
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2017-09-06</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>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 6 September 2017</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi: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>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>9395</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>9395</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>9395</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>I present report No. 16 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 11 September. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's deliberations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Pape</inline><inline font-style="italic">r</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, 5 September 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, 5 September 2017, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 11 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">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement on inquiry into the trade system and digital economy</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that a statement may be made—statement to conclude by 10.15 am</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speech time limits—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr O'Dowd—5 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The strategic importance of Australia</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic">s Indian Ocean Territories</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.25 am</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speech time limits—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Morton—5 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Next Member speaking—5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Social issues relating to land-based automated vehicles in Australia</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.35 am</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speech time limits—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms M. L. Landry—5 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Next Member speaking—5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Amendment (Terminating Enterprise Agreements) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5</inline><inline font-style="italic">September 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 SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to superannuation, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5</inline><inline font-style="italic">September 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 KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for the regulation of renewable fuel content in motor vehicle fuel, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Renewable Fuel Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5</inline><inline font-style="italic">September 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 amend the law in order to prevent non-First Australians and foreigners from arrogating for their personal benefit First Australian culture, and to stop the sale of art, souvenir items and any other cultural affirmations that exploit and thereby deprive First Australians of the rightful benefits from their culture, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2017</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5</inline><inline font-style="italic">September 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">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017 (<inline font-style="italic">from Senate</inline>): Second reading (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">10</inline><inline font-style="italic">August</inline><inline font-style="italic">2017</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—10</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—10 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 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">5 MR ROBERT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) supports the right of Israel to defend its citizens against terrorist attacks by organisations or by individuals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Palestinian Authority to cease incitement of its population to attack Israel and Israelis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further calls on the Palestinian Authority to take seriously the task of educating its people on the options, process and potential for peace;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) urges the Palestinian Authority to abide by the Oslo Accords and specifically to cease attacking Israel in an unfounded manner in international forums;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further urges the Israel and the Palestinian Authority to return to negotiations in good faith and without preconditions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) acknowledges and affirms the Jewish connection to the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) condemns the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement as inherently anti-Semitic and calls on all Australian political parties and institutions to disavow it.</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">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 Robert—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 + 5 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">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   People of Australia's Commission of Inquiry (Banking and Financial Services) Bill 2017 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr Katter</inline>): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">27</inline><inline font-style="italic">March</inline><inline font-style="italic">2017</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—10</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 = 2 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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR WALLACE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) welcomes the results of Round One of the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF), including the allocation of $3 million in funding to the Events Centre, Caloundra, on the Sunshine Coast;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) congratulates all of the successful applicants in Round One of this program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the BBRF is another example of the Government investing in our regions to boost local economies, grow regional confidence, create jobs and build vibrant communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) nationally the successful projects will support a diverse range of important infrastructure in regional and remote areas for projects ranging from tourism and transport, to culture, sporting and healthcare facilities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Events Centre is such an important piece of infrastructure, providing world class cultural experiences for local people on the Sunshine Coast and drawing tourists from all over South East Queensland; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) nearly 550 organisations applied from all across Australia for the Infrastructure Projects stream;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the Government for its allocation of an additional $200 million in funding for this important program in the 2017 budget; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages eligible organisations to make an application to Round Two of the BBRF, which is anticipated to open later in 2017.</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">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 Wallace—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 T. M. BUTLER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) victims and survivors of sexual and family violence should be able to gain access to the highest standard of professional counselling support;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 1800 RESPECT, a national telephone and on line counselling service for people living with sexual assault and family violence, is an important part of the national response to family and domestic violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) since the establishment of the 1800 RESPECT service, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia has provided specialist sexual assault and domestic violence trauma counselling for the service; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, which has operated for almost fifty years, has achieved international recognition for its expertise in its field;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Medibank Health Solutions (MHS), a for-profit company, receives public funds to administer 1800 RESPECT;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) MHS recently announced that the service previously provided by Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia would now be provided by four organisations, three of which have not previously provided trauma counselling for the 1800 RESPECT service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the consequence of this decision is a 75 per cent reduction in the public funding provided to Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia via MHS for the provision of the 1800 RESPECT service, as that organisation becomes one of four providers, rather than the sole provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in those circumstances, the Board of Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia has decided not to accept the proposed MHS contract, which the Board states does not provide sufficient funding to enable Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia to provide the service, and imposes obligations which the Board considers unethical; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls upon the Prime Minister to ensure that victims and survivors of family and domestic violence continue to have access to best practice specialist sexual assault and family violence trauma counselling services as previously provided by Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5</inline><inline font-style="italic">September 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">Ms T. M. Butler—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">3 MS M. L. LANDRY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government is committed to securing the economic future of Regional Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the $500 million National Water Infrastructure Development Fund which implements the Australian Government's commitment to start the detailed planning necessary to build or augment existing water infrastructure, including dams, pipelines or managed aquifer recharge, and welcomes the dedicated northern component of $170 million;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that the $481.6 million Building Better Regions Fund supports the Australian Government's commitment to create jobs, drive economic growth and build stronger regional communities into the future;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) praises the $600 million Northern Australia Roads Programme which enables upgrades to high priority roads in Northern Australia essential to the movement of people and freight to support the north's economic development;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) welcomes the additional $272.2 million Regional Growth Fund that provides grants of $10 million or more for major transformational projects which support long term economic growth and create jobs in regions undergoing structural adjustment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) commends the Government for delivering infrastructure programs that are making a real difference to regional Australia's ability to diversify its economies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 16 August 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">Ms M. L. Landry—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">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">4 MS TEMPLEMAN: 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) Thompson Square, Windsor, is Australia's only surviving Georgian public town square;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in 1810 Governor Lachlan Macquarie proclaimed Thompson Square as the first public place named to honour the contributions of an ex-convict, sending a strong message about Australia as a place of the 'fair go';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the NSW Government's Windsor Bridge replacement project will result in a large modern concrete structure destroying the current Square;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a community action group, Community Action for Windsor Bridge, has staged a 24 hour occupation of Thompson Square since 21 July 2013 in order to fight the NSW Government's plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the NSW Government for ignoring the advice of its own Office of Environment and Heritage, the Heritage Council of NSW and the National Trust; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Minister for the Environment and Energy to exercise his powers under the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline> and grant emergency heritage listing to the Thompson Square Precinct to protect this unique place of Australia's cultural heritage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 May 2017.</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"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Templeman—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">5 MR CHRISTENSEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the importance of the actions of this Government in abolishing the Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) program to ensure that the interests of Australian workers are protected;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that a review of the changes by Dr Bob Birrell of the Australian Population Research Institute highlights their significance by making the following points, that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) abolition of the 457 visa program is a 'game changer' rather than being mere 'window dressing' as was claimed by critics in the media and members of the Opposition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reset stops the past immigration policy outcome of employers recruiting as many temporary skilled foreign workers as they wanted and then facilitating their transition to permanent residence via the Employer Nomination Scheme visa (subclass 186); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) changes go some way to 'redressing the balance between employer interests and those of domestic workers';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the 457 visa program had become 'bloated out and a proxy pathway to permanent residence' as stated by the head of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Mike Pezzullo; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the Government on its actions which are predicted to reduce skilled migration numbers by more than 50,000, or one quarter, of the total program, thus resulting in more jobs being available for Australian workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 16 August 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">Mr Christensen—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">6 MS ROWLAND: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world and that melanoma is the most common cancer in young Australians aged 15 to 39; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) LEGO is a world-renowned brand with a philosophy to foster imaginative and creative learning and development through play;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) congratulates Mr Damien MacRae and his seven year old son Aiden on creating an Australian sun smart beach themed LEGO project entitled 'LEGO Surf Rescue', which has reached the required 10,000 supporters for the LEGO Ideas review;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Mr MacRae and his family have shown remarkable resilience and positivity, in spite of his terminal melanoma diagnosis, in highlighting the dangers of skin cancer and the importance of sun safety; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the 'LEGO Surf Rescue' project:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) demonstrates not only the importance of sun safety to reduce the risks of melanoma, but also highlights the importance of surf lifesaving and promotes healthy and active lifestyles for children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) would be the first set in LEGO history to feature figures wearing sunscreen; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on LEGO to support 'LEGO Surf Rescue', and to approve the project to become an official LEGO set.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 14 August 2017.</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"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Rowland—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">7 MR WALLACE: 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's record $200 billion investment in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) capabilities represents a unique opportunity for Australian businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) many Australian businesses who first supplied defence materials to the Australian Government go on to export these products overseas; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia ranks thirteenth in the world for defence expenditure, but is only the twentieth largest exporter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) congratulates the Government on its activities to date to encourage local small businesses to bid for Government defence contracts, including the 2016 Defence White Paper, and Integrated Investment Program, the Defence Industry Policy Statement and the Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the Government's efforts to develop a Defence Export Strategy to plan, guide and measure defence export outcomes that will support our foreign and trade policies, defence industry, defence capability and national security objectives; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) encourages small and medium enterprises all over Australia to explore the opportunity to supply products and services for the ADF, and to contact the CDIC to learn more.</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">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 Wallace—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">8 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) regional universities:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) play an active role in developing regional economies and contributing to the social and cultural development of their regions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) act as an anchor for investment and workforce development;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) education is a major driver of economic development in regional Australia and should not be seen in isolation from other regional economic development issues;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) one of the biggest threats to the sustainability of rural communities is a declining population of young people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) regional universities will educate the future regional workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) students who study in regional areas are more likely to stay in regional areas after they graduate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the Regional Universities Network reports about three-quarters of those who study at regional universities stay in the regions to work and, by contrast, students who leave their communities to take up university studies in major cities are much less likely to return after graduating; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the measures in the Government's Higher Education Reform Package do not adequately consider the role of regional universities in educating the future workforce in regional communities and driving regional development; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to develop a National Regional Higher Education Strategy that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) considers the role of regional universities in educating the future workforce in regional communities and driving regional development; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ensures regional higher education is prioritised and remains a focus of future governments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5</inline><inline font-style="italic">September 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">Ms McGowan—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>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9403</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9403</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5957" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9403</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9403</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement Australia's obligations under new chapter 3 of the Singapore-Australian Free Trade Agreement as inserted by the agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, or SAFTA.</para>
<para>In June 2015, the prime ministers of Australia and Singapore announced the launch of the Singapore-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP), an initiative to strengthen and deepen our two countries' strategic, trade, economic, defence, and people-to-people links.</para>
<para>The amendments in SAFTA are the key economic plank of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.</para>
<para>It reflects Australia and Singapore's unwavering commitment to the principles of free and open trade.</para>
<para>The conclusion of yet another high-quality trade deal demonstrates the coalition's commitment to pursuing new and expanded opportunities for Australian exporters and small businesses.</para>
<para>Our FTAs are delivering significant economic benefits and driving strong growth in the value of Australia's exports.</para>
<para>Opening up export markets is at the core of the government's economic strategy and we're focused on delivering even greater access to global markets for Australian businesses.</para>
<para>I had the honour of signing the agreement to amend the SAFTA with my Singaporean counterpart, Minister for Trade and Investment Mr Lim Hng Kiang, on 13 October 2016 in Canberra.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon. Andrew Robb, and his commitment to taking our economic relationship with Singapore to the next level.</para>
<para>This is our most comprehensive update to a free trade agreement to date, and a demonstration of the government's commitment to a modern and agile trade agenda in the face of global headwinds.</para>
<para>As the makeup of our economy and the needs of business change, so too must the rules that govern our international trade.</para>
<para>Australia requires modern trade agreements, which create opportunity across our diverse and largely service-driven economy.</para>
<para>SAFTA makes it easier for Australian businesses to export into Singapore—a natural gateway to South-East Asia.</para>
<para>Under these changes, a new chapter 3 sets out new rules-of-origin criteria and related documentary requirements for determining the eligibility of goods to obtain preferential tariff entry into Australia under the amended agreement.</para>
<para>The complementary Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to set out Australia's tariff commitments under the agreement.</para>
<para>These amendments demonstrate the coalition's commitment to Australia's economic relationship with Singapore.</para>
<para>Since entry into force under the Howard government in 2003, the SAFTA has provided a strong platform for the expansion of our economic and trade relationship with Singapore, a 21st century economy and a gateway to the rest of Asia.</para>
<para>SAFTA is a great example of how modern FTAs can boost trade. Since this deal was first signed in 2003:</para>
<list>our bilateral trade relationship has grown by over 80 per cent; and</list>
<list>bilateral investment has grown by more than 350 per cent.</list>
<para>This puts Australian suppliers on an even footing with foreign competitors, with a framework for mutual recognition of qualifications—particularly for engineers and for accountants.</para>
<para>Singapore is now our fourth-largest export market for services.</para>
<para>Complementing existing tariff-free entry for goods, the updated rules of origin will simplify administration and reduce the compliance costs for traders.</para>
<para>The amended agreement contains simplified and trade-facilitative rules of origin, updated product specific rules, and related documentary requirements.</para>
<para>Goods imported into Australia that meet the new rules of origin, implemented through this bill, will be entitled to claim preferential tariff treatment in accordance with the amended agreement.</para>
<para>The amended agreement also includes relevant record keeping and related obligations on Australian exporters and producers who wish to export Australian goods to Singapore under the agreement and obtain preferential treatment for those goods in Singapore.</para>
<para>When the amended agreement enters into force, it will deliver significant benefits for Australian service providers with greater access and certainty in sectors such as education, law, financial and professional services.</para>
<para>Singapore has given Australia the most favourable treatment, putting our exporters on an equal or better footing than our foreign competitors in the Singapore market.</para>
<para>Singapore has also agreed to recognise the juris doctor degrees of Australian universities currently listed in the amended agreement, providing access for those universities that have moved to a graduate model of legal education.</para>
<para>Australia and Singapore will also establish a framework under the amended agreement to support mutual recognition of professional qualifications.</para>
<para>Priority will be given to arrangements for engineers and accountants, with Singapore and Australia agreeing to commence negotiations on mutual recognition arrangements.</para>
<para>Australian lawyers and financial service providers will enjoy improved access to Singapore's legal and financial services markets.</para>
<para>The amended agreement will create new opportunities for businesses to bid for high-value government procurement contracts in Singapore, including in sectors such as road transport, construction and engineering.</para>
<para>The amended agreement will improve mobility and lengths of stay for Australian businesspeople and their spouses and dependants.</para>
<para>It will include modern outcomes on telecommunications services and ecommerce, and harmonise trade rules in goods, services and investment, thereby reducing red tape for businesses.</para>
<para>The amended agreement will also extend to investors from Singapore—our fifth-highest source of foreign investment—the same Foreign Investment Review Board screening thresholds applicable to our other free trade agreement partners.</para>
<para>We are also supporting innovation exchange between Australia and Singapore by establishing a landing pad for Australian entrepreneurs and start-ups—which I visited just two weeks ago while in Singapore.</para>
<para>The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, under the chairmanship of the member for Fadden, has finalised its report on the agreement to amend the SAFTA, recommending binding treaty action.</para>
<para>In view of the sitting schedule, the benefits to Australian businesses, and the importance to the parliament and the community of seeing the limited changes that are required to be made, we are introducing the implementing legislation at this time.</para>
<para>Some amendments to subordinate legislation, as set out in the national interest analysis, will also be required in due course.</para>
<para>I commend this legislation to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9405</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5958" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9405</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9405</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 is the second bill relating to the agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement.</para>
<para>This bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Customs Tariff Act), referred to throughout, to implement the amended agreement by:</para>
<list>providing duty-free access on entry into force of the amended agreement for most eligible goods determined in accordance with new division 1BA of part VIII of the Customs Act. New division 1BA is inserted into the Customs Act by the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017;</list>
<list>amending certain concessional items in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act to maintain customs duty rates in line with the applicable concessional item;</list>
<list>inserting new schedule 4A to provide for excise-equivalent rates of duty on alcohol, tobacco and certain fuel products in accordance with the amended agreement; and</list>
<list>repealing provisions in schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act that provide for excise equivalent rates of duty on alcohol, tobacco and fuel products in accordance with the amendment agreement, after the expiration of a three-year transition period.</list>
<para>This bill complements the amendments contained in the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017. I commend this legislation to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9406</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5858" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9406</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak on the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, particularly given my membership and participation on the Joint Standing Committee for Electoral Matters. I can report to the House that the committee is functioning very well under the leadership of the chair, Senator Linda Reynolds, and deputy chair, the member for Scullin, and with the very good participation of Senator Rhiannon from the Australian Greens. The issues faced by the committee are complex and detailed, despite many in this parliament and outside of it being of the view that change can be very, very easy. This is because in campaigns, where there's a will there's a way—and later I will address one of the more disgusting and deceptive forms of political communication that this bill will now prevent being sent, without revealing who the communication has been sent by.</para>
<para>The bill addresses the recommendations made by the first interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2016 federal election, tabled on 9 September 2016. It relates specifically to the authorisation of voter communication. Current authorisation requirements have not kept pace with technological change. Those who might want to hide their identity from voters can do so by communicating via media not covered by the current authorisation rules, including new and developing technologies. This restricts important information being available to voters when they make decisions on election day, and limits the ability of regulators to identify the source of a communication in the case of noncompliance. Consistent authorisation, as directed by this bill, allows voters to assess the credibility of all communication when forming their own personal political judgement.</para>
<para>This bill ensures that electoral communication is clearly authorised, irrespective of how it is communicated. Authorisation requirements are consistent across different communication channels. With consistent and higher obligations on all groups subject to the Commonwealth electoral funding and finance disclosure regime, the public are safeguarded from misrepresentation and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Australian government bodies.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth Electoral Act is one of the oldest pieces of Commonwealth legislation, and the act's authorisation regime is outdated. Modern campaign techniques, such as robocalls and bulk SMS messages, do not require an authorisation informing voters of who is actually contacting them. Subsequent legislative amendments have also created inconsistencies in the legislation, with separate requirements for broadcast media and internet advertising. This is outdated when the same advertisement can be screened or broadcast on streaming services. There are inconsistencies related to printed material as well. Flyers have different requirements from how-to-vote cards; some items of clothing are exempt, while others require authorisation.</para>
<para>This bill requires that all paid advertising, regardless of the medium used to communicate it or the source of that communication, must be authorised. Communications—whether paid or unpaid—made by or on behalf of entities with disclosure obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act must be authorised. This includes registered political parties, candidates and third-party campaign groups whose expenditure on influencing an election exceeds the disclosure threshold, and donors whose donations exceed the disclosure threshold.</para>
<para>Provisions that require authorisations for printed material—for example, leaflets, flyers, corflutes and how-to-vote cards—will be retained. Authorisations will now inform voters of the name of the political party behind the communication. Currently, this is only a requirement for broadcast advertising. Other entities with disclosure obligations under the Electoral Act will also be required to put their names to their communications, including associated entities of political parties and third-party campaign organisations.</para>
<para>Putting your name to your communication sounds like something very reasonable. While we are here today because the Electoral Act has not kept up with technology, it would be remiss of me not to address the highly and knowingly deceptive communication by the ALP at the last federal election—and not just during the last federal election but, worse, on the day itself. The despicable text message that was sent by the Labor Party— <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline></para>
<para>I thank the member for Fremantle. It's very good to draw to the attention of the House the matter of the despicable text message sent by the Labor Party at the last federal election.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Craig Kelly</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They didn't want to hear about that, did they?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They certainly didn't want to hear about that, and that's why they wanted to stop me in my tracks. But that's just given me the opportunity to fire up and speak more vigorously about this issue, and I thank the member for Fremantle for that.</para>
<para>In the text message to which I refer, in the field that describes who the message came from, it says 'Medicare', not 'the Labor Party'. It came from the Labor Party, but it says 'Medicare'—a government organisation. That text message sent a message about what could happen to Medicare—not what was going to happen but what the Labor Party wanted people to think in that campaign. It was a highly deceptive text message. Very interestingly, it's not just the message itself that is very deceptive; it is how the Labor Party dealt with this matter. It is very telling. The message was designed to be tricky, it was designed to scare, but what did the Labor Party say about this message on the day?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Craig Kelly</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry? Apologised?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, they didn't say 'Sorry'; they didn't apologise. In fact, on 2 July, a spokesman from the Labor Party told news.com.au that the party was not responsible for the bulk message and denied knowledge of the last-minute text message campaign. On the day the message was sent, the Labor Party denied all knowledge of the deceptive text message. What did they say a month later, after much public pressure to tell the truth? Kicking and screaming, they confirmed that they sent the text message—surprise, surprise!—but a spokesman said it was not intended to give the impression that Medicare was the sender; rather, that Medicare was the subject of the message and there should be no surprise that it was not a government message.</para>
<para>Despite how the ALP spin machine tells us about their campaigning abilities and strategies, are we really to believe that there was panic and confusion within the Labor Party on election day—that they really didn't know whether they had sent the message or not? Are we really to believe that they sent the message out not as they intended? Are we really to believe that the Labor Party, on election day, sent a political communication out but not as they intended? Are we to believe that they didn't carefully consider every word of that text message? Are we to believe that they didn't send it to an internal test group to check, proof and understand exactly how that text message would be delivered? And are we to believe that this is the first-ever text message sent out by the Labor Party so that they could claim that they had made a mistake and it wasn't as they intended?</para>
<para>I believe that it was certainly the very first text message sent by the Labor Party where they very calculatedly and knowingly placed the name of a government department in the sender field and then, after the fact, claimed they thought it was the subject. The Queensland LNP hit the nail on the head in their submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">... ‘Medicare’ text relied upon the fact that they would not have to include a Labor Party authorisation. If it had, voters would have the information they needed to judge Labor’s actions for what they were ...</para></quote>
<para>Interestingly, during the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry, I asked Mr Carroll, the national secretary of the ALP, if it were a strategy to make sure that the sender of the text message was unknown. Guess what? I got no straight answer.</para>
<para>This event shows us exactly that the ALP cannot be trusted or believed. Most worryingly—and this is why I'm pleased we will pass this legislation—in my final questioning of Mr Carroll, I repeatedly asked, 'On the basis that the law didn't change, would the ALP rule out further sending of such text messages?' He would not rule out doing it again—whatever it takes.</para>
<para>When this bill passes, he won't be able to do it again; the Labor Party won't be able to do it again. To enforce the new requirements, the bill introduces a wider range of enforcement options for the Australian Electoral Commission, including expanded injunction powers, enforceable undertakings, new information-gathering powers to support enforcement and more substantial fines. The Australian Electoral Commission will also be able to issue legislative instruments to explain how communications in various media should be authorised, for example social media posts or robocalls. This will keep the regime up-to-date as new technology emerges and it will simplify compliance. Schedule 1 of the bill preserves the ability to communicate anonymously for sensitive material or for academic or artistic purposes. The news media will continue to be able to protect the identity of their sources, staff and collaborators. This bill also explicitly exempts personal and internal communication of disclosure entities.</para>
<para>The work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is not complete. It will now turn its attention to political donations, not just to political parties but to all political actors. In the same way that the Electoral Act has not evolved over time with respect to authorisations, the same can be said for dealing with political donations, given the rise of non-political actors in this space. The committee is united in its desire to recommend meaningful and implementable reforms. That's why I'll be working to make sure that Justin Liberman is called before the inquiry in the public hearings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There are a lot of explanations that third parties and their donors need to make about how they operate for support of political parties. In 2007, the Liberman family donated $50,000 to the left-wing GetUp! organisation, the third-biggest donation they had received by that time. It was very interesting, because a few months later Mr Shorten was at the Imperial Hotel, a mecca for political junkies—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Tangney will refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition was at the Imperial Hotel in 2007, celebrating at his election night party, and what did he say? 'Hey, stick around; we've got a crowd coming from GetUp!' There is an inextricable link between GetUp! and the Labor Party. How GetUp! operates needs to be examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. How donations that support Mr Shorten both through the Labor Party and GetUp! also need to be examined.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Tangney will refer to members by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to speak this morning on the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Before I start, I invite the members of the opposition to call a quorum as soon as possible so that many of my colleagues can join me, to hear my speech and the points I have to make!</para>
<para>But, firstly, the reason for this bill is that it is a fundamental tenet of our democracy that we have free and fair elections. We cannot have elections in this country where there's coercion, intimidation, threats and also downright deception; where one side of politics takes it upon itself to impersonate a Commonwealth agency to deceive, hoodwink and con the Australian electorate.</para>
<para>The Australian public knows that truth is not a leftist value. We can all remember the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and that speech, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' In the public debate, when a member from the Labor Party stands up, the Australian public knows that they speak with a forked tongue. But what the Australian public trusts are government agencies, so I think that what we saw at the last election—what became known as the Medicare scare campaign—was one of the most disgraceful campaigns in the electoral history of this nation. I well remember, in the early part of the election, standing on a railway station down at Jannali, handing out flyers and talking to constituents who were going to work early in the morning, catching the train from Jannali into the city. When there was a queue of people, someone walked past and yelled out, 'They're going to sell Medicare!'</para>
<para>I thought to myself: what a stupid comment! What a stupid phrase! You cannot sell Medicare. It is not something that can be sold. What are you actually going to sell? Medicare pays out money. There's nothing there; even if you wanted to sell it, it's not worth anything. That is simply an illogical comment, a comment that simply doesn't make sense. I thought no-one would actually believe that. If a Labor person stood up and just said that by themselves, they would be laughed at, and people would dismiss them, knowing the Labor members' history at election campaigns. But what gave credibility to that deception, that lie—and I hate to say that word in this House—was that text message that they sent out. The text message was unauthorised and created the false impression in the minds of millions of Australians that it came from Medicare itself. There was no political disclosure that this was a message from the Labor Party so that people could see, 'This is a message from the Labor Party,' and they would know, from the track record of the Labor Party, that it would be based on falsehoods and dishonesty. Because that disclosure was not there, people were tricked, conned, hoodwinked.</para>
<para>You would think that, having engaged in such disgraceful conduct, against the very principles of our democracy—being involved in a deceptive scheme that undermined free and fair elections in this country—members of the Labor Party would be a little bit contrite. You would think that they would come in here and apologise and say: 'Yes, that was a step too far. We didn't mean it. We are sorry.' That is what you would expect. But, instead, members of the Labor Party come in here and they wear that deception as a badge of honour. They actually think that it is clever that they deceived and misled the Australian public, that they impersonated a Commonwealth agency. They are actually proud of that. This tells us everything we need to know about today's modern Labor Party.</para>
<para>You would hope that, during this debate, at least one member of the Labor Party would get up, or rather stand up—not GetUp!; I'll come to GetUp! in a minute—and say: 'We are sorry. That campaign misled the Australian people.' But no. It's a badge of honour, and they actually laugh about deceiving the Australian public. They actually boast about undermining a fundamental tenet of our democracy. That's why this legislation is necessary.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic"> (Quorum formed.)</inline> I thank the member for Fremantle for calling my colleagues here to the House, so I can remind them that truth is not a leftist value. I can remind them that the Labor Party has a long history of deception and of misleading the Australian public, that it engaged in that fraudulent Medicare scare campaign at the last election, that it was trying to undermine our democracy and our right to free and fair elections and that it is actually proud of that. That is the greatest disgrace. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party is actually proud of. It boasts about it and wears it as a badge of honour.</para>
<para>We will remind the Australian public at the next election about the tricks that the Labor Party gets up to. You think you may have gained some short-term political advantage by deceiving the Australian public, but at the next election we will remind them how they were deceived at the last election by a dishonest and fraudulent campaign underwritten by the Australian Labor Party. That's why this legislation is needed, because, otherwise, what will happen at the next election? What is to stop the Labor Party from masquerading as Centrelink and sending out messages to Centrelink recipients, pretending that there will be cuts to their Centrelink pay? What is to stop it from sending out, as if they were from the department of immigration, false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive and untruthful emails and text messages that people would be migrated? What about the Department of Veterans' Affairs? Nothing would stop the Labor Party. That is why this legislation is needed.</para>
<para>At the next election, as another example, there will be a debate on many issues. There will be debate on energy policy. The Labor Party will argue, as they are entitled to in a democracy, for a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They will say to us: 'Look at the wonders of South Australia. Look at how brilliant the South Australian economy is—look how wonderful,'—it actually has the highest electricity prices in the world—'Isn't this something we should achieve? This way we will save the world.' This side of the House will remind the Australian public that high energy prices actually d the economy, destroy jobs and cause hardship and suffering to those who can least afford it. The Labor Party will explain that they think we can just build all these wind turbines and we'll have all this power: 'Isn't this wonderful? Don't they look fantastic?' We'll explain to the Australian people that when the wind doesn't blow the power does not flow.</para>
<para>There is nothing wrong with that. That is how debates in a democracy should go. It should be a contest of ideas. We get up and we argue our cause; Labor get up and argue their cause—of course, with their friends the Greens and GetUp!. That's how a democracy should work. People listen to both sides of the argument and make their decision at the ballot box. That is the concept of fair and free elections. But that gets undermined when one side decides that they will masquerade as a Commonwealth entity—that they will send out bulk text messages in their hundreds of thousands, if not millions, masquerading as Medicare, the Australian Energy Market Operator, the Department of Veterans' Affairs or Centrelink.</para>
<para>We know that there is no deception that the Labor Party will not go to. That's why this legislation is of such importance. I believe that our democracy is important. I believe that free and fair elections are something that 100,000 Australians have sacrificed their lives for. If we lose the debate in a fair and free election and if we cannot argue our cause, that is democracy. But what is not democracy is impersonating Commonwealth agencies. That's why we must have legislation in this country that requires authorisations on bulk text messages. That is a technology that was not there when the Australian Electoral Act was first written. It is an absolutely essential, fundamental thing that we must do to protect democracy in this country.</para>
