Australia-wide as well as in my electorate of Dunkley. But I have also heard firsthand from constituents of the demands on the system. A gentleman with whom I regularly interact in my electorate of Dunkley has highlighted the exact gap that I mentioned previously—the impact of his service, training and reintegration experience back to civilian life. He has a number of needs that are being addressed by the department's compensation system. I have spoken to the minister personally about this gentleman and I was struck by the minister's dedication to addressing any shortcomings, which I believe is symptomatic of the Turnbull coalition government. The ongoing support is not only recognised but also being progressively addressed by budgetary measures and frequent investment by the government. We still have a lot more work to do but I know the minister is wholly and fully dedicated to this task.</para>
<para>An additional $350 million was committed in this year's budget to support veterans. This brings the estimated budgetary spend of the department to $11.3 billion. Much of this will provide essential services for communities such as Frankston south in my electorate, where Vasey RSL Care provide incredible support to the Dunkley ex-service community, or indeed Mornington Peninsula Legacy at Mount Eliza House, who also do a fantastic job. More widely, the RSL aged-care community do a fantastic job caring for our older veteran community and return the dedication and commitment that our veterans displayed during their service, and the mateship and care for friends and neighbours. Additional focus, though, is still needed for the younger generations of veterans. Around 23,000 clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, both men and women, are under the age of 40. It is vital that support is provided to those impacted by the effects of service, young or old, male or female, or veteran partner or child. The Turnbull coalition government will be there alongside them providing the services we owe our veterans and I welcome the bipartisan support towards this.</para>
<para>Listening to how we can improve our support and ensure that no veteran or their family falls through the gap is essential. As the minister said, 'If there is a need, it will be met.' I was reminded of this continual need of our veterans when this last weekend I attended and laid a wreath at the Frankston and district Vietnam veterans sub-branch Remembrance Day service on Sunday. This service recognised the service of our Vietnam veterans and their needs, particularly after their service was shamefully not properly recognised upon their return from conflict. We can only continue working to make up for this, as the Australian government and the Frankston and district Vietnam veterans sub-branch and many other similar organisations across Australia are working to make sure that this is the case and that the government is held to account. At this recent service on Sunday, it was also great to have there fellow Australian South Vietnamese veterans, who fought arm in arm with our Australian veterans during the conflict. This fighting arm-in-arm across nations really recognises the fact that this is shared conflict and that there are shared needs of our veterans. I am honoured to work with the minister to support the veterans of Dunkley and across Australia to remove barriers in accessing treatment and support, and being a voice for all Dunkley ex-service men and women.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to start by echoing the comments of the member for McMillan, Mr Broadbent, when he was saying that we support the minister. Of course we support the minister. He's got an extremely important job to do, but that doesn't mean that this issue always has to be bipartisan in nature when it comes to improving policy. Some advice, I guess, I would give to the minister is to remind him that he's not a press secretary for the Department of Veterans' Affairs; that's not his job. His job is to look at ways, after consulting with the whole veteran community, to improve the way we care for our veterans in this country. It is to challenge the department about their processes. It is to work to improve that culture and the connectivity of that organisation. Of course, the people in that department do great work, but there is much work to be done. The problem is significant, and to fix the problem we need a comprehensive veterans support system across the nation. It's not all the job of DVA, it's not all the job of the ex-service organisations and it's not all the job of community organisations. We all have a responsibility in this area.</para>
<para>I won't talk too much about the evidence that's been presented to the various inquiries except to say that we need to be very clear about what the problem is. One of the strongest indicators of the problem is that suicide rate of ex-serving men in particular is more than twice as high as that for those serving full time or in the Reserve. We have heard other speakers go to this issue of transition from Defence back into the community. So those men in particular who have left Defence and are in that transition period are twice as likely to die by suicide. Also the suicide rate for those who were discharged involuntarily is 2.4 times as high as that for those discharged for voluntary reasons. Involuntary discharge could be medical discharge.</para>
<para>They are the veterans and ex-service people who are coming into contact with the department. They are four times more likely to die by suicide. So there are significant problems in this process, and we shouldn't put it mostly down to an IT system. Whilst I welcome the changes that have been looked at for the IT system, connectivity in general and culture are much more important issues that we need to fix.</para>
<para>When it comes to leadership, we have to look at the priorities that we have. The department and ex-service organisations, like the RSL, have different priorities, whether they be ceremonial or providing advocates to help veterans with their claims. I say again that what we need is a comprehensive veterans support system. We are committed to family engagement. The shadow minister has outlined that we are committed to a family engagement support strategy. That will seek to address the current lack of engagement. It also speaks to the importance of families to our veterans. It's incredibly important.</para>
<para>In terms of providing support to veterans in my electorate, I have held a forum for veterans to get issues off their chests and to get some more coordination between ESOs. I have been supporting events. One coming up involves Soldier On, but there have been many other events run by veterans to increase awareness, understanding and support.</para>
<para>I think it's important that we all understand the perspectives. One that I'll give you is of a wife who is totally on egg shells around her partner. If they go out anywhere, she can see the rising anxiety in her husband. She has talked me through the effect it has on their life and their interaction with the claims system through DVA. It has caused a lot of anxiety. So it has real effects on the families of these veterans, and we need to be more aware of that.</para>
<para>Another family member of a veteran I have been speaking to, a father, has lost contact with his son. The son has returned from a very difficult period of service in Afghanistan and has gone off the reservation and doesn't talk to them much. The anxiety in that family is that they are losing their son, who is having difficulties with the system. It is literally destroying families, so we must be focused on the families and on working with those families.</para>
<para>Why does this happen? Having come from the military, I have some understanding of the pressures on veterans. When you're in the military, you have a set of values as a scaffold around you to support you. Also, to do your job, you have that identity and purpose of serving your country. When you transition out into the community, that scaffolding all of a sudden largely falls away and people find themselves floating and not able to integrate back into society. If there's one thing we need to do, it is to make sure that our people, once we get them into Defence and they have trained well, remain connected in the community because this will allow the transition to work more effectively. I would encourage everyone who has the ability to enact change for more connectivity between Defence members and the community to do so.</para>
<para>I just want to acknowledge the individuals who work with veterans, because they've definitely got their heart and soul in the job. We just need to improve the culture, we need to improve connectivity, and we need to improve coordination between ex-service organisations. I think there are about 2,780 ex-service organisations in Australia currently and about 3,400-plus charity organisations with veterans nominated as their beneficiaries. We need to become more efficient in using those resources, but I do want to acknowledge all those who are doing such innovative work. There's been a boom in the number of ESOs because they're seen by younger veterans in particular as more agile, innovative and responsive organisations.</para>
<para>In Darwin we have made some changes in the ESO community. The Northern Territory branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia is actually looking at dropping the word 'Vietnam' from their name. They'll vote on that soon. That is a direct pitch to young veterans. It says: 'You are welcome in our organisation. You are part of our organisation.' I commend the branch for doing that. The minister mentioned a united veterans voice. I think there's some merit in some sort of peak body, but a lot more care and trust will be required, particularly with younger veterans, to build confidence in some of the larger organisations before that can become reality.</para>
<para>I just want to finish by commending the shadow minister for talking about the value of our people in her speech the other day. We should be hearing a lot more about that. That is the point that I'd like to finish on. The value of our veterans to our community cannot be understated. What I personally want to say to veterans out there in our country is: we see you, we hear you and we respect you; you are very much valued by the country that you love and have served.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to take this opportunity to make some brief remarks in response to the ministerial statement on veterans and their families. Firstly, I'd like to congratulate the government on bringing forth this first ministerial statement. Particularly, I would like to congratulate the minister responsible, Dan Tehan, for being such a strong and direct advocate for veterans in this country. Working with the department, he has provided support and assistance, particularly by bringing these issues to the attention not just of the government but of the parliament. In the spirit of the bipartisan nature of the speeches that have preceded mine, I'd like to commend the minister for taking this initiative. I'd like to commend the minister not just on this initiative in isolation but for taking the opportunity to bring many veterans around the country together to have a dialogue about the challenges that they face into the future and, particularly, for making sure that it is not just veterans who have traditionally had their voices heard who are being recognised but also, increasingly, veterans who perhaps have been overlooked or who have not had the attention that they deserve.</para>
<para>There have, of course, been a significant number of forums around the country, but the opportunity for the first female veterans forum in particular, I think, is something that speaks volumes about the government and the integrity of the minister in bringing these issues to national attention. I think we all do the nation a service by hearing the voices of all veterans in the process.</para>
<para>This government's commitment to supporting veterans is beyond question. Not only do we have a stand-alone department; there has been a very specific and deliberate attempt by the government to make sure we put veterans first. This is not a department that exists for the purpose of serving bureaucrats; it is here to make sure the men and women who made sacrifices in the interests of preserving and defending our country, and the lives and defence of others, are given proper recognition and support, particularly when there are legacy consequences associated with this.</para>
<para>With this statement, there's a very clear commitment to the importance of having a stand-alone Department of Veterans' Affairs not only to give a voice to those objectives but, more than that, to recognise that the department focuses not only on the needs of veterans first but also, increasingly, on being a strong voice for veterans. This is particularly important for those veterans who are reaching a vulnerable stage in life and may need additional support and assistance as they no longer may be able to stand up and speak with the conviction they once had—and this government is very mindful of that. Obviously, we have a broader ageing population but, when you know so many veterans are now ageing, ensuring we provide and assist them in that vulnerable stage of life is going to become more critical. I hope that those opposite have joined in the spirit of bipartisanship of this motion to say so.</para>
<para>As I'm sure many members do, we regularly engage with members across our electorate. I'm fortunate every year of course, around Anzac Day, to work directly with our good friends at the Hampton RSL, the Highett RSL and those who continue to support what was once operating in a stand-alone function, the Beaumauris RSL. Hampton RSL runs a wonderful service on the morning of Anzac Day, but they also run a service in the lead-up to Anzac Day, bringing together schoolchildren to educate them about the sacrifice many Australians before them have made to preserve our freedom and our way of life. Beaumauris RSL regularly runs a service on the weekend before Anzac Day, particularly with the march from the shops towards the oval and the civic centre, to make sure that people in the Beaumauris community, in which there are many veterans, have an opportunity to honour that sacrifice and service of our veterans. Highett RSL also has a dawn service on Anzac Day.</para>
<para>I'm very encouraged by the increasing awareness of many schools in the electorate to find ways to honour those service men and women who have sacrificed in the past for our great nation. I mentioned before that Hampton RSL brings together many local schools, particularly across Brighton, Hampton, Sandringham and Black Rock to participate. Even Gardenvale Primary School is hosting it own service in the days leading up to Anzac Day, bringing together local veterans—particularly veterans from the Second World War—to come and talk to children about the challenges they faced, so that the Anzac legacy doesn't become diminished. A full spectrum of services are held across the Goldstein electorate each year which we fully respect and appreciate.</para>