<para>I hope that the Labor Party, the Greens and their mates at GetUp! support this legislation. I hope that they would also go further and they would make it a criminal offence to impersonate a Commonwealth body. Our democracy is so important. We must have fair and free elections in this country. That is what this legislation protects, and I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to stand in support of this government legislation, the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The reason this legislation is so important is really clear. History will show that Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign will be seen forever as a very deliberate, dishonest and, mostly, cruel hoax. The part about this that is such an issue is the fact that it was levelled directly at the most vulnerable people. That was the level of thought and care that Labor had for those people—that they would deliberately and dishonestly scare some of the most vulnerable Australians.</para>
<para>There are a few things in this place that you don't go near, and deliberately and dishonestly scaring the most vulnerable Australians is one of them. But that's exactly what Labor did. What I saw today in the chamber with the previous speaker, and the member at the table, was an absolute pride in the fact that Labor were able to do this. They are proud of it—and that's the bit that really concerns me most. In this place, this federal house, we are here to protect the rights and freedoms of the Australian people. That's what I thought we were all here for. Irrespective of what side of politics you sit on, I thought that was our No. 1 job here. I believe that the most vulnerable people are the people that we in this house are here to represent most strongly, and to see Labor hold those very people with such disrespect and disregard that they would scare these most vulnerable people in their homes by using these robocalls is just appalling.</para>
<para>It is absolutely no wonder that we cannot ever trust the Labor Party. This was the clearest demonstration. If anybody out there is wondering where trust lies with Labor, this was the example of where trust does not lie. In fact, this was one of the most appalling things. I saw it through the eyes of the people who were being called. As I said, we saw those opposite target the most vulnerable, the elderly and those on lower incomes, and literally choose to scare them. How dreadful is that? This is just a contempt by Labor for our democracy, and it is anathema to everything that every single member of parliament in this place is here to represent. Every individual out there expects us to stand up for their basic freedoms and their rights. They need to be able to trust that when we, as members of parliament, represent ourselves in this place and out in the community we do so in a way that respects those rights. That's what Labor compromised, and they're proud of it. I remind every Australian: Labor is proud of scaring people and proud of this 'Mediscare' campaign.</para>
<para>An election is defined as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A formal and organised choice—</para></quote>
<para>a choice—</para>
<quote><para class="block">by a vote of a person for a political office or other position.</para></quote>
<para>A particularly important part of that definition is 'a person'. It implies that a person has made up their own mind through free will, and that their vote is their own to exercise as they see fit. That's the important part of our democracy. But when they're scared, fed dishonest information and deliberately misled, that doesn't allow that fairness; it doesn't fit the fairness test at all. I know in ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy, the people themselves voted on legislation. It was a direct democracy. In modern times, this has obviously evolved, as populations have grown, to the electors choosing representatives to make decisions on their behalf—that is, a representative democracy. However, when we take it back, the essence of democracy is still the integrity of that individual's vote. It's that very precious thing that people through the centuries have fought and died for: the freedom to cast a vote unhindered. It was why my mother's husband fought and died in New Guinea. I take that right to the individual's vote seriously. Clearly, Labor treats it with contempt in order to scare vulnerable people.</para>
<para>People have the right to seek and receive information on who they should vote for. Over time, as political parties have evolved, they have tried to persuade people to vote for a candidate representing a particular party. In the early days, there were no rules on what could be said by parties or organisations about other candidates. So, clearly, the rules were put in place for a reason: so that those people, whose precious votes matter, could make the best decision for themselves and could make a clear decision. We see ads on TV and other media, such as printed material, and at the very end of those ads we see or hear said words. Those words make sure that voters know who paid for the ads—whether it was a political party or an entity like a trade union or GetUp!—so that they know who is trying to persuade them to vote for a particular party or candidate. It's a very important part of our electoral law and the absolute protection that voters need. But this approach by Labor, using robocalls and targeting people on the basis of what was an outright lie, was just appalling. These calls were made without authorisation and were deliberately deceptive. That's why this legislation is so important.</para>
<para>The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters looked into this, and their terms of reference included all aspects of the federal election. They took evidence from political parties and made a number of recommendations to strengthen the legislation around the requirement for authorising communications. Their report is where this legislation has its roots. We are putting the committee's recommendations into law to protect democracy and to protect that precious vote and the right of the individual to make a clear and informed decision. That is what we need to protect.</para>
<para>I read some of the comments made within the report. The Greens actually stated that they recognised the importance of voters being aware of the source of party, candidate and third-party communications. They believed that the overarching requirement is that the voter who reads or views a communications is aware of who it comes from. Now, that's reasonable.</para>
<para>The director of the Liberal Party gave evidence and said, 'Well, you should be able to work out who is raising an issue with you and what they're saying. It gives an elector some notice and they can make judgements about it, in the same way they can with a TV ad, a radio ad, a mail piece or anything similar online that has money behind it.' Again, that is a very reasonable position and in line with this legislation. The Labor Party said in its submission, 'The purpose of authorisation is to allow electors to identify the person responsible for printing or broadcasting.' However, they did add that they would be extremely concerned by any proposal to impose stricter regulations on any individual participant or class of participants in an election campaign—for example, GetUp!, trade unions and stakeholders. In other words, Labor wants to perpetuate the process of being able to provide deliberately misleading and dishonest information to voters. They want to continue to be able to misrepresent themselves and claim to be someone similar to Medicare. They want to scare vulnerable people yet again. Of course, what we saw was deliberately misleading information. It was a lack of truth. It was absolute deception and it compromised the individual's targeted right to a free and fair election.</para>
<para>Even if we make this law, I am concerned about what Labor will do from here. When ACTU Secretary Sally McManus talked about the law, she said, 'But when it's unjust, I don't think there's a problem about breaking it.' So we could well see more of that even with this law; that the unions and Labor could well see they are justified in breaking the law, that laws in Australia don't matter. They only matter if they think they're right or they believe in it, otherwise they don't matter—'We'll just do whatever we want.' Imagine if everybody in our community had that view and simply disregarded the laws that were inconvenient or didn't fit their particular agenda, as Labor does. Clearly, with Labor opposing this bill, this is a very sad day for democracy because that's what this is about—it's simple.</para>
<para>To be proud and boast about undermining democracy, as Labor has, is an absolute scandal; it's a scandal. I tend to believe that people come here to represent their electorates. They come here to represent very good people from all walks of life. What we are here to do is to protect the very rights of those people in this place. That's what we are here to do as members of parliament. It just beggars belief that Labor would not support that right of the individual and their access to accurate information so that they can make an informed decision, irrespective of which way that decision goes.</para>
<para>We all know in politics that governments change continually, but in those changes what we do want to see are free and fair elections. We need to constantly and vigorously uphold the rights of the individual to that precious vote. I was in Cambodia some years ago with the United Nations to observe the election—and of course we know the history of Cambodia. One of the things that has to happen in elections there is that electors have to dip their finger in indelible ink to prove that they've only voted once. Because they are a relatively new democracy, one of the greatest excitements for those people coming out of the election booths was to talk to me with my UN badge on and show me their finger to prove that they had voted. They hadn't had the right to vote for so long and they were so extraordinarily proud of the right to vote and the fact that they had been able to have their say. Now, I tend to think that at times we take this right for granted in Australia. But I would say to every Australian: take this as your inherent responsibility and opportunity. Take this right to vote as something that our men and women of the Defence Force work for diligently, overseas and here—we send them out on deployments to protect democratic rights in Australia. The fact that our greatest war grave is not in Australia shows that Australia takes up the fight for our freedoms and democracy—and for the freedoms and democracy of other countries around the world. This is a very, very good reason. It is one of the reasons I thought that we were all here—that is, to protect those rights and those freedoms. I see the freedom of having access to accurate information—not being deliberately misled—as a core part of the responsibilities of each one of us in this place. I take it seriously. Coalition members take it seriously. But clearly, you cannot again trust Labor.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this bill, the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As elected representatives, we must all agree that the Australian voter is entitled to be able to identify with confidence who it is that is providing electoral information to them. Knowing the source of that information allows voters to fully assess that information and consider it in the right context. It helps voters make a properly informed decision. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case.</para>
<para>By amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and related legislation, the bill seeks: to ensure electoral communication is clearly authorised, irrespective of how it is communicated; to provide for political debate to not only be open but also transparent; and to harmonise authorisation requirements across different communication channels, cutting red tape for those who seek to contribute to public debate, while at the same time striking an appropriate balance to protect free and open debate and discussion.</para>
<para>These reforms reflect concerns in the community and in the submissions to and considerations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Recognising there is often a need to be expedient in addressing issues of political miscommunication, particularly during an election, the Australian Electoral Commission will have new enforcement options available to it, including enforceable undertakings and more substantial fines. Applying a civil penalty regime will make enforcement more effective and make political players more accountable.</para>
<para>The government intends to move an amendment to this bill in the consideration in detail stage. The effect of this amendment is to remove schedule 2 of the bill, which concerns the criminalisation of impersonating a Commonwealth entity under the Criminal Code. The government remains committed to legislating to criminalise the impersonation of a Commonwealth entity. Separate legislation will deal with this issue in the future. The changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act proposed in this bill will not take effect until six months after royal assent, and therefore will not affect the Australian marriage law postal survey.</para>
<para>Once again, I thank all members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>9415</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3) together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Title, page 1 (line 2), omit ", broadcasting and criminal", substitute "and broadcasting".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, page 46 (line 1) to page 48 (line 4), omit the Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>As I detailed to the House in my summing-up remarks, this amendment will remove schedule 2 of the bill, which concerns the criminalisation of impersonating a Commonwealth entity under the Criminal Code. The government remains committed to legislating to criminalise the impersonation of a Commonwealth entity. Separate legislation will deal with this issue in the future.</para>
<para>I commend this amendment to the House.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9416</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</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>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9416</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5927" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9416</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MACKLIN</name>
    <name.id>PG6</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">'the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) declines to give the bill a second reading because it is a cynical attempt by this Government to distract from its political problems; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) drop their costly and unproven drug testing trial of social security recipients that medical experts say won't work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) listen to medical and health experts by implementing proven ways to assist people battling drug addiction by investing in treatment and rehabilitation services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) stop demonising vulnerable Australians who rely on our social security system.'</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MACKLIN</name>
    <name.id>PG6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>From the title of this bill, one might get the false impression that this was part of some big, once-in-a-generation reform to the social security system. It is not. Mr Deputy Speaker, after nearly four years of trying to rip up Australia's social safety net, you might think that the Liberals and the Nationals had finally come to their senses and were embarking on sensible and substantive reform. They are not. For years, the Liberals have said the only way to make the pension sustainable was to cut pension indexation—a $23 billion cut to the age pension. For years, they said the only way to end the problem of youth unemployment was to make young Australians wait six months before being able to access any income support. So you might like to think that this government had learnt its lesson. But on closer examination, it becomes very apparent that this government continues to be desperate to attack the most vulnerable members of our society.</para>
<para>The government could have set about implementing policies that would have helped Australians trying to recover from drug addiction. It could have done that by listening to the health experts and investing in the proven ways of helping people battle with addiction. Yet the Turnbull government has chosen not to do that. Instead, it has decided to pursue a costly drug-testing trial that every health expert says won't work. It hasn't worked when it's been tried overseas, and no health or addiction experts were even consulted in the design of the policy. Of course, this begs the question: why is the government adopting a policy when there is no evidence that it will work? And the answer is that this Prime Minister is desperate to find any issue to distract from his own political problems. That is why this is happening. It's why this issue is being debated today.</para>
<para>Labor did refer this bill to a Senate inquiry. The report of that Senate inquiry is coming down only today, but here we are, debating this issue now in the House of Representatives—because of the political problems of this Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Some of the measures in the bill are so concerning that Labor will oppose them. These include the cessation of bereavement allowance, schedule 4; a change to the start date for some participation payments, schedule 10; removal of the intent-to-claim provision, schedule 11; establishment of a drug-testing trial, schedule 12; removal of exemptions for certain recipients with drug or alcohol dependence, schedule 13; changes to reasonable excuses, schedule 14; and information management, schedule 17. And, after closer scrutiny through the inquiry process, we'll also oppose schedule 3, the cessation of the wife pension. If the government persists on keeping all of these harsh changes in this bill, we will oppose it as a whole. If the government does finally see some sense and agrees to split the bill, then Labor will support some of the remaining schedules. We plan to move amendments in the Senate to separate these schedules.</para>
<para>For the most part, Labor does not oppose the changes made to payments as part of the so-called—this is the government's term—working-age payment reform budget measure, which are schedules 1 to 8 of this bill, although reform is certainly a total overstatement. While Labor is opposing the schedules ceasing the bereavement allowance and the wife pension, we would not oppose schedules 1 to 2 and 5 to 8 if they were presented separately. We're also not opposed to schedule 16, streamlining tax file number collection, nor are we opposed to schedule 18, aligning social security and disability discrimination law.</para>
<para>I just want to go through Labor's rationale for taking this position. I will leave it to my colleagues the member for Gorton and the member for Chifley to speak on the measures relating to the Employment portfolio that are in this bill, and the member for Barton will speak on the measures relating to Human Services which are also on this bill.</para>
<para>First of all: the drug-testing trial. From 1 January 2018, the government is proposing to establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations: Logan in Queensland, Mandurah in Western Australia and Canterbury-Bankstown in Western Sydney. I want to make it clear—this is a really important point—that nobody doubts that we face significant problems with drug addiction in the community. The task for all of us, and most particularly for the government, is to apply policies that actually address the problem of addiction in the community and help people get treatment.</para>
<para>Unlike the government, Labor has actually met with a range of health experts, addiction medicine specialists and community organisations about this proposal. All of them have made it clear to us that they do not support this drug-testing trial. The health experts all say this trial will not work. The experts say this measure will increase crime in the community. The evidence is clear. In jurisdictions around the world where similar trials have been conducted, they have not worked. In New Zealand, in 2015, only 22 people of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result, at a cost of around NZ$1 million. This detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general population estimated to be using illicit drugs in New Zealand. In short, it was a total waste of money.</para>
<para>I'm glad to see the Minister for Human Services is at the table. In his contribution, I ask the Minister for Human Services to say which one of these organisations that opposed or have expressed serious concerns about the trial the government has actually spoken to and whether they've listened to any of them? We have the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health Australia, Rural Doctors Association Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Penington Institute, the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, the Australian Council of Social Service, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, St Vincent de Paul Society, the Wayside Chapel, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, National Social Security Rights Network, Odyssey House, Jobs Australia, Community Mental Health Australia, Public Health Association of Australia and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. What an extraordinary job this minister has done in gathering the opposition of each and every one of those extraordinary organisations! All of them are either opposed to or have very strong concerns about the government's proposal to have a drug-testing trial.</para>
<para>We saw an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses. They wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to stop this drug-testing trial. By way of contrast, let's just remember who the proponents of the trial are. The chief proponent, the Minister for Human Services, who happens to be at the table, is also, of course, responsible for the Centrelink robo-debt disaster. This is the minister who actually sent debt collectors to hound pensioners for money they didn't owe. We have the Minister for Social Services, who when he was asked on television which experts supported the proposal, couldn't name one—not one. We have the member for Bowman, who said that he doesn't care if this policy means people turn to crime in their desperation, because 'they can detox behind bars.' There's no need to worry about the victims of crime, according to the member for Bowman. Is it any wonder that we have only these people supporting this ill-conceived mess?</para>
<para>The Senate inquiry hearing revealed that the Department of Social Services, who are responsible for the trial, admitted that they do not have data on the wait times for drug treatment services in the three trial site locations. They don't have any information about how long people have to wait to get into drug treatment. The government made the decision to choose these three trial site locations without having any data—no information—about how long people have to wait to get treatment in these areas. We know the local councils weren't consulted. The mayor of Logan, Luke Smith, only found out after a call from the ABC. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think to announce this from the top down is a disgrace and the lack of consultation is something I am quite amazed by.</para></quote>
<para>The government originally said they were going to use the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program. That wasn't possible because it doesn't give data on specific reasons. It's increasingly apparent that this is just policy on the run from the government. They are much more interested in chasing a headline—particularly a headline attacking people on social security payments—than in good public policy.</para>
<para>Let's do what the government failed to do. Let's actually look at what the experts have had to say about this ill-conceived mess. Matt Noffs, from the Ted Noffs Foundation, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This bill is not only going to fail, it will increase crime in the community and that should be a major concern for all Australians.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Medical Association described the measure as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… mean and stigmatising. The AMA considers substance dependence to be a serious health problem, one that is associated with high rates of disability and mortality. The AMA firmly believes that those affected should be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions, including access to treatment and supports to recovery.</para></quote>
<para>Dr Marianne Jauncey, from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work. Doctors don't necessarily speak with a united voice — we're a very varied group of specialists and people with different backgrounds across the country, so when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen.</para></quote>
<para>Dr Adrian Reynolds, from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Existing evidence shows drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs and it will not bring about behaviour change. It is an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people.</para></quote>
<para>Associate Professor Yvonne Bonomo, Director of the Department of Addiction Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">International experience shows when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse. There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society. We can expect at Centrelink offices there will be aggression and violence as people react to this. Had [the government] spoken to the various bodies who work in this area and know about this work, we would have been able to advise them this is not the right way. Pushing people to the brink won't make it better.</para></quote>
<para>Dr Alex Wodak, the President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Had the Turnbull government consulted experts before unveiling this plan, they would have been advised to drop these measures pronto. Drug testing trials for people on income support have been trialled and abandoned in a few countries. In addition to causing significant harm to affected people and the wider community, they came at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Isn’t the government supposed to be reining in wasteful spending?</para></quote>
<para>There is no evidence that it will work, there was no consultation with the experts and they have no idea about how expensive the trial will be. The government haven't even disclosed how much it will cost taxpayers. The experts say it will result in increased crime. What sort of government brings a proposal to the parliament that will see an increase in crime? Labor will not support this measure and we do not support this ill-conceived drug-testing trial.</para>
<para>I recently visited Odyssey House in my electorate of Jagajaga in Melbourne. They have a very significant rehabilitation facility on the banks of the Yarra at Lower Plenty. I was given the opportunity to sit down and talk with some of the men and women who are undergoing treatment for addiction at Odyssey House. I want to take a moment to personally thank each of the men and women who were so willing to speak with me and to talk so openly. One man in his late thirties talked to me about being a 'highly-functional', as he described it, drug addict. He was married with a couple of kids and had a well-paying job that he was good at. He carried on with this life for quite a long time, even though he was addicted. One day, he checked himself into rehab. He knew that he could no longer control his addiction and his abuse of drugs was taking its toll on his family. In most cases, people cited their poor health or a desire to protect their loved ones as the major motivators for why they sought treatment for their addiction, and they made it clear that taking away control over their money won't trigger them to stop using.</para>
<para>Most people who are addicted and abuse drugs do so to mask some terrible pain or trauma that has happened in their lives. Often this is abuse that they experienced as a child. The motivation to mask that pain and suffering means that they'll find a way to get drugs. One young man made it very clear to me that people will turn to crime to get money for drugs. Some of the people I spoke to at Odyssey House also indicated that this trial would mean that addicts would just shift to synthetic drugs or GHB, which are more dangerous and much harder to detect. So there's a serious risk of unintended consequences with this measure. As one of the residents told me, she ended up in a coma as a result of taking one of those synthetic drugs. One of the risks is that by forcing someone into treatment who isn't mentally prepared for rehabilitation it will actually damage other people who are in rehab seeking to overcome their addiction, because they'll try to undermine the treatment program.</para>
<para>Odyssey House is one of the largest not-for-profit providers of drug treatment services. It has around 600 places available each year for people seeking rehabilitation, but they have around 5,000 requests for support each year. So, sadly, just one in nine people who apply for treatment for drug addiction end up in rehab. This is in large part because of the long waiting times for treatment services. One of the health professionals there that day told me that often a drug addict will only have a short window of a few days when they're mentally prepared to seek treatment and go into rehab, and yet the system as it is now means that people seeking treatment are forced to wait one to three months to get access to the treatment services, depending on where they live in Australia. Put simply, the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction far outweighs the number of treatment services available. The government is pursuing a policy that doesn't address the problem. In fact, it won't release the data that it has that shows the unmet demand for drug treatment services across the country. Instead, it's chosen to pursue a costly drug-testing trial that every health expert says won't work. It's a costly trial but, of course, the government still won't say how much it will cost. They could also have done something about the workforce shortages. There are serious workforce shortages in the drug treatment system. I am told that for every 10 jobs available, there are only six workers. But instead, this Prime Minister, who is desperate to find any issue to distract from his own political problems, chooses to demonise vulnerable Australians. It is just not good enough, and Labor will oppose this measure.</para>
<para>I'll speak briefly about schedule 13. Currently, income support recipients with participation requirements can be granted temporary exemptions from these requirements where they're incapacitated due to sickness or injury, with a doctor's certificate, or where there are special circumstances, such as a personal crisis. Schedule 13 of this bill would prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the reason is wholly or predominantly attributable to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness or injury or special circumstances, such as eviction associated with drug or alcohol misuse. Health and welfare groups have also raised significant concerns about this change, including ACOSS, St Vincent's Health and UnitingCare. The experts are clear that these proposed changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse as a health condition and a doctor's medical opinion that a job seeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. This would relate not only to acute episodes of substance abuse but also to secondary health problems associated with drug and alcohol use. To give an example: someone receiving treatment in hospital with cirrhosis of the liver associated with alcohol use would no longer be able to use a medically-recommended temporary exemption.</para>
<para>I'll briefly talk about Schedule 14 as well. Currently job seekers can be penalised for a range of very common 'participation failures', as they're called, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. However, these penalties are not applied where the person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 of this bill provides that a job seeker who uses drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for a participation failure will be offered treatment. But, as with schedule 13, health professionals have raised concerns that these changes fail to recognise that substance abuse disorder is a health condition. Experts warn that this will not help people overcome addiction, but instead they'll be pushed into crisis, poverty and homelessness. Again this proposal has been put forward by the government without consultation with medical and health experts and, again, the advice from the health experts is that this proposal misunderstands what addiction is and how it should be treated. By contrast to the government, Labor has listened to the doctors and heard their concerns, and we will oppose this measure.</para>
<para>In relation to schedules 1 to 8—the working age payments schedules—the government proposes to consolidate seven working age payments and allowances into a new Jobseeker payment. This includes: Newstart, the sickness allowance, widow pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance, and bereavement allowance. I want to remind the House—and most people would not be aware of this—that the Widow B pension, the wife pension, the widow allowance and the partner allowance are all currently closed to new recipients and have been for some time. They are being phased out as existing recipients reach age-pension age. While the government claims this is a major reform, the changes are, for the most part, essentially cosmetic, because most of the payments will end under the existing policy settings. Nevertheless, if the government were to present some of these separately, we would consider supporting them, but there are two we will not support.</para>
<para>Labor is very concerned about the proposed changes to the bereavement allowance. I just cannot believe that this government is going to cut the bereavement allowance, which is paid to people whose partner has just passed away. It's just beyond imagination the lengths to which this government will go. The changes to the bereavement allowance in this bill will leave vulnerable people around $1,300 worse off after the death of a partner. The bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died. It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension. It's also paid to a pregnant woman who has lost her partner. The allowance is for 14 weeks or for the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer. So, if a pregnant woman's partner dies early in her pregnancy, she will be even more than $1,300 worse off. Once again, how does the government even imagine introducing such a policy? It is absolutely beyond me.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of this bill will replace the bereavement allowance as it currently exists with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance, paid at the lower rate with a more stringent means test. Future recipients of the bereavement allowance will receive only the rate of the jobseeker payment, which is $535 a fortnight—the same as the Newstart allowance. So, as I said, that will leave a bereaved person in need of income support receiving $1,300 less over the 14-week period than they currently do, or possibly more for a pregnant woman who loses her partner. This is just an extraordinary change. As Charmaine Crowe, from the Australian Council of Social Services, noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Someone in that circumstance … it's very difficult to cover the cost of a funeral and other associated expenses. So cutting the bereavement allowance will just place these people into further hardship and make it even more difficult for the period of time after bereavement.</para></quote>
<para>This government has absolutely no shame. We will oppose this. It is unfair and unjustified.</para>
<para>As I mentioned earlier, Labor will also oppose the cessation of the wife pension, in schedule 3. The wife pension is a non-activity tested payment and has been closed to new applicants since 1 July 1995. It's paid to female partners of age pension or disability support pension recipients who are not eligible for a pension in their own right. It's granted to women solely on the basis of their partner's eligibility for age pension or disability support pension. Although the majority of wife pension recipients would move on to the age pension or carer payment and be no worse off—and obviously we don't disagree with that—around 2,900 women will have the indexation of their payment frozen until it becomes equal to the significantly lower rate of jobseeker payment.</para>
<para>Around 200 people on the wife pension who reside overseas will no longer be eligible for any social security payment as a result of this proposed change. These people are under the age pension age and would not be eligible for either another payment under any international agreement or a reportable payment. This would mean they would be up to $670 per fortnight worse off. It would seem reasonable that this group should be grandfathered to avoid them being plunged into a personal financial crisis, particularly given the small number and therefore minimal cost in doing so.</para>
<para>So, in summary, as we have done so often over the last four years, Labor will stand up for fairness by opposing the measures in this bill that will hurt the most vulnerable Australians. If the government puts this bill in its current form to a vote, Labor will have no choice but to vote against it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to speak on this welfare reform package, which Minister Porter introduced. Along with Minister Cash, the three of us helped put this together, with Minister Porter being the leader. Every single element of this package is designed to help people get off welfare and back into work. That's our objective for this package and, indeed, it's one of the overall objectives of the government to support people to get off welfare and back into work, because we know that at the end of the day a job is the best form of welfare that you can get.</para>
<para>In the time I have available, I'd like to really focus my remarks on the drug-testing policy which, of course, the shadow minister spent so much time referring to. If I have time available at the end I might touch on the compliance regime, as well as the intent-to-claim provisions. But let me start by referring to the drug-testing proposal which is contained within this legislation. As members would know, we are proposing to undertake 5,000 tests of people who go onto unemployment benefits at the beginning of next year. Those people will be tested for a number of drugs, and should they be tested positive they will be placed onto a form of cashless welfare in the form of income management. They will then be required to test a second time within 25 days. If they test positive again, then they will be required to undertake a treatment program to assist them to get off drugs and hopefully back into the workforce. No-one loses a cent under this drug-testing proposal. The idea is to identify those people who may have a drug problem, provide assistance to them, and hopefully get them back into the workforce.</para>
<para>I know the former minister opposite has said that there is no evidence that this will work, and I say to the member a couple of things in relation to that. Firstly, that this is a world-first in terms of how we are going about this trial. No-one else in the world has done it like this. There are many countries who have done drug testing of welfare recipients, including our cousins across the Tasman in New Zealand, but no-one else has done it in this way, where we identify people, place them onto cashless welfare and then require them to undertake treatment.</para>
<para>The second point I would make is that this is a 'trial' in the very sense of the word. You do a trial to get the evidence base to determine whether or not it works. If the trial works, you then might expand it. If the trial does not work, you might take a different position consequentially. In this regard, it is very similar to the cashless welfare card trials. We had a lot of critics in relation to that—as you'd know, Mr Deputy Speaker—but we said we'd take a trial to see if it would have an impact on the ground at reducing the harm caused by alcohol, drugs and gambling. We've conducted that trial, we've had an evaluation and it worked, and so consequently we're rolling it out further.</para>
<para>The third point I would make is that while no-one anywhere in the world has undertaken a drug-testing regime as we are proposing here, each of the three elements which underpin our drug-testing regime has been undertaken before, and there is substantial evidence to support the fact that it does have an impact in helping with the reduction of drug taking and helping people get back into work. I would like to take the parliament through each of those elements.</para>
<para>The first element, of course, is just drug testing itself. As members would know, this occurs very frequently now across Australian society. It occurs in so many industries where there is random drug testing. Think about the construction industry, the transportation industry, the aviation industry, the Defence Force, emergency services and border protection—I could go on.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Meat processing!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And meat processing, as the minister suggests to me here. In each of those cases, drug testing is a very regular occurrence. It works, it is effective and it has a behavioural impact in terms of people taking fewer drugs and, obviously, not having people who are drug affected in those workplaces. That's the first step: drug testing. It works, it's used widely and, in fact, we use it on the roads these days as well. It applies across the board. <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline></para>
<para>I was talking about the first element of the drug-testing regime, which, in and of itself, is the fact that we test and we do so regularly across society. The second element of our drug-testing proposal is that a person who tests positive goes onto cashless welfare, in the form of income management. Eighty per cent of their payments will be quarantined and not accessible as cash, and therefore cannot be used to purchase drugs.</para>
<para>The question again is, is there evidence for this? Well, if shadow minister Macklin and the member for Barton would care to, they could look at the independent evaluation of our cashless welfare card trials, which we tabled last Friday. In those trials, 80 per cent of people's welfare payments was quarantined and not accessible as cash able to be used for the purchase of drugs—exactly the same proposal, other than a slightly different mechanism being used. And what did that independent evaluation show, in relation to drug use, when a person who has been a user of drugs is now on a form of cashless welfare? I'll tell you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: it showed that 48 per cent of drug takers consequently took fewer drugs—because they were on cashless welfare. Half of all drug takers took fewer drugs because they were on a system of cashless welfare. The evaluation also found evidence of a 'consequential reduction in violence and harm related to illegal drug use'. So there's the evidence of the fact that you can have a system of cashless welfare applied to those people who are drug users and it has the impact of reducing their drug use and reducing violence in the community. Surely that is a good thing that we should all be aiming for.</para>
<para>Interestingly enough, while the Labor Party now oppose this particular measure, they haven't always done so. They haven't always opposed a form of cashless welfare payments to those who have drug addictions. Indeed, when the Labor Party were in government, they introduced a form of income management which would be applied to those people who were referred from the Northern Territory drug and alcohol tribunals because they had been taking substances. So they have used it in the past. In fact, the Labor Party introduced a measure where they had placed 70 per cent of people's welfare payments onto income management. Do you know what the minister at the time, Jenny Macklin, now the shadow minister, said? She said at the time that this would assist the referred person to address their alcohol and substance misuse issues. That's what she said at the time in relation to using a form of cashless welfare for those who have been continual users of drugs. That's the second element of our drug-testing proposal—cashless welfare.</para>
<para>The third element of our drug-testing proposal is requiring a person to undertake a treatment program as an ongoing condition of them receiving welfare payments. Again the Labor Party says: 'There's no evidence. This won't work.' Again I point towards a few things. First of all, I point towards the fact that we have a system of drug courts around Australia. What do those drug courts do when they have people who have been using drugs and getting into trouble with the police? Often they will require the person to undertake a treatment program instead of going into custody. Why do they do this? Because they know it can work. In fact, there have been studies showing that in fact it does work. A Queensland study into this system of mandating treatment said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… findings do not support the current treatment philosophy of waiting for people with drug and/or alcohol abuse problems to get themselves psychologically motivated … On the contrary, the findings indicate that mandatory treatment seems a promising option …</para></quote>
<para>That's with the drug courts, and I've never heard the Labor Party say that the drug courts are a terrible idea, that we should abandon these drug courts, that the drug courts should never require a person to undertake treatment and that you should always just wait for them to be willing to undertake treatment. The drug courts do that, and we've had studies to show that it actually works in assisting people.</para>
<para>The Labor Party also received a study in 2013 from the Australian National Council on Drugs. That study also found that compelling a person into treatment can lead to better employment outcomes. In fact, it said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is some evidence that substance abuse treatment can increase employability for those with alcohol or drug problems …</para></quote>
<para>There is other evidence, in relation to Victorian drug courts, where it's had an impact on reducing the use of drugs as well. We're using the same principle but, instead of a drug court requiring a treatment program, we are using the leverage of the welfare system to require a person to undertake a treatment program.</para>
<para>The treatment program will be specifically tailored for the individual by a medical professional. If they need counselling as their treatment, that's what they will be provided with. If they need something more serious in terms of a detox or rehabilitation, then that's what will be provided. We've provided over $685 million of additional funds towards drug and alcohol treatments. On top of that, just for this trial alone we're introducing an additional $10 million fund to ensure that there aren't any service gaps which may arise from additional demand for treatment services in the trial locations. That's the evidence.</para>
<para>First of all, it's a trial. We're trying something different. We're going to assess it; we will evaluate it. Second, there is evidence for each of the core elements of our trial that this might work. Therefore, it is absolutely worth giving it a go. I cannot understand the Labor Party's position. Why don't they want to try something different to assist people to get off drugs and back into work? Why are they so insistent upon it when they themselves introduced a mechanism of cashless welfare for people who had drug problems? Why are they so against it when they support the drug courts, which require a person to undertake treatment, and we're using the same philosophy here but using the leverage of welfare?</para>
<para>Why are they so opposed to just doing a trial to see if this works?</para>
<para>They say there's no evidence. They say it'll produce stigma. I'll tell you what the evidence is, if we don't try something different. The evidence is that the usage of ice amongst unemployed people will continue to be 2.5 times what it is for the rest of population. That's what the evidence says, and that's what will occur if we don't try something different. The evidence says that the hospitalisation rate from drugs in the Canterbury-Bankstown area, where we're undertaking one of our trials, will continue to increase. It's already increased 21-fold in the last five years. The evidence suggests that'll continue to go up if we don't try something different. The evidence suggests that, if we don't try something different, a whole cohort of people who are on unemployment benefits and who may have a drug problem will effectively be excluded from so many jobs in the workforce that require you to be drug free. That's what the evidence says. We know what the evidence says, if we don't try something different. We've got good evidence to suggest that our trial will make a difference in helping these people, identifying those who may have a problem, getting them the treatment that they need and, hopefully, from that, getting them back into the workforce.</para>
<para>That is what this trial is about. The evidence is there that it can work, but we're going to test it; we'll evaluate it. If it doesn't work as predicted, we'll adjust, and if it does work, surely that is a good thing for the nation. Surely it is a good thing to identify those people who need help and to be able to give them the treatment they need. I think the Labor Party of old would've supported such a drug trial, but now they've been captured by the Left, lock, stock and barrel. The Left are in control of the Labor Party. They are completely against this. They don't want to support those people in need. I commend this bill to the House and ask the Labor Party to support these drug-testing trials.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>( I will join with my colleague the shadow minister for social services in rising to speak on this legislation and condemning the actions of the government that we've just heard about from the minister. As the shadow minister for health, I particularly want to focus on one policy that this legislation enables—the drug-testing trial of social security recipients, as outlined in schedule 12. The minister's just tried to point out that this is somehow a health measure, but I don't see the Minister for Health—the person who has carriage of health policy in the government—speaking on this legislation. He's not on the list. I look forward to his staff now scrabbling for him to come and defend why this is good drug and alcohol policy, because it is not. If the government is trying to pretend that this is somehow a good drug and alcohol policy, what a load of rubbish!</para>
<para>We know that the government has made this decision because it is a savings measure. It is a savings measure and a political wedge at the expense of a very vulnerable, addicted group of people. That is what this legislation is about, nothing else. That is why the government is doing it, not because it cares about people who have drug addiction, not because this is good drug and alcohol policy and not because there is any evidence at all that this is what you do in the drug and alcohol space. I look forward to hearing the Minister for Health defend this policy and defend why the government thinks this is what you do in the drug and alcohol space. Frankly, this policy showcases some of the worst excesses of this government. It is an ill-thought-out policy. It is not evidence based when you come to drug and alcohol policy. It is against expert advice and it is in fact missing critical details. It is so ill-considered that experts say it could even make crime and drugs worse in this country. That is what the experts are saying.</para>
<para>Firstly, let's look at what schedule 12 actually proposes. It establishes this two-year trial for drug testing 5,000 recipients of Newstart and youth allowance in three locations: Mandurah, Logan and Bankstown. Welfare recipients will be randomly selected and notified of a requirement to attend an appointment with the department. At this appointment, they'll be notified of a requirement to provide a sample of saliva, urine or hair for the purposes of a drug test. Recipients who test positive to the initial drug test will be put on income management for a period of 24 months. Jobseekers will have the option to dispute the result of a positive test and to request a retest. If the retest is also positive, the jobseeker will have to repay the cost of the test. Jobseekers who return a positive test result will be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days. If the jobseeker tests positive to the second test, they will need to repay the cost of the test. These are some of the broad details of what we know, but there is a big list of what we don't know.</para>
<para>At Senate estimates and through the Senate inquiry Labor established to allow for more scrutiny of this legislation, it has been established that the government hasn't consulted and, in fact, doesn't have the necessary detail to actually conduct these trials at all. The department couldn't confirm the drugs that were going to be tested, they couldn't confirm the exact tests that were going to be used and they couldn't confirm how much the trial was going to cost. They can't say how much the drug test would cost the individual if they are required to repay them. They can't say how many addiction specialists are in each trial site for referral. They haven't confirmed what form of income management the trial will take. They cannot give basic details of the trial, because this isn't a thought-out policy developed on evidence. It is another attempt to demonise jobseekers at significant cost to the budget. Jobs Australia CEO David Thompson said he was concerned that this trial would see vulnerable people turned away from welfare assistance because of the demeaning and humiliating nature of the process. He said that people would be more likely to turn to charities for assistance, putting further pressure on their resources, or would, maybe, be forced to turn to crime. If we really want to get people into the help they need, then this policy is not the way to do it.</para>
<para>One of the worst lines the Prime Minister has put forward in defence of this drug testing trial is that it's about 'love'. This is not love. Love is the parent who is desperately trying to get their child into rehab, spending the day calling and calling, and only to be told there are no places available. Love is the drug addiction specialist whose waiting list is so full that they can no longer take names and accepting someone for urgent treatment because they think a life is at risk. Love is the partner who refinances the family property to pay for private rehabilitation because there is nowhere else for them to turn. This government's policy isn't love; it is an insult.</para>
<para>In implementing the policy, the government hasn't allocated any extra funding for public rehabilitation, despite the fact that waiting lists are under immense strain in this country. In my home state of Victoria, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association reports that services have up to a six-month wait for access. Across Australia, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500 publicly funded drug and alcohol rehab beds dealing with more than 32,000 requests. Often, waiting lists become so long that they no longer accept applicants onto the waiting lists. In 2015, St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, one of the nation's leading drug rehabilitation centres, had a waiting list 100 people long.</para>
<para>The drug and alcohol treatment sector has been clear about the impact of this flawed policy. In response to the budget announcement, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Victorian AOD treatment sector is already significantly overburdened and this policy will only increase the burden, through capturing individuals who use drugs but are not experiencing substance dependence. This limits access to those people who are in dire need for treatment and have been waiting, in some cases for months.</para></quote>
<para>The Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We know that Western Australia's alcohol and other drug treatment services are already struggling to meet demand. Coercing people to attend treatment at the risk of losing their source of income will likely result in the displacement of people who access treatment voluntarily.</para></quote>
<para>These are the experts who deal wish issues of addiction every single day, and the government has not listened to them. In fact, the Minister for Social Services cannot name a single alcohol and drug or medical expert that does actually support this trial. The government also cannot point to evidence of where similar trials have worked, because the evidence shows that they do not work. The drug testing of income support recipients has been tried in several countries. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective. The minister's attempt to conflate criminal justice diversion programs that stop people going to jail is frankly an absolute insult.</para>
<para>The New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients in 2015 and only 22 of the 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. In 2013, the Australian National Council on Drugs, which coincidentally was defunded by the Liberals, published a review of the evidence on this topic. It is noted that a similar trial, which was implemented for four months in Florida in the United States, cost the States more than $118,000 and ran at a net loss of approximately $45,000. The review also found there was evidence from the USA that denying benefits to people who are drug dependent could result in 'increases in poverty, increases in crime, increases in homelessness, and higher health and social costs'. The review also cited a study of people whose welfare benefits were discontinued when their drug dependency was no longer classified as a disability. While this is a different situation, it brings up some interesting conclusions. The group who lost their welfare benefits reported worsened psychiatric comorbidities, and the study found that drug-use levels remained the same among those who had lost their benefits.</para>
<para>One of the biggest concerns is raised by the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association. They say that this trial could simply generate a shift in illicit substance consumption patterns. That is, people will consume and try substances that they think won't be detected by standard drug tests. The association says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This will likely create unknown harms and further complexities for our treatment services and emergency departments.</para></quote>
<para>In coming to its position, Labor has listened very carefully to the serious concerns of health experts. The health sector have united against this plan because they know it is bad policy and that it simply won't work. Last week, nearly a thousand doctors, nurses and healthcare workers, including 109 addiction specialists, put their names to an open letter against the plan. The letter they signed said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Making it harder for people struggling with drug and alcohol problems to access income support will push people who need treatment into poverty, undermining their chance of recovery.</para></quote>
<para>They also noted that they were in no way consulted by the government. This has been a common theme, because the government simply doesn't consult anyone.</para>
<para>To make matters worse, in the last few days the Minister for Social Services said that health experts—and he referred to them in quite derogatory terms—including the AMA, didn't support the No Jab, No Pay legislation when it was introduced either and, somehow, that this was evidence that they were wrong. That is, frankly, just another insult to a sector that I would have thought the government would be very careful about, having only just re-established some relationships with the AMA and doctor organisations. The government might want to be a little bit careful about what they actually say and do with these organisations, given the absolutely appalling relationship they had with them following the 2014 budget. But, no, they've decided to jump the shark on this one. The president of the AMA has quite correctly pointed out that they supported the No Jab, No Pay measures from day 1. Our health experts know better than most the importance of boosting vaccination rates. The concerns that some doctors raised about No Jab, No Pay were in relation to making sure that vulnerable and disadvantaged people had a chance to catch up. The minister needs to get the facts right when he's making such outrageous claims. In fact, it shows that they are absolutely desperate to try to win an argument rather than purport the facts. Of course, the government don't care about facts or what experts have to say.</para>
<para>On the other hand, Labor have been listening. We have carefully listened to the serious concerns of health experts and addiction medicine specialists in community organisations: the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Penington Institute, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Australian Council of Social Services, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, and the St Vincent de Paul Society. Labor have listened to the expert advice of health professionals, and that's why we will oppose the government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. Dr Marianne Jauncey, from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs, summarised it well when she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work ...</para></quote>
<para>If the government really wanted to help people, they would be investing in frontline services instead of putting more strain on the system, and in particular in residential rehab. We note that there are measures we could potentially support, if they are separated from other measures in this bill—and we will be moving amendments, as the shadow minister has indicated, in relation to these in the Senate. In addition to the drug testing of welfare recipients, there are numerous reasons why we cannot support the legislation. Schedule 13 will prevent temporary exemptions from being granted. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses a drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for a participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements. But if they refuse treatment and their substance use disorder causes them not to comply with jobseeker requirements a second time, their payments will be suspended. And there are numerous other examples.</para>
<para>The experts say that the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse as a health condition and the doctor's medical opinion in advising that a jobseeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. The legislation is not in line with expert advice; it goes completely against it. This is not good drug and alcohol policy. This is not a genuine attempt to help people with drug dependency. This legislation, in fact, demonises them and makes the problem worse. It will not help with addiction. It will put pressure on already overstretched alcohol and drug services across the country. It could see people turn to different drugs and it could, in fact, make crime worse.</para>
<para>I also want to briefly talk about the measures to stop over 55-year-olds engaging in voluntary service as part of their participation requirements. I know the government has announced a trial in my own electorate. Frankly, if the trial is what it looks like, which is just an upgrade of IT services, it makes up for nothing in terms of the capacity for older Australians to participate in the voluntary workforce, which is very critical in my electorate, and it certainly does not make up for the fact that this government has cut the car industry and has forced these people into unemployment. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. From my perspective, work has always acted as a great provider for people in so many ways. It gives people a sense of purpose and the opportunity to participate, connect, collaborate, create, and achieve individual and shared goals. Work also allows us to make a personal contribution to our communities through the labour and taxes we provide to build a better future together. The problem is that not all is fair in work and welfare at the moment and many people are riding on the coat-tails of those who are doing the right thing.</para>
<para>In late June this year, the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, presented the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill to the parliament. This bill supports the coalition government's commitment to comprehensive reform of the Australian welfare system. It also delivers the coalition's 2017 budget commitments to create a welfare system that is easier to navigate and helps to move people from welfare to work. The welfare reform bill 2017 will improve support for people moving into work and ensure a safety net for those who need welfare assistance the most. Today, I'd like to focus on key areas of the bill that are relevant to my seat of Leichhardt. The welfare reform bill will continue to provide a safety net for jobseekers in need of assistance. However, it will also make it tougher for those who deliberately flout the system, by introducing a stronger compliance network. It will do this by introducing a demerit point scheme similar to the one currently used for drivers licences, as part of a tougher framework.</para>
<para>In Far North Queensland, I have been actively working with a variety of employers, individuals and institutions to stimulate and promote jobs growth in our region. For too long there have been those who have been shirking their community responsibilities, leeching off workers and abusing the Australian welfare system, which is meant to be there for those in genuine need. New figures show Cairns currently has the second-highest number of people on the dole after Bundaberg. It has more than 4,350 people receiving the dole. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, that there are jobs currently available in fruit picking, milking sheds and cafes in Far North Queensland, but many people are turning their noses up at these jobs. I've heard myriad excuses, especially from young people who don't want to work. They have poor excuses like, 'It's too hot,' 'It's too far to travel,' 'It's an impact on my social life,' 'The job isn't good enough,' or, 'The pay is too low.' This leaves the employers with no option but to hire backpackers to fill vacancies, especially in our hospitality industry.</para>
<para>This shouldn't be the case when we have so many people sitting on their backsides at home doing nothing but collecting welfare. Sometimes we need to give people a gentle push to motivate them to act. A person's first job, as I'm sure you'd be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, is usually not the start of their career, but it is the first sentence in their resume. Irrespective of the task, unemployed people need to show that they can get out of bed every day, turn up for work on time, make a solid contribution and be reliable. When they can demonstrate this consistency, they've taken the first step on the path to a career.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I ran a Youth Jobs Boot Camp in Cairns. A young Indigenous man by the name of Elijah Ibell came along and showed real enthusiasm and commitment. A local training provider at the event called enVizion Group Inc. was so impressed they hired Elijah the same day as a part-time digital support officer. Both the employer and Elijah came away from that event very, very happy. That is a fine example of what you can achieve when you show that you are keen and you actually want to work.</para>
<para>Another element of the coalition government's welfare reform bill is that for the first time in Australia we'll see 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance participate in a two-year drug-testing trial at three locations around the country. People who are already receiving welfare payments, of course, will not be tested. The reality is that if a person presents themselves for a job and they are drug affected they have very little chance of being successful and are clearly not job ready. They are also a risk to themselves, to their work colleagues and, of course, to customers.</para>
<para>Those who are chosen to undertake a drug test will be randomly selected when they go for their routine Centrelink appointment. This is similar to the way roadside drug and alcohol tests are conducted by police or how drug testing is done in the mining industry and various other sectors. Locations for the drug-testing trial are being determined by elements such as high unemployment, high drug use—based on wastewater analysis, crime statistics, research and internal departmental data—and the treatment options available. <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline></para>
<para>The purpose of the drug-testing trial is to identify people with drug issues and provide them with effective intervention, to help them so that they can enjoy the many benefits that come from earning a living through work. Jobseekers who return an initial positive drug test will continue to receive the same amount of welfare payments, but the welfare payments will be quarantined to help them manage their money to pay for essential living costs and to limit their ability to fund drug abuse. If a jobseeker tests positive a second time, they will be referred to a medical professional to assess their circumstances and to identify appropriate treatment options, which will then form part of their mutual obligations.</para>
<para>Locations for the drug testing will be announced in the near future. I'd certainly welcome the selection of Far North Queensland as one of those locations for drug testing. In March this year, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission released its findings on wastewater monitoring in Queensland and found that the level of Oxycodone and Fentanyl prescription opioid painkillers, known as 'hillbilly heroin', is higher in the Cairns and regional Queensland than the national average. At the same time, the ACIC's former Chief Executive Chris Dawson said that for many years US authorities had warned him that the abuse of prescription drugs was a very significant problem and that a large number of Oxycodone users graduate to heroin. In addition to this, the use of cannabis and ice in Far North Queensland remains a very big concern in our communities. I believe that a drug-testing trial in Far North Queensland would assist in reducing drug use and enable them to realise their potential as contributing members of our society.</para>
<para>This bill, which is in line with the coalition government's 2017-18 budget announcement, will also consolidate seven current working-age payments into a single payment for jobseekers. This is a positive move that will make it easier for Far North Queenslanders and others to navigate our welfare system and Centrelink. The welfare reform bill will also see jobseekers aged between 30 and 49 increase their annual activity requirements from 30 to 50 hours per fortnight and the participation requirements of people between the ages of 55 and 59 will also be strengthened. From 20 September 2018, welfare recipients will only be able to meet half of their annual requirements for 30 hours per fortnight through volunteering. Most people in this age bracket are keen to remain in the workforce; they have much to contribute to society and must remain valued members of our communities. Work provides them with this opportunity and allows them to do something useful and rewarding, while continuing to earn a living at the same time.</para>
<para>At this point I must say that I'm constantly impressed by the many extremely talented and creative people I've met who live in Far North Queensland. I recently caught up with two older Indigenous ladies from Mornington Island, Netta Loogatha and Elsie Gabori, at the Cairns Indigenous Art Fair. These ladies are a fine example of what can be achieved if you get up and have a go, regardless of your age. Two years ago Netta and Elsie started their own fashion label, called MIArt. Now, their creations feature on fashion catwalks around the country and are sold in major art institutions. Their latest collection of hand-painted neoprene bags is stocked in the NGV Design Store in Melbourne's Federation Square. What an inspiration they are to all, but especially those who may fear they have passed their use-by-date and that no-one wants to employ them.</para>
<para>This is true now more than ever with technological advances, the power of social media and global moves towards an entrepreneurial workforce. You're never too old to try something new, be creative and have a go. There are also incentives from employers to take older employees with the Restart wage subsidy program. Think about what you enjoy and what you're good at and then, as one well-known sporting brand used to say, 'Just get in and do it.' You might be surprised where it leads you, as it has been for Far North Queensland Indigenous fashionistas Netta and Elsie.</para>
<para>While I'm focusing on the importance of working, I'd like to mention one recent initiative that I've been working on in Far North Queensland to boost jobs and innovation in the local economy. This includes the Tropical North Queensland Regional Jobs and Investment Package, an initiative that will distribute $20 million in grants for key projects that will create jobs and boost infrastructure, innovation and training skills, such as in building and construction, defence and marine, education and training, and health and tourism. We've had about 44 applications for that across a broad spectrum, and I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the results of that.</para>
<para>As I mentioned earlier, we also had a Youth Jobs Boot Camp and launched the Youth Jobs PaTH Program, which provides industry focused training to prepare young people in Far North Queensland for work. It also allows local employers to trial these young people by giving them $1,000 to offer internships and provides local businesses up to $10,000 to contribute to the training and development of the young persons they hire. We have also conducted an apprenticeship forum and seen the appointment of Cairns' very own entrepreneurship facilitator, Tara Diversi. Tara is a proven innovator with strong regional and community knowledge of start-up business development, and she is passionate about working with young people. Tara is currently building networks with schools, colleges and business advisory services and providing practical assistance for young people to access local mentors, business partners, finance, office space, equipment and ongoing business development training. There are many other examples of work that I'm doing to boost jobs and innovation in the economy in Far North Queensland; however, time won't allow me to go through them all.</para>
<para>My point is that the future is bright for jobseekers in Far North Queensland—if you want to work. It's reasonable for taxpayers to expect that, if someone is able to work, they should do so rather than riding on the coat-tails of others who have jobs. I'm confident that this legislation is a positive turning point for our welfare system and one that will ensure that it remains focused on its key objective of creating a fairer welfare system that supports more people to work not just in Far North Queensland but across our country. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAMB</name>
    <name.id>265975</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reforms) Bill 2017, as I was not elected to sit idly by while this government attacks people in my community. Inequality in this country is at an all-time high, and we are feeling it in Longman. Families are struggling to get by, while millionaires are coasting by on a $16,000 tax cut. Pensioners are facing rising prices for their utilities. Workers have received a cut to their take-home pay, their pay and conditions have been undermined and their work is being outsourced, while big businesses are receiving exorbitant tax concessions. Surely the government can see the rise of inequality in Australia. Surely this should result in the government taking leadership and taking steps to reduce this inequality or, at the very least, to reduce its impact. But, in my time here, what I have seen is a government that's done nothing but mismanage our nation's economy.</para>
<para>Cutting funding to essential services is not good economic management, and wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on fruitless endeavours that do nothing but stigmatise and marginalise vulnerable communities is about as far from good economic management as you can get. This government is wasting $122 million on a harmful postal survey, a survey which was brought out of bigotry in society and marginalises same-sex people and their families. This survey does nothing to better my community or our country. The survey has no economic benefit for my community or my country. All it has achieved is the further demonisation of a subset across our community. The drug testing of welfare recipients that is outlined in schedule 12 of this bill achieves just as much. In fact, it will more than likely cause far more harm than it will good.</para>
<para>Here's what we know about the drug testing. We know medical professionals and the drug and alcohol treatment sector have expressed significant concerns about these measures. We know experts have warned that the trials will not assist people to overcome addiction but will instead push them into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime. And we know drug testing of welfare recipients is a shallow and conceited effort designed to demonise people who need our support the most. But here's what we don't know. We don't know what type of testing will be used. We don't know what it will cost—inevitably it's going to be expensive; reliable urine tests cost somewhere between $550 and $950 to administer. And we don't know what evidence the government has that this is even a good idea.</para>
<para>Right now no health or community organisation—let me be clear: not one—has yet come out publicly in support of this trial. In fact, the only evidence we have seen to date is from some overseas examples. Let's take New Zealand, for example. Their government introduced a similar program just a few years ago. In 2015 only 22 of over 8,000 people who were tested returned a positive test for drug use. That's lower than the rate of drug use across the broader New Zealand population. It cost New Zealand around $1 million to find this. That's over $45,000 per result that they achieved. If anything, this example shows that welfare recipients are less likely to use illicit substances, which begs the question: why are we starting with this vulnerable segment of our community?</para>
<para>Let me be clear, though: I'm not standing here saying that no welfare recipients use illicit drugs. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not standing here advocating for drugs or denying the harmful effects of drug addiction, as we see it in a lot of the communities and the families we represent. In fact, I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying we need to take measured steps forward, consult with experts, consult with medical professionals and understand the effects and the consequences of this schedule of the bill, not just in the short term but further down the line. We need to recognise that drug addiction is a serious issue that plagues our community. But, more importantly, we need to recognise that this is not just an issue for the poor or people on welfare; it's an issue that affects people from all walks of life.</para>
<para>If this is a policy based on love, as we've heard from the Prime Minister, then why are we ignoring so much of our society who really do need love? Prime Minister Turnbull, I have to give you a message: the people see right through this doublespeak. They know that a policy based on love would help all people overcome addiction and offer them support, care, compassion and some guidance—and not by cutting their payments or singling them out as a group in our society. A real policy based on love would be formulated through considered consultation with healthcare professionals like the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians or even the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. If the policy were based on love, the government would consult with the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine or St Vincent's Health Australia. But they won't, because each of these organisations and many more like them have expressed really strong concerns about this proposal. The government don't want to listen to anyone who won't show unwavering support for this narrative.</para>
<para>Really, this government won't listen to anybody but their own members—like the member for Bowman, who represents the south side of Brisbane, in Queensland, and who so lovingly said that he isn't worried about welfare recipients turning to crime, because 'they can detox behind bars.' Can you believe that? How much love and compassion is in that statement? 'They can detox behind bars'! This just raises more questions. It makes me wonder: why are the government so intent on moving forward with this trial? It's obviously not for health reasons, otherwise they'd listen to the experts and professionals who say that the trial will do more harm than good. It's not for the crime and safety outcomes, otherwise they wouldn't be proudly saying that there will be more people committing crimes and ending up in jail. It's not about delivering savings to taxpayers. Welfare payments are $267 a week. Seriously, that's considered below the poverty line.</para>
<para>On welfare it can be a struggle just to get by, let alone afford drugs. On the other hand, drug testing thousands of welfare recipients would come at an enormous cost. It's a tremendous burden on the taxpayers, and if some of these recipients were pushed to crime and subsequently jailed, as the member for Bowman would more than happily see them be, they would cost the taxpayer around $300 a day. Prison is clearly not cheap at $300 a day. So it really baffles me that the government is looking to reduce welfare payments wherever they can, when they clearly aren't weighing up all of the economic outcomes.</para>
<para>Drug testing isn't the only way that this bill is seeking to cut welfare payments either. The government is just more vocal about the part that I have just been through, because it's easy to malign the drug users of Australia. What they aren't as vocal about, and what they're quietly slipping in through this bill, is how they want to make it more difficult for carers and parents to receive payments as well. I'll give an example: the schedule which precedes the drug-testing trials, schedule 11 of this bill, seeks to remove the intent-to-claim provisions for those seeking a welfare payment. Intent-to-claim provisions allow people to effectively have their claims backdated to the time of first contacting the Department of Human Services. It makes the system more reasonable for people with trouble collating the necessary information they need to put in a claim.</para>
<para>People may have trouble collating the information that they need if they're homeless, or if they've just been separated from a partner, or if they have a health issue or if they have an issue accessing technology. Don't get me started on accessing technology—let's talk about NBN at another time! What if they have trouble accessing the information they need to put together their claim? These are people who need our support—not millionaires and big business. These are the people who need our support. The increasing waiting times would add to the one-week waiting period that many claimants already have to face.</para>
<para>It's pretty common knowledge that Centrelink is a pretty big mess—and I don't mean the staff. Let me be very clear here: I do not mean the staff when I talk about Centrelink. Many of the people who work there are hardworking locals. They live in our community; they live in my community. They live down the street and they go to the sporting clubs that we go to. They're hardworking people. They have to make do with the limited resources they're given in an understaffed environment. I'm talking about the system and the way it's mismanaged under this government—how wait times have ballooned and people have been demonised by shameful robo-debt debacles. And now this government is seeking to exploit these wait times to avoid paying the welfare payments that people actually need.</para>
<para>This government may try to spin this as savings, but in reality this is just a cruel government taking money from vulnerable people. These are vulnerable people who need financial support just to get by. Members of this government have claimed they strive for equality of opportunity for all Australians. So it baffles me that they would be seeking to cut vital payments from needy people. How can we expect them to go to a job interview if they can't afford to do so? How do they pay for a bus ticket or a train ticket? How do they put fuel in the car? This isn't about equality of opportunity. This is inequality at its finest—tax concessions for the rich and cuts to resources for the poor. It's become standard Liberal government practice. They are acting out of habit, rather than taking a considered and measured step forward.</para>
<para>We in the Labor Party are willing to support any well-thought-out reform that will lead to positive change. We're absolutely willing to support that, and we won't fight it. In fact, we won't even seek to oppose every schedule in this bill. If every schedule were raised separately, we wouldn't seek to oppose this at all, because, for the most part, we don't oppose the changes made in schedules 1 to 8 of the bill as part of the working-age payment reform. While we're opposed to schedules seeking to cease bereavement allowance or wife pension, we're not opposed to schedules 1, 2, 5 or 8, nor to 16 or 18. But let's be clear about this: these aren't sweeping reforms. Streamlining tax file number collection, which is in schedule 16, isn't some grand change. Streamlining their tax file number collection isn't a meaningful reform that will bring equality to people in Longman.</para>
<para>Australia wants meaningful reform. Australia wants a way forward. It wants a government that will take positive steps to reduce inequality, and only Labor will do that. Labor has a plan to tackle inequality in Australia, and we will achieve this. The Labor Party will make Australia a fairer place for all and we will achieve this. And until we win the leadership in the next election, we will fight this government. We will fight them whenever they try to take steps in the other direction, whenever they try to cut payments for those who need them and whenever they try to marginalise vulnerable people. We will fight the government on this bill. We will not stand idly by. I will not stand idly by while they make things worse for people in my community, and we will not stand by when they make things more difficult for people right across Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Longman started off her speech with an extraordinary claim that the government has done nothing for the economy. Like other members opposite, the member for Longman, no doubt, has very limited understanding of the economy. However, let me point out that in the last financial year 240,000 new jobs were created—240,000 new jobs! We know from various recent surveys that investment is up, particularly in the non-mining sector. We have a new set of national accounts out, looking at the June quarter, which show economic growth at 0.8 per cent and show a 1.2 per cent increase in total wages paid. Let's have a look at this claim that the government does nothing for economic growth. Is growth up? Absolutely. Jobs, are they increasing? Absolutely. And is investment increasing? Absolutely. And I don't mind the member starting her speech with that because it's flawed, therefore, from the very beginning.</para>
<para>Then, of course there are the crocodile tears about the very bill we're speaking about today. There's no doubt the Labor Party love to talk about the word 'inequality' but, as we have seen, the members opposite have chosen the wrong course. There is an extent to which there is inequality and people in our country who are vulnerable and need help. There is a choice to make: you can be passive and watch, or you can proactively help. This bill is all about taking that second option. It is about the government proactively looking at helping the situation. And so this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill, brings together a suite of timely reforms and fulfils a firm budget commitment to improve the welfare system, to make it more straightforward and better focused on helping Australians transition from welfare to work.</para>
<para>The Australian welfare system has for decades, ramping up over time, achieved an enormous redistribution of wealth to provide a level of support for the welfare of individuals and families courtesy of the Australian taxpayers sharing a significant proportion of their personal incomes. The cost of the welfare system, our social safety net, is equivalent to 90 per cent of all personal income taxes paid in Australia. It is far and away the largest portion of federal government outlays, far bigger than expenditure on health, or defence or anything else. Taxpayers, therefore, require that their government from time to time review welfare structures and methods to ensure that the level of support is sustained and fit for purpose and that it is justifiable expenditure, reaching those who need it and those who are indeed deserving of it.</para>
<para>The coalition undertook such a review of a significant element of the welfare payment system in 2014. The reforms proposed in this bill flow principally from the work of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform, led by Patrick McClure, a former head of Mission Australia. He was asked by the Abbott government to undertake a root-and-branch review of the working-age elements of the welfare system. The aged pension, which is the largest single welfare expenditure, was not part of that review and is being dealt with separately by the government for the same reasons—to ensure that money is appropriately targeted and spent.</para>
<para>Mr McClure and his reference group determined that the system was indeed in need of major reform in order to better protect sustainability, manageability and fairness. They reported that ad hoc changes over time had led to 'unintended complexities, inconsistencies and incoherencies'. As a result, they said, disincentives were created for people to work. The system had fallen out of step with labour market realities and community expectations in terms of the fundamental purpose of most forms of support for people of working age—to give them a significant degree of support with intent that encourages and supports them to return to the workforce where they are capable of doing so.</para>
<para>The conclusion, therefore, was that without reform, the fiscal, economic and social sustainability of that part of the safety net dealing with working-aged Australians would be compromised. And that's unthinkable in a country— <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline>They just keep doing it. Every single time that the coalition points out that Labor want to keep people down whereas we lift them up, they call a quorum. They're ashamed. If I were on their side, I, too, would be awfully ashamed.</para>
<para>As I was saying, here we have a situation where it would be absolutely unthinkable if the social safety net that we have in this country is compromised. Thus, the need for reforms that this bill represents. It has to be taken into account that our safety net in Australia is an expensive one. Welfare spending by the federal government, the taxpayer, in 1999-2000 was $90 billion. In 2015-16, it was $155 billion. It is so clear that the stakes in managing this amount of money are enormous. They require the sort of rigorous oversight represented by the measures in this bill. Clearly, and especially in light of an ageing population and a massive commitment to improved spending for the disabled through the NDIS that is now ramping up rapidly, we need to be doing everything we can to ensure that benefits are fair, fit for purpose and, above all, sustainable. These realities show the significance and the importance of this bill. It represents a necessary, timely and comprehensive reform of working-age welfare payments that makes the system simpler and more sustainable. It makes it a system which has a stronger focus on the crucial task of supporting people to make the transition from welfare to employment.</para>
<para>A major measure here to simplify the system is the introduction, from March 2020, of a single jobseeker payment that replaces seven existing payments. The Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension, bereavement allowance and widow B pension will cease in March 2020, to be replaced by the new single-payment format, which will reduce administrative complexity. There will, for the first time, be a single set of rules and rates for people of working age with the capacity to work, based largely on the existing Newstart eligibility requirements.</para>
<para>A major thrust of the bill, also reflected in many separate measures, is that it firmly entrenches long-term employment as the best outcome for people who enter the welfare system, with special emphasis on mutual obligation principles. If a job is available and the recipient is able, they should take it, rather than become long-term welfare recipients. One of the special measures in this area goes to the activity test, which currently provides Newstart support for older but still working-age Australians in the bracket of 55- to 59-year-olds who are said to have met the activity test if they do 30 hours of voluntary work a fortnight. From September next year, in order to give added emphasis to the thrust of the bill that a job is the best form of welfare, paid work of 30 hours a fortnight, or a combination of paid and voluntary work with the voluntary component no greater than 15 hours, will enable the recipient to continue receiving that support.</para>
<para>In the same vein of encouraging paid work for those who are able to undertake it, there will be a stronger emphasis on the responsibilities of those with alcohol or drug problems. This is an important measure, given their disproportionate representation in the welfare system. People who are unemployed are 2.4 times more likely to be drug or alcohol dependent, and that cohort is much more likely, while on welfare, to use that dependency as an excuse for not engaging in obligations to seek work. This gets to the heart of what this measure is all about, because it comes down to helping people. We know that the best way of ensuring people can get on top of their addiction is to improve their ability to find a job. Again, a job is the best form of welfare.</para>
<para>Today's bill proposes that Newstart and youth allowance recipients who return a positive drug test during a two-year trial program across three locations will have their payments placed on income management to limit their ability to buy drugs. Should a second drug test prove positive, then the recipient will be referred for professional treatment, which will then form part of their mutual obligations. Again, this is not a punitive measure, nor is it designed to stigmatise or unfairly penalise welfare recipients suffering from substance abuse. It is aimed squarely at helping those Australians held back by alcohol, held back by drugs. It is aimed at getting them back into the workforce for their benefit—and, indeed, for the long-term benefit of the country and the Australian taxpayer, who can no longer simply and indefinitely fund this problem.</para>
<para>Mutual obligation, beyond the substance abuse measures, will also be extended more widely by the bill, to apply more stringently to all recipients. Most of our two-thirds attend all their required appointments in relation to the search for employment, and a suspension of payments for the one-third who miss too many of those appointments is typically enough to get them back on track, but there is a minority that is just gaming the system.</para>
<para>The bill establishes a demerit system so that those who are constantly avoiding their mutual obligation requirements will be monitored and more stringently penalised. These are all very worthwhile measures, and the core issues here in this bill are essentially (1) the maintenance of a welfare safety net that is fair and fit for purpose and (2) that taxpayers rightly deserve that the government of the day acts on its obligation to ensure that the very significant cost of that safety net is no higher than it needs to be. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Liberal Party and National Party's relentless demonisation of people in this country who access our welfare system is something that needs to stop. It has to stop. Think what the research by the member for Fenner shows, that a dollar spent in the Australian social security system does more to reduce inequality than a dollar spent in any other welfare system in the world. It's not perfect but our system is helping people. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, rather than helping people as the previous speaker suggested, is actually about hurting people, demonising them for the circumstances in which they have found themselves.</para>