<para>I come back to the objective of the government, which is to very much focus on how to support and assist people who have experienced the consequences of conflict and made that sacrifice for our country. We on this side of the Chamber are very proud that this budget has delivered over $350 million of new money to give completely free mental health support and better services to veterans. Last year, I participated in a service here in the federal parliament paying recognition to those people who have taken their lives as a consequence of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I know that many members opposite share a commitment in addressing and tackling these issues. That's why this largest investment ever by the department into supporting mental health services is so important.</para>
<para>No government has made such an investment in the past and we're all proud to say that we're continuing to support that, particularly because the government is providing the new approach of free and immediate treatment for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse and substance abuse without the need to prove the condition was service related. It's the capacity to support people to make sure that, at all stages of life, they get the serious assistance they may need. It is most important to make sure that the service is uncapped so those people who need it will get it. If there is a need, it will be funded and veterans should take advantage of it.</para>
<para>Finally, the government is providing further support for veterans' employment opportunities through funding to support the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program. As many people would be aware, this initiative is aimed at raising awareness with employers, in both the private and the public sectors, of the enormous value and the unique experience that veterans possess. That's what's going to become more critical over time. I think most Australians are familiar with veterans from the First and Second World Wars, but, as we see more and more people from conflict in the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the conflicts that have occurred in the Middle East, it's a new stage of honouring our service men and women and their service to our country as veterans. That's going to become critical as we become more aware of the challenges that occur, particularly the mental health consequences of conflict.</para>
<para>I spoke to a local constituent from Caulfield South recently, Janice Kefford, who raised with me some of her concerns around the challenges being faced by veterans. Importantly, it is not just veterans but their families by extension, because we all know that, with mental health conditions, something that impacts an individual can often extend to their families and their community as well. She was particularly concerned about the fact that there was an issue around epigenetics and whether there is proper research into the transmission of trauma—from people who experience post-traumatic stress disorder or mental health conditions that are directly related to conflict—to other family members, particularly children. I made a commitment to her that I would raise it in this place.</para>
<para>When it comes down to supporting our veterans, we must always be prepared to challenge ourselves and our government about whether we're prepared to do enough and whether there are new avenues that we need to take to make sure we give support and assistance to the people who have put their lives on the line and have taken time in service and defence of this country. As scientific research and the human condition evolves, I think we all in this place know that we have to continue to honour their legacy and support them. So, to every veteran in the Goldstein electorate and across this great nation, all we can do is say thank you so much for your service. This parliament has your back and this government has your back, and that's why we're proud to stand with you today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Friday, 18 August we will acknowledge the end of the Vietnam conflict. I would like to pay my respects to the Defence personnel who lost their lives in this conflict. I acknowledge their families who also pay the ultimate price of losing so many loved ones. I also acknowledge the Vietnam vets in my community in the electorate of Herbert. My electorate of Herbert is home to one of the largest populations of veterans, ex-service personnel and their families in Australia. Townsville is also home to the largest defence presence in the country. We welcome and value Defence personnel and their families to our community because they significantly contribute to both the social and the economic fabric of our great city. I am proud to stand in this place and fight for support for veterans, ex-service personnel and their families in my electorate of Herbert and across the nation.</para>
<para>I believe the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said it best when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">... as a nation we have been better at honouring the memory of our dead, than offering decent support for the living.</para></quote>
<para>I was also privileged to hear the Hon. Jeff Kennett's very passionate address on 11 November last year at the War Memorial, where he clearly stated the devastating reality of mental ill-health in the veteran and ex-service personnel communities. I would be the first to acknowledge that we have a long way to go in supporting veterans and ex-service personnel when they return from overseas deployments or are transitioning from the defence forces to civilian life. Because Townsville is home to the largest defence presence in the country, and also due to our glorious weather and relaxed lifestyle, many personnel choose to retire in our community. Defence personnel, veterans, ex-service personnel and their families make up about 20 per cent of our population. Townsville is home to approximately 5,000 DVA clients, as well as up to 9,000 family members. However, these figures do not include the potentially thousands of veterans who are not registered with DVA but reside in Townsville with their families.</para>
<para>In recognising that our veterans, ex-service personnel, their families and the broader defence community play a vital role in the Townsville community, I established the Townsville Defence Community Reference Group. This high-level and committed group was established to ensure that federal government policy reflects the needs of our defence community. Since setting up the Townsville Defence Community Reference Group last year, we have had many successes. We have successfully lobbied for changes to the National Mental Health Commission review panel to include a young veteran and family representative. We have successfully lobbied for community consultation to occur in Townsville with the relevant ministers, and late last year Minister Ley and Minister Tehan hosted a forum in Townsville. We successfully lobbied for the National Mental Health Commission review panel to come and consult with the Townsville defence community, and a private meeting was held with the Townsville Defence Community Reference Group as well as a public hearing.</para>
<para>The reference group has been very active in working collaboratively with the Northern Queensland Primary Health Network in initiating the veteran suicide prevention trial, with the following activities undertaken in January and February this year. We drafted the terms of reference for the steering committee, nominated members from the reference group to participate on the steering committee, selected the chair of the steering committee—who reports to the reference group on progress—drafted the project officer's job description and participated on the interview panel for the recruitment of the project officer. The veteran suicide prevention trial is the most advanced in the country, and this is due to the grassroots collaboration and hard work done by the members of the Townsville Defence Community Reference Group.</para>
<para>Supporting veterans, ex-service personnel and their families should not be embroiled in politics, especially considering that we are talking about people who have given courageously and selflessly to ensure that we enjoy the freedom that Australia offers to each and every citizen. Labor will always encourage and support measures designed to ensure that existing programs have a strong focus on mental health needs for veterans, ex-service personnel and their families.</para>
<para>Before being elected to this place, I was CEO of two community-managed mental health organisations operating in north and west Queensland. I worked in the mental health sector for 15 years, and, during that time, I gave evidence at a number of Senate committee hearings. The evidence I provided related to how well-established government policy could ensure the development of contemporary mental health services and supports. Mental ill health affects one in five people in any 12-month period.</para>
<para>The impact of mental ill health does not discriminate, and we see this in the defence population. To date, there have been 57 suicides that we know of in the veteran and ex-serving personnel communities across this country, and that is simply unacceptable. Stigma is one of the greatest barriers to people seeking help, and the only way to address this significant barrier is to develop a strong, contemporary, national stigma reduction campaign.</para>
<para>Veterans and ex-service personnel living with mental ill health and distress are not the only ones bearing the impact of this dreadful health condition. It also has a significant impact on family and friends. As a result of mental ill health, many veterans and ex-service personnel are also not engaged in meaningful work. They are often homeless, living in poverty and experiencing family breakdown. This is simply unacceptable when we consider that these people have put their lives on the line to serve our country. Our veterans, ex-service personnel and their families deserve nothing less than world-class, contemporary physical and mental healthcare support.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition was in Townsville at the end of the 2016, where he hosted a town hall meeting. At the meeting, Bill Shorten was asked by a veteran if he would fight for veterans. The Leader of the Opposition did not hesitate to declare his support for veterans and ex-service personnel, and that is just what Labor has done. Bill Shorten has kept his commitment with the announcement of federal Labor's policy for veterans and their families. A Shorten Labor government will develop a family engagement and support strategy for defence personnel, veterans and ex-service personnel to provide greater support to our military families.</para>
<para>ADF families play a vital role in supporting our current veterans and ex-serving ADF men and women. These men, women and their children are the unsung heroes of our defence forces. Greater support for our military families is greater support for our serving and ex-serving personnel. Developing a family engagement and support strategy will enable us to identify where we can provide greater support to military families, those who matter most to our ADF personnel, veterans and ex-service personnel—their wives, husbands, sons and daughters.</para>
<para>Labor's announcement would implement a key recommendation of the National Mental Health Commission's review of services available to veterans and current serving members of the Australian Defence Force in relation to the prevention of self-harm and suicide—to develop a strategy that will provide greater support and resources for military families. Labor's commitment to develop a family engagement support strategy in government would, importantly, be co-designed with Defence, veterans and ex-serving families and communities, and focus on the known stress points for families, including transition of defence members into civilian life.</para>
<para>The National Mental Health Commission's review highlighted that there is currently a lack of emphasis on the critical role that family plays in the lives of current and former serving members. Families play an especially unique role in military life and service, making many sacrifices. Our ADF personnel, veterans and ex-service personnel look to their families for support while they are serving and while they are transitioning to the challenges of civilian life. There is no doubt that families also play a critical role in providing support for our serving and ex-serving personnel suffering from mental health issues. Developing a family strategy acknowledges the important role that families play in the rehabilitation of ADF members and veterans from physical and mental health injuries and illnesses. Families can be the greatest support when dealing with life-challenging events that occur throughout and after military service.</para>
<para>When it comes to our current and ex-service defence personnel, Labor will always prioritise the role military families play, and our commitment to developing a family strategy will ensure that they are not forgotten. As I said, supporting veterans and their families should not become embroiled in politics, especially considering we are talking about the people who have fought and given their lives to ensure we can live in the freedom that we do. Just as our veterans and ex-service personnel stood up and fought for us, it is now our turn to stand up and fight for them and their families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HUSAR</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To be a member of the Australian Defence Force is to dedicate yourself to service and to dedicate your life to the ultimate act of courage. Our Defence Force personnel have a rich and defining place in what it is to be Australian. Mateship, a fair go, courage and sacrifice are all hallmarks of these very special people. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their work but, more than that—more than the thanks, the back slaps, the high fives and wearing our Anzac Day badges—as they return to civilian life, we owe them and their families the best possible service and care. From the representations I receive and from the discussions I have had in my community and on my recent visit to Afghanistan, which I'll touch on in a moment, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the integral piece of the transitional assistance our defence personnel need.</para>
<para>I note that, in his statement yesterday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs quoted some very interesting figures. Currently, there are 58,000 Australians serving in our defence forces and an estimated 320,000 veterans who have been deployed. The Department of Veterans' Affairs supports approximately 291,000 people, with more than 203,000 being over the age of 65 and around 23,000 under the age of 40. I would be interested to know whether this younger age bracket is growing—and I suspect it is. I recognise the Department of Veterans' Affairs has a very broad spectrum of age brackets and issues, both historically and contemporarily.</para>