<para>For many people, our welfare system provides a safety net that allows them breathing space to get back on their feet—just. Yet what we see as an appalling attack on people who have found themselves at their most vulnerable, those opposite seem to see as a success. I hope that anyone who says that the government and the opposition's policies cannot be differentiated, that they're both the same, as you sometimes hear people say, are listening because what I'm about to say shows that we are chalk and cheese. The Turnbull government is successfully creating a conversation that refers to single mothers, people with disabilities, people with mental health issues, especially chronic mental illness, older Australians, people from diverse backgrounds, people who are poor, students, carers—all these groups—as dole bludgers, as leaners, as a problem to be shamed and monitored and punished at every single opportunity; that they must be reminded of their place, as if the act of asking for help from the state is not humbling enough for nearly every person.</para>
<para>Only this week I spoke to a resident of the Blue Mountains who had recently lost his job. While he has prospects of other work, right now he is struggling. A father of two children, he described for me how he had sold off many of his possessions, exhausted his savings and was now forced to apply for Newstart to tide him over until he finds a new job. He doesn't want to be on welfare. He wants to be self-sufficient, and I hope he will be soon. He is possibly at his most vulnerable and we need to be treating him with dignity, not derision. Those opposite have politicised welfare for their own political gain, taking cheap shots. I wonder at their sense of invincibility, as if they are somehow of a different species, human perhaps but a human who can't fall ill, who can't have an accident, who can't experience bad luck in life.</para>
<para>I wish this bill was a one-off act from the government, but their utter disrespect for people who desperately need a leg-up is in their DNA. They wanted to make young people wait six months before receiving unemployment payments. They reduced family payments. In fact, look at the 2014 budget or the omnibus bill from earlier this year to see their default position—and now the latest attacks. Let's start with the proposal to introduce a mandatory drug-testing trial for recipients of Newstart and youth allowance which (a) won't work, (b) has no support from any health or medical professionals nor community organisations and (c) is going to cost a lot of money. Dr Marianne Jauncey from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs sums it up well. She says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work.</para></quote>
<para>We on this side are open to working with the government on genuine attempts to help people battling drug and alcohol addictions, but we will not support blatant attacks that have absolutely no basis in evidence. Despite the judgemental rhetoric from those opposite, the experts tell us this will not help people overcome their addictions. Instead, they say, it will push them into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime. While there is much more I could say about this particular measure, I know it has received plenty of attention from my colleagues and will continue to, and so I will look at other sections of this bill, which are also awful.</para>
<para>One part of this bill that I don't want to see slip through unnoticed is the proposed changes to current activity requirements for people aged 55 to 59 on income support. Under the current activity test, you can fulfil the requirements of 30 hours work a fortnight by volunteering. Volunteering is an effective way of not only contributing to our society and supporting great organisations so that they can continue to carry out the excellent work they do but also giving the individual involved personal benefits. It can act as a pathway to employment; it provides vital connections and a sense of community; it enables the development of new skills; and it keeps people healthy and active. Of all those things, I think the connection to other people is absolutely vital. We know that people in communities that are connected are resilient, and that their overall mental health is better. That's the sort of reform we should be looking for.</para>
<para>It is ironic to me that we have a parliamentary friends of volunteering group, yet this measure attacks the basis on which that group operates: that volunteering should be valued. Leep is a volunteering organisation that operates in my electorate of Macquarie. They've written to me expressing their concerns with the government's changes. One part of their letter caught my attention, and I would like to read it to you now. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Volunteering is the backbone of a robust, safe and engaged community. The benefits that it brings volunteers, organisations and the broader community deserve to be highly regarded and appreciated at all levels of government.</para></quote>
<para>Unfortunately this government's proposed changes do nothing to support the volunteering industry. The changes require that a minimum of 15 hours of the 30-hour activity test for 55- to 59-year-olds is spent on job-related or job-search activities, rather than volunteering. Volunteering is ruled out for those 15 hours. Prioritising finding work would be a great option, if there were jobs around, but unemployment in my electorate is about twice the level of that in the Prime Minister's seat of Wentworth. There are too many people for the available jobs, and the over-55s are not necessarily going to be the ones chosen first. Once out of work, the length of time a person aged 55 to 59 spends looking for work is 73 weeks—or more than a year—compared to the overall average of 40 to 50 weeks.</para>
<para>I've heard government members talk about a new program targeted at helping people over 50 back into the workforce, the Career Transition Assistance program. That isn't due to be rolled out nationally until 2020, but these other changes come in next year. I'd like them to explain to a currently unemployed 57 year old where the fairness is in that. Volunteering Australia CEO Adrienne Picone has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The tightening of the activity requirements will do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians who are an already disadvantaged and discriminated group in the labour market.</para></quote>
<para>Let's not forget that there is just one job available for every 10 people who are locked out of employment or who need more paid work. You'd think that the first step in figuring out this puzzle would be to start addressing the lack of work available. That would make sense, but not to this government. No, that's not the approach they take. They like to make people look for jobs that just aren't there, and then shame them for not being able to get one. The Volunteer Involving Organisation, which also operates in Macquarie, shares my concerns and has said that it is 'most disappointing that the government is focusing on enforcing mutual obligation without a commensurate effort into facilitating job opportunities for mature-aged workers'.</para>
<para>The Centre for Volunteering data shows that volunteering makes an estimated annual economic and social contribution of $290 billion to the economy, a contribution that will be jeopardised by these changes. Forcing people to give up voluntary work, where new skills are learnt and old skills are developed, in favour of undertaking job search related activities, which do little to expand their skills base at times, is a move that will completely fail to improve their job prospects. There is only one winner here, and it's not the people on income support, it's not the volunteering organisations, it's not even the labour market, it's not the economy and it's certainly not the community, particularly not my community of Macquarie. The only winner here is the Turnbull government in their so-called war on welfare.</para>
<para>It doesn't stop there though. The Prime Minister can't help but put his Point Piper fingers in a few more pies. So who else is on the list? In what other ways can we demonise people? The government is proposing to remove the intent-to-claim provision in this legislation. As it stands, people are allowed to have their claims backdated to the point when they first contacted the Department of Human Services. As many of us know through our electorate offices and the experience of our constituents, the Centrelink system is not always the easiest to navigate, no matter who you are. Add in a few hurdles—for instance, paperwork lost in a house move—and getting that claim through can turn into a really lengthy business.</para>
<para>People who are illiterate, people who are homeless, children who are coming out of care, people who are sick, older Australians, people battling mental illness, victims of domestic violence and people living in rural and regional Australia a long way from a Centrelink office—all of these groups, understandably, may take a little bit longer to complete their applications and gather and present the required paperwork, and this government wants to punish them for that. What's more, if you're not great on a computer, you get extra punishment. So when it's already tough, this government wants to make it tougher. Thank you! Let that sink in for a moment: it wants to punish people's disadvantage.</para>
<para>Before seeing this bill I wouldn't have thought that anyone in this place would target a group of people so directly for such little gain, but this government has done thoughtless and heartless things like this before, so it should come as no surprise that it is at it again. There is another group that the government has in its sights with this bill. It hasn't even spared people who are on income support and lose their partner. The bereavement allowance is a short-term payment that supports people when they lose their partner. It's paid for 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension and is subjected to the same income and assets test. For a pregnant woman who loses her partner the allowance is paid for 14 weeks or the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer. Surely this is a simple act of compassion.</para>
<para>The government wants to replace the bereavement allowance with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance. This means that not only will a person who has just lost their partner have to meet a more stringent means test but they will also receive less financial support. A grieving husband, wife or partner will be left $1,600 worse off over the 14-week period at the hands of this government. So they lose a partner and the government makes their life even harder. This is a cruel cut, with no justification other than once again to be seen to be cracking down on welfare. This part of the bill could easily be removed by the government, and I encourage it to do so.</para>
<para>One other area that really concerns me is the changes that take away any discretion around penalising jobseekers who fail to attend Job Services appointments or employment without reason. This might be a jobseeker who is found to have failed to start a job that they accepted. Anyone who has faced unemployment needs support in the early days of a new job. The longer you have been unemployed the harder it can be to take that first step. Their self-confidence has already taken a battering. I can't imagine that anyone wouldn't have a level of anxiety in that situation. When you throw in the level of mental health issues that we know our society faces, these are punitive measures that are the least helpful device. There needs to be discretion around these measures.</para>
<para>What we have is evidence of what I can only, sadly, describe as a heartless government which looks only to hurt people, not to support them. We are better than this. There are nine more cuts to welfare recipients in these bills. They're called 'reform'. Reform should be about improving a system and supporting people more, not making their life harder. I really ask those opposite to consider: what if it was someone in your family who had fallen on hard times? They may well have fallen prey to drugs; they may well have addictions. Are you the sort of people who just want to turf people out and say, 'Too bad; you're on your own?' Or are we the country that thinks the state should step up, support people and give them a chance to turn their lives around?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our welfare system is designed to provide a safety net for those who find themselves out of work or who are unable to participate in the workforce. It's not created to perpetuate people's drug habits. Taxpayers have the right to expect that their taxes are not used to fund illicit lifestyles. We also know that, without assistance, many people with substance abuse problems can't or won't take action to help themselves.</para>
<para>Data shows us that substance abuse is a bigger problem for people on welfare. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey showed that those who were unemployed were 2.4 times more likely to use drugs such as methylamphetamine, or ice, than these who were employed. While there are some existing mechanisms in place for identifying jobseekers who have substance abuse issues and assisting them to seek treatment, the government is committed to trialling a new approach to tackle this very significant problem. This measure is not about penalising jobseekers who are drug dependent. This trial is about ensuring taxpayers' money isn't used to fund illicit lifestyles. It is about testing new ways to help people with substance abuse issues to overcome them and re-enter the workforce.</para>
<para>The best form of welfare is a job. Everything should be geared towards supporting capable people into work wherever possible. This is the fundamental principle on which our policies are based. As part of the drug testing trial, the government has committed up to $10 million to create a dedicated treatment fund. <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline></para>
<para>I thank the member for Lyons for the intervention. I was playing squash this morning with the former member for Lyons. What a great pity this place did not continue to be served by that man, the former member for Lyons. He wouldn't be worried about these trivial quorum matters like those opposite are. Whilst I couldn't beat the former member for Lyons at squash, I'd be really confident that I could beat the current member—and I extend that invitation. I think we could sell tickets to that event. The Labor Party's continued kind of trickery is only fun for those opposite in the House. I think those outside this building would much prefer us to get on with the business of this place, including the very many students in the gallery today who have come to watch democracy in this nation at play.</para>
<para>As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the member for Lyons, as part of the drug-testing trial the government is committing up to $10 million to create a dedicated treatment fund. This fund will be able to provide additional treatment support in trial locations where the existing state or Commonwealth supports and services are not sufficient to meet any additional related demands as a result of the trial.</para>
<para>Those opposite are saying, 'We don't think it's appropriate that you should drug test welfare recipients.' That flies in the face of what those of us on this side believe. We believe Australian taxpayers' funds should not go to supporting illicit lifestyles and, indeed, that people who are supported in their endeavour to look for employment should be able to do so in a drug-free environment. Those opposite are also opposed to that $10 million of additional funding going to communities to provide treatment services. I ask you to seriously consider imagining that you are looking into the eyes of a drug dependent constituent of yours and you are saying to them, 'We're not prepared to provide you with that additional support.' I can't understand why those opposite are not with us, but there you are.</para>
<para>The specific details of the treatment fund will be determined in consultation with the Department for Health, as it should be; the primary health networks; and the drug and alcohol sectors before the trial starts in 2018. This $10 million is in addition to the almost $685 million the Commonwealth is already contributing over four years, from 1 July 2016, to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on individuals, families and communities. That is because the Turnbull coalition government understands the harm that these drugs perpetuate on the individual, on their family members and on the communities in which these people live.</para>
<para>This $685 million includes an investment of almost $300 million over four years as part of the National Ice Action Strategy to improve treatment, after-care, education and prevention, and to support community engagement to tackle ice. Of this investment, more than $240 million will go to treatment services that are currently being rolled out through the government's primary health networks and will be fully in place on 1 January next year when this trial starts. The availability of appropriate treatment in the trial locations will be monitored.</para>
<para>The National Drug Strategy 2017-2026 calls for a balanced approach across three pillars of harm minimisation: a balanced approach across demand reduction, supply reduction and, importantly, harm reduction. The Australian government is committed to reducing harmful and illicit drug use and supporting people that recover from substance addiction and misuse. This includes harnessing the welfare system to deter substance abuse and provide pathways to recovery. The key principles underpinning the National Drug Strategy are evidence, informed responses, partnerships, coordination and collaboration, and national direction with jurisdictional implementation. The government considers that the drug-testing trial is consistent with these principles.</para>
<para>This trial is all about developing an evidence-based effective approach to interventions in Australia, working hand in glove across government with local Primary Health Networks and treatment providers, and leveraging national mechanisms to try to improve outcomes for individuals, their families and their communities. This measure will trial the drug testing of jobseekers in three locations only. The trial will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation, to build an evidence base regarding the effectiveness of this kind of intervention in Australia's welfare context. I remind members opposite, it is a context in which you are 2.4 times more likely to be subject to illicit substance misuse.</para>
<para>Drug testing of certain welfare recipients has been legislated in at least 15 states in the United States of America on either a fully rolled out or trial basis. It is also conducted in New Zealand as a pre-employment option that potential employers can request. It is not uncommon for employers in Australia to require employees or prospective employees to undertake drug testing as part of their obligations to provide a safe working environment, particularly in safety-sensitive industries such as aviation, mining, transport and construction.</para>
<para>I believe deeply in the maxim that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I formally record my position, which is that I am perfectly comfortable, at any time—indeed, from now, given that we are, hopefully, about to legislate a system of drug testing in these three trial sites—during the course of that trial, and indeed thereafter, to be subject to random drug testing at any time. I believe, quite frankly, that if we expect this of members of our community, then, as citizens who represent our community in this place, we should be leading by example. I have said as much in the media, but I wish to confirm as much in the House. As my wife said to me when I raised this issue with her, 'Tony, unless they're testing for KFC, I think you'll be okay!'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Have no doubt, this bill will make massive changes to the social security and job search system we have in this country. You would think that changes as big as this would be supported by thought, proof, evidence and a tested road map, but as you dig into the changes you see that the detail is not forthcoming and there's very little to prove that this will actually make the job of jobseekers finding work easier.</para>
<para>Before considering all of those changes in this contribution to the debate, it's important that we also consider this in the broader environment in which these changes are being brought in—specifically: what does our labour market look like, what's unemployment like in this country and how will these changes have an effect? If we consider the labour market the Turnbull government is presiding over, it's a weak one. While it's ticked down slightly recently, the current unemployment rate is at about 5.6 per cent. It's worth bearing in mind that this is almost as high as the worst levels we experienced through the global financial crisis. In recent years, the link between economic growth and wages growth has been severed, which means that not everyone is sharing in the benefits of the economy.</para>
<para>In today's labour market, a significant portion of the workforce are stuck in temporary or casual jobs where they work like full-time employees but they don't get all the benefits of it. We have a growing and chronic problem of underemployment. Around one-third of part-time workers—1.1 million people—say they want more hours but can't get them. Groups like Anglicare Australia have undertaken the Jobs Availability Snapshot, which showed that the shortage of positions available for low-skilled jobseekers runs at six jobseekers for every position advertised—six people chasing one job. That's a significant shortage of entry-level work for jobseekers. You can't ignore these statistics, because they demonstrates how weak the labour market actually is. And the reality is that the Turnbull government doesn't have, and has never had, a plan for jobs or for putting the right supports in place to help people find jobs. It's that simple.</para>
<para>Everything else is spin—like, for example, what we're seeing with the government's Youth Jobs PaTH program. This is a billion-dollar program trumpeted as a solution to youth unemployment, and it's turning out to be a sham. Last week we had news of a huge breach of the system. The government only moved to correct that after it became news. One young person worked up to 58 hours in one week in an intern placement at a Melbourne cafe. This is despite the fact the government said young people wouldn't be forced to work more than 50 hours a fortnight. That was 58 hours in a week instead of the guaranteed—we were told—50 hours maximum in a fortnight. Another intern worked for a company for days without any formal, signed agreement to outline their protections and how things would operate in that firm. A program the Turnbull government says will help young people is actually seeing them work many hours above program limits, without pay—and those interns are government-subsidised within that program.</para>
<para>It's clear that the Turnbull government doesn't have the right protective measures in place to stop poor practices affecting young people in the program. Under PaTH, the government expects young people to police businesses for the government and blow the whistle if they are exploited. These recent cases have shown young people aren't confident enough to do so, and are worried about their Centrelink payments being affected if they do call out bad employers. This is a horrible position to put young Australian jobseekers in. Just today, we heard that 1,300 people have had their welfare payments suspended in connection with the PaTH program but only 413 have actually got a job out of it. The government has cut the payments of more people than have found a job from this program. It's typical: so far under PaTH, more people are being punished than helped.</para>
<para>Making matters worse, while the employment minister told a newspaper that 413 people had found a job through PaTH, her colleague in the same place, Senator James McGrath, yesterday told the Senate that 10,000 people had found jobs. The Turnbull government have no idea what they're doing; they're simply fudging the numbers to get a good headline. The headline should be about people actually getting good jobs out of good training and good skills development. That is the type of headline they should be chasing, but they won't. Senator McGrath also said the Department of Employment would be auditing employers participating in PaTH. That's the kind of monitoring the government should be doing before interns join, not after the government have been caught out and interns have been exploited by employers who are not doing the right thing. It shouldn't take an embarrassing news story to kick this government into gear. But the Turnbull government don't actually care about young people or protecting them as they search for work.</para>
<para>The program is looking more and more like an expensive rort. Besides failing to stop the exploitation of young people, it's consistently failing to meet its own targets. Five months into the program, 1,000 young people have been placed as interns; the program expects 30,000 in one year. This program started in April; it's now September. They've only had 1,000 so far, so they have a massively huge task ahead of them to meet their own targets.</para>
<para>If you look across the broader job search program, the job search tools themselves aren't working. The first example is the Employment Assistance Fund, a billion-dollar fund that should help remove any barriers that jobseekers are facing through training or skills development. When you look at how much has been spent—we confirmed back in May that only 15 per cent of this $1 billion employment fund had been spent. Jobactive kicked off in July 2015. Theoretically, 30 per cent of that fund should have been spent by now, but only 15 per cent has been spent. I keep being told that the government has made the guidelines around the fund too hard to interpret, meaning it's often left alone by employment service providers, and then the government pushes the blame for the underspend onto the providers. As with the Youth Jobs PaTH internship program, the government won't take responsibility for its own failure on the employment fund.</para>
<para>We can also look at the amount of money we're spending in this country on wage subsidies to help get the jobless into work. In all the cases, including the Restart wage subsidy, youth wage subsidy, parent wage subsidy, long-term unemployed and Indigenous wage subsidies—across all those categories—only 35 per cent of the forecast expenditure on wage subsidies to get people back into work has been spent. Clearly these subsidies aren't working. So when the government complains about dole bludgers or about paying welfare to people who don't deserve it, remember: this government doesn't take responsibility for its own mistakes. It doesn't take responsibility for its own failing job programs. More importantly, not only does it not take responsibility for its mistakes, it doesn't fix them so as to get people into work.</para>
<para>Here is a snapshot of the job network under this government and how the job programs are performing. We have 730,000 people, roughly, out of work in this country. We spend roughly $9 billion on government job programs. It's the second largest area of procurement outside of defence. We have 40,000 employment service consultants. Only 20 per cent of the people helped by the government's job programs find work that lasts longer than 26 weeks. Only 35 per cent of wage subsidies have been spent, an underspend on the employment fund. This is the state of the job network under the Turnbull government.</para>
<para>We have people like the Minister for Human Services, Mr Tudge, coming in here and saying that their idea is to get people off welfare and into work. Well, the Turnbull government is spectacularly successful in getting people off welfare and they're spectacularly unsuccessful in getting them into work. All they're about is driving them off the welfare roll, not getting them into a job, which should be the aim of these types of reforms. It's about hammering the jobless; it's not about helping them get work.</para>
<para>Let's look at some of the schedules in this legislation being considered by the House that are directly related to employment and affected by this labour market and the failures of these job programs. Schedule 15 changes the compliance framework for income support recipients to mutual obligations and participation payments. It is a two-phase framework. One phase deals out demerit points to jobseekers who fail to comply with their obligations. If a jobseeker accrues four demerit points in a six-month period, they'll be assessed to see whether they are put through what's called an intensive phase. In the intensive phase there are three escalating penalties or strikes. First strike, you lose one week's payment; second strike, you lose two weeks; and the third strike is cancellation of the payment and a four-week exclusion from reapplication.</para>
<para>This compliance reform was produced without employment sector consultation. It will cut more people off welfare payments than the current system, without any apparent improvement in the actual jobseeker employment outcomes. Under the current system, roughly 72,000 penalties are applied, but under the proposed system, that number will more than double to nearly 150,000 penalties applied. And despite introducing suspensions of the first four demerit points, to allow people to reform their behaviour before receiving a financial punishment, the system is going to see more people lose payments than ever before, because the waivers and discretions that are provided to the departmental secretary and delegated authorities will be largely removed from the system. We will oppose the measures, unless the government reinstates waivers and discretion for employment service providers and the departmental secretary when assessing demerits or financial penalties. There are some people under terrible circumstances, and it will actually be counterproductive to apply this compliance framework in the process of trying to get such a person into work. If it is counterproductive in getting people into work, then why apply the measure? The only reason you would do that is basically because you want to hammer those people, not help them.</para>
<para>The National Employment Services Association and Jobs Australia have voiced concern that the government hasn't consulted adequately how the new system would operate. For example, NESA said there's a level of discretion now, where you take into account the whole person's circumstances, that is important. But that kind of balance is being removed under this proposal. NESA pointed out that the sector had only received a few meetings with the Department of Employment about the new framework and had not received any indication about what training would be provided. Again, we need the detail. ACOSS noted that evidence from the UK showed that inflexible and punitive compliance sanctions had the reverse effect and would increase the risk of participants becoming homeless. It had negative outcomes, particularly in terms of engagement with the labour market. We want people engaged and we want people getting jobs, but the evidence from other parts of the world, where this has been tried, is that the reverse occurs. That's why discretion and waivers must be retained in the system and, again, it should be done in a way to help people get into work. I urge the government to reinstate discretion and waivers into the compliance framework.</para>
<para>Schedule 9 in this proposal removes the ability of Newstart allowance and some special benefit recipients aged between 55 and 59 from fulfilling the activity test by volunteering 30 hours per fortnight. The big reform that this government is heralding is that they actually want to hurt community organisations that are reliant on volunteer labour by those who are aged 55 to 59. They think this is the big reform they need to do. Let's be very clear: the Turnbull government is going to hammer those community groups by cutting the amount of time people can volunteer and still receive jobseeker payments.</para>
<para>The across-the-board response of volunteer and charity organisations that contributed to the Senate inquiry into this bill was, 'Don't do this.' That was the response. They believe this change will decimate the number of people and volunteer hours available to community organisations helping neighbourhoods across this nation. Volunteering Australia tore through the logic of this change very succinctly. They said they were:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… concerned that the tightening of the activity test could move people away from volunteering positions, which will have a profound impact on the volunteering sector. The proposal will also do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians—an already disadvantaged group in the job market.</para></quote>
<para>Anglicare pointed out the simple truth about the job market. Their snapshot shows there's only one entry-level position for every six jobseekers, and we know that this age cohort experiences higher levels of discrimination. The government knows this too. This is why they're rushing in what's called their Career Transition Assistance Program in trial form only. The actual program begins in two years' time, but the jobseekers who are affected now get hammered in terms of their welfare payments.</para>
<para>With that program itself, $98 million is only being spent over four years. This should be done by employment service providers right now: doing a skills audit, working out what the training requirements are and helping them market themselves to employers. That stuff can be done right now, but this career transition program that's being put in place by the government is simply a fig leaf to show that they're doing something for 55 to 59 year olds that's going to happen in two years' time and not now. It is, frankly, a disgrace.</para>
<para>When we look at all the measures that have been put in here so far as they apply in the employment sector or in getting jobs for people, they are about making it harder for them to get work while also making their life harder during the period of time they're looking for work—if this were fair dinkum. We want people to work; we need people to get into employment. We need the investment in skills and in those people's positions. For once, it would be great to hear the employment minister actually talk about getting those people into work in a way that invests in them rather than denigrates them. All we hear is ideology. We don't hear anything practical or pragmatic to help Australians get back into work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. The Turnbull government backs its commitments. It stands by the workers of Australia and it stands by the mutual obligations between citizens on welfare, the government and taxpayers. We know that those opposite have proved to be no friend of the workers, with their dodgy union deals and their job-killing taxes that we've been hearing about for some time. We on this side do stand for workers, and we want more Australians to be in work. We want them to be in a job. <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline></para>
<para>It is so great to have an audience here, especially on this side, because, as we know, we on this side actually stand for people getting a job. People just wanted to hear that and to know that those on the other side do not. We understand that the best form of welfare comes not from this government, or any other government, for that matter, but from a well-paying, stable job. This is why we are backing our commitment to comprehensive reform to Australia's welfare system and introducing this bill.</para>
<para>The bill we're debating today has seen extensive consultation, with some 271 public submissions and 231 online comments received. The reference group has met with 160 organisations across all capital cities. Consultation has taken place with government departments, state and territory governments, and welfare groups. The development of this bill has taken legal advice into account to ensure that it is consistent with privacy laws, disability discrimination laws and human rights obligations. This bill contains an integrated suite of measures to deliver a simpler and fairer welfare system. This bill provides savings, increases simplicity and allows for a stronger assurance of the mutual obligations that those on welfare in this country abide by. Most importantly, the bill focuses on supporting people into work. That should be the ultimate goal of our welfare system. And that is what the Australian taxpayer expects.</para>
<para>Included in this bill is legislation to introduce a new jobseeker payment from 20 March 2020, which will replace some seven existing payments. This new payment will replace the Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension, bereavement allowance, widow B pension, widow allowance and partner allowance. Achieving all of this will aid simplicity, make our welfare system more accessible and more sustainable, and smooth the delivery of its services, which is what the taxpayer and those who receive welfare expect from the government. This will help not only Centrelink customers but also its staff. This bill also provides for a faster connection to employment services, commencing on 1 January 2018. Faster connection to employment services means, of course, faster employment. And who doesn't want that? This bill will introduce measures to address substance misuse by welfare recipients. To do this it will remove exemptions from mutual obligation requirements for those with drug or alcohol related reasons. It will also tighten regulations relating to excuses considered reasonable for noncompliance with obligations.</para>
<para>But that's not all that this bill does. The bill provides for a comprehensive restructuring of the entire welfare system, including the introduction of a points based demerit system to ensure jobseeker compliance. This strengthens the penalties for persistent and deliberate noncompliance but will have no effect on those complying with their jobseeker obligations, which is the way it should be. We do not believe in punishing those who only want a fair go. I think all Australians would accept that. What we do believe in is a fair go for the taxpayers of Australia as well.</para>
<para>Our reform package also contains several streamlining processes, which will take effect from 1 January 2018. One such efficiency is changing the current system where intent to claim is deemed to be a claim. This measure will produce savings and also encourage jobseekers to engage with the system sooner, which should be encouraged. We will also be streamlining the collection of tax file numbers and improving the efficiency of processes around welfare fraud referral. Despite what those opposite may try to imply, the objective of this bill is simple: to create a fairer welfare system that supports more Australians to move into jobs. Australians are not mugs, and they don't like being taken for mugs either. They reasonably expect that those who can work should work. It's as simple as that, and the bill we are introducing represents that expectation.</para>
<para>This is a positive turning point for Australia's welfare system, focusing it better on what should be its key objective. Nobody wants to demonise those on welfare, and this is not some mean-spirited act from this side of the House. What we do want—what I want and what the Australian taxpayer wants—is to see people moving from welfare to gainful employment. I think we all want that. The intergenerational welfare trap is far too prevalent in this country, and I see the impact of this far too often in my vast electorate of Durack, where many of Australia's disadvantaged people live. I do not begrudge anyone access to welfare when they need it, but it is also incumbent upon individuals to take responsibility for themselves and, if capable, seek out employment opportunities. This bill simply reinforces this responsibility while seeking to assist those who are not capable of doing so.</para>
<para>As I've said, this bill is designed to address substance abuse amongst welfare recipients. To this end, some 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance will take part in a two-year, drug-testing trial rolled out over three trial sites. The three drug-testing trial site locations have now been announced, and I'm confident that the residents in these areas will see the benefits of this policy. For the first time, our welfare system will address substance abuse amongst welfare recipients. Many of those who earn their salary in my electorate are required to pass a drug test to start work each day, particularly in the mining industry. I don't think it's unreasonable that those who benefit from their taxes are held to the same standard. And I might just put on record—as my friend the member for Barker has done—that, given that I earn my living from the taxes of the taxpayers, I have no objection to being drug-tested every single day. Indeed, when I worked in the mining game and also in the agricultural industry, I was subjected to drug testing and I have no issue with it whatsoever.</para>
<para>This drug-testing measure is not designed to be punitive. As I've said before, this is not some mean-spirited act where the dreadful Liberals and the National Party are trying to be nasty to people. It is not that at all. The specific aim of this bill is to help those with a drug or alcohol problem. That is the point of this reform. The point is to help them to deal with their substance abuse and, ultimately, to provide a pathway for them to secure employment. Helping those with a history of drug and alcohol use to secure employment will allow them to enjoy the advantages and the security that comes from earning a living through work. That is what this bill aims to achieve.</para>
<para>Jobseekers who return an initial positive drug test will continue to receive the same amount of welfare payments. The drug-testing trial is not about cutting welfare from people who use drugs and alcohol. However, they will have their welfare payments quarantined to help them meet essential living costs and to limit their ability to purchase drugs. If a jobseeker tests positive a second time, they will be given a referral to a medical professional. The professional will assess their circumstances and work with the individual to identify appropriate treatment options. These treatment options will then form part of the mutual obligations moving forward.</para>
<para>These measures are all designed to assist vulnerable Australians to escape the scourge of drugs and to take away the funding for those merchants of misery who deal them.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Husar</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It doesn't work!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lindsay will have ample time during her 15-minute contribution. I ask her to remain silent for the rest of the member's contribution.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This government has already committed nearly $300 million to support the National Ice Action Strategy as part of a total commitment of $685 million aimed at reducing the impact of alcohol and drugs on communities, on families and on individuals. In late June this year, we saw the WA police raid dozens of houses in the Kimberley and issue some 82 charges relating to drug possession and distribution. The Kimberley district inspector, while not commenting on the specific quantities of drugs found, confirmed that the impact would have been devastating if it had hit the streets of the Kimberley. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics, and clearly on this side of the House we know all about that, knows that the best way to reduce supply is to reduce demand. If this bill can go some way to putting drug dealers out of business—and it will have that impact—then it should be supported wholeheartedly.</para>
<para>I would like to note that the long-serving, now-retired police commissioner in Western Australia, Karl O'Callaghan, recently wrote on the need for welfare reform and the potential for the benefits that it can bring. On 1 July, he penned a piece in <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> talking about the cashless welfare card and how that would save kids and families. Although this is not about the cashless welfare card, I want to take the opportunity to place on record—and my good friend the member for O'Connor is here in the House now—an acknowledgement that the third trial site for the cashless welfare card is in Kalgoorlie and the surrounding areas. Kalgoorlie is my home town, so I know the people there are very grateful to the member for O'Connor and to Minister Tudge for their work in bringing the card to the Goldfields. I'm quite sure that that card is going to change lives and is going to turn around many of those families who are in desperate need of help. I shall end there on that note and say: I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HUSAR</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very keen to give my contribution, following the member for Durack's disgraceful comments about people on this side of the House and that this measure is not punitive. I rise to support Labor's position on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and in doing so place on record my concerns about the efficacy of these measures that the government is trying to implement.</para>
<para>As usual, this proposed legislation is a reflection of all the hallmark traits that this government has—lazy, incompetent in consultation and only interested in punitive measures which are based on popular opinion, not research, fact or professional input. Just a bunch of born-to-rule judgemental MPs who sit around on their fancy yachts casting aspersions over the lives of young people who are unemployed. They come in here with their mates from <inline font-style="italic">The Daily Telegraph</inline> making fun of, ridiculing and demonising anybody who hasn't made it by their standards. Anyone on a disability pension is given a front-page splashing—a front-page treatment on <inline font-style="italic">The Daily Telegraph</inline>—given scornful looks and dragged across the front pages, demonising their very existence. How dare they have a disability!</para>
<para>Then, with all of the Christian values we hear espoused over there, they judge anyone who happens to be unemployed or need the support of our social security safety net, claiming it's their own fault, that getting a job is somehow a rite of passage and that jobs are easy to come by. I would like to hear just one of them come in here—the hypocrites on the other side who come into this place—and tell the real story about employment in this country. Just one. One would be a good start. The reality is that there is one job for every seven Australians. In my part of the world, that I'm proud to represent, we have one local job for every 200 people. It is called the jobs deficit, and I would implore anybody to visit my office and get a copy of the report and read about the reasons for why we have such a deficit.</para>
<para>What's more, we have a proposal to make our community even more populated by 2050 without any real action, or ability or commitment to delivering new jobs. We might hear the minister for infrastructure talk a big game on jobs with the Western Sydney Airport. However, the reality is that these are pie-in-the-sky job figures based on nothing more than a dream—dreamed-up figures that are nothing more than empty promises.</para>
<para>Here in Australia we have a government hell-bent on punishing people who are desperately seeking employment, a government that refuses to take any responsibility for the inequity facing our communities and a government that is too lazy to do anything about creating meaningful employment, just further casualisation. This government ripped $17 billion out of school education, rebranded it as Gonski 2 and said that money in education doesn't equal better outcomes. Well, I believe in unicorns and fairies and for some time, for a third of my life, I believed in Santa; however, it's a stretch for even me to think that thin air will improve our educational outcomes, which, tada, the member for Durack might like to know, lead to poor outcomes in employment. With the background I have in my professional life I can tell you that it will not.</para>
<para>The government won't address falling wages. They want to cut the wages of anybody who relies on penalty rates. They won't invest in TAFE. In fact, in my community, apprenticeships have fallen by 37 per cent under this government. When it comes to falling wages and penalty rates, have we seen the government's modelling on the cost to the welfare system of those people who are reliant on penalty rates? No, we have not. What about the tertiary sector? They have stripped millions of dollars out of universities. The university in my area, which supports some of our lowest socio-economic students, will feel this the most.</para>
<para>Let's just recap where we are. Lazy government—tick. Won't invest in jobs and keeps promising the Earth on invisible jobs in Western Sydney that won't be built until 2025, not relieving any of the unemployment pressures now—tick. One job for every seven Australians—tick. One job for every 200 residents in Western Sydney—tick. This government has cut $17 billion out of education—tick. This government has voted to cut the wages of 700,000 Aussies through the slashing of penalty rates but has not told us how we're going to pay for it—tick. A drop in the number of new apprentices being trained in Western Sydney of 37 per cent—tick. Now they're coming after the university, which has many students who are the first in their family to train at a tertiary level—tick.</para>
<para>This is an exceptionally poor track record for a government which promised jobs and growth. None of those things that I mentioned say anything about jobs or growth. So what's the government's response? What is the response of the people opposite? What are they doing about this? Are they being 'agile and innovative'—a key term coined by the Prime Minister—to create more jobs? The jobs of the future, perhaps? No. Are they investing in training and skilling up young people? Also, no. Of course, they are just interested in punishing the vulnerable young people who are in receipt of our social security safety net. They are taking zero responsibility for the part they are playing to create and perpetuate joblessness.</para>
<para>Schedule 12 of this legislation and the proposed establishment of a drug-testing trial would see 5,000 people on Newstart and youth allowance randomly selected—to pee, to spit or to have their hair pulled out—to be drug tested—all of which is still up in the air. Because if you are unemployed and on welfare, of course you are also on drugs! How could we be so remiss as to miss that linkage? How could those two things not be intertwined? How could those two things not be inextricably linked? What is this government saying to all of the people in receipt of welfare? 'You're using drugs.' What is the government saying to all Australians who are not in receipt of welfare but are sitting on the judgemental benches? 'Anyone on welfare is also on drugs.'</para>
<para>Professionals with over 20,000 years of combined experience have all come out to condemn these actions. It is a shame that the member for Durack has left, but I do see the member for Tangney over there. He might want to take particular note of what I'm about to say. The professionals have all stated that this will do more harm than it will do good, and it will. Imagine the effects of being judged by an entire nation and told that, simply because you need help and support from Centrelink, you are a drug user. I'm not sure that they taught me that when I got my education at school, but it is certainly nothing that helped me get a job or where I am now. It is of no surprise to me that 1,000 individual practitioners, including the boss of the AMA, Dr Michael Gannon, have all rejected this idea and have been speaking out against it. These are professionals—not MPs, who come in here with opinions, but people who are trained in this space.</para>
<para>Do not misquote and do not mistake me as not being in favour of supporting people who live with addiction. In the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> is my own family's experience of someone who continues to be and was addicted at the time of my birth, when I was being raised, and during my adult life. I fully support any initiatives that will help—and I underscore the word 'help'—people who live with addiction. I support initiatives that have sound research, sound practice and sound support; not on-the-hop, lazy, opinionist policy that will do nothing more than stigmatise those who need that the least. I have watched, and I continue to watch, the effects of addiction close up. I've seen the deep impacts of what living with addiction does, and there is no punishment equal to the torment that is living with addiction. I have watched a man lose his job, his family, his home, his freedom and his friends—a good man who, if not for addiction, would give you a kidney. People who are addicted do not need punitive measures like this one that the government has proposed. They need practical ones—rehabilitation, support services and a clear way forward.</para>
<para>The government are asking a whole section of our community to take the blame for their incompetence—a section of society that should have had the opportunity for education, training and support throughout their lives. The government are taking punitive steps to hinder those people's ability to get a job, in the main by not providing anything more. Then they are saying to those who do rely on welfare to support their habit—and I understand that there are some whose addictions will be funded by Centrelink: 'We will punish you and push you into a life of further disadvantage to fund your habit.' I do not accept that this is sustainable, suitable or the best practice. It is certainly not the best use of the public resources that we have at our disposal as MPs to help them—and I include in the resources at our disposal those 1,000 professionals with a combined 20,000 years of experience.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has got his legislation all mixed up. This legislation isn't about love. He might be confusing it with the other legislation he's so gloriously messed up, the one about letting people who love each other get married. That bill is indeed about love. This one—schedule 12, in particular—is about punishment, being cruel and draconian and harming already harmed people. This bill does nothing to address the jobs deficit or to prevent addiction from occurring in the first place. This isn't about a race to the bottom either, because you lot already won that race a long time ago, under your former Prime Minister, and you continue to win it under this one.</para>
<para>I implore the members opposite to take some time with the 1,000 professionals who understand and are well educated in addiction, to find out what alternative steps—which is what they always seek when they come in here with their dorothy dixers—might be available to them in the pursuit of actually helping people who need it and not harming them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've just listened to 10 minutes or so of no useful contribution to this debate whatsoever, because, as usual from those opposite, it's a culture of complaint, whingeing, whining and putting no practical solutions on the table—once again, we see those opposite put no practical solutions on the table. I'm proud to stand in this chamber today and speak in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, as a member of this parliament who is having a trial in my electorate, in the City of Logan.</para>
<para>I want to start today by directly addressing some of the criticisms from those opposite. I ask a couple of simple questions. Do you support struggling families or do you not? It is a simple question, but it goes to the very heart of what is being discussed here today. This government is proposing a bill with a wide range of reforms to our welfare sector, but the most important thing is that these changes are designed to support those living in hardship and to help them ultimately break free of the cycle of welfare dependency. These are people living in very difficult circumstances, and these people are crying out for assistance. These are people who need a new strategy that will help them deal with a very difficult time in their lives.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Husar interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the fact that the member for Lindsay continues to interject, but her contribution that we just listened to added nothing substantial to the debate. What do we get from the opposition? Only time-wasting and cheap attempts at political point-scoring. We certainly hear no realistic alternative solutions to a situation that at least we can all agree is real in many, many people's lives.</para>
<para>The second question I will ask those opposite about this bill is: do you support taxpayer dollars funding drug habits? I suspect none of them over there would support that particular notion either. We know that those opposite know, and that everyone knows, that taxpayer dollars should not in any way be funding the presence of drugs on our streets. We know, sadly, though, that it is happening, and we know hardworking taxpayers out there are demanding that their money be used to improve their communities and not drag them down. Yet, while this government works to deal with that reality, those opposite whinge, moan and complain, and again provide no other solution as to how we can fix it.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to those opposite: here is the solution. This bill directly seeks to address both of these incredibly important issues. If you care about struggling families breaking free from the welfare cycle, you will support this bill. If you care about taxpayers' dollars being used appropriately, you will support this bill.</para>
<para>It was announced some two weeks ago that Logan in my electorate of Forde will be one of the three sites undergoing the drug-testing trial included in this bill. I want to emphasise at the outset that it is a trial, and I strongly support the Logan community being included as one of the trial sites. It is a community that I grew up in and I know very, very well. It's a community I love, and I do not and cannot shy away from the fact that drug addiction issues exist in the city, and that those issues must be addressed if we are to move forward.</para>
<para>To begin with, unfortunately, Logan has a higher than average inflow of entrants on to the two welfare payments included in this trial, and that alone makes it an ideal location to seek to properly establish through this trial whether the strategy that we are proposing works. On top of this, data from the Department of Human Services also indicate that the proportion of jobseekers in Logan with a drug or alcohol vulnerability indicator is above the national average. Furthermore, jobseekers in Logan that are granted a temporary incapacitation exemption due to a drug dependency diagnosis increased by some 162 per cent from December 2014 to December 2016.</para>
<para>Now, I'm the first to acknowledge that Logan's existing drug and alcohol services do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. The challenge we face, however, is how to get those that are truly in need of these services to access them. This trial is designed to identify jobseekers with drug addiction issues, where that is a barrier to employment, and then ensure they are connected to the treatment services appropriate to their individual circumstances. I note with interest that Logan City Council, which has been one of the more vocal critics of this proposal, utilises drug testing for their employees to ensure that they meet council employment requirements.</para>
<para>Under this bill, the government is committed to investing up to an additional $10 million to support the treatment of drug users identified in this trial. That is on top of the Australian government's commitment of almost $685 million over four years from 1 July 2016 to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on families, individuals and communities across Australia. Some $7 million of that figure has been spent in Logan over the past 18 months in providing additional services to Lives Lived Well and their facility at Logan House, and also for a support service that has been set up more recently in Beenleigh.</para>
<para>Income management has already been used in Logan, and it is a proven and effective tool to help welfare recipients manage their money. Income management ensures that the basic living needs of welfare recipients are met and consequently limits the amount of cash available to fund illicit drugs.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Forde will be given an opportunity at the that time to conclude his contribution.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>9455</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jordan-Baird, Ms Clara</title>
          <page.no>9455</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday morning, my office, my party and my community in Melbourne's west heard the devastating news that my dear friend Clara Jordan-Baird had died. I want to recognise Clara's life here today in a building that she loved. The public are cynical about politics, but Clara was the least-cynical person I knew. She was earnest, swotty, passionate and committed, and she talked at a thousand words a minute. She was a joiner, a giver and a doer. She was so determined. She was committed to the Labor cause and served it working for me and elected officers of our party, and through community organisations working towards shared objectives, including Interns Australia. She made an extraordinary contribution to our country and touched so many people in just 28 years.</para>
<para>We're shocked to have lost her so soon and so unexpectedly. I was so proud of her and I believed that she would do great things in the future. Those of us who knew her will honour her memory in this place by serving the causes she cared about, particularly the advancement of women's equality and the rights of young people in the workplace, and also by partaking in sea change, bad puns, women's footy and mince pies. My thoughts are with her family, her many friends, my staff and the Labor members who are grieving for her today in Canberra and in Melbourne. Robert, Prue, Emily and Alice, I am so sorry.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robertson Electorate: McEvoy Oval</title>
          <page.no>9455</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about some fantastic news for the Peninsula community in my electorate of Robertson. I have confirmation that the government has delivered on a much-needed upgrade to McEvoy Oval at Umina Beach. This is in no small part due to the coalition government's investment of $304,000 through the National Stronger Regions Fund. McEvoy Oval's new, modern facilities will support Central Coast sporting and community events, starting with the official launch celebration this Friday at 5 pm. The upgrade started in February, including the demolition of the old, run-down block, and construction of a new clubroom, a canteen, a store room, amenities, a veranda, landscaping and resealing of the car park. There's also a new irrigation system to help with the oval's sustainability, and the project has created 10 jobs.</para>
<para>But, more than this, it's been a true community-wide effort, because, as well as the federal government's investment, the New South Wales government invested $225,000, the Central Coast Council contributed almost $260,000, and Woy Woy Peninsula Little Athletics, the Peninsula Touch Football Association and the Southern Spirit Cricket Club together invested $13,000. For the more than 1,500 people who use this oval every year, it will mean a lot. Special thanks to Shari Massey and Karen Tucker from Central Coast Council for their tireless work and vision. I particularly recognise the incredible work of Kylie Brown, President of Woy Woy Little Athletics, who has been a true believer in this project from start to finish. I look forward to joining with everyone on Friday, which coincides with the registration event for the Little Athletics Club— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jordan-Baird, Ms Clara</title>
          <page.no>9456</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to join the member for Gellibrand in condolence today and pay tribute to the life of Clara Jordan-Baird. This week, the Australian Labor Party and, indeed, the community lost an amazing young woman. Clara Jordan-Baird died suddenly and unexpectedly at work on Monday evening. She was my friend and a friend to many of us here and at home. We, like her loving family, are bereft. Clara left an impression on everyone she met. Her energy, her passion and her enthusiasm were infectious. But it was her intellect and her incredible level of engagement that left the deepest impression. Nothing about Clara was superficial. All who knew her and interacted with her felt meaningfully connected to her. That's why this tragedy has broken the hearts of so many. She was a self-confessed fast talker. She spoke as quickly as her mind moved and her smile brightened the room and brightened this great place. In her 28 years, she achieved on a grand scale, but it's the loss of her promise that has wounded us all. It is too soon, too hard and too sad to contemplate her not fulfilling her prodigious potential. To her parents, Prue and Robert, and to her gorgeous sisters, Alice and Emily, of whom she always spoke so fondly, I send my deepest condolences and the condolences of those in the chamber with me today. From all her friends, we share your incredible loss.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Roads</title>
          <page.no>9456</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Building and maintaining better and safer roads is something that's incredibly important to the Turnbull government, and to me personally, given the massive amount of time I spend on the road in my enormous electorate of O'Connor. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, roads are the lifeblood of our local communities; in the case of O'Connor, transporting agricultural produce and minerals to market and international ports. They also connect or our regional, rural and remote families and communities, who are separated by vast distances. They invite tourists to explore our rich and diverse historical, cultural and natural assets and to experience our fantastic local produce.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to announce that my electorate of O'Connor will be made safer for residents and tourists alike thanks to the $122 million federal government investment over five years under the Roads to Recovery program. This financial year alone will see over $27 million invested into local governments in my electorate. This money couldn't come soon enough, given that the new WA Labor government have made huge cuts to roads funding in the short time that they have been in office.</para>
<para>This federal funding will assist the regions by ensuring that local roads get much-needed safety upgrades and repairs which will, ultimately, save lives. Roads to Recovery allows local governments, who have the local knowledge, to direct funding where it's most needed. Our councils do such a great job already, but they rely on Roads to Recovery funding to ensure improved road safety for their local communities. During my travels, I have seen firsthand the real benefits that this program provides to our regional communities. I'll be a strong advocate for the continuation of Roads to Recovery into the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International FASD Awareness Day</title>
          <page.no>9457</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to draw attention to the fact that Saturday, 9 September is International FASD Awareness Day. FASD, or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, is a lifelong disability which children can be born with after exposure to alcohol during pregnancy. This exposure primarily affects the functioning of the brain, resulting in damage to a child's motor skills, cognition, language development, memory and impulse control. This has significant implications for their future. FASD, as we know, is preventable, and the journey to end FASD starts today. We don't need new drugs or advances in safety equipment; what we need is strong government commitment to tackling the issue.</para>
<para>In 2012, the House Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs considered the issue in depth. Sadly, however, many of its recommendations have not been implemented. FASD adversely affects families and communities across this country. We must do more. We must support those with FASD by allowing them to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme and by helping their parents and carers. We must do better to prevent FASD from occurring. One in four women in Australia continue to drink even after they are aware that they're pregnant. We must ensure that all women receive accurate information and advice from their health professionals, and support from family and friends. We must all be heroes for children by encouraging alcohol-free pregnancies. I invite you all to join me in recognising FASD this Saturday.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Client Liaison Pty Ltd</title>
          <page.no>9457</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I bring to the House's attention the questionable business practices of Messrs Harvey Miller AO and Monte Morgan as joint CEOs of Client Liaison Pty Ltd. Living a 'Wild Life', they may boast of the 'World of Our Love' for them, but they're about to board their Ansett Skystar for their forthcoming tour to Germany, Austria, London and the United States. This House is here to say: 'You don't have <inline font-style="italic">Diplomatic Immunity</inline> to jet off on "A Foreign Affair" with your business contacts with "Electric Eyes" in the back of your "Off White Limousine".' Messrs Miller AO and Morgan may ask, 'Where Do We Belong'? The answer is at home, here in Australia, creating jobs and paying taxes. Their 'Do It My Way' approach of tax minimisation may be legal, but evasion is not. 'The Bravest Beginnings' are always honouring your obligations here, gentlemen, and you can start with your performance this Saturday in Canberra. So to Client Liaison Pty Ltd we say this: enjoy your 'Hotel Stay', but if you think 'Canberra Won't Be Calling Tonight', think again. The Australian Taxation Office has your number.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Streets Ice Cream, Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>9458</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Next week, the Liberal and National parties commence their fifth year in government. Under this government we have seen sustained attacks on workers and their representatives. The latest company emboldened by Prime Minister Turnbull's attacks on workers and their representatives is the ice-cream maker Streets, the people who make ice creams such as Magnums and Golden Gaytimes. Streets Ice Cream plan to slash the pay of their workers by 46 per cent. The working mums and dads who have devoted themselves to this company will have their overtime penalties cut and their redundancy entitlements cut. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, my union, has come out in support of these workers who will be feeling the pinch from these very harsh cuts. This is not a company that is doing it tough; this is a company that reportedly had a $3.58 billion profit. Sadly, Streets is not showing respect for those who sweat for that company.</para>
<para>Sadly, we do not have a government that is creating the right atmosphere to support workers. The most vulnerable workers are having their penalty rates cuts and we see systemic underpayment and exploitation by some companies. In the past two years we have seen workers exploited through the underpayment of workers, unfair subcontracting, unsafe working conditions and compulsory substandard accommodation. This widespread exploitation is from big corporations, yet, day after day, we see the Turnbull government attacking workers and their representatives. They should be ashamed. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>La Trobe Electorate: Upwey-Tecoma Community Recreational and Sporting Hub</title>
          <page.no>9458</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the beginning of August this year, I attended the sod-turning ceremony for the brand new $3.6 million Upwey-Tecoma Community Recreational and Sporting Hub. The idea for the hub was founded by community groups looking to provide a modern facility that could be used by local sporting and community clubs. There are currently 23 local community groups working together on this project, and I'm so proud to be able to help with their shared vision.</para>
<para>Although there have been over 3,600 individuals from the sporting, recreational and education groups involved, I would like extend a special thank you to chairman, Andrew Peterson—who I can say has annoyed me over the years over this project, but he's an amazing ambassador for the local area—and secretary, Alan Stevenson; Nick Peterson; and Andrew Fullgar for their contributions to this project. I would also like to acknowledge some of the clubs: the Upwey-Tecoma Football and Netball Club, the Upwey-Tecoma Cricket Club, Sherbrooke U3A, Belgrave Probus Club and, of course, Upwey High School.</para>
<para>The Turnbull government committed $500,000 towards this project. This is a very valuable project for the local community from the Upwey-Tecoma area. Those involved in this project who have worked so hard must be so proud that soon we'll actually be opening Upwey-Tecoma CRASH. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care: Nurse Practitioners</title>
          <page.no>9458</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Colleagues, today I want to sing the praises of older people nurse practitioners, who provide regular consultation in regular aged-care facilities, in-patient acute care, telehealth, and remote clinics. They provide exceptional support to an already heavily-burdened rural GP workforce.</para>
<para>I'd particularly like to acknowledge the only two older persons nurse practitioners, Steven Voogt, and Deanne Berge, from my electorate of Indi. Research from the University of Melbourne tells us that their work helps prevent hospitalisation and enhances appropriate referral paths for older people at risk of serious illness. These exceptional people provide a service that helps older people maintain their functional capacity for as long as possible and enhances their quality of life. It's a service that older people and their families really appreciate.</para>
<para>It's predicted that by 2050, upwards of 3.5 million Australians will be accessing aged-care services annually. This growth is alongside a forecast health workforce shortage, including a smaller number of GPs who visit aged-care facilities—and particularly so in rural areas. But there's a problem: these nurse practitioners only have access to four MBS items and reimbursement remains really low, at 85 per cent of schedule fees. This creates a serious barrier to entry. We need more nurse practitioners.</para>
<para>In closing, I would like to acknowledge the work of Helen Haynes in preparing this speech. Thank you, Helen. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chisholm Electorate: Community Organisations</title>
          <page.no>9459</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BANKS</name>
    <name.id>18661</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Chisholm community is strengthened and enriched by the many hardworking people who dedicate countless hours in our local sporting clubs, Neighbourhood Houses, social groups and other fantastic organisations. It was a great pleasure to join many of these Chisholm residents at last week's Whitehorse City Council Community Dinner to celebrate our vibrant local community and the people who contribute so much to our local area.</para>
<para>I was pleased to catch up with many of these amazing people, such as the dedicated Rowena Garrett from the Bennettswood Neighbourhood House, whose children go to Orchard Grove Primary School; David Mahony, a club leader at Emmaus St Leo's old boys football club, whose home ground I can see from my office window; Alex Palmos, who has spearheaded the Box Hill United Pythagoras Soccer Club for almost two decades and is a staunch advocate for encouraging girls and women in sport; Stuart Shelley from the Surrey Park Panthers junior footy club, a superb club in Surry Hills who are also fantastic advocates for girls in football; the formidable Cheryl Webster from the Burwood Neighbourhood House, who organises a wonderful and inclusive program of activities; Kitty Ng, who is a tireless supporter of the elderly at the Box Hill Chinese Senior Citizens Club; Jennifer Yeung and Stella Lee from the Chinese Women's Association of Victoria, who promote ethnically inclusive local friendship and support; Gail Cameron, executive director at Crossway LifeCare; and Ian Crawford and Lesley Renton from the Bennettswood Bowling Club. Special thanks to Whitehorse mayor Denise Massoud and CEO Noelene Duff. I am deeply proud to be the representative in this place and truly grateful for the opportunity. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Stroke Week</title>
          <page.no>9459</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEAY</name>
    <name.id>262273</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 2017, someone has a stroke in Australia every nine minutes, and it's predicted the number of strokes will more than double by 2050. Stroke is a time-critical emergency caused when blood supply to the brain is interrupted owing to a blocked or bleeding artery. Stroke and its effects place a significant physical, emotional and financial burden on patients, their families, carers and loved ones. Community awareness and the promotion of the prevention of stroke are paramount to improving outcomes after stroke.</para>
<para>This week is National Stroke Week, the annual awareness campaign run by the Stroke Foundation to highlight the dramatic impact that stroke can have on the wider community. This week of is particular significance for my electorate of Braddon, as regional Australians are 19 per cent more likely to suffer a stroke than those in metropolitan areas. Due to my electorate having a higher representation of older Australians and those with chronic conditions, it is over-represented in stroke statistics. In 2017, Tasmania has the second-highest number of stroke instances per capita and the highest number of stroke survivors per capita, but we see a lack of funding for preventive health. My state Labor colleague Rebecca White and her team will take a strategic approach to preventive health in Tasmania by establishing the Healthy Communities Commission, which will have the authority to tackle Tasmania's high rates of preventable diseases.</para>
<para>The Stroke Foundation says: 'Think FAST—face, arm, speech, time—and act fast by dialling triple 0.'</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mackellar Electorate: Rugby Union</title>
          <page.no>9460</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 26 August, I witnessed the Warringah Rats achieve a hard-fought victory in the grand final of the prestigious Shute Shield tournament, winning their first piece of silverware in 12 years—a memorable occasion. The Rats showcased the strength and resilience of community sport on the Northern Beaches, winning 30-25 against the reigning champions, Northern Suburbs, after an outstanding performance by all players in front of a sellout crowd. Such an achievement follows a difficult year for both the club and the local community, which tragically lost one of their own, Lachlan Ward, earlier this year. Led by Lachlan's brother Sam, who wore his brother's shoes, winning the shield was a fitting tribute to a cherished member of the family that is the Warringah Rugby Club.</para>
<para>I congratulate the other players, including man of the match Harry Jones, coach Darren Coleman and staff and members of the community that made this victory possible. I would also like to commend the resilient spirit of all those involved with a club that four short years ago was on its knees. Its tenacity is truly reflective both of the importance of grassroots football to the local community and of the persistent attitude that is so deeply ingrained in our sporting tradition.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endometriosis</title>
          <page.no>9460</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I had the honour of becoming an Endometriosis Australia ambassador, I pledged to end the silence for the one in 10 women in our communities—and in my community—who are suffering from this insidious disease. This weekend, I will join the member for Boothby, who's the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness, at the EndoActive conference in Sydney, where we'll hear from women who will share their experiences of living with endo—women like Monica, who has written: 'Being in pain for six to seven days straight, having a full hysterectomy because the pain is insufferable. Most days are spent in too much pain to move,' or like Emily, who wrote: 'Four days post-op from a second excision surgery, hoping the waiting between surgeries next time is longer, because surgery and recovery sucks,' or like Charlene, who wrote: 'Multiple surgeries including endo removed from the bladder, a bowel resection, having the sigmoid colon removed. Living with pain since early teens. I'm now 36,' or like Jay-me, who wrote: 'Finally diagnosed at the age of 22 after going to doctors since the age of 12. Have had five surgeries in three years, and it not only impacts my livelihood but my mental health and social health,' or like Emilie, who wrote: 'I have endo and have had five surgeries and gone through IVF to freeze my eggs. I have been in chronic pain after my last surgery, and this disease has had an impact on every part of my life.' Let's end the silence on endo.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicines Australia: PharmAus 2017</title>
          <page.no>9461</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've said many times, Bennelong is Australia's capital of innovation. We are home to some of the most innovative companies and organisations in the country. From wi-fi to the Granny Smith apple, we are Sydney's home of invention. Many of our most innovative groups are pharmaceutical companies working up on 'Pill Hill'. Last night they came to us here on Capital Hill for the inaugural Medicines Australia PharmAus showcase, held in the Great Hall, where there were cocktails. It was a fantastic event. Twenty companies were on show, describing all aspects of the pharmaceutical industry. Stalls focused on R&D in collaboration with academia, vaccines, advanced manufacturing, patient outcomes and fighting disease.</para>
<para>These are just some of the ways that this key industry helps people across our communities. All party leaders and health ministers from across the isle were in attendance, but I was particularly pleased to see so many members and senators in the room. This industry saves lives on a daily basis, and it was great to see so many parliamentarians engaging with it. I'd like to congratulate all the companies that took part, particularly our wonderful local Bennelongians, and I'd like to thank Medicines Australia for their leadership of the event, especially Wes Cook, Milton Catelin, James Boyce and Aliide Murphy. Thank you, MA and the pharmaceutical industry, for showing us just how much you make our world a safer and better place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>The Ballarat Courier: 150th anniversary</title>
          <page.no>9461</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As members will know, the region I proudly represent has a significant history. A vital element of that notable history is the history of newspapers and publishing. It started when Henry Seekamp launched the <inline font-style="italic">Ballarat Times</inline> in 1854 and his forthright opinions and courage as a publisher saw him locked up alongside the Eureka rebellion. Ballarat historian Dr Ann Beggs Sunter records Seekamp as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a forceful advocate of reform of the goldfields administration, votes for diggers, and improvements in education and local government.</para></quote>
<para>For the past 150 years, it has been the Ballarat<inline font-style="italic"> Courier</inline> that has proudly carried the torch for our region. It is built upon the legacy begun by Seekamp. It continues to campaign, without fear or favour, for reform and community growth. I can assure the House that it holds its public institutions and representatives to account, which is as it should be. It's an important journal of record and is one of the nation's great regional newspapers. <inline font-style="italic">The Courier </inline>goes out of its way to celebrate the achievements of all in our community. It was very special to be able to celebrate <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ourier'</inline>s own achievements last Saturday—150 years of reporting in my regional home town of Ballarat. I want to thank it and its many staff, its print staff in particular, for the contribution to the region. I wish them a happy 150th birthday and all the best for the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>RAAF Amberley Aviation Heritage Centre, Veterans Support Centre Lockyer/Brisbane Valley</title>
          <page.no>9462</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I had the opportunity to organise an event for the Veterans Support Centre Lockyer/Brisbane Valley, taking members on a tour of the Amberley RAAF base. During our visit, we had the pleasure of meeting with Air Commodore Ken Robinson and viewing a Boeing C-17 Globemaster on the tarmac. It is a colossal piece of equipment. We were then joined by Air Commodore John Meier for a tour of the RAAF Amberley Aviation Heritage Centre, a trip through the Australian Defence Force's aviation history. The visit brought back pleasant memories for members from their time in the Defence Force. Many of them worked at Amberley at some stage of their defence careers. Things have changed at the air base since that time, so I'm pleased that I could organise a visit for the members so that the local guys were able to see the contributions of our current servicemen.</para>
<para>The centre is a vital part of the community and supports many defence families and veterans who call the region home. Having just received a $29,000 grant through the Building Excellence in Support and Training program, they will certainly continue to support local defence families. It was a pleasure to be joined by Grant and Yvonne Mullins; Scott, Hayden and Clayton Butters; Ray Maeyke; Andrew Black; Ricky Lawson; Peter Mansfield; David and Wendy Bell; Ray McDonough; Glen and Alessandra Atkinson; Bob Stack; Dave Keen; Ray and Mrs Browning; and Michael and Randall Ellison—brave men and women who served our country. It was a privilege for me to be able to take them through the centre.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Protection Week</title>
          <page.no>9462</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's Child Protection Week, and today I'm calling on parliament to open up our hearts, our minds and our wallets—and our communities—to a group of young people who have come to parliament today as part of a project called 'Protection'. They have made a film and have been involved in making this film for the last three or four years. I want to give a special shout-out to Cooper Mangarelli, Drew and Nicole Brown, Nyetarlee Jackson and Victoria Thomas. They largely come from housing commission suburbs in my electorate. They are fantastic, enthusiastic young kids, and they have brought their cinema cubby to the lawns of Parliament House. It's that colourful structure out the front—</para>
<para>An opposition member: It's cold today!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it is cold today, but their enthusiasm is infectious. I want to read a couple of quotes to the House, particularly from Lilly, who has been involved. She is 14 and says, 'We are super excited to finish this film and to show it to other kids and their families all around Australia and talk to them about the issues and messages that come up in our film.' And then there's Cooper, aged 10, who says, 'We're very proud of our film, because it's us on screen. We're not Hollywood actors; we're the real thing. It's great when people tell you how much they loved the film.'</para>
<para>The issues they are talking about are important. They're about bullying, racism and how to deal with the challenges confronting you and your households. I'm encouraging you and your communities to get behind this important project. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mallee Electorate: Broadband</title>
          <page.no>9463</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROAD</name>
    <name.id>30379</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The people in the Mallee should be able to drive on a decent road, have adequate telecommunications, have good educational opportunities for their children and know that when they go do the doctor there will be a doctor there and they can get treated. The focus of my job is looking after not only the big towns but all our great country towns. In October, I will be on the road doing a great country towns tour across the Wimmera Mallee.</para>
<para>Two of those great country towns are Kaniva and Sea Lake. Both are towns that are currently not on the NBN rollout for fixed wireless. I have told NBN Co that it's going to be cheaper for them to put a tower in those towns than to respond to the letters that I'm going to write, time and time and time again, to get that happening. I have written to the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Mitch Fifield—this is my third letter to the minister—and I am confident that we will get there. Kaniva has a population of 1,000. It has a school of 200 students from prep to year 12. Sea Lake has a population of 600 people and is a growing town with two great schools. I'm not going to give up. I believe in the future of country towns.</para>
<para>We talk about inland cities, but our country towns have a future. Our country towns have a future because our government is going to deliver one for them. The people who live in these towns are great Australians. They deserve to have access to a fixed wireless internet, and I'm going to get it for them. We won't give up.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on both sides, if you could just take your seats, and cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>His Holiness Pope Tawadros II</title>
          <page.no>9463</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is a very special day for the parliament. I've had the great privilege and honour of welcoming His Holiness Pope Tawadros II. He's the Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, which has 15 to 20 million adherents the world. He's the spiritual leader of a community of faith that is one of the oldest sects of Christianity in the world. It has gone through difficult periods of stress and persecution over many, many centuries, but it has endured in that time. It is a great honour and joy for us to welcome him to the Australian parliament.</para>
<para>He met with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the foreign minister, the shadow foreign minister, the minister for immigration and the shadow immigration minister. They had very productive meetings that were about engagement with the Coptic Australian community, as well as how Australia can assist the Coptic Church and Egypt to maintain national unity against the scourge that we all face—terrorism and extremism.</para>
<para>It's a great honour and joy to welcome His Holiness Pope Tawadros II. As the first Copt to be elected to the federal parliament, it is particularly special for me to have had the privilege to host him today. I welcome him and their graces the bishops and his excellency the ambassador. On such a momentous and historic visit, thank you for gracing us with your presence, and welcome to Australia and the Parliament of Australia.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Blenkhorn, Mr George</title>
          <page.no>9464</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>McMillan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, if you haven't read the piece by the Treasurer, 'Why I cherish Jan 26 in all its complexity', I suggest you should; it's a great Australian story.</para>
<para>Another great Australian story is that of George Blenkhorn, his wife, Sue, and their three children, who came to Australia in 1977 to join the veterinary clinic in Pakenham. George has just been honoured with a very special award from the Victorian Farmers Federation for making an invaluable contribution to local farming and agriculture.</para>
<para>George was my vet for my farm, my dogs, my cats and my cows—especially my favourite cow, who was bitten by a snake and, sadly, died. George was there 24 hours a day. He worked every Christmas Day. He worked seven days a week, 24 hours a day. This is a great farming story, a great veterinary story and a great story about going into the small community of Pakenham from England—the story of George and his wife, Sue. Their contribution to our local community has been enormous. That was recognised by this very, very special award. Only people like myself know how special this award is for George, who became a mayor of our shire, was a councillor after he retired and was a most excellent contributor to our community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>9464</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Most members were in the chamber when the member for Wills spoke, so I think it's fitting now that I formally welcome this afternoon His Holiness Pope Tawadros II, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark. On behalf of the House, we give you a very warm welcome.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>9464</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>9464</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</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. Senator Canavan resigned from cabinet 43 days ago. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister still sitting on your front—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right are preventing me from hearing the question. They will cease interjecting, including the Leader of the House and the Deputy Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition will repeat his question from the beginning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Canavan resigned from cabinet 43 days ago, so why is the Deputy Prime Minister still sitting on your front bench? What is he still doing here?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member's question has a distinctly familiar ring to it, and I refer him to my earlier answers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>North Korea</title>
          <page.no>9465</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on recent discussions with world leaders on North Korea and the risks it is posing to the region?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question. He, like all members of the government, is focused on the issues that are of most concern to Australians: energy prices, economic growth, jobs and, above all, national security. There is no greater risk to the security of our region than the threat posed by North Korea today.</para>
<para>I can inform the House that I discussed the North Korean threat and other security issues with President Trump this morning. The risk of war on the Korean Peninsula is, as we noted, greater than it has been for 60 years. Conflict on the peninsula would be catastrophic. President Trump and I agreed that now is the time to exert the maximum diplomatic and, above all, economic pressure on North Korea to bring this reckless and dangerous regime to its senses. The North Korean regime is threatening the peace of the region in a manner that runs the risk of disturbing the world order, putting thousands of millions of lives at risk. It is the most dangerous, immediate threat to the stability of our region and we need more concerted effort by the global community.</para>
<para>I've also discussed this threat with President Widodo of Indonesia yesterday, with Prime Minister Abe of Japan, and with Prime Minister English of New Zealand last week. All the leaders with whom I have discussed this recognise that this threat needs to be addressed. We all recognise that China has the closest and most substantial economic relationship with North Korea. Nobody suggests that China is responsible for North Korea's dangerous conduct; nobody suggests that North Korea is to China what East Germany was to the old Soviet Union. We recognise that China is enforcing the latest round of United Nations Security Council sanctions. We acknowledge that and we thank them for doing that. But the reality is that China alone has the economic leverage that would enable it to bring this regime to its senses without conflict. With the greatest leverage comes the greatest responsibility. We are thoroughly united in calling on China to do more in concert with the global community.</para>