<para>It is with great concern that I read about the satisfaction survey results in the minister's statement and the 10 per cent decline. The satisfaction survey figures show a steady decline from 93 per cent in 2010 to 83 per cent in 2016. That is a substantial change in the department's ability to perform its role. Of note, the survey results show that it is the younger veterans who are undergoing transition from service life who are the least satisfied clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The survey found that only 49 per cent of veterans under the age of 45 were satisfied and that a startling 31 per cent were dissatisfied. I'm not here to lecture on the whys and wherefores of this dissatisfaction; however, I am deeply concerned that our younger veterans feel so dislocated in such an important part of their transition.</para>
<para>The survey also found that current Defence Force personnel transitioning had trouble accessing support. Forty-five per cent said the main services they had trouble accessing were physical health, mental health, financial support and employment services. This was echoed by my colleague here and was echoed in my discussions with Mr Mark Wales, who is a former SAS soldier and a <inline font-style="italic">Survivor</inline> contestant. He was in the House last night, and I took the opportunity to talk with him about his problems in returning from six years in the SAS and, before that, on deployment, which were accessing employment services. They were incredibly costly, and he'd been out of the loop, as he put it, for many years.</para>
<para>Sixty-one per cent of the claimants under 45 in the survey indicated that the time taken to process their claim failed to meet their expectations. For people in that age group it's about trust. As the member for Solomon, my colleague and ADF member for 13 years, has already said, trust is so important at that critical stage in dealing with what can be very confronting issues that the veterans and their families are facing. If veterans and veterans' groups can't get decisions out of the department, we really need to fix the issue. As Bill Shorten said, we are better at honouring our dead than caring for our living. That is a very important reflection that we make.</para>
<para>I note that my colleague, the Hon. Amanda Rishworth, has highlighted that Labor has supported the additional funding to fix Veterans' Affairs' longstanding IT issues. Unfortunately, this government doesn't have a good track record with IT, and I fear that veterans are not being heard adequately. I question how an IT solution might be the most effective way of addressing those issues I mentioned before like mental health, financial support and employment. It is the human side and not a computer that needs to be worked on. We owe it to our veterans to provide support and care. The wellbeing of personnel and their families to have their issues dealt with compassionately and correctly the first time should not be reliant on an IT system. Our veterans have been through enough. They have done everything that our country has asked of them and, mostly, above and beyond that. So to give them the run-around and the third degree in having their matters processed is entirely unacceptable.</para>
<para>Having seen firsthand the defence personnel on my deployment to Afghanistan, I know their transition to civilian life should be much more secure. These people are well trained, they're well organised and they're highly skilled. They are great assets to all types of businesses and to our community in general. But this doesn't mean they don't need our help. Many of these veterans, with all of the positive attributes they bring to the table, do have a period of readjustment. They do have to deal with what happened while they were serving at the nation's request. We need to have a strong and positive safety net for them.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity to spend some time visiting four bases on my recent tour in Afghanistan in July this year and, above all, the troops want to know that their contributions are valued. I am committed to ensuring that our service women and men are supported not only during their service but also while they're integrating back into civilian life. If I were to take the commentary of all of the people that I met while I was away, 99.99 per cent of them would point to the concerns they have coming back in. They talk about the amount of money that is put into training them to shoot, to build weapons and to care for their soldiers and their personnel while they're on the battlefield, but everywhere I went across all four bases—and there is a heightened sense of anxiety and absolutely a topic of discussion—Veterans' Affairs and their return to Australia was the No. 1 issue. In fact, I met a veteran who was injured coming out of a helicopter. He had a substantive issue and his claim was actually rejected by DVA. He was working at that time and he was absolutely affected by this injury, so much so that he had to change his job, but still DVA rejected his claim.</para>
<para>This week I have the great privilege of hosting Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Bell here in Parliament House as part of the exchange placement with the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. Aaron is also here with me now, and I welcome him here into this chamber. With the memories of my recent trip in mind, it's been a great opportunity to share my experience and insight into a very different world to mine. I think Aaron has enjoyed the experience and, in fact, he helped me write this speech today. I don't think you could make it more crystal clear in a place like this than having it come from the mouth of someone who is actually serving. I am proud to have the opportunity to host Lieutenant Colonel Bell and I hope to learn as much as possible during this exchange, as much as he is learning from me.</para>
<para>On that recent trip to Afghanistan, the troops said they miss home and the things that remind them of home. Even for someone who only spent 10 days there, I can tell you, the trip had a massive impact on me: the heat and the conditions; the time delay in calling friends and family back home; and also the fact you can't just pick up the phone and have a normal conversation with someone back home who says, 'Hey, what did you do today?' 'I was out on the frontline.' Anything operational cannot be shared over the phone, so in your phone calls back home—and I was subject to this calling my own family—you can't say what you have been doing. I couldn't say much, so the conversation was pretty boring, and we pretty much talked about the weather. So it is very, very difficult to maintain any sense of normality, even for me just being there 10 days.</para>
<para>I want to take this opportunity, though, to shout out to my community. We are organising some care packages to go over to the women and the men that I met—Anzac biscuits, Tim Tams and Vegemite are always going to go down a treat. Letters of support from schoolchildren are something they really enjoy reading. Letters from mums and dads are always well received. I will take any donations delivered to my office of games, books and other activities that, in an operational environment that is sometimes 45 degrees, these men and women can enjoy sitting around in an air-conditioned room.</para>
<para>I look forward to joining my local veterans this Friday to commemorate the end of the Vietnam War. I also note that Legacy Week 2017 will be commencing on 27 August. Legacy cares for around 80,000 veterans' dependants ranging in age from less than 12 months to 109 years of age. It is groups such as Legacy that provide valuable support to families during tough times. I am aware there are a range of other organisations and services that provide support and assistance to current defence personnel, such as Soldier On. I wish to place on record Legacy's fine work, and I encourage everybody to support Legacy by purchasing a badge.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge the Penrith RSL sub-branch, St Mary's sub-branch, the 'Nashos'—of which I am a proud patron—the wives of the Vietnam vets, the Australian Light Horse Association, which are all operational in supporting each other and others in my electorate. I look forward to meeting with more defence personnel and having the Hon. Amanda Rishworth come in November to meet with the ex-service community. We'll ensure that we always work to achieve the best possible outcomes for veterans and their families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased that the government is honouring its responsibility to our ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen, and that leaders from both sides of the House are working together in support of our veterans and their families. As the federal member for Paterson, I'm committed to honouring and serving those who have served Australia through our defence forces.</para>
<para>The Williamtown RAAF base is at the epicentre of my electorate, and the Singleton army base is in the neighbouring electorate of Hunter. Mothers, fathers and children are part of the serving and ex-serving defence community. We ask an enormous amount of our defence personnel and their families. We deploy them to serve in often dangerous and hostile environments away from their support network. We post entire families to other parts of the country for years at a time, forcing them to pack up their lives and rebuild again and again. When an individual serves in the ADF, their family serves too. This can take a catastrophic toll on individuals, on marriages, on families, on children. Add to that, the devastating and all-too frequent complications of physical or mental injury and you may have a recipe for disaster.</para>
<para>I have been in regular communication with a returned servicewoman named Rachel, who has been working to rebuild her life following seven years in the Royal Australian Air Force. Rachel saw active service as part of the International Coalition Against Terrorism under Operation Slipper in Afghanistan. On her return to Australia, she experienced severe post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic depressive disorders. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I couldn't even leave the house, answer the phone, hold a conversation with anyone. My daughter, who is now 13 years, was the mother in our relationship and she looked after me and the house.</para></quote>
<para>Rachel's marriage broke down. She battled daily with anxiety, fear, self-doubt, hatred, flashbacks, night terrors and nightmares. 'I was literally a prisoner of my own head,' she told me. She almost lost her life. Her weight ballooned to 119 kilograms. She battled cancer and had a stress-induced stroke. Rachel lost her family. Her brother decided she was using PTSD as an excuse not to heal, and he decided he could no longer be a part of her life. This caused strained relationships with the rest of her family, and she lost them, too.</para>
<para>Throughout this journey, Rachel's one rock was her daughter. It was this little girl's love that lit the path to recovery. Rachel recalled to me, just a few weeks ago, one of her most vivid gems, which she said came to her during one of her meltdowns: 'In a daze of sleep, my little girl looked at me and said, "If you make enough good memories, Mummy, the bad ones won't seem that bad anymore."' What a pearl of wisdom. It brings me undone every time. I wonder how different Rachel's story would have been if she, her then husband, her siblings, her parents and her daughter had felt better supported by the government and the Department of Veterans' Affairs?</para>
<para>While I acknowledge the vital role that DVA plays in providing assistance to our veterans, I have heard time and time again from many veterans, not just Rachel, that exchanges with DVA are often traumatic in and of themselves. Some describe their interactions as combative. Rachel is convinced that she was perceived as damaged goods. While I applaud the fact that the government has chosen to review the processes of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the funding allocation is nowhere near adequate. Broad reviews and reforms are necessary to provide our veterans with the support they need and, most importantly, to ensure that they feel that their service and sacrifice has not been forgotten—that they aren't damaged goods that are just thrown onto the scrap heap of ex-service.</para>
<para>Labor committed, prior to the last election, to undertake a first-principles review of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This holistic review was set to target administrative governance and process failings. Recently, Labor committed, if elected, to develop a family engagement and support strategy for defence personnel and veterans. We all know there is no quick fix here. These failings have been years in the making. They really do need to be looked at very closely under a microscope. It is important to bring about systematic changes if we are best to support our veterans and their families. The transition from active service to civilian life is one that we must do better.</para>
<para>In the last fortnight, I spent a week at RAAF Base Williamtown as a member of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. During that time, I had the opportunity to see all major facets of the base. I slept and ate on the base. I often had the pleasure, if you want to call it that, of doing physical training sessions with some of the fittest people I've ever encountered in my life—and still managed to have a little smile on my face at the end of it, even though there was a part of me that was literally dying. I was briefed, commensurate to my security clearance, on all facets of that base. I just want to say: RAAF Base Williamtown is the greatest source of pride that I have in my electorate. It's also a source of enormous pain because of the PFAS contamination, and I've spoken about that a lot in this parliament.</para>
<para>It's also painful when ex-serving personnel come to my office, as they did when Amanda Rishworth, our shadow minister for veterans' affairs, came and held a roundtable. They sat and spoke with Amanda and me and said: 'These are the difficulties. The day the gate shuts on you, when you leave the force, when you stop serving, you're out. You can't go back in. It literally and metaphorically shuts behind you.' We've got to do that better. We have to allow these highly trained, intelligent, loyal people the opportunity to continue to feel valued. I think that's one of the big psychological things. I note that my friend and colleague the member for Solomon sits in the Chamber today as an ex-serviceman, along with Mike Kelly, who has also done terrific work in this parliament, and others. We've got these people.</para>
<para>To me, it's about their psychology. They're people who, first and foremost, sign up and step up to say, 'I want to serve my country.' Then they train, and they are trained by some of the great trainers. The training at RAAF Williamtown and the way that base is set up is just incredible. There are so many complex problems that must be solved on a minute-by-minute basis to keep the whole thing functioning properly. We train them and then we post or deploy them overseas to do incredibly difficult work in incredibly stressful environments—but they do operate like well-oiled machines. They are trained very well.</para>