<para>Above all, President Trump and I confirmed and affirmed the alliance between our two nations, the bedrock of our national security. We have America's back; America has Australia's back. We are united.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On indulgence, I would like to briefly associate the opposition with the Prime Minister's remarks. The message from both sides of this parliament is unequivocal. North Korea's repeated defiance of international law and UN Security Council resolutions is unacceptable. North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear tests are not only a direct threat to its immediate neighbours, but they undermine global peace and security. No nation can believe itself immune from the threat that this crisis poses. Every nation must do all that it can to pressure North Korea to halt this extremely dangerous conduct.</para>
<para>Senator Wong and I will be travelling to Japan and the Republic of Korea later this month. Our message to Australia's friends and partners in the region will be crystal clear. Every member of the Australian parliament wants a stable, secure and peaceful region, and we will support every practical step that can be taken to reduce the risk of conflict. Whatever Labor can do to assist in this endeavour, we will.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>9466</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the claim by the Leader of the House that the Constitution allows a minister to keep their job for three months after being disqualified by the High Court reflect government policy?</para>
<para>Government members interjecting —</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney will resume her seat. Again, members on my right and someone on the left—I suspect the member for Solomon—are preventing me from hearing the question. I am going to ask the member for Sydney to repeat the question from the beginning, but I'm giving fair warning now that I'm not going to keep doing this without ejecting people.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the claim by the Leader of the House that the Constitution allows a minister to keep their job for three months after being disqualified by the High Court reflect government policy? Is the government making this absurd argument now to ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister has all the benefits of office, because he is already campaigning for re-election in New England?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has the call. He can disregard the last part of the question, which was a political assertion.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's interesting to be asked whether the Constitution reflects government policy. I can assure the honourable member that the government is very, very committed to upholding the Australian Constitution, and I hope they are too.</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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>North Korea</title>
          <page.no>9466</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZIMMERMAN</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how the government is responding to the escalating tension on the Korean peninsula and its potential effect on Australia and the region?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name>
    <name.id>83P</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for North Sydney for asking a very important question that is of deep concern to the Australian people. The escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula are the direct result of the illegal actions of the North Korean regime in threatening its neighbours with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. North Korea's behaviour has been roundly condemned by the international community, and Australia joins with the UN Security Council and other nations in urging North Korea to change course.</para>
<para>In particular, I advise the House that, this morning, I joined with the foreign ministers of MIKTA—Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia—in censuring North Korea for its actions. Australia's defence minister, Senator Marise Payne, is on her way to Seoul. She will meet with Korea's defence minister. She will also meet with General Brooks, the commander of UN Command, US Forces Korea and Combined Forces Command. She will also deliver an address to the Seoul Defence Dialogue, where she will reaffirm Australia's commitment to working with our partners and allies and nations around the world in exerting maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to compel it to change its behaviour and deter it from further tests.</para>
<para>North Korea's destabilising and dangerous behaviour comes at a time of unprecedented levels of engagement by Australia in North Asia. In fact, at any one time, over 200,000 Australians are either living in or visiting South Korea, Japan and China. The Turnbull government is committed to ensuring that all Australians are reliably informed of the current situation on the Korean peninsula, and we are ensuring that our official travel advice is updated regularly. In fact, this morning, the official travel advice on our Smartraveller website for Japan and for the Republic of Korea was updated. Specifically, in relation to Korea, it noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Further provocations by the DPRK or reactions by other countries cannot be ruled out.</para></quote>
<para>And:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… tensions on the Korean Peninsula could escalate with little warning.</para></quote>
<para>Our official advice for the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, DPRK, is that Australians should reconsider their need to travel to the DPRK. I would urge Australians not to travel to North Korea. We have no consular presence there. We have little capacity to assist should any Australians get into trouble.</para>
<para>I can inform the House that our embassies in Seoul and Tokyo have comprehensive contingency plans in place should there be any crisis or conflict situation or should any consular scenario eventuate. I can confirm that we have plans in place with our partners and allies should any contingency arise. I urge all Australians to register on the Smartraveller website and, if you do register, electronic alerts are available. In the meantime, the Australian government will work with nations around the world to explore every avenue to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis on the Korean peninsula.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New England Electorate: New England Highway</title>
          <page.no>9467</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is addressed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Given the Bolivia Hill upgrade on the New England Highway was funded in the 2013 budget, why did it take until last week for tenders to be called on this vital project? Why has the government only acted now when the project was fully funded more than four years ago? Is it because the government and the Deputy Prime Minister are preparing for a snap by-election in New England?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Grayndler for his audition for the leadership of the Labor Party. At least the member for Grayndler is talking about an issue that people in regional Australia care about, being investment in land transport infrastructure.</para>
<para>All this week those opposite have been asking questions about issues that, quite frankly, people on work sites around Australia couldn't care less about. They couldn't care less about the questions that the Leader of the Opposition has come up with. But at least the member for Grayndler has raised an issue of significant importance to the people of New England.</para>
<para>I want to thank and congratulate the member for New England for his hard work in advocating on behalf of his community to deliver the infrastructure that he knows will change people's lives and save people's lives in his community. He knows that investment in good infrastructure will change lives and save lives. As to the way it's changing lives, it's reducing congestion, improving productivity and creating jobs in regional Australia, particularly in the seat of New England—the seat which has never had better representation than it's getting right from the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party. The Bolivia Hill project that the member for Grayndler referred to will save lives as well. We understand that that project that will improve safety on this important transport link through the New England region.</para>
<para>I would also add that the member for New England has been an extraordinary advocate for infrastructure right across his electorate, which gives me the opportunity to reflect for a moment on how hard he worked in delivering record funding for the inland rail.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question went to why it was funded in 2013—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler will resume his seat immediately!</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Joyce interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House and the Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the Bolivia Hill project, it is important to note that Labor did nothing on that project in the time that it was in government. We're getting on with the job of delivering better, safer roads in the New England region, which, as I said earlier, will change lives and will save lives.</para>
<para>The member for New England was fundamentally the driving force behind the inland rail project, with the support of colleagues right along the route. The member for Parkes, the member for Riverina, the member for Groom and the member for Maranoa are all strong advocates for the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project that is being delivered by this government.</para>
<para>So I do thank the member for Grayndler for his question. At least we know that one member opposite is actually interested in issues that people in regional Australia care about. They care about better roads, they care about the cost of living and they care about affordable, reliable energy. What they don't care about is this Leader of the Opposition, who they know is very shifty. They know they can't trust him and they know that he is not interested in their jobs in regional Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>9468</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've just been informed that we have two members from the South Australian parliament with us today: Vickie Chapman, the member for Bragg and the deputy state Liberal leader and shadow Attorney-General; and Mr Stephan Knoll, the member for Schubert and the shadow minister for police, emergency and correctional services. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>9469</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education</title>
          <page.no>9469</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister, but I would begin by saying that people in rural Australia actually care about regional higher education. As the Prime Minister knows, our universities play a pivotal role in economic, social and cultural development. They drive our workforce development, they support our population retention and they stimulate innovation. The universities in my electorate, Charles Sturt and La Trobe, together with the Regional Universities Network, have grave concerns about the impact of the government's proposed higher education reform package. They tell me that this package puts at risk their capacity to drive excellence in research and innovation and their ability to deliver quality teaching and learning outcomes—and I share their fears. I'm asking, Prime Minister: can you commit—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Indi will resume her seat. Unfortunately, there was no question within that 45 seconds.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>9469</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer tell the House how today's strong national accounts figures reflect better days ahead for the Australian economy? What does this mean for the budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mackellar for his question. He knows that today's national accounts demonstrate that the better days ahead for our economy are beginning to emerge, and that's good news for all Australians.</para>
<para>It's good news that the entire House should welcome in fact, because in these figures we have seen more growth, with real growth in our economy—up 0.8 per cent in the June quarter. That's more than double the pace of the March quarter. In year-average terms, that's 1.9 per cent growth over the course of the year, which is above the forecast for that year, which we had in the budget of this year—coming in ahead of the budget. Of course, the nominal growth in our economy came in on forecast at six per cent. There is six per cent nominal growth in our economy. There's more investment. New private business investment expanded for the third successive quarter and, at 1.5 per cent growth through the year, that is the first time we've had a positive year since March 2013. And we're seeing strong business investment in new machinery and equipment, which was up more than three per cent in the quarter. Investment across all levels of government was up 5.7 per cent in the quarter and it was almost nine per cent through the year.</para>
<para>And there's more to come, because there's $75 billion worth of infrastructure, like the projects the minister was just referring to, coming to our economy. Defence investment is up 26.3 per cent in the quarter. It's part of our industry plan for defence that is driving jobs and growth in our economy. There are stronger exports. They grew by 2.7 per cent in the June quarter, despite the disruptions and the tragedies of Tropical Cyclone Debbie. Those exports rose 4.3 per cent over the year, and that includes 18.7 per cent in agriculture exports. And service exports have been growing, on average, by seven per cent for the past three years.</para>
<para>Of course, we have stronger industries, with agriculture and services driving growth across the year. I note manufacturing in the June quarter bounced back, with the strongest quarterly growth in manufacturing production in six years. There are more jobs and wages, as we've already learned. Wages and salaries rose 0.7 per cent in that quarter and went up 2.1 per cent over the year, and that is on the back of the strongest jobs growth we've seen in a fiscal year since the GFC. We've seen the strongest growth in full-time jobs in the last six months that we've seen in 40 years.</para>
<para>This is the product of the economics of opportunity triumphing over the politics of envy, which is driven by the Labor Party over on that side of the House. These figures show us that last year's budgeted outcome will be bettered when we see the final outcome in a few months' time—a stronger budget, more jobs, more growth, more exports, more investment— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New England Electorate: New England Highway</title>
          <page.no>9470</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is addressed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. I refer the minister to his joint media release with the Deputy PM of 31 August which stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Bolivia Hill upgrade builds on ... the $10 million I recently confirmed for the future Tenterfield Heavy Vehicle Bypass.</para></quote>
<para>Isn't it a fact that the Tenterfield heavy vehicle bypass was funded by the former federal Labor government? Why has it taken the prospect of a snap by-election in New England to panic the government into action on this long-overdue project? And is this why he stopped referring to the Turnbull-Joyce— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Grayndler for his question and say that it's a great day when I get to answer questions on behalf of my great friend, the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, on all the things he's delivering in New England—all the things the Turnbull-Joyce government is delivering in New England.</para>
<para>The member for Grayndler likes to refer to projects as being funded by Labor. The problem for the member for Grayndler is he doesn't understand a very basic principle: it's actually funded by the Australian taxpayers. The hardworking Australian taxpayers provide the money for Treasury and Finance, and we make decisions on the priorities and how we're going to spend that money and deliver value for money for the Australian taxpayers.</para>
<para>The member for Grayndler says it was funded by Labor, but it wasn't built by Labor. They didn't build it; they didn't build a thing. Bolivia Hill—didn't build it. Tenterfield bypass—didn't build it. Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail—didn't build it. The member for Grayndler didn't build it. I don't believe New England has ever had better representation in this place than the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister. He is delivering road and rail infrastructure. He is delivering better bridges through the Bridges Renewal program. He is delivering safer roads through the Black Spot Program—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>More money for schools.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mobile phone towers.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>More money for schools and mobile phone towers. There has never been a member for New England who has delivered more for his community. I want to thank the member for Grayndler for giving me the opportunity to extol the virtues of what a great member the member for New England has been and will continue to be for many, many more years to come.</para>
<para>As those opposite come to the dispatch box this week and talk about citizenship, I tell you now: when you go out to the worksite—if you ever go to the worksite anymore—the workers are talking about job security, energy affordable and reliability, and national security. None of them are talking about dual citizenship. So I would suggest to those opposite: get off the comfy green benches over there and get out to some of those work sites and listen to what real workers are talking about. They're talking about the jobs being provided through the Turnbull-Joyce government's jobs and infrastructure program which is delivering right around regional Australia. They're talking about energy affordability; they're talking about the cost of living. I would suggest that those opposite get out there and understand the issues that Australians are actually interested in.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>9471</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr IRONS</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House how the government's economic plan is delivering a strong economy as reflected in today's national accounts? How do businesses and families benefit from a strong economy, including those in my electorate of Swan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank the member for Swan for this very important question. He understands, and his community understands—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A few questions have been asked in your electorate, as well!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Rankin is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>how important it is to have a strong and growing economy, and how delivering the right framework delivers higher wages for those people. The member for Swan understands that a growing economy does mean higher wages, better wages and more jobs, and today's national accounts show that the Australian economy grew by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter. It is more than double what we saw in the March quarter. There has been significant growth across many sectors, including the manufacturing, construction and agricultural sectors. All of this is very good news for businesses, workers and households in our economy.</para>
<para>Today, this very strong result comes off the back of strong jobs growth last financial year which saw about 240,000 jobs created across Australia. And it's on top of the very good news about the wages growth announced on Monday which saw a 1.2 per cent increase in total wages paid in the June quarter. Our government knows that despite 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to put in place the right economic settings. And we have been doing that. Our very strong enterprise tax plan is delivering. It has delivered already very significant tax cuts to small and medium-sized enterprises across Australia, and that includes about 18,000 businesses in the electorate of Swan. But those opposite would put a handbrake on our economy and punish those small and medium-sized enterprises. They would punish them by increasing their taxes. In fact, they have a massive tax grab ahead, from those small and medium-sized enterprises: they would jack up their corporate tax rate to 30 per cent if they have a turnover between $2 million and $25 million. This is, of course, not in the best interests of those small businesses or the millions of Australians that are employed by them.</para>
<para>Labor used to actually believe in cutting taxes—they used to believe in that. In fact, even the Leader of the Opposition used to talk about it. He used to talk about it in this place and beyond. He used to say that cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.</para></quote>
<para>Unfortunately though, the Labor Party now are focused on the politics of envy rather than the economics of opportunity. They would punish small-business people and they would punish their workers. They are only interested in the politics; not in the right economic policies.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New England Electorate: New England Highway</title>
          <page.no>9472</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've got to get off my campaign team! You've got to get off my campaign team!</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're conceding you're campaigning?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am not going to mention them again for interjecting without there being action. Don't even finish the word!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is addressed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Given that the minister has responsibility for infrastructure, why is it that it was the member for New England and not the minister for infrastructure who issued a media release announcing that the government this month had called for tenders to build the Scone bypass? Given this project was funded in the 2013 budget, why has it taken the prospect of a snap by-election in New England to panic this government into action on this vital project for a member for New England who's—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Grayndler. It's actually my birthday next Wednesday; it's very kind of him to give me three questions a week early!</para>
<para>As the member for Grayndler would understand if he had a look at the Turnbull-Joyce government's $75 billion Infrastructure Investment Program, there are so many projects around Australia that I couldn't possibly get out to announce every one of them. I need to rely on my good friend the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister to make the announcement in his own electorate.</para>
<para>Last week I had the opportunity to travel the Pacific Highway. I met with the member for Page, announcing 400 new jobs in his electorate. Then I travelled to the member for Capricornia's seat and the member for Flynn's seat, and we were looking at the massive upgrades to the Bruce Highway project. Right across Australia, this government is delivering roads, bridges, train lines, seaports and airports—the infrastructure that will make a difference in people's lives.</para>
<para>The member for New England is doing an extraordinary job in delivering for his constituents, because he understands that when you build good infrastructure you will change people's lives and you will save people's lives. It's changing lives by creating new jobs in his community, whether it be in Scone or in Tenterfield, or for those who will benefit from the Bolivia Hill project. It will also save lives because—as you're aware, Mr Speaker—in regional Australia, the road toll is something that we're very concerned about. Investing in better, safer roads, investing in good infrastructure, will reduce road trauma in regional communities, including in New England.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume his seat for a moment. The member for Grayndler on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question went to why nothing for four years—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister for infrastructure has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler likes to pretend that he built everything. I think he pretended at one stage he was responsible for the Sphinx, but—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will put that prop down and resume his seat for a second.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right, cease interjecting. The member for Hunter can wait as well. I know there's a bit of a traffic jam there, but I just want to address the issue of props.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members, if I can have your attention for a second, please. The minister resumed his seat. I'm making it very clear: I'm going to have a much lower tolerance for props from now on, not just in question time but throughout all of the parliamentary proceedings. If members want to familiarise themselves with the practice, I'd advise them to do so. There are occasions when props are tolerated to illustrate answers in a factual way, but they are very limited in question time and through debate. I'm giving forewarning for those who flout that ruling that they'll simply lose the call. Now, the member for Grayndler is seeking leave to table a document?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I am. It is a media release from Barnaby Joyce, 'Tenders called to build the Scone bypass'. It's not on the department's website.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Industry</title>
          <page.no>9473</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Would he update the House on the government's national defence industry project that guarantees the future security of the nation and supports our economic prosperity, and would he compare that with any other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Menzies for his question. I can tell him and the House that the government is committed to a $200 billion build-up of our military capacity over the next 10 years. The largest build-up of our military capability in our peacetime history is being delivered by this government over the next 10 years. Unlike previous Labor governments, who didn't commit to one vessel being built in this country in six years, we are committed to spending as much of that money and as much of that build-up as possible in Australia, driving jobs and investment here in this country—and it's working. As the Treasurer said earlier, in the national accounts defence investment is up 26.3 per cent in the June quarter. So the government's policy of driving jobs and investment by using that enormous defence heft to drive jobs, investment and capability is working.</para>
<para>The Joint Strike Fighter is a very, very good example. It won't just give us the most lethal and potent and effective platform in the air in the world today; we're also using it in two ways to drive jobs and investment, as part of the global supply chain. We've already had over 30 businesses sharing in $800 million worth of value here in Australia, and that is growing to $2.5 billion by 2020-21. Businesses like Marand in Moorabbin, Quickstep in Bankstown, Chemring in Lara, Levett in Montmorency, Ferra engineering in Brisbane, BAE in Newcastle, TAE in Newcastle and Brisbane, GE Australia in Brisbane, RUAG in Adelaide and Melbourne, and Northrop Grumman in Newcastle are all sharing, as part of the global supply chain, in this enormous build-up of our defence industry capability in this country.</para>
<para>We have also won the right to be the Asia-Pacific hub for the maintenance and sustainment of the Joint Strike Fighters that are operating in our region—for frames; for engines; for warehousing, most recently; and for 64 out of the 65 components that have already been decided by the joint project office. So we're creating jobs, thousands of jobs, throughout this supply chain and investment across our economy—more good news in what is a burgeoning economy, in stark contrast to the cold, winter-like years of the Labor government in defence, where defence spending dropped to 1.56 per cent of GDP—the lowest since appeasement, the lowest since 1938. They should be ashamed of themselves for the way they left defence. This government, firstly the Abbott government and now the Turnbull government, is fixing it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>9474</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that we have present on the floor of the parliament this afternoon a parliamentary delegation led by Mr Ahlin, Speaker of the parliament of Sweden. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>9474</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>9474</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister is so confident about the outcome in the High Court, why has the Deputy Prime Minister already started campaigning for a New England by-election? And if he knows he's gone, who does the Prime Minister think he's kidding?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe that question is in order. I'll go to the next question. The member for Robertson.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>9475</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on action that the government is taking to ensure there is enough base-load dispatchable power to deliver an affordable and reliable energy supply to Australian families and businesses, including in my electorate of Robertson? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I know she's a hardworking member who is deeply concerned about rising power prices and the impact on her constituents. She understands, like all of the members on this side of the House understand, that we are doing everything possible to ensure sufficient dispatchable base-load power in the system—like the export mechanism that we've put in place to restrict gas exports and ensure that there is sufficient domestic supply; the investment in Snowy Mountains 2.0 and other storage projects; our support for the Finkel recommendation that large-scale generators give a minimum three years notice of closure, and that wind and solar farms provide their own levels of backup.</para>
<para>I'm asked if I'm aware of any alternative approaches. We know the Leader of the Opposition was not the people's choice. Well, now we know he's not the workers' choice, because the Labor Party, led by the Leader of the Opposition, wants to close down Australia's coal-fired power stations.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's in your election platform, it's in the motions that you joined with the Greens and it's in your reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction target!</para>
<para>After the experiences of Labor governments in South Australia and Victoria, which oversaw the closure of Northern and Hazelwood, we've seen the higher prices and the less-stable system that flows from closing coal-fired power stations. But you don't hear the member for Hunter speak out for the workers in his electorate. He waves the white flag! He's not interested in the workers at Liddell. You don't hear from the member for Shortland about those workers at Vales Point. You don't hear from the member for Paterson.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Conroy interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Madeleine King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume his seat. The members for Shortland and Brand, amongst others, are interjecting again far too often and far too loudly. I'm giving you fair warning now.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Isn't it ironic that the Labor members are now finding their voices, when they had nothing to say when the Labor Party announced their policy to close the coal-fired power stations?</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Conroy interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Shortland will leave under 94(a). The member for Shortland will leave under 94(a)!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Shortland has said nothing about Vales Point—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Four years!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Shortland has been asked to leave under 94(a) twice, but he can't hear because he's shouting at the chamber.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Shortland then left the</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> chamber.</inline></para>
<para>A government member interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As my learned colleague here said, the members and the constituents in the member's electorate will be better represented now that he's left the chamber, because the member for Hunter has been nowhere to be seen, the member for Shortland has been nowhere to be seen and the member for Paterson has been nowhere to be seen, and the Leader of the Opposition has failed to be upfront with the Australian people on how his plans to close coal-fired power stations will cost jobs, cost investment, cost growth, see higher electricity prices and see a less-stable system. That's Labor's energy policy.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Swanson interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Paterson is warned!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>9476</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</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. Yesterday the Prime Minister claimed the government had only referred the Deputy Prime Minister 'to give the High Court the opportunity to clarify the law'. Given that, at that stage, the High Court had already been given the opportunity to clarify the law with Senator Canavan's referral, why was it necessary to also refer the Deputy Prime Minister? Isn't it the case that the Solicitor-General's advice is not as strong as the government is claiming?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, Mr Speaker, you ruled a moment ago that the member for Hunter's question was out of order. I do not dispute your ruling, but I was hoping it might have been about energy. I was hoping it might have been about energy prices and the fact the Labor Party is doing everything it can to put the security and the affordability of Australian energy at risk.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I know the ruling about the preamble, but, given that's often all we get, I'm asking for direct relevance to be enforced.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat and for those interjecting behind him to cease interjecting so I can rule on the matter. I do allow preambles—that's correct—but I say that the question to the Prime Minister was very specific on the matter of the High Court, so he needs to confine himself to that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member has asked me this question in one form or another on numerous occasions, and I refer him to my earlier answers. I cannot help but regret that today the opposition has no questions on national security, no questions on the economy and no questions on energy.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>9477</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is committed to the long-term development of our resources sector and the economic prosperity of regional Australia? Is he aware of any threats to existing and future jobs in regional Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question. The Labor party has nothing to say, but parlour games—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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 Deputy Prime Minister be no further heard.</para>
<para>The House divided. [14:49]</para>
<para>(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>67</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>Chalmers, JE</name>
                <name>Champion, ND</name>
                <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                <name>Clare, JD</name>
                <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                <name>Collins, JM</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>Hill, JC</name>
                <name>Husar, E</name>
                <name>Husic, EN</name>
                <name>Jones, SP</name>
                <name>Keay, JT</name>
                <name>Kelly, MJ</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>Mitchell, BK</name>
                <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                <name>Owens, JA</name>
                <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                <name>Rishworth, AL</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>Watts, TG</name>
                <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                <name>Zappia, A</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>73</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>Entsch, WG</name>
                <name>Evans, TM</name>
                <name>Falinski, J</name>
                <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                <name>Gee, AR</name>
                <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                <name>Howarth, LR</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>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to make a statement to the House before the Deputy Prime Minister resumes his answer. There's been a number of occasions now where the Manager of Opposition Business has moved that the Deputy Prime Minister be no further heard and he has done that under standing order 80. As members will know, I'm required to put that motion immediately without debate, which we've done on each occasion. I have also made clear, I think, on the first occasion when there was a dispute about the clock, which I think we have got past, that—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, members on my right, if this continued, potentially the Leader of the House could move every time the Leader of the Opposition asked a question that he be no further heard. Question time is designed for openness and accountability. It's a central feature of the day, where ministers are questioned. I'm now going to refer members to standing order 78, which does say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Should any of these questions be negatived—</para></quote>
<para>which they have today—</para>
<quote><para class="block">no similar proposal shall be received if the Speaker is of the opinion that it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, or is moved for the purpose of obstructing business.</para></quote>
<para>So I am ruling now that I will not be accepting any further motions this week. The Deputy Prime Minister can resume his answer.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business—</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I'm not going to accept that in the middle of an answer. I always accept it at the end of an answer and with the call alternating.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>9479</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>9479</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member would understand what a great outcome it has been for Australian resources, and especially for agricultural resources, that of the percentage point contribution to year-on-year GDP growth of 1.8 per cent, the largest was agriculture. Agriculture has been the standout industry. In fact, under this government we've completely turned around the agricultural outcome of our nation, and that's providing jobs in Rockhampton, in the Fitzroy basin and it's supporting the jobs of the meatworkers.</para>
<para>It's a shame that some would see it as an opportunity to walk away or walk out, but it is also very important for what we are doing in the mining industry. We stand behind the mining industry; we stand behind the coal industry. We believe in labourers; we believe in people who work for a living. This is vitally important. Today we have seen a clear example of where the Labor Party resides as far as coal workers and the coal industry go. The member for Hunter was elbowed out of the way, then he was ruled out, and then the member for Shortland was thrown out. They do not believe in supporting the coal industry; they do not believe in the power industry. They do not come in here and stand up for labourers in this country. They do not stand up for the industry of this nation; they do not have the ticker anymore to stand behind what used to be their constituency. The member for Herbert does not stand behind the coalworkers; The member for Shortland will not stand up for coalworkers; the member for Hunter will not stand up for coalworkers. They've thrown the towel in for workers. The member for Newcastle has refused to go in to bat for coalworkers. They refuse to stand by them. We now see what is happening to power. Under their policy we will see the fiasco of South Australia become the fiasco of Melbourne and Sydney. We will see under their power policy that—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>the lights will stop. They will take our nation's economy to oblivion because of their desire to chase every vote in Balmain and Annandale, but they will never stand up for the people of Cessnock, Townsville and Rockhampton. The Labor Party is completely bereft of any belief they once upon a time had in the labourers of Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>9480</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>9480</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion immediately—The House calls on the Deputy Prime Minister to stand aside from Cabinet until doubts about his constitutional qualifications have been resolved.</para></quote>
<para>Even the Prime Minister wasn't listening to a word of that answer. Even the Prime Minister was turning his back on the Deputy Prime Minister. When you're in a situation where you're off campaigning in your electorate—where you're already campaigning in the by-election—and the Prime Minister himself is turning his back on you when you're giving an answer, it's time to acknowledge that it's time to go, that it's time to stand aside. It's time for this Deputy Prime Minister to realise that it's no small matter when the Constitution says you probably shouldn't be here.</para>
<para>The argument from the government is what we heard yesterday and today from the Prime Minister of Australia—that the only reason they referred it to the High Court is to give the High Court an opportunity to make a decision on this section of the Constitution. Hang on. We'd already referred Senator Canavan to the High Court. They were already going to have an opportunity to rule on this issue. If they were already going to have that opportunity, why did we refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the High Court? There's one reason and one reason only.</para>
<para>There's a reason why they won't let anyone see the Solicitor-General's advice. It's not the ironclad, nowhere-to-go advice that the Prime Minister wants us to believe it is. He does know that everything for the legitimacy of this government hangs on that advice being as strong as he wants us to believe, so the only option the Prime Minister has is to tell everybody, 'It's unbelievably strong, but I'm going to keep it a secret.' When we asked, 'Why is it that we had to refer the deputy there in the first place?' he said it was to give them 'an opportunity', but they already had that as a result of Senator Canavan. They were going to rule on the same section of the Constitution.</para>
<para>We have a Prime Minister who will say anything and do anything to cling to office. We should deal with this motion immediately because the Prime Minister is willing to misrepresent advice from the Solicitor-General in order to make sure that he can get away with the crisis behind whether or not this government has a majority. If the Prime Minister thinks that me saying, 'These documents that you've got aren't as good as you say,' is an unreasonable argument for me to run, let's click back to Monday—because on Monday he said exactly that about documents in the possession of the Leader of the Opposition. On Monday he said exactly what I've just said, 'Those documents aren't as strong as you're claiming they are, and if you've got the courage of your convictions, you'll stand up and show the documents.' What happened straight after question time after the Prime Minister said that? The Leader of the Opposition said, 'If the conspiracy theories of the internet trolls are now going to be run by the Prime Minister of Australia, here are the documents.'</para>
<para>Unless the advice from the Solicitor-General is a complete con and unless the Prime Minister is completely misrepresenting the advice that he has, when he stands up in a moment he should provide us with the advice. Show the courage of conviction that the Leader of the Opposition showed. Show that you're willing to stand by the claims that you make. The Leader of the Opposition was able to sit here with the documents in his hand. The Prime Minister said, 'Show us the documents,' and we did.</para>
<para>It's not simply the Prime Minister's reputation that hangs on the strength of that advice; the entire legitimacy of this government hangs on the strength of that advice. This government, which claims to have a majority of one, has become the first government in the history of Australia to go to the High Court to ask whether it's true that it, in fact, has a lawful majority. It's the first time that that has ever happened in the history of our country.</para>
<para>What do they think is not a problem? They think it's not a problem to have doubt over every decision made on regional development, regional communications, local government, resources, territories, agriculture, water resources and northern Australia. As of Friday they will be willing to have under constitutional doubt, under a constitutional cloud, every decision that would otherwise be taken by the Prime Minister of Australia. We accept and we agree with every issue that has been made about national security. Why on earth in that environment is the Prime Minister about to put somebody, who we unanimously don't know if they're legally there, in charge of every decision that this nation takes while the Prime Minister is away?</para>
<para>How on earth can there be any level of responsibility from those opposite and from the Prime Minister if they're willing to take that sort of risk? But if he won't make that sort of decision as a matter of principle, if he won't make that sort of decision as a matter of precaution, if he won't even make that sort of decision as a matter of consistency, can I suggest to the Prime Minister: do it as a matter of self-defence.</para>
<para>If you date back to the moment the Deputy Prime Minister first stood there and told us about his New Zealand citizenship—since that moment, the government has become increasingly whacky. Since that moment, the government has lurched from one conspiracy theory to the next conspiracy theory. I don't know what was unleashed in the minds of those opposite from the moment we heard about the New Zealand citizenship of the Deputy Prime Minister, but from that moment we heard about the New Zealand conspiracy, the Cuban conspiracy, East Germany and the Berlin Wall; we heard from them about socialism, communism, Stalinism, and then the great United Kingdom secret-agent-and-Leader-of-the-Opposition conspiracy. Those opposite have gone into the most ridiculous spiral of self-satire since the moment the Deputy Prime Minister let it be known that he was a citizen of another country.</para>
<para>What's behind all of this is the document that the Prime Minister claims he's very familiar with. That is the document called the Australian Constitution. It's no small matter as to whether the Constitution is kept to. There are plenty of times when governments get advice from the Solicitor-General and, when they get the advice, they say, 'Yes, we're confident of what we're doing.' But when you get the strongest advice, that is not when you say, 'But we'd better go and check with the High Court.' That's not the moment you check with the High Court. You check with the High Court for one reason and one reason only—and that is that, after reading the advice, the Prime Minister thought, 'We don't know whether the deputy is legally here.' He looked at the advice and thought, 'We don't know whether we actually have 75 members of this parliament voting with the government. We don't know.'</para>