<para>But what happens when the machine comes back and it is a bit dinged up and a bit broken? We talk about capability and we talk about platforms. 'Platforms' is a wonderful defence word for fantastic aircraft. Capability is not just about those platforms and all of the things that go into making a wonderful military operation and defending our country; it's also about the people. They are by far our strongest capability, and we need to be doing all we can to not only look after them while they are in the uniform but also care for them and give them purpose when they return—when they say, 'My service is done,' for whatever reason.</para>
<para>It doesn't matter if it is TPI or whether they are voluntarily saying, 'I've done my bit and now I'm going to go and do something else with my life,' we should be saying: 'Thank you. We value you. Good on you. What else would you like to do with us? Would you like to come back in another capacity and help us in another way?—which often people do—Would you like to come back on to the base and use our gym? Would you like to use the computers to perhaps help you reformulate your life?' Other defence forces across the planet do this. They allow people to come back and still be part of that defence family.</para>
<para>We need to do it better. We must do it better. If we are going to continue to have this cutting-edge, excellent military and defence organisation in Australia, we really have to seriously look at how we support our veterans, how the Department of Veterans' Affairs works in this country and how we look after people not only whilst they are serving but also when their days of service are over.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MIKE KELLY</name>
    <name.id>HRI</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to be able to participate in this discussion with so many great contributions by members on either side and, in particular, it is great to have my friend and colleague the member for Solomon here and to listen to the member for Paterson, who I know really takes these issues to heart. We've heard a lot of reflections on our electorates from those of us who have a significant defence personnel or veterans presence, and Eden-Monaro has a very solid representation in that respect. There are about 3,182 DVA clients and of course their families in our region. We have about 587 ADF personnel who are actually employed in Eden-Monaro, with the headquarters, JOC, in our backyard. But we have many, many more members than that who are actually living in Eden-Monaro, in, effectively, the dormitory suburbs around Jerrabomberra, Queanbeyan and Bungendore.</para>
<para>It's a solid defence region, with fine traditions of service. The areas you visit in Tumut and Tumbarumba, for example, have the highest voluntary participation rates in the nation. Over there you will see the Union Jack Memorial. It is really interesting because it is not a monument to the flag. There used to be a town there called Union Jack, and that town doesn't exist anymore. If you look at that memorial you'll see the names of every fighting-age male from that town who was killed in the First World War. As a result of that loss, the town disappeared and the surviving families drifted away to other locations. So 12,000 kilometres from the war there's a town that was destroyed by it. In all of our country towns you see those cenotaphs—you walk past them every day—that have our family names on them. It is something that country people, in particular, reflect on a great deal.</para>
<para>I have talked before in this place about my own family experiences. Every generation has served—going back to the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny, the Afghan war, the First World War, the Second World War and my own service. I grew up with my grandfathers, my aunts, my uncles and my father where this culture of service was something I couldn't ignore—and I obviously wanted to follow in those footsteps. But I also learned of the downsides that veterans experience. Some of them did it particularly tough. I have always reflected on the service of my grandfather on my father's side. He was a sergeant in the 2nd/3rd Machine Gun Battalion and served in the Middle East and in Java. He was eventually captured by the Japanese and ended up on the Burma-Thai railway. None of us can ever really imagine what those veterans went through. He barely survived. He was evacuated out by air in September of '45. He was emaciated and on his last legs but was resuscitated and brought around in Heidelberg, at the veterans' hospital there, and fortunately was with us until 1984. He was a very resilient chap who had a lot of tales to tell as well of surviving the Depression. He cut off one of his fingers to get compensation so he could feed the family. We can only try to imagine the things that this generation lived through and the sacrifices they made for us. I still have my grandfather's loincloth from the Burma-Thai railway. It is the most treasured thing and useful thing I have in my possession. Whenever I think I'm doing it tough or I've had a hard day at the office here, I pull that out and say, 'Harden up, sunshine!'</para>
<para>We talk about the veterans and it's right that we do, and I know my colleague the member for Solomon knows that we are also talking about the ex-service people and the current serving people. Unfortunately, we lose quite a lot of people just in training in the ADF. In my time there were quite a few and I remember some very vividly, such as the range practice tragedies. I remember one situation where the grenades went off in the pouch of one of our diggers, and effectively body parts were strewn all over the grenade practice range. You can imagine how traumatic that was for the people involved in those circumstances. So we have a day-to-day issue of managing the stress of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Even just your training and serving wears you down. I know I live on a daily diet of Panadol Osteo and Mobic. I know my friend the member for Solomon tends to have a little bit of a limp in his walk as well these days. A lot of care is required to look after the people who have gone through that experience, quite happily in the service of their nation.</para>
<para>We've reflected on that difference in culture, and it is such a significant jump. We have that team atmosphere and ethos, and the really important shared experience aspect of that, where it's so easy to talk to each other and decompress with each other. It is also an entirely different language to the civilian world. One of the things that really confronted me when I first got out was that I would say things or use expressions that nobody had heard of before. So I felt a little alienated in that respect. It is something we do have to work towards. I've got a lot of constituents coming to me now who are really struggling. We have talked about this DVA experience and there are particular issues around the entry-point experience. We have to do a better job of that. It's so confronting. It is so adversarial and there's so much paperwork, and there are so many hoops to jump through that they really struggle to meet the threshold tests. Quite often they feel better in how they are being treated by the department once they've met those threshold tests, but there is still a lot of improvement to do there.</para>
<para>I'm really pleased that when we were in government we were able to take spending on veterans affairs to a record level of $12.5 billion. We haven't managed to hit that target since then. I think we do need to make that commitment. As much as we've said that we're going to have a two per cent target for overall Defence spending, we need to understand the commitment that we need to maintain in this space. These younger veterans coming to me now are having some real cross-bureaucracy issues as well. Things like the confusion that we've had over superannuation and compensation payments, and the taxation arrangements have caused quite a bit of grief and anxiety in relation to advice and counteradvice that they have received. One really distressed veteran came to see me about how certain circumstances for him had counted against his wife's access to things. The financial circumstances that they are in are having a big impact on their lives. We have to do a better job of untangling these bureaucratic silos and the advice these veterans are getting.</para>
<para>As the member for Solomon has pointed out, it is the responsibility of everyone in the community to reach out and deal with some of these issues and to provide that shoulder to cry on and that support. We often talk about how it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes a village to do a lot of things. We have to have villages take responsibility for each other across the spectrum, and that includes people like our ambos and police officers, who often experience similar things.</para>
<para>I'm glad we're committed to the first principles review to see what we can do to streamline and make DVA even better. I'm glad that we've moved away from any talk of getting rid of the department, as was certainly floated in my predecessor's paper that he published when he was head of ACCI. We were really worried about that. I'm really worried, though, about the automation of services. A lot of veterans who are talking to me are really upset that they don't have a human to go to and that we're trying to force too much online. Human Services really should have humans in it. The trick is in the title there. There is a lot of stress and anxiety out there, even in the general community, about being forced to do all of this stuff online at the same time as we're losing personnel. That is one of the issues in DVA—the personnel issue.</para>
<para>It is an issue even for the minister. His heart is definitely in this job, and I support him 100 per cent, but, as the Australian Defence Association's Neil James has pointed out, we've had fewer people in this portfolio than ever in our history. Dan is being asked to do too much. His portfolio responsibilities cover too much of a breadth. We need a dedicated veterans affairs minister. I salute 100 per cent the combination of that with defence personnel issues. We do have to create that seamless management of personnel through their lives effectively. That really takes a full-time minister to do. So, on behalf of the minister, I urge the government to really look at that again and look at how they structure the executive.</para>
<para>What we do need to do is make sure that we take notice of what the Senate inquiry has handed down overnight and look to create that whole seamless management regime. We need to put a better effort into career managing and transitioning members, as we've heard. We need formal mechanisms to do that and real substance behind it. I salute the comments that have been made in this debate. I urge the government to work with us further on this matter.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The chair will be resumed at 4 pm.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:06 to 16 : 00</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>139</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>139</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5921" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>139</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for 'Lalor' appreciates the call.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I beg your pardon. I don't know why I say that–every time!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice I give the children in the electorate is that Peter Lalor had an Irish accent and therefore it is 'Lalor'.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Very good; happy to take the advice.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017 tidies up legislative instruments which are currently obsolete. The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005 underpinned the Australian Technical Colleges Program. I was in schools when this program was rolled out under the Howard government. In fact, it was a moment in time that I will never forget when I first heard Prime Minister John Howard use his talent for harking back to better times when everything was simpler and easier, and 'If only we could turn back the clock, the world would be a better place.' He made the statement about technical skills not being appreciated in this country and used images of a time when we had tech schools across the country. He forgot to mention that it was also a time when we had very, very strong unions across the country, we had a public sector involved in railways and we had lots of workers, hundreds of workers, employed in one space with apprenticeships for many, many young people.</para>
<para>I will never forget that day when Prime Minister John Howard said that we needed to turn back the clock to those times—completely ignorant of the fact that the world had moved past those times. I remember it so clearly because I was teaching in Victoria, where we had set targets of 80 per cent retention to year 12, and I had to deal with parents across the next month telling me that it will be okay: 'Johnny can go and get one of John Howard's new apprenticeships. He can now leave school in year 10.' That was after years of work, talking to parents and talking to children about the fact that their life chances would be improved if they finished school. I was working in a school in Melbourne's west, where most children were from families whose parents had not finished year 10. Building aspiration into those cohorts of children was my day-to-day job. I did not thank John Howard for his words. I believe that now, if I went and had a beer with the students I was teaching at the time, those who chose to leave school after that great moment wouldn't thank him either. Nor do I thank him for the Australian technical colleges that he declared then that he would build, because what we ended up with was $500 million spent on 24 campuses that were to be the new wave of schools.</para>
<para>It was the first time in history that the federal government built a private school. It was meant to be a disruptor of state education and TAFEs. It failed dramatically. It failed to attract the students it needed. It failed to attract the teachers to this new system—this vision that John Howard had, which was really acting on a populist sentiment that was never going to deliver trade training in the way he suggested to the Australian public that it would. Twenty-four Australian technical colleges were to be set up at 24 different sites around Australia. Then another one was added and another three were added, so we ended up with a vision for 28 at a cost of $585 million—$473 million from the federal government, $20 million from the department and another $91 million from other sources which, of course, included state governments. In that $91 million there were fees that parents were going to pay to have their children attend these, because obviously they were going to be set up by consortia which could have include included not-for-profits, states and other sector schools.</para>
<para>I was on the ground in schools when the Australian Technical College opened in Sunshine, and I was working in the west when a second one was mooted for the western suburbs of Melbourne. So I can reflect thoroughly on what a waste it was for my part of the world. The announcement was that Sunshine would have it and that it would be great, it would be wonderful and it would fix all our issues, because all of the young people who thought they might want to do a trade would be magically subsumed into an Australian Technical College. Of course, what happened was that the students didn't go there and neither did the teachers. If you do the maths, it ended up to be $70,000 per student. Imagine what they could have done in a school with $70,000 per student! Imagine what they could have done in Yirrkala with $70,000 per student. It was an incredible waste of money. It never attracted the appropriate numbers of students.</para>
<para>One of the intentions of this, as it happened—because there were some things that were written about these—was that all the employees would have to be on an individual worker's contract. So every teacher that was going to be employed in them would be offered an AWA. I looked at the conditions that were set up around those AWAs. In schools, there were 40 weeks of curriculum and, in the ATCs, and they could give 47 weeks. I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing, but then you get to the working conditions. At the time, 36 hours and 45 minutes was a week's work in a school, with 19 hours of tuition. In an ATC, it was to be 38 hours of week with 28 hours of tuition. So, in a school, that gave teachers 17 hours and 45 minutes for yard duty, planning, meetings and preparation. These were going to be technical colleges, teaching technical skills, using technical equipment, and they were going to have 10 hours for yard duty, planning, meetings and preparation. So the quality of the education was under pressure from the outset. And there is no getting around the fact that that was a deliberate attempt to undermine the teachers' unions at the time. It was a deliberate attempt to undermine teaching practice in every state in this country. It was meant to be a disruptor. It was a resounding failure.</para>
<para>The Australian Technical College in Sunshine is still operating as the Harvester Technical College as part of Sunshine College. So the site hasn't been wasted, because the Victorian state government stepped in and subsumed it into a new amalgamation of schools for Sunshine. So it's still operating on the ground, and the facility hasn't gone to waste. So that's a saving grace. But, ultimately, the program didn't bring about the change that it was intended to bring about.</para>
<para>That reminds us so clearly about this government's record around apprentices and vocational education and training. Of course, we don't have to go far to follow this great record from the Howard era. In Lalor, from 2013 to December 2016 there was a drop of 42 per cent in the number apprenticeships for young people in my electorate. And the record continues. We've got a billion dollars worth of cuts around vocational education and training. There are now only 265,000 apprentices in training in this country, compared to 413,000 when this government took office.</para>
<para>So I'm pleased that we're here to dispose of bills that we no longer need. But we should take the opportunity to learn from history. I think that's important this week. I've been thinking a lot about the teaching of history this week, in light of some of the events that happened in the US, and it’s important that we in this place look at our history too. It is important to look at our legislative history and our program history and, in this instance, we need to take a good hard look at the Auditor-General's report on the Australian Technical Colleges Program, which saw the waste and counted the waste. It's all in there in that document. It shows the absolute waste that this was. We can't forget that before the next election Prime Minister Howard promised to build 100 of these. So he was going to take the disruption right into the TAFE sector, build 100 of them and change the way we fund schools in this country. The federal government were not just going to fund private schools; they were going to found them. They were going to create them.</para>
<para>An opposition member: Pioneers!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They were going to pioneer private-sector, not-for-profit education facilities in vocational training and apprenticeships. So we shouldn't be surprised that we have continued attacks on TAFE. We shouldn't be surprised about anything that happens there.</para>
<para>I want to take this to what we're seeing happening at the moment. We've got cuts to schools across the country on what schools would have had if Labor were in government. And we're supposed to celebrate those cuts because they are more than what the former Prime Minister would have given, since we came back from the election. That's supposed to be a celebration for people in this place. Well, it's not a celebration for me because I know what's going on in schools and I know what schools need. They need the resources so that they can do their jobs.</para>
<para>In lieu of that, we've got a new review of regional education happening under this government. It's worth taking a look back, historically, at the Australian Technical Colleges to see what's being learnt or what's not being learnt. I'm very suspicious. The fact of the matter is that the discussion paper around the review into regional, rural and remote education states quite clearly where most kids are educated in rural and regional areas-and it's in public schools. Eighty per cent of them are educated in public schools.</para>
<para>I had a bit of a look at the discussion document. It cites that there will be $1.4 billion in location loading going to regional and remote schools under the government's new funding arrangements for schools. Well, of course, we would need a review, because we can't possibly be seeing $1.4 billion going into state schools in regional areas! So we're having a review. I had a bit of a look at the review, besides looking at the discussion paper. I also had a look at the terms of reference, and alarm bells started ringing loudly. One dot point is:</para>
<list>the key barriers and challenges that impact on the educational outcomes of regional, rural and remote students, including aspirations and access issues</list>
<para>So aspiration and access issues? As far as I can see, there are no access issues in state education in rural and regional areas across this country. State schools are there; children have access. Another dot point is:</para>
<list>the appropriateness and effectiveness of current modes of education delivered to these students, including the use of information and communications technology and the importance of face to face regional, rural and remote education provision</list>
<para>I've got alarm bells ringing. I'm worried about that $1.4 billion and where people might see that might be better spent than in state school classrooms in regional and remote communities. I'm very concerned about it.</para>
<para>I'm not concerned that there's going to be a review. Clearly, we know that kids in regional and remote areas are not doing as well as they could be. We know that. That's why they need more resources. We know that. That's why Labor had the plan that it had. But I'm worried that this discussion paper highlights that $1.4 billion and lists in here, in an idea in terms of regional and remote education, boarding. I'm worried that this review may actually be targeted to find new and exciting ways to use that $1.4 billion which don't include the funding of state schools in regional and remote communities—off the back of the Australian Technical College debacle that we're here today to bury.</para>
<para>I will take the time remaining to me to go from there and the notion around this government's failure in skills and training, this government's attacks on TAFEs and this government's failure to pull in and wind back the provisions that were allowing for shonky registered training organisations to continue to profit at the expense of students—and, in fact, were found to be exploitative in nature and to be using enrolments to fill their own coffers rather than organise for the education of young people in this country.</para>
<para>I am worried. I'm worried that, rather than making a commitment to invest in vocational education and training and apprenticeships, we're rolling out these PaTH internships that will see young people picking up glasses in nightclubs for $4 an hour while the Hotels Association reaps the benefit—a thousand dollars per internship, with more money coming down the line if they get a permanent job, and you've actually undermined casual workers and workers on penalty rates now.</para>
<para>The Australian public are not silly. They can see the landscape. They can see what's happening here. They can look back in history and see that a Liberal-National coalition government will always be looking to find a way to change the landscape that's going to undermine middle- and lower income people—and now we're undermining education as well. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAMB</name>
    <name.id>265975</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like the member for Lalor, I rise—</para>
<para>An opposition member: Lalor.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAMB</name>
    <name.id>265975</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a common mistake. You're in good company.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAMB</name>
    <name.id>265975</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I do rise in support of the Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017, just like my parliamentary colleague has. I do agree with her that the bill does nothing but clean up some of the mess left by the Howard government. We know this is what happens when you have a Liberal-National government—mistakes are left behind that have to be fixed up. Let me tell you how I know this, and how I know this so well: it's because I come from Queensland, and people in Queensland remember very well the Newman-Nicholls government. Not only do they remember it; they're still feeling the wrath of that government. We know very, very well what happens when Liberal-National governments are elected. There are a lot of mistakes to fix up, and I just can't begin to imagine how long it is going to take to fix up the mistakes of this current government.</para>
<para>One of the acts the bill is set to repeal is the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005. As the previous member stated, the colleges were a failure of a coalition government—a program that was created in a misguided attempt to undermine our TAFEs and our public schools. As was so rightly pointed out, the areas that were most affected were the regional parts of this country, where public schools are so crucial. Australians and Labor know that public education is incredibly important. But it's not just public education that's incredibly important; it's the quality of education as well. We believe in and really support our public schools, our TAFEs and vocational education.</para>
<para>It is not really a surprise that the technical colleges program was a failure. Much like the Howard government itself, it proved to be expensive and ineffectual—it really did. Let's be honest: if we look at the data, they had trouble sourcing staff and they had trouble sourcing students as well. The technical colleges contributed very little to filling the trade requirements, even though they had been funded to do that. This government wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on these poorly considered institutions.</para>
<para>Looking back, I spent a number of years in the education system. I have four sons, one of whom is a tradie, and we have some lived experience of this from their school years and those of their school mates who also followed a trade pathway. When I look back, nothing has changed. In 2005, the Howard government made sure that some of their policies were there just to undermine the future of Australia, and I'm very fearful—and a lot of people tell me that they're fearful—that Prime Minister Turnbull, 12 years later, is following in those same footsteps. It seems that the current government looks at the colour of someone's collar to determine if they get support, and I can tell you: they're not looking at the colour blue; the only collar colour that the current government wants to see is white.</para>
<para>Repealing the act is effectively an admission of coalition failure. As a result of successive coalition governments, there were only 148,000 apprentices and trainees across Australia. That was 47,000 fewer apprentices, a drop of 22 per cent in trades training. We're going backwards. We want to grow and progress as a country, but we have fewer apprentices. It just doesn't make sense. Looking through some of the figures—and I know we have all seen these figures; they come across our desks and offices all the time—the number of apprentices and trainees currently in training in each of our electorates is very startling. In my electorate we've dropped by 30 per cent since 2013. I want to reflect on this, because we are very close to the end of the school year and there's going to be a whole cohort of students across my electorate who will be looking for a pathway into training, university or work. If this is the trajectory we're on, and we're already at 30 per cent, then I'm quite fearful of what their future may look like.</para>
<para>I held a forum recently, and a representative from a local apprenticeship association told me that apprentices are being displaced by registered tradespeople. Carpenters was the example he gave me. They're forced into the position of working for apprenticeship wages. They're battling to make a liveable wage. They're taking work away from apprentices, but this shift in work is not being managed or scrutinised by this government. At another forum I held—clearly, jobs and employment are a huge issue in my electorate, which is not dissimilar to many other electorates—a man made a point about why apprentices aren't finishing their course. The evidence he gave was that it's because they're being exploited. This man was referring to his son, who was not being paid award rates or superannuation; he was being exploited. Let's be honest, award rates are barely enough to get by. It's the minimum you can pay someone in this country, but it's not great pay. Some of our students aren't even getting the award to live on. That aside, many apprentices aren't even getting placements that are worthwhile. This man's son was doing a carpentry apprenticeship, and guess what he was doing? He was sweeping floors. I question the skills a carpenter would learn from sweeping floors. My son is a fantastic carpenter—he builds great houses on the north side of Brisbane—but I'm sure he didn't learn those skills sweeping floors.</para>