<para>There are lots of times when governments of both sides get advice that's strong and they stand at the dispatch box and say, 'No. Others might challenge this in court, but we are confident of our position.' This time they got the advice and said, 'We'd better go straight to the High Court.' That is why Labor will continue to pursue this issue: it goes to whether the government is lawfully in office. There have been real-life outcomes on penalty rates and real-life outcomes in terms of who's in charge of the banks. But here's the thing: it has also resulted in the real-life outcome as to whether he gets the job. Every other principle will go to one side when that is jeopardised. We've seen the Prime Minister being willing to compromise every previously stated view. He claimed to be passionate about something on the basis of: 'This is just what you have to do to maintain a majority.' We have a situation where, for the first time in the history of this parliament, there is doubt as to the constitutionality of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Prime Minister, stand him aside. If you have any courage and if you have any authority, you would have done it more than a fortnight ago.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion. The pork-barrelling in New England has cranked up a notch or two. From the Hunter electorate you can smell the pork! This is the question: if the Prime Minister is so confident about the decision of the High Court, why is the Deputy Prime Minister currently already campaigning for a New England by-election? The other great thing about representing the Hunter electorate—the neighbouring electorate to New England—is that people talk. People talk to the member in the neighbouring electorate and what they are telling me is that, suddenly, they're seeing the member for New England. For the first time in three years, the member for New England is turning up. In fact, he's going to the opening of an envelope. After years of doing nothing, he's ramping up the campaign in New England. And why is he ramping up the campaign in New England? It's because, like the Prime Minister, he knows that his chances of running the gauntlet in the High Court are very poor indeed. The reason the Prime Minister will not table the Solicitor-General's advice is that he knows that it's not as strong as he's making out it is. The Deputy Prime Minister should stand aside.</para>
<para>What do we know about this case? We know that he was a New Zealand citizen. We know that he was a dual citizen. We know what section 44 says. We know that the Prime Minister himself doesn't believe he can win the High Court case. We know that Senator Canavan's case was already providing the Prime Minister with the guidance he needed to determine the fate of section 44. But all he was concerned about was the fate of the Deputy Prime Minister. Why? We know why. It's because, unlike Senator Canavan, the Deputy Prime Minister sits in this place, a place where this Prime Minister desperately needs every vote he can muster—as we saw earlier in the week, where he relied on the vote of the Deputy Prime Minister to survive a vote in this place.</para>
<para>So we know why the Prime Minister is misleading—or, should I say, embellishing—on the Solicitor-General's advice. We understand why he is clinging like death to the Deputy Prime Minister. It's because his whole prime ministership rests on it. What we don't know is why the Deputy Prime Minister is hanging on. But I think we know the answer to that question in part. We know that when he travelled to Canberra to share the bad news with the Prime Minister, he came down here with every intention of resigning and going to a by-election in New England. But the Prime Minister said, 'Oh no; there won't be any of that, because I need your vote in the House of Representatives to survive. You are not going anywhere, and I don't care how embarrassed you are.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hunter will refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will give him some due here. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is embarrassed to be sitting in question time every day so illegitimately. He's embarrassed to be here. But this Prime Minister leaves him with no choice.</para>
<para>The arrogance of all this is that the Prime Minister wants us to believe that we're better off having a minister who sits with a big black cloud over his head than having someone else in that position. This is the height of arrogance. This minister is not indispensable—far from it. I can name plenty of his colleagues around the benches opposite who would do a far better job. For their own future career prospects, I'll choose not to name them. But this is not about the ability of the Deputy Prime Minister; it's all about the capacity of the man sitting opposite to hang onto his job. He wants us to believe that a guy with a big black cloud hanging over his head, and with a poor record, in any case—an agriculture minister who has done nothing for the agriculture sector in four years—is better off in that job with that big black cloud over his head than anyone else sitting around the benches. I know that they're starting to ask questions about that. They're starting to ask questions as to why this bloke gets to stick around despite his poor performance over four years and despite the fact that he's probably in breach of section 44 of the Constitution. So the rumblings have begun. The rumblings have begun in earnest.</para>
<para>But one thing is clear: the Deputy Prime Minister knows that he's going to a by-election. That's why they're on the campaign trail. That's why they're booking their campaign offices. That's why the leaflets are already being handed out. This Prime Minister should— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my left! It's completely disorderly behaviour. I'm trying to state the question. I wouldn't have thought those sitting behind the Manager of Opposition Business would want me to delay stating the question, so the debate can proceed. The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to. The Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The House has urgent matters to discuss: energy prices and jobs. We've just heard from the member for Hunter who claims, apparently, that section 44 is the leading topic of conversation in his electorate. I tell you what, I know what the topic is. The topic is why he has abandoned the workers at Liddell, why he has abandoned the workers at Tomago and why he's abandoned the workers who elected him. And it is why this old boy of Cessnock High School, whose magazine is called <inline font-style="italic">The Black </inline><inline font-style="italic">d</inline><inline font-style="italic">iamond</inline>, has suddenly become 'no coal Joel'. That's what he's up to—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have had in the last two days very, very grave reports from the Australian Energy Market Operator, demonstrating that we face a grave shortage of dispatchable energy in the near term and over the medium term. That is putting jobs at risk and it's putting households under pressure. It is what happens when you have years of mistaken Labor energy policy.</para>
<para>Opposition members: Table the advice!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. The members for Rankin, Ballarat and Brand will leave under 94(a). The member for Ballarat will leave immediately or she will be named.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The members for Rankin, Ballarat and Brand then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What we've been told by the Australian Energy Market Operator is that the likelihood of a shortfall incident is between 39 and 43 per cent in Victoria and 26 and 33 per cent in South Australia, and that is a consequence of dispatchable power being driven out of the market by renewable energy.</para>
<para>Now, renewable energy is becoming more available and it's becoming cheaper, and we are undertaking the largest renewable energy project built in Australia since the first Snowy scheme. So, we don't make any challenge to renewable energy. But one of the things the Labor Party has forgotten is that the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time. So in their mindless incompetence, in their reckless idiocy, they have proceeded down the track—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Husar interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lindsay is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>of putting more and more variable renewables into the energy mix and providing no backup and no storage. What about gas as a firming power? That would be good: you could use gas. But, oh no, another great achievement of the Labor Party was that they allowed gas to be exported from the east coast of Australia and, despite many warnings, failed to do anything to protect the domestic market.</para>
<para>To be fair, the member for Port Adelaide has made a confession, and better late than never; I think we all agree with that. But it was rather late in coming. When he was on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> on 30 April, he was asked by Barrie Cassidy: 'You got plenty of advice when you were in government that the surge in exports would lead to these sorts of problems. You didn't take this action.' 'No,' said the member for Port Adelaide, 'We didn't get that advice.' That was very, very bad because the Labor Party government's own energy white paper said that these transitional pressures will manifest in tighter supply and higher prices.</para>
<para>As if that weren't enough, the AEMO's Gas Statement of Opportunities in the same year said, 'This will result in supply shortfalls'. That's exactly what happened. Finally, it all caught up with him and he had to confess to David Speers—not a man of the cloth, not able to give absolution any more than his constituents or Australians will give the Labor Party absolution for their chronic failure in energy policy. Again and again, ideology and idiocy. Why are gas prices so high? Because Labor allowed gas to be exported and didn't protect the domestic market. That's a fact.</para>
<para>Who's addressing it? We're addressing it. That's the matter we should be discussing today. That's really urgent. Energy prices are an urgent matter right now. That's what Australian families are talking about. That's what's putting Australian businesses and jobs at risk. And we've been told that AEMO estimates that in 2022 there will be a 1,000 megawatt shortfall in dispatchable energy in the national electricity market. That is a very big gap. That puts at risk jobs, businesses, families. It creates a huge vulnerability for blackouts. Now this is the big difference: we are for affordable and reliable energy; Labor is for blackouts. Labor is for energy shortages. Labor is for the types of outcomes the member for Port Adelaide has got used to in South Australia. He clearly loves being in the dark!</para>
<para>A government member: He called it a hiccup.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's right; he called it a hiccup. When those hospitals had energy cut-offs, he called it a hiccup. That's all it was. One of the obvious opportunities to cover that 1,000 megawatt gap is to get more life out of existing coal-fired power stations, and Liddell obviously has an opportunity to run for longer—to run past 2022. Now, you would think that this is an obvious opportunity. It has been flagged by Alan Finkel himself as a good avenue to go down, and it has been flagged by AEMO as a prudent approach. It's perfectly obvious that the cheapest coal-fired power is that from existing power stations, so you would think you would get some support for that, particularly from the member for Hunter. But this is what he said: 'not one energy company has shown any interest in the Prime Minister's thought bubble'. Sadly, that turns out to be very quickly out of date. He has denied any opportunity to provide continued employment for the workers at Liddell or, indeed, for the workers at Tomago.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, the honourable member can't dig his way out of that. You're deep in the pit, Member for Hunter, right at the bottom. There's risk of a cave-in if you go any further, I can tell you. You are in very deep waters here. The member for Hunter is betraying every member of his electorate who depends on energy, who depends on manufacturing.</para>
<para>The Labor Party have walked away from energy security. They have walked away from any attempt to defend the jobs, the occupations of those many workers they claim to represent. And we have the Leader of the Opposition's union, the Australian Workers Union, with lots of miners. The Leader of the Opposition used to represent a lot of miners.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once upon a time.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He did. He represented them. And then he gave $100,000 of their dues to GetUp! What did GetUp! use the $100,000 for? They used it for a campaign to close down the industries that employed his members. What that tells you is that the Leader of the Opposition, like all of these union bosses, is utterly disconnected from the members he represents. These are the issues we should be discussing. We should be focused today on energy policy, as we have been throughout this question time. And what we've had from the opposition instead are big threats of creating chaos and mayhem in the parliament, a swingeing question time strategy. We felt battered by it over here—it was like being flogged with a wet lettuce!</para>
<para>The reality is the Labor Party has failed Australians on energy and now, when we see the result, when the facts are laid out by AEMO, the Labor Party is not prepared to discuss it. Those are the issues we should be discussing. That's why this motion should be rejected. We have urgent matters of energy security to deal with in this House. We should be addressing today the jobs, the businesses, the households of Australia. We can discuss those today. The Labor Party should focus on the real concerns of the people they so dismally represent—the people they claim to represent. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:28]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>66</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>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>Husar, E</name>
                <name>Husic, EN</name>
                <name>Jones, SP</name>
                <name>Keay, JT</name>
                <name>Kelly, MJ</name>
                <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                <name>Khalil, P</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>Mitchell, BK</name>
                <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                <name>Owens, JA</name>
                <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                <name>Rishworth, AL</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>Swanson, MJ</name>
                <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                <name>Watts, TG</name>
                <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                <name>Zappia, A</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>73</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>Entsch, WG</name>
                <name>Evans, TM</name>
                <name>Falinski, J</name>
                <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                <name>Gee, AR</name>
                <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                <name>Howarth, LR</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>15:32</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>9488</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>9488</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</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>9488</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Citizenship</title>
          <page.no>9488</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</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 Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The damage of the Government's citizenship proposals.</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>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The report by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has now come down on the government's changes to the Citizenship Act, and it is absolutely clear now why the government should withdraw the changes that they have in front. When they first put these proposals forward, they asked for public submissions. They got thousands of public submissions and then they decided to keep them secret. We wondered why that would be. Public submissions ordinarily are public things, but they decided to keep them secret. So the Senate inquiry went through a new exercise in receiving public submissions. They received more than 14,000 submissions. Guess how many were in support of the government's proposal.</para>
<para>An opposition member: How many?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Two. One of those two was from the department—it's a bit tough for them to put in a submission that's not in favour of the legislation—and the other was from the Monarchist League. They were the only two.</para>
<para>There is a reason why the government are in a situation now where their citizenship changes should simply be withdrawn. We have in front of us legislation which should be withdrawn because it deals with a problem that does not exist. The arguments that they have put forward for it don't stack up, and the arguments against it are overwhelming. There are two principles that the minister puts when he talks about citizenship. When you hear each of them, in the first instance they sound reasonable. One is that you should have to wait four years before you become a citizen. The other is that you should have competent English. They both sound like reasonable arguments.</para>
<para>Here is the problem: you already have to be here for four years. What happens at the moment is: for one of those years, you need to be as a permanent resident, but you have to have been here for four years. Many people come to Australia initially on a temporary visa, and they are often here on consecutive temporary visas before they end up getting permanent residence. The real-life impact is not going from one year to four years, because everyone has to wait four years already. The real-life impact of this will be people waiting in Australia for more than a decade before they are asked to make a pledge to this country. How on earth is that good for the country—to have people living here for more than a decade and not being asked to make a pledge of commitment to Australia? It's certainly not good for them, and I don't see how it's good for the rest of the country.</para>
<para>But the problems with the delay almost pale into insignificance compared to the problems with the English-language test. When the minister says, 'You should have to have competent English,' most people would hear that and think, 'That's reasonable. You should have to have competent English.' The problem is that the word 'competent ' as it has been defined in this bill has a very precise legal meaning. It refers to level 6 on the IELTS test, a test created by the University of Cambridge, a test that costs hundreds of dollars to sit, and thousands of dollars to get the training for, to get your English up to that level. The government provides English-language training. It doesn't get people anywhere near level 6. You can do your 500 hours—and not every visa holder is entitled to that, but some are. Many people will get to level 2. Some people will get to level 4. No-one, through that course, is trained to get to level 6.</para>
<para>There is no shortage of people who have been living in Australia their entire lives who would not pass this test at level 6. The minister then says that there are two streams, an academic stream and a general stream, and they're going to use the general stream, not the academic stream. I went to the web page of IELTS, where you can get examples of the test, to test the level. I will read from the comprehension test. And it's not just a comprehension test—there's a reading test, a listening test, a writing test; you have to be able to write an essay. All these forms of tests are part of getting to a level in IELTS. This is from the comprehension test:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Calisthenics enters the historical record at around 480 B.C., with Herodotus' account of the Battle of Thermopolylae. Herodotus reported that, prior to the battle, the god-king Xerxes sent a scout party to spy on his Spartan enemies. The scouts informed Xerxes that the Spartans, under the leadership of King Leonidas, were practicing some kind of bizarre, synchronised movements akin to a tribal dance. … It turns out their tribal dance was not a superstitious ritual but a form of calisthenics by which they were building awe-inspiring physical strength and endurance.</para></quote>
<para>For one, that's not the academic test; that's the easier one. But, where they're both marked, you end up having to get to the same level of proficiency with the English language. But what on earth does that have to do with being a good Australian? What on earth does that have to do with being a decent Australian citizen? We agree that you have to have what people would generally regard as competent English, because there is already a test, and the test is in English. Guess what—if the test is in English, I reckon it's pretty hard to pass if you have no English. If you asked me to pass a test that was written in a different language, I would struggle, I admit. I would not be able to do it.</para>
<para>In the same way, if you don't have conversational-level English, you already can't pass. But, as a demand, university-level English (1) is ridiculous and (2) is an act of extraordinary snobbery that sends a message to every Australian who doesn't have that level of English that this government, if it had the choice, would prefer they weren't here.</para>
<para>But here's the catch: not everybody will have to reach university-level English. There are lots of countries in the world that have English as one of their official languages, like India and Singapore. But there are only five where, if you're a passport holder from one of those countries, this will result in you not having to have university-level English. They are the UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and the United States. It just so happens the five white English-speaking countries are the only countries where, if you're a passport holder from one of those countries, this will result in you not needing university-level English.</para>
<para>The minister will say, 'But there are visas that pick out individual countries.' There are lots of visas that are organised on a bilateral basis. For example, there is the backpacker visa. There are a series of visas that we negotiate, but, as a country, we have never dealt with citizenship in a way that says, 'If you come from any non-white English-speaking country, you'll have to have university-level English. But, if you come from a white English-speaking country, it's all okay.' I don't know how many people other than the minister knew about this, but none of them have spoken out. From time to time, some of the members opposite have spoken out about issues like 18C, but when you think of something as prejudiced as the measures within these proposals, why have we heard nothing from the member for Reid, the member for Banks, the member for Bennelong, the member for Chisholm or the member for Deakin? Why are they so comfortable with the thought of having people in their electorates who know that if these members had their way they'd rather these people had never become citizens. All the bravery that used to be there on those backbenches has disappeared on this. It has disappeared completely.</para>
<para>The minister will argue that it's all because of national security. I asked about this when I had my briefing from the department. Normally, I keep briefings from departments confidential, but the minister decided to tell the media about my briefing, so I think I'm pretty much off the hook. I asked the department, 'Did this come as a recommendation from the ASIO?' No. 'Did this come as a recommendation from the AFP?' No. 'Did this come as a recommendation from any national security agency?' No; it came from none of them. Where did this come from? It was a recommendation from a report written by two people, both of whom happen to be members of the Liberal Party: Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Phillip Ruddock. This entire proposal is based on consultation with them only. When they go out to the rest of the community, they discover it's 14,000 to two.</para>
<para>What's in front of us here is a proposal that changes who we are as a country. There are lots of countries in the world that have people who are there as permanent residents who become a permanent underclass of noncitizens. Australia has not been that sort of country ever since we got rid of the White Australia policy. We should not go back to being a country with a permanent underclass of noncitizens, a permanent underclass of people who live here their whole lives but are told they will never belong. The welcome note that is read out at every citizenship ceremony when people become Australian citizens used to finish with the words 'welcome home'. The moment this government got into office they took those words back. Let me tell you and let me make it clear: citizenship is meant to be the way we build ourselves as a society, not the way we divide.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's stirring stuff, I must say. It stirs the blood. It is a bit of patriotism from the shadow minister for immigration and for citizenship, who comes into this House to stir us all up on the government's latest proposals on citizenship. I want to note that today is the national accounts day. It's the day when we see the most data come out on the state of the nation's economy. In question time we didn't have one question on the state of the national accounts or the economy, because they are in good shape under this government. We didn't have one economic question.</para>
<para>On the day when the national accounts showed good economic news, the opposition decided that it would be a good day to seek refuge from the economy—because they have no good news on the economy—in immigration and border protection. Well, we welcome a debate in the immigration portfolio. The same people who are today railing against this government's citizenship proposals railed against our border protection policies for 10 years, as well. They railed against us at every turn. First, it was temporary protection visas. They were the greatest evil on the planet. Then the offshore processing centres that the Howard government ran were cruel and unusual. It is this opposition that, on immigration and border protection, cannot be trusted.</para>
<para>We will not take a lecture on how to administer the immigration portfolio from a former minister who was in office for 79 days. He was one of the conga line of immigration ministers under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years that saw 50,000 people arrive on 800 boats and over 1,000 people drown at sea. The reality of these proposals is that the government is firmly committed to these citizenship arrangements. In listening to the shadow immigration and citizenship spokesperson, you would think there was something wrong with our proposals. He put this whole contention to this House, and he has put this whole contention in public: 'Oh, that sounds reasonable, but it's not very reasonable at all.'</para>
<para>I want to go through this just so that every single member of the House has their eyes completely wide open about the reality of these proposals. Four years is entirely comparable and reasonable for a person to be here before they get citizenship. The reality is you can do it in one year now—it's not four years. Keeping in mind that we only have a one-year requirement, let's look at comparable countries: the United Kingdom, five years of permanent residence; Canada, four out of six years of permanent residence; France, five years of continuous permanent residence; Germany, eight years of habitual legal residence. So the contention put by the shadow minister that we're doing something out of step with comparable countries is absolutely unacceptable. He mentions members on the government benches. They're happy to take this proposal to their electorates. If you look at these comparable countries, you will see that some of them are paradigms of the Labor Party's virtue signalling—the Netherlands has five years continuous permanent residence, if you didn't already know. In the United States it's five years permanent residence. Denmark—another country those opposite may feel proud of—has nine years continuous residence. New Zealand has five years permanent residence. And, of course, Australia has only one year as a permanent resident and three years of continuous residence.</para>
<para>So this is an entirely reasonable proposal in line with the expectations of the Australian community—that we take more time to get to know someone before we accept them as a citizen. Given that we are a migrant nation, it is entirely reasonable that we do take time to get to know people properly. We assess the values that make someone an Australian. Do they contribute? Do they work for our society? Are they willing to integrate into our community? These are important questions in 2017. They go to the heart of security matters. The shadow minister is wrong to say that this has nothing to do with national security. All of these countries—comparable countries, reasonable countries—around the world have a higher standard on this citizenship requirement precisely because they want to be thorough in understanding who people are before they become citizens of their country. It's reasonable for this government to propose it. I believe it's in step with the community's expectations about the standards that the government should set on citizenship.</para>
<para>Let all of you go to your electorates and say you oppose these measures. I welcome it. You go and tell them that you support Australia being at the bottom of the pack in terms of citizenship and the length of time required for people to become citizens. Let's see how that goes. Then let's get to the next furphy that the Labor Party has been promoting up hill and down dale. The government remains absolutely 100 per cent committed to the measures in this bill.</para>
<para>I will put forward some of the things that that shadow minister has been saying. I'll start by referring to a bit of past history. You would think that a person who had said the following things would be strongly in favour of increased English language requirements. Why has the government put forward stronger English language requirements? It has done so because the Productivity Commission says that the better your level of English the better your chances and prospects—your economic chances and your societal prospects. That's why the government funds 500 hours for the humanitarian program of English lessons—to ensure that people get English language skills so they can do better in their community. Let's just have a little look at who said this: 'We need stricter English language requirements.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Who said that?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Who would have said, before this bill was put forward by the government, that we need stricter English language requirements? Well, of course, that's the shadow minister sitting opposite. He said, 'We need stronger English language requirements.'</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, you didn't mention it? Who said, 'I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen'? I'm not reaching into the distant past. I'm not reaching back to 10 years ago, five years ago or one year ago; I'm reaching back to 20 April this year. I'll read it again. This quote is directly from a member of this House: 'I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen.' So don't listen to me, don't listen to Minister Dutton and don't listen to the Prime Minister: that was the Leader of the Opposition in April this year.</para>
<para>So when did you decide to make English competency and a period of four years of permanent residency a political issue? Why is this a political issue? It's in line with community expectations. There's no issue with greater English language proficiencies. There's no issue that you raised in your presentation today. Yet you've been running around in forums across Australia telling people that they have to get university standard English—a proposition you absolutely know not to be true. You absolutely know that that's not true. The way we can establish that that is not true—and I can easily establish it to members here in the House today—is that 72 per cent of people pass to the current standard of level 6 in IELTS sitting the current English test. That's a fact that the shadow minister failed to mention. So it is not as if people are not required to meet level 6 on the IELTS general test standard. I can confirm to this House that 72 per cent of people pass that test.</para>
<para>The shadow minister read out a passage and was trying to make some contention about ancient history. The reality of that passage was that it was a comprehension test. You're obviously not comprehending, Shadow Minister—English language comprehension; not comprehension about Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You laugh and you cackle, but it is an English proficiency test, not a history test. We know exactly why Labor is being so political about this. It is because they think that by politicising this issue they will get some sort of reward. The reality is that these measures are supported by Australians. We know that competent English proficiency is important. It matters to the economic and social success of migrants. It is a very important standard that will benefit our new citizens.</para>
<para>We also know that we are setting a standard that is in line with the rest of the world in relation to taking the time to get to know someone. It is to the Labor Party's shame that they are politicising this issue. The government stands by its measures. The government stands by making these citizenship requirements stronger, in support of Australian values and making sure that people will come here and integrate and have a high standard of and high proficiency in English.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand with my colleagues in the Labor Party and the member for Watson in saying to this government: withdraw this legislation. It is unfair and it is odious. The member for Mitchell has just shown his absolute ignorance of what Australia is and who we are as a nation. It wasn't any of the security agencies that asked for this. We have been told by the Minister for Immigration and Border Security that somehow or other this legislation was necessary for national security. That was clearly a falsehood. We know very clearly that this has not been requested by any of the security agencies. In fact, it has been put together—as the member for Watson said—by two members of the Liberal Party.</para>
<para>The electorate of Barton, which I represent, is an electorate—as many electorates are, particularly on our side—that is made up by waves of migration. They are people who have made the most difficult choice of leaving their country of their birth, of leaving everything that they know for many different circumstances, to come to Australia to give their children a better life. This government has taken it upon itself to make it impossible for those people, who love this country and who are committed to this country, to ever become citizens. I will tell a case history about that in a moment.</para>
<para>We are being told that, somehow, the introduction of an unreasonable English language test—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Hawke interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And it is unreasonable, member for Mitchell; you probably wouldn't even pass it!</para>
<para>We are being told as well that increasing the residency requirements from one year to four years is about national security. Well, hello? The people who become citizens have already been vetted twice, because they are permanent residents—a slight fact that has been overlooked by the ignorance on the other side.</para>
<para>You said, member for Mitchell, that our people should go out and tell our constituencies what our view is. We have, and you know what? They are backing us in, because they know this is wrong. They know this is unfair. We knock on doors, and many of those people—we all have them, as do you—are women who are middle aged, have come here post-World War II and will never, ever pass these English language tests, and yet they have contributed, paid taxes, raised families and sent their children to school.</para>
<para>Let me tell you about one particular personal story. At a community forum we held in Rockdale, where the member for Watson came along, we had over 100 people. We didn't have enough chairs in the room that night for the people who wanted to hear about this so-called 'necessary' citizenship rebranding. At that forum, there was a woman there called Penny. Penny and her partner, who is an Australian citizen, have a little boy. He's 20 months old now, and he is an Australian citizen. She is from Canada, but these new rules will force her into not being able to return to Canada until 2020, even if there is an emergency with her friends or family, because it will put her capacity to apply for citizenship in jeopardy. Penny understands, as many people do, what the implications are of this particular piece of legislation.</para>
<para>This legislation is symptomatic of what this government is about. This government is about trying to cast Australia in its own image—in your image, member for Mitchell—and guess what? Australia is a very different place to the one that you described. Australia is made on the wonderful foundation of the oldest continuous surviving culture on earth. This nation is built on migration, and that is our strength, our diversity, our beauty and who we are. Through this piece of legislation—as the member for Watson has described—you want to create a permanent group of people who will be virtually stateless in this country because they will never be able to comply with the citizenship requirements.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Wallace interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Howarth interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> You be quiet, buddy! Let me be very clear about this: Labor objects to this bill because it is wrong and it is unfair. The member for Watson has travelled the length and breadth of this country talking to people about this particular piece of legislation. If there were a need for it for national security, fair enough, but it's based— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Fisher, I will remind members that it's disorderly to be yelling across the chamber, and I will be treating people accordingly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is interesting, indeed, that the Labor Party raised this issue today, on a day when, undeniably, we do have a fantastic economic story to tell. But, true to form, all they want to do is pull things down and wreck them. I can't believe those opposite would be so sad to hear that this country is growing in the way that it is. Our economy has grown by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter alone, more than double the pace since the March quarter. Growth in the June quarter came despite the impact of Cyclone Debbie. In year average terms, the measure we publish in the budget, our economy expanded by 1.9 per cent in 2016-17. These are absolutely outstanding figures, but those on the other side put their heads down. They don't want to talk about how good the economy is, because that's not what they want to talk about. Labor is absolutely divided on this issue. All they are doing—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, look at how strongly your colleagues are supporting this motion! Just look around. There will be more to come in shortly! All you've got to do is look at what your own colleagues have said, your own leadership team: 'Why is it that no-one is asked on these forms to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws?' Who said that? Who do you reckon said that? Let's go on: 'In terms of a declaration to respect our laws and way of life, anyone who has a problem signing that shouldn't be allowed here,' and, 'In response to then Prime Minister Howard's focus on the importance of English, his focus on the need for people living in Australia to try to learn English was spot-on.' Were those three quotes from one of the members of the government? No, they were taken word for word from comments made by the member for Watson. His confected outrage is just unbelievable. As has already been quoted, the opposition leader said, 'I think it is reasonable to look for English-language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen.'</para>
<para>I can tell those opposite that people in my electorate of Fisher are cheering these provisions—certainly not everybody, but they are very, very happy that we are putting in stronger provisions. The two greatest lotteries in life are the family to which you are born and the country in which you are born. We are so very fortunate in this country. Many of us were born here, and those who weren't been born here have ended up here, and good luck to them. Those are the two greatest lotteries in life. With Australian citizenship comes so many rights—for example, the right to Medicare—which you lot lied about at the last election, absolutely disgraceful lies—and of course, the right to vote to decide who your next government will be. None of these things should be taken for granted. In other countries around the world, they don't happen. So there are many, many advantages—the ability to serve on juries; that's always a good one. But there's absolutely no doubt that citizenship is undervalued in this country. There's absolutely no doubt. The report that Philip Ruddock and Conchetta Fierravanti-Wells put together showed that citizenship is undervalued. It is well past time that these laws were tightened up. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms OWENS</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's one of the more outrageous contributions I've heard in this House in a long time. I want to deal with a few things. I live in one of the most diverse electorates in the country. People from all over the world have come to Parramatta to make it their home, and I don't find people who have spent years to become an Australian citizen wandering around my community and undervaluing that right. In fact, they're proud of it, and I am very proud of them.</para>
<para>The previous speaker wanted us to talk about the economy today. Let's do that. Let's acknowledge that the two million people who have come as migrants to this country since 1901 have contributed greatly to the economy of this country. Some of our biggest companies were built by migrants who would not pass the test that this government wants to impose. Out there in the world, in spite of the protestations opposite, very few people support the proposal. We know that from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry, where over 14,000 submissions were made. Two submissions were in favour and one of those two was from the government, so let's ignore that. One submission was in favour of the test and 14,000 were against. That's the view out there. What causes 14,000 people to get off their bottoms, go to their desk and start writing submissions to the Senate? I'll tell you: some of the most appalling changes to citizenship that I could have imagined.</para>
<para>The citizenship changes will prevent many, many people from becoming citizens, even after they have committed to this country with their hearts, with their families, with their minds, with their investment, with their taxes, with their work hours and with literally the fruit of their loins and wombs—sometimes with 35 grandchildren; I have them in my electorate. They would not pass the English-language test. They have spent their lives here building businesses. They have had children, they have raised them and they have sent them to university. They have had grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and would still be without citizenship if this English-language test had been in place when they migrated to Australia. It's outrageous. It doesn't recognise who we are and it doesn't recognise the reality that our economy is built in large part by people who come here from around the world, brought their skills, which we didn't even pay for, to this country and used them for the benefit of this country. They came here with education, or came here without it, and worked their bottoms off—because I can't use the word I'd like to use—to make it work for their family. There are people who worked two jobs and people who turned up here like the Vietnamese boat people. I was working in the Golden Circle cannery at the time to pay my way through high school. They turned up in boats and, in their thousands, turned up at the factory. They worked every hour they could to get their family ahead—any hour, any overtime hour. They were extraordinary people who would not have passed this test.</para>
<para>This is outrageous. Let's look at what exactly the rationale for this is. The government says it's about national security, except there's no evidence that these changes would improve national security. There's no request from any of the security agencies at all and none of them put in submissions to the Senate inquiry. There's a claim that it's about improving integration. How does it improve integration? You could have a mum staying at home and looking after children, with a husband who is an Australian citizen and children who are Australian citizens, and, 15, 20 or 25 years later, she still can't pass the English-language test. How does that make us better? How does that improve integration? How does it do that? It doesn't. It is ridiculous. You can see an example in my electorate of a business person who came here on a business visa and set up their business and who probably wouldn't pass the English-language test because it is, in spite of the protestations on the other side, IELTS 6, which is a university-level entrance test. It's administered internationally by a private company. It's used all around the world for universities to test whether a person has the appropriate international-level English. It's not based on Australian language; it's based on an international level; it's designed for university entrants. It effectively puts the requirements for English language in the hands of a foreign company that has built a test for a completely different reason. It makes no sense. It's incredibly unfair. We will be a worse country that is less integrated and less safe because of these changes. It simply does not make any sense and it's profoundly unfair.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CREWTHER</name>
    <name.id>248969</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no doubt that Australian citizenship and values are extremely topical at the current time, especially given the recent decisions of a couple of local governments in Melbourne. I want to put on the record, first and foremost, that I oppose those councils' decisions to change the date of Australia Day. Furthermore, I fully support the decision to remove those councils' rights to conduct citizenship ceremonies. Councils should be focusing on local responsibilities, not on issues relating to the federal government.</para>
<para>Citizenship is not something to be taken lightly. Australian values, indeed, should be treasured, along with an appreciation of our history and how Australia as a country was shaped. It is a shame to see statues representing our history being defaced, calls for plaques to be changed or statues pulled down. The fact is: our history is our history. We need to acknowledge the good with the bad, but not eliminate that history. We are a nation of immigrants from all over the world, so it is critical that we ensure that citizenship affirms the values that we share and seek to further in our everyday lives.</para>
<para>The government's citizenship reforms support this view and place a crucial emphasis on the values that guide how all Australians should behave, interact and go about their lives, whether they are new Australians or if they have been here for a long time. Just a few weeks ago, I attended the Frankston City Council's most recent citizenship ceremony and was struck by the number of people who were having citizenship conferred on them that day. It was such a pleasure to see the delight of so many new Australians and the way so many of them dressed so formally and with pride on the occasion. Many came up to speak to me afterwards. In speaking to these new constituents and learning about where they came from and their backgrounds, this impressed upon me the significance that they clearly understood citizenship to have. Indeed, one thing I always raise at citizenship ceremonies is that my own wife came to Australia from South Korea at the age of three and then became a citizen. Without the benefits of citizenship, I would likely not be married to her or have my own two-year-old daughter at this time.</para>
<para>From what I've seen, many of our new citizens value citizenship much more than those opposite, who, we've seen, are so divided and so dismissive of the expectations that are placed on each and every Australian. Those opposite are so set on playing political games that they can't see the wood for the trees. Their view is so clouded by their narrow focus that they can't see that these reforms reinforce the value of citizenship. The member for Watson's own comments going back over a decade have emphasised the importance of the values to which new Australians are asked to commit to. As he aptly pointed out in 2006:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Why is it that no one is asked on these forms to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws?</para></quote>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition also recently expressed exactly the intent of the citizenship reforms back in April, stating that he thinks proficiency in the English language and time to integrate is entirely reasonable.</para>