<para>There has to be better protections for our apprentices—there has to be. We've got to do much better at investing in our young people. As I said, in a couple of short months time in every one of our electorates, we will have kids leaving school and looking for a pathway into a trade. What really baffles me is that, if this government is recognising that their policies haven't been successful and if they're conceding that they've fallen short, why aren't they doing something to fix it? If they can stand in this chamber and concede that their government and the coalition governments that came before them have failed to develop and implement a workable means of improving the provision and uptake of trades training then why won't they take positive steps towards it? Why do they insist on making things worse? It really goes against logic that the Prime Minister would use this 2017-18 budget to cut $637 million from TAFE. Why would they use a budget to cut TAFE? It just defies logic. Why would our Prime Minister not take the lead and invest in education, which means investing in the future for Australian workers? I have worked in schools for a number of years and our students really are both the social and the economic future of this country. Why wouldn't we invest in them? It's the future of our country.</para>
<para>Well, the good news is that Labor is looking at making sure that we are investing in the social and economic future of this country. Fortunately for the Australian people, a Shorten Labor government is just around the corner. A Shorten Labor government will deliver. We will deliver by reversing the $637 million TAFE cut that was handed down in the May budget. We will make sure that we deliver by guaranteeing at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding is for TAFE, that very institution of so many tradies. If you go and speak to a tradie in their 40s and 50s now, they will tell you about TAFE and reflect on the current system. Go and talk to them.</para>
<para>So we will deliver by ensuring that we guarantee at least two-thirds of the funding is for TAFE. Further to that there will be another $100 million in building the TAFE for the Future Fund. That fund would re-establish TAFE facilities in regional communities, like the member for Herbert's, to meet the local industry needs and support teaching in a digital economy. You don't have to travel very far around this country to get to a regional community. If you go for a drive and you speak to people, you will realise how important this would be and the difference it would make. In my 12 months of being here I have seen that our Prime Minister is a bit of a follower. So we encourage him to follow our lead and get some strong, positive policies that will guide this country forward.</para>
<para>I support this bill, but I won't support this government. Some days I think it might be a bit of a joke, but it's not, because these are real people and these are real people's lives. For our students finishing school, this is their future. I looked at the rabble that happened yesterday in the House and then looked at what happened in the other house earlier today. It's frustrating and it's upsetting. We really need to make sure that we pass—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs Andrews</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speaker needs to be relevant. The topic is education and training, and I would appreciate her being called back to the topic.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for McPherson. The member for Longman is reminded she should stick to the topic.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAMB</name>
    <name.id>265975</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sure. Like I said, we encourage the Prime Minister to follow us with a strong, positive education and training policy. That's what we are asking. Follow us on those policies. Maybe the member for McPherson didn't hear me when I talked about the policies which went to education—the $637 million cut to TAFE that Labor will reinstate. That goes to education. Maybe this is the part you don't get: TAFE is about education. That's what TAFE is; it's about education.</para>
<para class="italic">Mrs Andrews interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Longman has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAMB</name>
    <name.id>265975</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also spoke about education and about where that education is best provided. I have been speaking about education throughout this whole speech. The member may recall—but I will repeat it, because maybe she missed this part—that I talked about funding education in TAFE and I said that tradies in their 40s and 50s were educated in an educational facility called TAFE. That is why it's important to make sure that two-thirds of that funding goes to public vocational education in TAFE.</para>
<para>I reiterate that I'm happy to stand here and support this bill, but let's not pretend that this support is any more than just administrative support for the bill. It's just going through an administrative process. This bill is basically tying up redundant leftovers from a failed legislation. We can't pretend that these are sweeping reforms that will be remembered forever and make a difference. We cannot be confused that this bill is about some reforms that will go to education for the future. This will not do that. Like I said, I support the bill but stress that it's merely based on supporting an administration of some redundant leftovers that need to be tidied up.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support my Labor colleagues who have spoken before me. Let me tell you about the role TAFE has played in my life. I am a proud TAFE graduate. I have been a TAFE teacher, curriculum designer, competency-based training project manager and RPL assessor. My working life started with an apprenticeship in hairdressing and that gave me the opportunity to commence as a small-business owner in partnership with my mother at the age of 18. It is very likely that I would not be standing here today without my background in TAFE. My son, who struggled through school and actually left school at 15 years of age, is now the manager of food services for a large metropolitan hospital, and that would not have happened without his ability to access vocational education and training. I have a deep understanding from a personal and professional perspective of the importance of vocational education and training in the lives of many Australians. That is why I'm appalled by the Turnbull government's severe cuts to this sector. Not everybody wants to study law at the University of Sydney like our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Not everyone wants to study law at the University of Adelaide like the Leader of the House, Christopher Pyne. Studying law might be the norm for those on the other side, but it is certainly not the norm for the wider Australian population.</para>
<para>Thousands and thousands of Australian people have studied with vocational education and training providers. Vocational education and training graduates include Australian icons and celebrities. Former Prime Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating, attended Belmore and Sydney technical colleges for a couple of years after leaving school at the age of 15. Supermodel Jennifer Hawkins, champion Rugby League player Kurt Gidley, Michelin-star chef Brett Graham and Screaming Jets guitarist Grant Walmsley are all proud graduates of the Hunter TAFE in New South Wales. Curtis Stone is a proud graduate of Melbourne's Box Hill Institute of TAFE, as is AFL player turned commentator Matthew Richardson. Australia's favourite backyard guru, Don Burke, from <inline font-style="italic">Burke's Backyard</inline>, studied horticulture at Ryde TAFE. Internationally renowned Australian designer Alex Perry studied at East Sydney Technical College. He even called his acceptance into the college as his big break, as did costume designer and four-time Oscar winner Catherine Martin, who studied at Sydney Technical College. Catherine, a vocational education and training graduate, has won two Academy Awards for <inline font-style="italic">Moulin Rouge</inline> in 2002 and another two for <inline font-style="italic">The Great Gatsby</inline> in 2014. Having won four Oscars, she is the most awarded Australian in Oscar history.</para>
<para>These Australian legends are just a few of the faces of the thousands of Australians who have graduated from vocational education and training. I say to the Turnbull government that vocational education and training might not be the same as a law degree, but it is just as prestigious. The government's lack of understanding of the critical need for excellence in trade and other vocational skills continues to amaze me, as does the continual attacks the Turnbull government are making on this sector. Their severe cuts and attacks will do nothing to prepare this country for the jobs of the future. It seems as though the Turnbull government are hell-bent on preventing vocational progress. As much as they don't seem to want the industries of the future, and try as they may to send this country back to the Dark Ages, change is inevitable. Maybe this government could focus on the needs of a changing world and what that means for skill development in this great nation, and stop the massive cuts to vocational education and training. Growth and progression are the future for this nation, but that also means that we will need new skilled workers and workers with updated skills not only here in Australia; there will also be a need for our neighbours in the Asian countries.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister says he is a good leader. I suggest that he starts acting like one and develop policies to fund and enact what will prepare our country for the jobs of the future. This would go a long way to addressing some of the highest unemployment rates across the country. Maybe my home town would never have been named the jobless capital of the nation and Townsville would not have one of the highest insolvency rates in the nation. The simple fact is that only a Labor government has what it takes to get the right policy enacted to get vocational education and training up and running again in this country. Australia needs a plan and investment in jobs for the future, and vocational education and training will play a pivotal role in achieving that plan. The jobs of the future will require quality vocational education and training—not necessarily a law degree, like those opposite, but we will need a wide range of vocational skills that will create employment, including apprenticeships and traineeships. We could and should be a manufacturing nation. We could and should be the nation that creates and builds on the industries of the future. North Australia could be the solar manufacturing capital that connects to Indonesia, India and Asia more broadly. North Queensland could export not only beef but also solar panels. A law degree cannot teach trade and vocational skills that are needed to build jobs in this great nation. A trade qualification must be studied with a quality vocational education and training provider.</para>
<para>I will always be the member who stands up and fights for jobs. Since being elected, jobs have been my primary focus: jobs for Townsville, jobs for veterans, jobs for our youth, jobs for our first nation people, jobs for our refugees and migrants. I have met with many national and international business leaders and CEOs. They have all complimented Townsville on our capacity and enormous opportunities, but all have said there is one thing holding them back. All have said that they are holding off any potential future investment because the Turnbull government has been unable to provide certainty regarding growing industries like energy. The Turnbull government is holding back jobs and growth in my electorate because there is no energy plan for our country. Certainty needs to be provided. Under the Turnbull government, we have seen no certainty for a plan to address our national energy crisis, we have no certainty regarding jobs, we have seen no certainty regarding training and education for the jobs of the future, and we have seen no certainty regarding the position of the Deputy Prime Minister. The only thing the country knows for certain is that the Turnbull government does not seem to have a clue about these issues. The jobs of the future will require vocational education and training. I keep reiterating that because it is a fact.</para>
<para>The Turnbull government's track record on apprenticeships and training is dismal. Since coming to government, the Abbott-Turnbull governments have cut over $3 billion in apprenticeship support and funding for TAFE, including a cut of $637 million in the last budget. With funding cuts comes the decline in apprenticeships and traineeships across the country. There are 148,000 fewer apprentices and trainees now than when the coalition government entered as the government of the country. There are now only 265,000 apprentices and trainees compared to 413,400 in September 2013. Latest figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research confirmed once again that apprenticeship and trainee numbers have fallen. There was a 4.5 per cent decline in the number of apprentices and trainees at 31 December 2016 compared to 31 December 2015. In 2016, compared with 2015, commencements continued the downward spiral since the government came to office, with a decrease of 2.9 per cent following drops of close to 10 per cent to 20 per cent, respectively, over the preceding two years. Trade commencements decreased by 12.4 per cent. Apprenticeship and traineeship completions decreased by 16.1 per cent to 99,000. Trade completions decreased by 13.6 per cent and non-trade completions decreased by 18 per cent. The training rate—the percentage of workers employed as an apprentice or trainee—is down again from 2.3 per cent to 2.2 per cent. The training rate for trade apprentices and trainees fell below 10 per cent for the first time in over a decade to 9.9 per cent, meaning less than 10 per cent of trade workers are currently apprentices.</para>
<para>The Turnbull government cannot be trusted with jobs and apprenticeship and traineeship numbers. The Turnbull government cannot be trusted with training and apprenticeships, and the Turnbull government cannot be trusted to assist North Queensland. If you are an unemployed youth, if you are an unemployed apprentice, if you are one of the nearly 10 per cent of unemployed people in the Herbert electorate, then it is the Turnbull government that needs to hear your anger. Know that Labor has your back.</para>
<para>Labor has a real plan and a real direction for jobs, training and apprenticeships. Since the beginning of the year, Labor has made numerous announcements for our plan for skills and apprenticeships, which include: investing an additional $637.6 million in TAFE and vocational education—reversing the Turnbull government's 2017 budget cuts in full; guaranteeing at least two-thirds of public funding for vocational education will go to TAFE; investing in a new Building TAFE for the Future Fund to revitalise TAFE campuses and facilities in regional and other metropolitan areas; and setting a target of one in 10 jobs for apprentices on Commonwealth priority projects, including major government business enterprise projects.</para>
<para>Labor's Apprentice Ready plan will expand pre-apprenticeship programs for young jobseekers. This program will smooth the transition of 10,000 young jobseekers into workplaces by providing them with nationally recognised, industry endorsed training and preparation for an apprenticeship. Training will be delivered through TAFEs in areas where job demand is demonstrated and local employers are onboard. Labor's plan for advanced-entry adult apprenticeships will invest in workers who are making decisions. This program will fast-track quality apprenticeships for up to 20,000 adults who are facing redundancies or who are already displaced in their jobs. Workers will be given advanced standing for their existing skills and provided with gap training at TAFE in shorter-duration apprenticeships to fill skilled jobs in areas of demand.</para>
<para>Labor knows that you cannot have a plan for Australian jobs without a plan for Australian apprentices and trainees. Labor's announcements and commitments, as mentioned above, will do just that. With the destruction of our vocational education and training sector by the Abbott-Turnbull governments, there will be a lot more tidying up to do into the future. Labor will deliver because Labor is ready to do so.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are some comments that I'd actually like to respond to before I actually move to the legislation that's currently before the House, the Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017. I want to set the record straight, because it is actually really important. I would like to say at the outset that I don't believe that there's another person in this House that is more committed to raising the status of vocational education and making sure that it is rightfully placed as part of the education agenda for this government than me. I have been in this role for 12 months and I'm absolutely committed to making sure that we are addressing the skills shortages that we have now and the skills shortages that are projected into the future.</para>
<para>By way of background, let me talk about the funding through the national partnership agreement, which is the funding agreement that was negotiated between the states and the territories, and the Commonwealth government. There was an agreement negotiated back in 2012. It was a five-year agreement that provided for $1.75 billion of funding to the states. $1.15 billion of the national partnership agreement was dedicated to structural reforms. That left $600 million over five years for direct training outcomes. The agreement that the coalition government has put in place—it was announced in the budget—is for $1.5 billion over four years. So that compares, as a direct training outcome, to $600 million over five years. When matched by the states, that will provide a total of $3 billion. The fund is targeted towards addressing the decline that there has been in apprentices and trainees in training across this country over, probably, the last five years. But, let me say, the biggest decline in numbers in apprentices and trainees in training was in 2012. That came on the back of nine successive cuts of $1.2 billion in total to employer incentives. In that one-year period, the 2012-13 period, we lost 110,000 apprentices and trainees in training from the system, which was about a 22 per cent drop in that one year.</para>
<para>So the coalition government have looked at what we can possibly do to address the serious skills shortages that we have. When the $1.5 billion fund was constructed, we looked at where our target areas were going to be, and that was clearly in the very much-needed area of apprentices and trainees and increasing the number that we had in training. We've identified where the demand areas are going to be in the future by looking at employment data and projections through to November 2020. So over a five-year period, from November 2015 to November 2020, we looked at where some of those demand areas are going to be. Clearly, health and ageing is a priority area, as is disability, an area that we have to start looking at. We've also identified tourism and hospitality, and advanced manufacturing as some clear areas we need to look at. When I've been talking to the states, I've put those on the table as the priority areas that we are looking at, but I've made it very clear that that's not an exclusive list and that I'm happy to work with every state and every territory to make sure that we actually meet the demands of the individual states and territories. If I use Western Australia as an example, the skill demands in Perth are quite different to the skill demands in the Kimberley. I'm more than happy to be working with the states to identify where we need to target those areas.</para>
<para>The national partnership agreement that was negotiated under Labor back in 2012 and that ran for five years—when our apprenticeship numbers declined dramatically—introduced contestability into the market. As a direct result of that, the market share of TAFE dropped from about 60 per cent to a percentage in the high 40s. So the significant drop really came about because of contestability in the market. Those opposite would know that states have responsibility for funding TAFEs and they would also know—or they should know—that the national partnership agreement, which was negotiated when they were in government, did not provide one cent directly for TAFE funding. It provided for training outcomes, but it was up to the states and territories to negotiate how that was to be spent. There is a special purpose payment which goes to each of the states and territories—and again those opposite should be very much aware of the special purpose payment—and under that it's up to the states to determine whether or not they wish to make allocations to any particular training body. So I think it's important, when we actually look at training and education, and particularly vocational education and training, that we look holistically at what has happened over the past five years and look at what we can do collectively into the future.</para>
<para>I'm not a particularly partisan person in my approach, and I've indicated a willingness to work with anyone and everyone to address the skill shortages needs we have, because they're serious. They are really serious, and some of those projections indicate that we will have a shortfall of about 290,000 in 2020, if we do not do anything about it. That's why the coalition government put in place a $1.5 billion fund, aimed specifically at increasing the number of apprentices and trainees in training over a four-year period.</para>
<para>In respect of the legislation that is before the Chamber, the Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017 continues the government's efforts to tidy up the Commonwealth 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. 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 thank the members and commend the bill.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>146</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" background="" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint">
            <a href="r5873" type="Bill">
              <p style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;" class="HPS-SubDebate">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>146</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017. I'm glad we're in the Federation Chamber because, for most of the last four years, we've had to endure this particular legislation being dealt with in the House of Representatives itself. The Abbott government actually thought these repeal days were something that would rival New Year's Day in the affection of the Australian public. We saw extraordinary fanfare, with press releases talking about millions of dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars. I remember the former member for Eden-Monaro congratulated himself and the Abbott and Turnbull governments for saying they'd gotten rid of $4.5 billion of regulatory expense, or burden, on the Australian economy and Australian businesses et cetera. It's extraordinary. It was a war on commas and semicolons and getting rid of obsolete provisions. It's simply amazing.</para>
<para>What happened was there was a blue book, Deputy Speaker Hastie. You weren't here at the time, but there was a blue book. Andrew Robb, Joe Hockey and, I think, Warren Truss were there. The member for Warringah used to hold it close to his chest like it was some sort of political manifesto and say, 'This is what we're going to do when we get in.' So you had the member for Kooyong, the member for Pearce and the former member for Eden-Monaro in charge of these repeal days. It was amazing. It was another play straight out of the Republican playbook. It was the Tea Party writ large—'These repeal days would make a huge difference to the Australian economy.'</para>
<para>When I was the shadow minister for ageing, one day, in particular, was quite extraordinary. There was $1.8 million in savings in total and $1.1 million was in aged care, but there was actually one piece of legislation that had $3,000 worth of savings in it. There were many pieces of legislation that had no savings in them, and we had to endure this hyperbole from the government about what was going on. So we're here in the Federation Chamber, doing the right thing. When we were in government, we used to have these in the Federation Chamber—as it's now called—where we would actually get rid of redundant provisions and pieces of legislation. They got rid of hundreds of pieces of legislation. Some of them had been obsolete for decades and had never been used.</para>
<para>There's a policy vacuum in this government when they congratulate themselves all the time about what they're doing—getting rid of a few typos and commas. It looks like a pretty awful government when that's what it's all about. A statute update is a typically non-controversial process of simply getting rid of grammatical and other errors and getting rid of obsolete acts. That's what it's about. This is something that Labor governments do as a matter of routine. I'm pleased, can I say, that the Turnbull government is acting a bit more like a Labor government and actually dealing with this in the Federation Chamber, rather than putting a whole day aside in the House of Representatives to deal with such stuff of nonsense.</para>
<para>The measures within this bill simply highlight the absence of any substantive policy that the government's undertaking, which will be of good reform to the Australian economy. In fact, this piece of legislation's one of the better pieces of legislation of the Turnbull government—and that's not saying very much at all. Item 3 of the bill amends the heading of subsection 25(1) of the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act of 2005 to better clarify the subsection. In the normal course of events, I wouldn't make much comment about that, but when they're rolling out the National Broadband Network and we're dealing with their provision in relation to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, I think I have to say something about it. The rollout of the National Broadband Network's an absolute disgrace—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've given you a fair bit of latitude. I remind you that the bill is, in fact, the Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017, and I remind you that you need to stick to the subject at hand.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I am talking about the subject at hand—that is, communications and media—and it's extraordinary, because it's an amendment to it. If you have to protect the government in relation to that, that's your business, Deputy Speaker. Item 11 of the bill makes the monumental step of inserting a hyphen into the phrase 'full time' in the Fair Work Act—to make 'full-time employee'. I'm sure Australians are desperate for this reform! We have the situation where there is insecure work and a lack of employment opportunities, and the government is not even protecting penalty rates. There are 1.8 million Australians either unemployed or underemployed, and the government is adding a hyphen to a phrase in the Fair Work Act. That's fine, but they should be fighting to protect penalty rates, can I say. But that's the best they can do.</para>
<para>Item 16 of the bill continues the war on hyphens, and in subsection 64(3) of My Health Records Act 2012 removes a hyphen from a phrase. It's actually moving the hyphen from one word to another. That's what the government is doing. This is the government of the Medicare freeze, and that's what they can do about health care—take a hyphen from one word and put it in another. It's an amazing piece of legislative change, when we have the situation in my home state of Queensland, unbelievably, that the cost of visiting a GP has gone up 11 per cent—meaning an increase of $7.70 for each visit for Queenslanders. Amazing, in the circumstances!</para>
<para>Items 22 to 26 of the bill amend the Work Health and Safety Act to remove incorrect cross-references to state and territory work health and safety laws. Forget about the fact that the government's done absolutely nothing to make workplaces safe for mums and dads who head off to work each day; forget about the ill-conceived attacks we see each day on the union movement during question time. I'm sure workers can rest easy now that a few inconsequential lines in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 will be scrapped!</para>
<para>Item 1, schedule 3, of the bill repeals the redundant section 122A of the Defence Act. I'm sure that's a great relief to the people of the RAAF Base Amberley in my electorate! Let's not forget for a minute the fact that those men and women who serve at the military base in Ipswich have to endure the Cunningham Highway, which this government has failed to upgrade for four years.</para>
<para>The member for Warringah, the former Prime Minister, rolled out the grand plan for this type of bill that's before the chamber today, the red tape repeal day. Honestly, this government should do much better. This government really hasn't learnt much. But I appreciate the fact that we're here. When legislation came before the parliament, it was a sham and offered very little in terms of deregulatory savings, as this bill does very little in terms of deregulatory savings. We accept that, but it's the hollow rhetoric that I'm so upset about. I am pleased that on 4 February 2016 the Turnbull government announced it would scrap the twice-yearly red tape repeal days and that we're dealing with this stuff in the Federation Chamber. They ditched the US Tea Party rhetoric—I'm pleased about that, and I'm pleased they've done this. It's all about making sure the redundant, obsolete provisions in legislation are fixed—and where there's a semicolon that's right and the spelling is wrong that that is fixed. Legislative certainly is important for businesses and for those who deal with legislation. But don't rest your whole government on it. Don't waste whole days on it.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this is an example of how ineffectual this government is. We won't stand in the way of this legislation—one of their better pieces of legislation, and I commend them for it. It's non-controversial. It's a simple housekeeping measure. We think this is good legislation. We should never forget that legislation is important for the Australian economy. We can't let down Australians. Australians deserve better. I commend the government for doing the right thing and not making much of it. Thank you very much.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also wish to record a few words in relation to the Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017. If we're having a retrospective at the end of the life of this parliament on <inline font-style="italic">Hansard's</inline> finest moments, I'm very confident that this will not be amongst them. But you'll also be relieved to know that I'm going to build on what's been said by the member for Blair, but I won't turn my attention to each individual clause, because I think we've learnt quite a lot about the war on hyphens. Some of what I want to say is prosaic, but I want to tease out some observations that were started by previous speakers on the government's much vaunted, but lately silent, and possibly hollow, commitment to red tape reduction. There is the concern that they may try to count this towards the deregulation agenda.</para>
<para>Of course we support this bill. It is uncontroversial. It corrects technical errors that have occurred in acts as a result of drafting errors and clerical mistakes, and repeals redundant and obsolete provisions. I know from my former life as a public servant, when involved in the drafting of legislation, that the greatest care is given by very skilled public servants to the drafting of legislation. Bills go through numerous stages of checking and rechecking before reaching this place. Indeed, the only errors that I recall of any substance were when governments rushed legislation for reasons good and bad. It is important, of course, that the drafting is clear to make sure that the intent is clear, that unintended consequences do not arise, that references and language are correct, and that typos and hyphens are hunted down, one by one, and dealt with firmly. But, even with the best procedures and the finest attention to detail, mistakes can happen. Such is the way of human systems and organisations.</para>
<para>As has been said—and it was well remarked upon by the member for Blair—this is not groundbreaking reform. In my view, it's not reform and it is of no real consequence. But, nevertheless it matters. It is important that Commonwealth legislation is correct and as clear, coherent and comprehensible as possible. This sort of bill, soporific as it is, illustrates the largely hidden underbelly of government—the daily grind of the imperfect machine. Curiously, I might note, it gives us as parliamentarians perhaps just a small insight into one of the particular values of the Public Service and those who support the government of the day as it interfaces with the legislative function—that is, the importance of attention to accuracy and detail. Indeed, I learnt that, unlike some other sectors, in the Public Service it is almost invariably more important to be accurate in your advice, your briefing and your drafting than it is to meet an arbitrary deadline. Small errors like this, when discovered, do caused raised eyebrows and sometimes giggles. When picked up, they are collated and fixed periodically. There's a process to do so. There's a process for everything.</para>
<para>With all that said, while the bill itself poses no substantive issues and the war on hyphens continues—and I didn't see any typos when looking through the bill, I was pleased to note, but, nevertheless, maybe there is one—I wish to place on record my expectation that none of this fixing of typos and removing of long-dead clauses and non-operative provisions will be counted by the government towards the red tape reduction or deregulation agenda. I hold some concerns that, when the bill is passed, the government may yet try to claim this as having some economic benefit for their deregulation targets. To do so, if you look at the nature of this bill, would be an absurdity, a nonsense. It would undermine confidence in the focus, delivery and reporting of the deregulation work, such as it is. I say this because I've had a little look into this. The treatment and reporting of the repeal omnibus bills, which under Prime Minister Abbott used to occupy a whole day in the parliament—indeed, this sort of bill, as has been said, would have been in the House of Representatives and the subject of a self-congratulatory press conference, probably flanked by statute books—has not been consistent. In fact, what the government claims towards its deregulation targets remains unfortunately somewhat opaque. I say this because we've heard the headline figures—$4½ billion, or something like that—but there has still been no independent verification of the outcomes of the deregulation agenda, as was promised by the government and, indeed, recommended by the Auditor-General, and it was backed in by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit earlier this year.</para>
<para>With regard to the treatment of bills, in 2014 and 2015 the government was very excited and excitable, undertaking these four repeal days. But it seems that bills that claimed cost saving are those associated primarily with Treasury bills. Annual reports were published for 2014 and 2015. If you're having trouble hearing, you could replay my speech, and, if that isn't working, I'd encourage you to have a look at the deregulation agenda website. It's still up there. The 2015 report explicitly states that the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3), which also corrected errors, modernised language and repealed redundant provisions, was counted towards the reduction targets and claimed a benefit of $50,000—such must be the impact of misplaced commas and hyphens on productivity in the Australian economy!</para>
<para>There appears to be no sign, however, of an annual report for 2016. The last report was tabled in March 2016 for the year 2015. But we don't know; maybe one will come. Perhaps the government's lost interest in this, or perhaps, as we're seeing in the House day upon day, they've just run out of ideas—or, indeed, as we've seen in the last couple of weeks, it could just be a victim of the general chaos that seems to be engulfing the government. If you want a bit of a giggle, the $122 million household postal opinion survey is always a good one.</para>
<para>Most likely this bill is all they could actually agree on this week, but without understanding what happened in 2016, I could not categorically state—and I think no-one could, unless a minister wants to come in here and give us that assurance—that the government has ceased claiming compliance cost savings figures for this kind of bill. It would be very helpful and welcome to have the minister's assurance and explanation as to whether the government has stopped the questionable practice.</para>
<para>In terms of public confidence in the calculations behind the government's deregulation agenda, it would be improved if the government followed through on their own commitment—it's a promise, a commitment; maybe it's not a core promise—to complete an independent evaluation, and what a read that would be! Indeed, this was a recommendation, as I said, by the Auditor-General in the ANAO report No. 29 2015-16, which was about how the government is implementing the deregulation agenda, cutting red tape. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit agreed with this in our report No. 460—a rollicking read—entitled <inline font-style="italic">Public sector g</inline><inline font-style="italic">overnance</inline>, which was tabled in the House by me in February 2017. I will read a couple of relevant quotes from the report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is some evidence—</para></quote>
<para>some evidence—</para>
<quote><para class="block">that there is likely to have been a significant net economic benefit from the Deregulation Agenda, however there has not yet been independent verification of the outcomes. Having the extent of this benefit independently quantified would support future regulatory decision-making—</para></quote>
<para>If you think this is important, good practice would say you go back and have an independent look at and scrutinise this $4½ billion worth of claimed savings to support what you do next. It would also have—</para>
<quote><para class="block">… likely positive public administration outcomes. A future, more comprehensive, post-implementation review process would further add to the evidence base for such programs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the government has established other review mechanisms for regulatory changes, the Committee notes that those processes will not necessarily include evaluations of the government’s Deregulation Agenda.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee therefore strongly supports the single ANAO recommendation—</para></quote>
<para>Indeed, it was the only recommendation in the report that was completed in 2016—</para>
<quote><para class="block">that PM&C take steps to implement the Australian government's December 2013 decision that the economic impacts of the Deregulation Agenda be assessed within three years—</para></quote>
<para>Which they've failed to do—</para>
<quote><para class="block">In its response to the ANAO report, PM&C advised that 'implementation of this decision is currently being discussed with the Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PM&C reiterated the information in its submission to the inquiry and said 'We hope to be able to provide the Committee with an update of these discussions in the first half of 2017'.</para></quote>
<para>As of today, I understand that the assistant minister for regulatory reform has been provided with a report on this matter. So there is hope. Some work may have been done, but it has not been released. So this parliament and the public still have no basis for public confidence through an independent report implementing the government's own commitment—and we're still waiting.</para>
<para>In my final minutes—scintillating as this is—I want to reflect on some of the issues raised by the member for Blair as to whether there is, in fact, a better way for this parliament to deal with the statute law revision bills that come up periodically. Indeed, from reading the <inline font-style="italic">Bills Digest</inline> and doing a little research, it appears there is a better way. In 2015, the First Parliamentary Counsel gained a power under amendments to the Legislative Act 2003 to make unilateral changes where they are of no substantive effect. I thought, 'That's interesting. What kind of changes could the First Parliamentary Counsel, indeed, make without sending us legislation and clogging up the business of the House?' The First Parliamentary Counsel has the power to make changes about things like matters of spelling, punctuation, grammar or syntax, or the use of conjunctions and disjunctions. The First Parliamentary Counsel could have moved the hyphens and the semicolons—all without it coming to this House. The First Parliamentary Counsel could update a reference, numbers, re-number legislative provisions, change the way that things are expressed, omit provisions or, indeed, get rid of expired, spent or redundant provisions. The First Parliamentary Counsel could have got out the pen and corrected minor errors—all of this provided, of course, that they do not make any substantive change which would affect the operation and impact of the act or an instrument. And, of course, the editorial powers, quite rightly, should be used sparingly.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Bills Digest</inline> for the Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill 2016—the previous version of this, I venture—said that the basis on which one of these approaches is favoured over another, whether coming here in a revision bill or being done through an amendment tacked on to another bill or, indeed, using the First Parliamentary Counsel's editorial power, is unclear. To quote it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is evident that statute law revision legislation and FPC’s editorial change powers under the Legislation Act can cover the same type of subject matter.</para></quote>
<para>But:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it is not entirely clear when one of these mechanisms will be applied (or ought to be applied) in preference to the other.</para></quote>
<para>So it's clear, when you have a look at the nonsense that is in this bill—which I hope, as we've gone through, will not be claimed as some kind of economic benefit or saving towards the government's deregulation agenda—and when you have a look at what is actually proposed for this chamber on behalf of the House to tick off, it's entirely unclear why it's even here.</para>
<para>It's reasonable to speculate that, with these powers being relatively new—I guess, in the last couple of years—a conservative approach may be taken by the First Parliamentary Counsel, perhaps to build confidence in the House. However, the act, of course, requires periodic—I think six monthly—reporting to the House on the use of these powers, as is appropriate. Changes to laws, even hyphens, can be no small thing. Of course, semicolons and commas can, to be fair, influence the interpretation of an act. I do remember from the little bits of attention I paid at law school that commas can change the meaning of clauses and so on, as can conjunctions. But where changes are clearly typographical—numerical corrections, changes to expression—then it is entirely unclear to me why this government would persist in asking the House to spend time, parliamentary time. There are many other matters. The previous Deputy Speaker pulled the member for Blair up for relevance, so I've been very careful not to stray into electorate matters and have pot shots at all the other things the government could do. We've had no more talk of the foreign conspiracy theories that occupied the House today. Speaking of <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, as we have in here, I am still wondering whether 'Blue Steel' or 'Magnum' may be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> in relation to the foreign minister's look to the House, which we were all transfixed by. We'll wait and see when the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> comes out.</para>
<para>In closing, I would say to whoever reads this <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline>hopefully the First Parliamentary Counsel and the people involved—that I for one, and I suspect others in the House, would welcome the use of the power to amend acts to make minor editorial changes without having to waste our time in this Chamber when there are more important things to do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
<para>Fed eration Chamber adjourned at 17 : 15</para>
<quote><para class="block"> </para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>