<para>I've also had contact to my office from local residents, as well as prospective citizens, on this subject. Many are very supportive. For example, Tony of Frankston South and his wife, Gill, are aspirational citizens. They contacted me in late April when the citizenship reforms were first proposed. He made a good point in his email to me, stating that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Arguably the strengthening of the test should have been demonstrated much earlier; respect to and for others, freedom of speech and religion and adherence to the rule of law should always be the foundations of a civilized society. Integration in to the community, and evidence thereof, is to be applauded. Since emigrating from England, I have joined the local groups involved with promoting cleanliness at our lovely foreshore (through Frankston Beach Patrol) and highlighting the need to conserve our environment …</para></quote>
<para>So I put to those opposite that these reforms are entirely appropriate and should have been put in place long before now. These changes seek to refocus the importance of citizenship and ensure that people who aspire to it will be able to integrate into Australian society seamlessly and able to build our shared culture while adding to the rich culture of Australia, which is enhanced and grows every day. Our English language requirements do help to fulfil this.</para>
<para>Australian citizenship is a privilege. It is important that the Australian public has confidence in our migration and citizenship programs. And it is important that the Australian public can be confident in the commitment of all of our new Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's citizenship legislation is flawed and it is discriminatory. It is flawed because there is no national security evidence that there are any problems whatsoever with the existing process. It is flawed because there is no justification for this legislation at all. It is flawed because it flies in the face of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. It is flawed because it goes against every notion of justice and fairness that people in this place would like to believe we stand for. And it is flawed because it has been roundly criticised by almost every community organisation out there, including industry sectors and the like. Indeed, there is no major community group out there at all that has come out in support of this legislation. In the second reading speech from the minister, he couldn't point to a single one. It is also flawed because a Senate inquiry has found so, and a committee chaired by Senator Ian Macdonald has agreed that the English literacy test needs to be changed.</para>
<para>This legislation is even worse, because it is discriminatory. The coalition governments in this country have form when it comes to playing the race card when they are tracking badly in the opinion polls. In 2007, the Howard government brought in the Australian citizenship test for the first time, at a time that the government was in trouble politically. The tactic didn't help that government at the time, and it will not help this government either.</para>
<para>It is flawed and discriminatory because this legislation affects a particular cohort of migrants. They are the migrants that have come to this country in more recent years, migrants who have come here from China, southern Asia and from the Middle East. I will quote the chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, Mr Joe Caputo, who said: 'We have fought for months to oppose this oppressive bill. The bill seeks to create a permanent underclass of residents, denied the rights and opportunities of being welcomed and included as Australian citizens. There is no place for the kind of extremist ideologically-driven provisions which will be included in this bill'.</para>
<para>In his second reading speech, the minister praised the success of the Australian citizenship process over the years. That process has indeed been changed many times over the years, possibly 30 or so. But if the process has worked so well and the minister comes into the House and applauds and lauds it, then why change it? There has been no call to do so by the community, no security advice to do so and no evidence that it is needed. The process is indeed working well for Australia and the minister wants to change it. He wants to change it on a falsely based perception that changing the Australian citizenship laws will increase security for this country. I want to raise three matters in respect of that.</para>
<para>Firstly, if security is the issue then the real test, and the test that really matters, is the test we apply when a person is granted entry into this country, regardless of which type of visa they are given—particularly when they are given a permanent visa to this country. Secondly, if a person has been in Australia for four years and has worked in this country for four years, what difference does the type of visa make to the person's understanding and integration into Australian life? It makes no difference at all, because the person is in the very same country, working amongst the very same community. Thirdly, under the existing laws, no residential period, none whatsoever, guarantees citizenship at the end of it. If there are any doubts about a person's character at the time they apply for their citizenship then their application can be deferred or rejected. So no period of time provides the certainty that members opposite would have you believe.</para>
<para>It is not a tougher citizenship test or a meaningless values test that makes a good citizen. Half a century of nearly five million new citizens successfully settling into Australia without the draconian measures proposed in this bill proves that. What more evidence is needed than to understand that the government's citizenship legislation is flawed and politically driven? It does not unite Australia, it indeed divides it.</para>
<para>I will finish on this point: there are about a million Australians who currently do not have citizenship. Most of them don't have it because they are not confident of passing the current test. If you make the test harder, that will mean that even more people will never, ever become Australian citizens.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has introduced the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill because we made a commitment to the Australian people that we would ensure citizenship is much more than formal privileges. We live in the greatest country in the world. Often, when I'm out and about I thank the older people in my electorate, those senior people, for the wonderful country that they've left me and younger people—like the people in the gallery up here above. Without those older Australians, those generations before us that have left us with the greatest country in the world, the young people—my children and other young people—wouldn't have the country we do today. But we can't take that for granted. Those opposite take it for granted: 'We can't change anything. We can't make any changes, because they're unfair.' I want to make sure that those young people watching up there today, and the young people in my electorate that I represent, continue to have the best country in the word.</para>
<para>The key changes to strengthen requirements for citizenship include the English test, increasing the general residence requirement and making sure that the unelected AAT don't have more say than the minister. With the English test, I believe the Labor Party sells migrants short. They sell them short: 'Oh, they can't pass it. They'd never been able to pass it.' What rubbish! They sell these people short. It is so important to ensure integration into the workplace, and not just into the workplace but social integration as well, by being able to speak English, being able to write English and having a bit of history and understanding of our great nation. It is terribly important. At the moment, it's a simple 20-question multiple-choice test and some of the questions are quite reasonable. They need to go through them. They need to study, but there is no English test requirement. And those opposite say it's not needed. Yet the member for Watson said something completely different.</para>
<para>Increasing the general residency requirement—and the assistant minister before named many countries that have a lot more than 12 months' permanent residency, including Canada at four years. We want to make it that there's a minimum of four years' permanent residency. In the last three years, over 1,100 people with permanent residency have had their visa cancelled for offences, including murder, manslaughter and rape. So over 1,100 people in the last four years have had their permanent residency cancelled for those crimes. Once a person is a citizen, we can't send them back. We can't cancel their visa. Once they're a citizen, that's it: they're here to stay. There are many in our community today who became citizens under old rules, who have committed crimes and are unable to be sent back. It is important that we make this change so that we are in line with other countries, like Germany, New Zealand, France, the UK and Canada, that all have four years-plus. At the moment, 12 months is not long enough. And those opposite, rather than being political, could make amendments. They could go and talk to the minister about it.</para>
<para>Finally, in relation to the unelected AAT, the legislation has also provided the minister with the power to personally set aside decisions by the AAT. For those in the gallery, let me tell you who the AAT think are good citizens. People found of good character by the AAT include an applicant who pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, eight sexual offences with a minor—with a minor!—two counts of having sexual intercourse and three counts of assault. It goes on, and asks that a further five matters be taken into account. The eight offences took place over a period of 14 years and involved four boys between the ages of nine and 14. The applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. He was released on parole. The AAT set aside the delegate's decision to refuse the application for citizenship and remitted the application with a direction that the applicant should be now be considered for a person of good character.</para>
<para>I tell you what, with this legislation the minister needs to have power to overrule the AAT. The minister is an elected member of parliament, not unelected public servants. They should not have the right to overrule this minister. The Labor Party comes into this place, opposes this legislation and makes political point scoring out of it. I tell you what, people in my electorate support this, and I'm quite happy to sell it at the next election. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm entirely unclear what that has to do with the Peloponnesian War. I have a confession, harking back to where this debate started—I can't even spell 'Peloponnesian'. I wondered if I should give up my citizenship, but then I thought I wouldn't be allowed to be here. But as it turns out, I actually would—because apparently being a citizen is no longer a qualification to be here. This attack on Australian citizenship is a shocker, even for this minister. I think it is starting to dawn on those opposite, judging by who is not here speaking—the member for Banks, the member for Chisholm and the member for Deakin—that this is another Dutton stunt gone wrong. It's based on a lie, as we heard, of national security.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a stunt gone wrong by the minister for immigration.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>the member for Bruce should address members by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He did correct himself, member for Petrie. I call the member for Bruce.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The wedge has backfired. We didn't hear anything from the assistant minister or anyone opposite about what their own senators have said of this bill. They've acknowledged that it's divisive and damaging to individuals and to people in my electorate. Some 55 per cent of people in my electorate were born in another country. This is a bread-and-butter issue for people in my community. They didn't say anything about the Senate report where government senators admitted that the legislation is flawed, and recommended major changes, but then kind of said that we should pass it anyway. That would be lipstick on a pig. There were 14,000 submissions opposing and two in favour. We're still placing bets over here on whether the assistant minister actually wrote the submission for the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a thing. The community and every expert are rightly outraged. This is an extremist bill. The truth was revealed. Its extremely ridiculous English level—IELTS 6—is university level. Every expert submission—from Melbourne University, from Monash University, from the people who understand what this test actually is—made that clear. It's elitist. I dare say that tens of thousands of people in my electorate who are great Australian citizens would fail this test. It was also made clear in the Senate committee report and in the submissions to the Senate committee that this would be the hardest, the most impossible English test in the entire world for citizenship. That's a fact. Have a read of the report.</para>
<para>People in my community and in many multicultural communities have said, quite clearly, that this is racist legislation. That's what's being said in the multicultural press around Australia. It's extreme. It's retrospective. Hundreds of thousands of people are affected. Even the government senators acknowledged the current trend—unfortunately like this—of legislation by media release. They've acknowledged the anger in the community and made a clear recommendation that the government back down and not make this retrospective, at the very least. They also made a clear recommendation that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the required standard should not be so high as to disqualify from citizenship many Australians who, in the past, and with a more basic competency in the English language, have proven to be valuable members of the Australian community.</para></quote>
<para>That's your own government senators agreeing with Labor's fundamental point about this bill.</para>
<para>We've also acknowledged that this bill imposes unreasonable delays. To become an Australian citizen you already have to be in this country for four years. People pay tax, they study, they work, they raise a family and they fall in love—they have all the quintessential Australian experiences year after year after year. The government through all of this debate has not answered the key question: how does it make us a better, safer community to have hundreds of thousands of permanent residents living here banned from citizenship? It doesn't.</para>
<para>The final point I'd make is that the minister for immigration, if you ring the betting agency of those opposite, may well be the next Prime Minister—before the next election. So you would think he would be politically smart. We had a meeting in the Springvale town hall a month ago and 500 people turned up. They were not all non-citizens; most of them were citizens. Many of them were Liberal voters. They were outraged because they care about their neighbours. They're married to non-citizens that have disrupted their family plans.</para>
<para>In my view we should send a thankyou note because finally, from the four months of this debate, every non-English-speaking background person, everyone from another country, every migrant and even your own party members, and supporters in the meeting I held in the seat of Chisholm—and people have now quit the Liberal Party over this, people who made the mistake of helping the member for Chisholm get elected and are now helping us—now know what you truly think of them: they're not good enough to be Australians, they're not welcome and they're not wanted. At least the minister for immigration has been honest for once and given people a chance to know where they truly stand with this government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs SUDMALIS</name>
    <name.id>241586</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I speak today about the Australian citizenship legislation amendments, which are all about strengthening requirements. I think it's unfair for any member in this House to cast slurs and aspersions on other members while they're not present and can't stand up for themselves. I know that particular member is better than that, particularly the person who said it.</para>
<para>As you can imagine, citizenship has become a serious issue for me in particular as my mother was a British citizen, and the media went into a frenzy trying to say I was a dual citizen. What a complete farce and time-wasting exercise this has been. I don't hold British citizenship; I never have; and that's the complete story. But, more to the point, I am fiercely loyal to my country, stand proudly with the defence personnel that I meet on a regular basis, honour our Indigenous first people with every welcome to country and I'll work to assist every single Australia who walks through my door if they need my advocacy—all those who wish to become an Australian. I love my country so much that I want every person who comes to this great country to feel part of that community, to share our values as much as they share our lifestyle and social support systems.</para>
<para>Labor's been openly critical of the importance of Australian values. While they have raised concerns about the style of the test, this has not been presented as a constructive criticism but as a reason to stop the whole process. Prominent members of the Labor Party are more interested in appeasing the complete Left rather than standing up for our national interest. The Leader of the Opposition, many years ago, was quoted as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">People who make a declaration to respect our laws and way of life … Anyone who has a problem signing that shouldn't be allowed to be here.</para></quote>
<para>It might be 11 years ago, but people in Australia feel that this is a core Australian value and most would be silently cheering this and wondering why the Labor Party would now see it as a problem.</para>
<para>Our changes are designed to make Aussie values a priority and for our language to be more inclusive. There is strong community support for strengthening the test for Australian citizenship. A recent inquiry into work opportunities for immigrants stated strongly that not having English as a language was a block for them in finding meaningful and well-paid work. Australian citizens have the right to vote, to serve their country, to work in the Public Service or the Defence Force, to run for public office, to apply for an Australian passport and to seek consular assistance, but we as Australians also need to respect everybody in our community. If that means helping to make them feel included, then that's what we should be doing.</para>
<para>Increasing the residential requirement will ensure there is a better understanding of who that person is and it will also allow those who are having difficulty learning the language just that little bit more time to actually integrate with our community. Introducing the requirements for applicants to demonstrate reasonable language skills will help them become true-blue Aussies. The Productivity Commission has said that this is what we should be doing. Of course, applicants who are over 60, who might find it hard to learn, will be exempted and those under 16 will be exempted because they probably will learn the language by osmosis. Contrary to Labor's false claim, the academic test is not required for the migration or citizenship process. That one is a training test—it is for skilled migration, not for citizenship. It's a test for writing, reading and listening and it is only a competency test. So we probably need to sit down and make sure we really understand what we are talking about here.</para>
<para>Potential citizens will need to show they are participating in the Australian community, and ideally that means talking about sending their children to school, seeking employment rather than relying on welfare, earning income, paying tax and contributing to the Australian community, as do my girls at The Leaf in Berry. Other factors such as domestic violence or criminality, including female genital mutilation, may cause the minister to revoke citizenship. I think that's pretty fair.</para>
<para>The potential for citizenship really needs to be part of what we're doing. It is in line with Canada and New Zealand and the UK. There is a lot of change happening that will help many of our New Zealand permanent residents who will now be able to get citizenship, and that will make a vast difference to their way of life.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to commend the multicultural volunteers and the coordination work Jan Frickham does with our migrants. I speak to the group frequently, and we welcome the women from the Philippines and particularly from our new Tibetan community, who are establishing in Nowra. I commend them; they want to become true-blue Aussies. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9503</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9503</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5926" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>9503</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>9504</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Everingham, Hon. Douglas Nixon 'Doug'</title>
          <page.no>9504</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9504</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9504</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9504</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5936" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9504</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9504</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</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 Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9504</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5935" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9504</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9504</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</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>Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9505</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5931" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9505</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:42]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>70</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>Chalmers, JE</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>Husar, E</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Keay, JT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, MJ</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>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</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>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>73</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>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Falinski, J</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</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></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9507</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</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>Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9507</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5932" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9507</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9507</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:4</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</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>Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9507</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5933" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9507</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9507</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</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>Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9508</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5934" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9508</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9508</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</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>Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9508</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5758" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>9508</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
<para>I would like to reflect on the goodwill and cooperation, I think it's fair to say, between the member for Blaxland, as the shadow trade minister, and myself, over the passage of this amended bill. We had some government amendments, as the House would know, which were put through—again, building on the dialogue and goodwill that extends across the chamber.</para>
<para>I was happy to incorporate two amendments that the Labor Party put forward. The first opposition amendment added to the government amendment which was passed in the House of Representatives stipulates that businesses will have to certify in writing their reasonable belief that Efic support for overseas direct investment will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia. The second opposition amendment ensures that large businesses with annual revenue of $150 million or more certify to Efic that they will not move overseas the whole or a substantial part of the business as a result of Efic support for an overseas direct investment transaction. This requirement codifies Efic's existing policy to ensure that its support for overseas direct investment will not result in plant closure or net job losses in Australia. I thank the member for Blaxland for the constructive dialogue that we've had. It has been a positive dialogue. We are both committed to doing the best thing by Australian businesses, and we've been able to find middle ground on this bill.</para>
<para>I would reinforce that the big positive from the passage of this Efic legislation has been the ability to ensure that the government's agenda of providing broader support to a wide range of Australian businesses—the government's agenda around boosting export, boosting export potential and providing support to small, medium and large businesses in Australia to help them realise their full potential—is achieved. With those remarks, I commend the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I also thank the minister and thank the government for the work that we've done together here, which I think makes this a better bill. There are two members in the gallery. There are lots of students up there listening to us and watching us as well and lots of people listening on the radio. You could be forgiven for thinking that we fight about everything in this building and that we agree on nothing. This is just one small but—I think—good example of bipartisanship and how we can work together and compromise. The art of making politics work is listening to each other and trying to find middle ground, as the minister said.</para>
<para>These amendments don't necessarily represent the full view of what my side of politics wants, or of the government side, but I think we've found a sensible middle ground and a piece of legislation that Efic are going to be able to work with and, importantly, that is going to help provide businesses with the opportunities to succeed and grow and create more Australian jobs, which is what we all want. We should never let the fighting that sometimes clouds the true purpose of this building be so great that we don't really see what we're here to try and do, which is to make this a better country, with more jobs. I think this legislation will do that, so, Minister, I thank you for the way in which we have worked on this.</para>
<para>We had one amendment which was dealt with by the House before the winter break, which the government moved after some work by the opposition, which we call the Australian jobs test. Effectively, what it means is that, if a loan is provided to a company to invest overseas, the applicant has to prove it will create more jobs here in Australia. I said in that contribution that I wanted to do more work with the minister over the break, and I want to thank the minister for providing the opportunity for me to sit down with his staff. I particularly want to thank his chief of staff, Alistair, for the work that he's done in this area and to thank the team at Efic and the team at DFAT. We had a long conversation and went through the details. That helped me to understand better the objectives of the government here and to fine-tune the amendments that we'd put in the Senate and then come back, talk to you and work through it. That's what we should do. It's what we should do more of.</para>
<para>The two amendments that have been agreed to by the Senate add a bit more meat to the bones of that Australian jobs test. It requires the company to certify at the end of the loan that they've actually met the requirement we want them to meet, which is that they have created more jobs. The other amendment that the Senate dealt with deals with this risk of offshoring. What we don't want to see is companies using this legislation for large-scale offshoring. I think we've come to a good landing here that meets both of our concerns and requirements.</para>
<para>I know—and the minister made this point before in the House—that it was never the intention of the government that the sorts of things we were concerned about might ever happen. Nevertheless, we wanted to guard against that possibility, however remote it could be. I think the amendments that we've come up with here make this a better bill. I think that they're going to help to create more jobs in Australia, and I think that's a good thing.</para>
<para>The work that Efic does is very important. We want more Australian businesses to become exporters, as I said earlier, and I think that this amended and arguably improved legislation is going to help us to do that. So thank you once again. I support the amendments that have been passed in the Senate.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>9511</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Committee</title>
          <page.no>9511</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>9511</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 173: <inline font-style="italic">Consular functions in Macau - China; Montreal ozone layer-amendment</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 173, which reviews two treaty actions: the amendment to our consular arrangements with China and Macau and the amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The purpose of the amendment is to amend our consular arrangements with China and Macau to bring the Macau Special Administrative Region, the SAR, under the auspices of the China agreement.</para>
<para>We have a very strong commercial presence in Macau, with around 1,000 Australians living in that SAR and over 2½ thousand people of Macanese descent living in Australia. We have a range of bilateral agreements directly with Macau, but since it came under the People's Republic of China in 1999 we also have an agreement with China on consular relations. In 2013 and 2014, there were procedural issues in relation to a number of arrest notifications between Australia and Macau, and consequent to negotiations to improve the notification process it was agreed to amend the China agreement to include the SAR.</para>
<para>The treaty action will provide procedural clarity for managing consular cases in Macau and will enable improved consular access to Australians detained in the SAR. For example, consular officials will be informed within three days if an Australian national is arrested or committed to prison or custody pending trial in the SAR. A consular visit to the detainee must be permitted within two days. These time lines are not currently mandated in the Macau agreement. Although Macau is now included within the scope of the China agreement, the committee notes that China has requested that the Macau agreement remain in place. We commend DFAT in its efforts to improve Australia's global consular services, and the committee supports ratification of this treaty action.</para>
<para>The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer mandates the phase down of scheduled ozone-depleting substances. This amendment will mandate the global phase down of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. Although HFCs are not ozone depleting, they are considered to have a somewhat higher global-warming potential. Australia has already introduced legislation to phase down the import of HFCs from January 2018 in order to meet existing climate change emission reduction commitments. That legislation will facilitate implementation of commitments under this amendment to the Montreal protocol. The committee acknowledges the success of the Montreal protocol and its role in assisting Australia to reach its climate change emission reduction targets. Australia has supported all six previous amendments to the protocol, and the committee has recommended that it support this one as well.</para>
<para>Finally, the report also contains the committee's review of two minor treaty actions relating to the OECD G20 conventions, addressing tax evasion by individuals and large multinationals. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report wholeheartedly to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit</title>
          <page.no>9512</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>9512</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Committee for Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Madeleine King</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Brand. I present Report 463: <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth financial statements: inquiry based on Auditor-General's report No. 33 (2016-17) </inline>and Report 464: <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth grants administration: inquiry based on Auditor-General's reports No. 25 (2015-16), No. 4 (2016-17), No. 12 (2016-17) and No. 35 (2016-17)</inline>.</para>
<para>Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—The first report, <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth financial statements,</inline> sets out the findings of the committee's inquiry based on Audit report No. 33: <inline font-style="italic">Audits of t</inline><inline font-style="italic">he financial statements of Australian government</inline><inline font-style="italic"> entities for the period ended 30 June 2016</inline>. It's not the most exciting stuff, but it is a critical part of the committee's annual role to oversee the Commonwealth's finances. The committee noted that the 2015-16 consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the requirements of the Australian accounting standards, and that an unmodified auditor's report for the statements was issued on 28 November 2016. The committee also noted that the Auditor-General had issued auditor's reports on the 2015-16 financial statements of 246 Commonwealth entities, up until 9 December 2016, and that all auditor's reports were unmodified.</para>
<para>There were some 245 findings that were reported to entities as a result of these audits, comprising four significant, 32 moderate and 209 minor findings. Importantly, the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Education and Training both had significant findings, and the Department of Defence and the Australian tax office both had multiple moderate audit findings. The committee noted progress by these entities in responding to the audit findings. However, we recommended that if next year's financial statements for these entities result in any significant or moderate findings, the entities should report back to the committee on their progress in responding to these findings. Noting the two significant legislative breaches reported to the Northern Land Council during 2015-16, the committee also recommended that the council report back on progress in responding to these breaches and any such breaches reported next financial year.</para>
<para>During the course of the committee's inquiry we paid particular attention to the rules and practice governing the disclosure of senior executive remuneration. This has been the subject of media comment and of interest to senators during in Senate estimates, triggered first by the Australia Post CEO controversy. It turns out that the previous reporting rule required all Commonwealth entities, including government business enterprises, to disclose senior executive remuneration by band. The reporting rule instrument that required this was signed by Senator Wong when she was finance minister. Unfortunately, this requirement for transparency was removed a few years ago by the current Minister for Finance. In doing so, the new PGPA Act financial reporting rule ditched the explicit requirements to mandate public reporting and aligned reporting with various externally devised accounting standards.</para>
<para>During the inquiry, quite contrary to their usual forthcoming and helpful nature, the Department of Finance was uncharacteristically coy in providing us with advice in response to questions as to the impact of these changes. We got a series of sterling <inline font-style="italic">Yes Minister</inline>Sir Humphrey-style non-responses to straightforward questions. From my time in the public service, I recall that there was a two-word term for this. It starts with 'smile' and ends in an unparliamentary word. Anyway, we toed-and-froed for a while, presumably while they or their minister was scrambling to bandaid the problem. During the inquiry, the Minister for Finance and the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, however, took a number of steps to reinstate the previous practice for all Commonwealth entities, including government business enterprises, to disclose details of senior executive remuneration—in essence, writing a bunch of warm but relatively lame and tame letters asking entities if they could please go back to disclosing senior executive remuneration.</para>
<para>The committee concluded, however, the accountability needs of the parliament and the Australian public must continue to be met. It expressed concerns about some of the mechanisms being used to reinstate remuneration disclosure. The committee, therefore, recommended that, consistent with previous practice, more transparent disclosure of senior executive remuneration, including by salary bands, should be a formal requirement—not by request. This requirement should be duly reflected in the relevant legislation and guidance and the relevant disclosure published in entity annual reports, rather than on entity websites. Finance should also report back to the committee on options for strengthening remuneration disclosure requirements, giving consideration to the requirements for Australian Stock Exchange-listed companies. We further recommend that Finance develop benchmarks to enable entities to assess their own financial sustainability against agreed parameters over time. This is important in terms of the accountability needs of parliamentarians being met. Finance should also note the committee's proposal that more transparent reporting on contracts and consultancies, earlier delivery of annual reports and improved entity audit committees be considered as part of the independent review of the PGPA Act.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the Auditor-General's financial statement audits play a critical role in ensuring accountability to the parliament and the Australian public for the expenditure of public funds. The audits provide independent assurance that the information is accurate and that the financial management of Commonwealth entities is effective. The committee commends the Auditor-General for his work each year in auditing the consolidated financial statements and the Commonwealth entity financial statements. We also commend the Audit Office for its work in reviewing the progress of each entity and addressing any significant or moderate findings from the previous year's audit.</para>
<para>I have a statement to make in relation to the second report that I have tabled, in relation to Commonwealth grants administration. This inquiry examined Commonwealth grants administration with a focus on the Auditor-General's findings and recommendations for multiple audits, being the 20 Million Trees Program, the Living Safe Together Grants Program and the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. The committee was concerned that granting departments are not consistently applying the requirements of the Commonwealth grants framework, which all departments are obliged to follow. It was disappointing that, despite multiple audit reports, too often the exact same problems keep recurring—often in the same department. The committee was concerned that significant shortcomings remained in the departments' processing of grant applications, as well as their assessment practices. Eligibility requirements were not clearly set out in program guidelines, applicants were treated inconsistently in relation to the eligibility requirements, and eligibility assessments were not conducted in a transparent or timely manner. The committee highlighted a range of instances where ineligible applications had proceeded through to merit assessment and, in some cases, were ultimately funded. We view this as an important public administration issue. Quite simply, grant applications that do not meet policy objectives, as expressed in eligibility criteria, should not receive funding.</para>
<para>Without reading all of the words in front of me, I also point members towards our acknowledgement of the importance of some positive initiatives across departments, including grants hubs, created as part of the whole-of-government streamlining grants administration initiative. We did make a range of comments and recommendations around those.</para>
<para>The committee also recognised the importance of accurate and complete advice to ministers to make decisions to either approve or reject funding recommendations. Ministers, and shadow ministers should they one day be ministers, all have a shared interest in ensuring the advice they get is correct and comprehensive. However, the evidence presented revealed that the issues were not just systems or process related but also cultural. The committee considered the need for departments to instil cultural change, drawing attention to training as one of the fundamental features in influencing a department-wide cultural shift. We made a number of recommendations, including that the three program departments actually measure the number of staff in their departments formally trained with regard to the grants policy framework and quickly rectify gaps to retain sufficient expertise and ensure policy compliance.</para>
<para>Regarding written advice to decision-makers, the inquiry pursued the ANAO's recurring audit finding of inaccurate record keeping. The committee highlighted that departments must maintain detailed contemporaneous records to support funding recommendations to provide adequate assurance regarding those specific projects or activities that have been approved and the terms of that approval.</para>
<para>This is an important point when it comes to the expenditure of public funding and the impact of grants. We examined departments' approaches to evaluating grants programs, which is a key part of implementing effective granting processes. We were also concerned that departments are not taking a strong early focus on formulating an evaluation strategy. In some cases, evaluation frameworks are not formalised and/or implemented until years after a program commences. The committee was particularly concerned that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet still could not point to a formal overall evaluation strategy for the $4.8 billion Indigenous Advancement Strategy nearly three years after commencement. To be fair, we did acknowledge that in February 2017 the minister announced $40 million to strengthen the evaluation of various bits and pieces. It was an amazing Deirdre Chambers-style coincidence that he happened to do that on the very same day that the Auditor-General released his report with critical findings. Anyway, there's room to improve evaluation.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Madeleine King interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deirdre Chambers, yes. The committee stressed the importance of departments actively collecting, sharing and acting on lessons learned, and encouraged communities of practice, to share information and good practice across the department, and the development of model guidance documents. The committee noted that, while it is prudent to disseminate learnings, audits and other evaluation activities across the department and listen to speeches like this and read the reports, that is not enough. Departments and public servants actually have to change their behaviour, not just write memos, if we're to see improvement.</para>
<para>The committee strongly supported the Auditor-General's recommendations across the whole suite of reports and many others, and recognised that full implementation is essential if continued shortcomings are to be rectified. So we recommended that the three program departments report on progress against the Auditor-General's respective recommendations, including clearly indicating whether they have actually implemented them.</para>
<para>Grants, of course, will continue to be used as a common approach to deliver government funding and achieve government outcomes and objectives. Based on the committee's findings in this inquiry and given the new whole-of-government arrangements, the committee flagged, and we will be maintaining focus on this, that future scrutiny of grants administration will pay attention to whether departments understand their underlying culture—it's not just the words on the page; it's what's done—and whether departments have made a conscious effort and achieved any of the necessary cultural shifts so that the risks, in some cases serious risks, that have fed into these prior deficiencies are mitigated and full alignment with the government's overarching grants policy framework occurs.</para>
<para>In closing, I'd like to extend my thanks to all members of the committee, including the member for Brand, a fine contributor, for their deliberations during these inquiries. I commend the reports to the House, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of Report 463: <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth financial statements: Inquiry based on Auditor-General's report 33 (2016-17)</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9515</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Committee</title>
          <page.no>9516</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>9516</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled: <inline font-style="italic">Inquiry into crystal methamphetamine (ice)—Report, September 2017</inline>.</para>
<para>In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—This inquiry started in the 44th Parliament and we have concluded it here in the 45th Parliament. We received a total of 119 submissions. We conducted hearings in Melbourne, in Mount Gambia, in Liverpool in south-west Sydney, in Caboolture, in Canberra and more recently in Perth. There's no doubt that the evidence we heard painted a disturbing picture of the growing prevalence of crystal methamphetamine and the havoc that it is wreaking in many of our communities and in many families across the nation.</para>
<para>Our report has been broken up into five separate chapters. The first is merely an introduction. The second chapter provides an overview of crystal methamphetamine and its use in Australia. It describes the substance and how it differs from other methamphetamines. Chapter 3 looks at Australia's drug strategies and work already done at a Commonwealth level and focuses on crystal methamphetamine. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the number of current Commonwealth law enforcement activities. In chapter 5, the examination of law enforcement strategies continues. This chapter also looks at strategies announced in the National Ice Action Strategy and considers how current and planned future strategies might be improved.</para>
<para>One of the most true comments in the report that I think all community members agreed with was that this is a problem that we cannot arrest ourselves out of. There seems to be almost an unending source of supply of this insidious drug. The drug cannot only be manufactured locally in Australia from precursor chemicals but it also seems to be imported from all around the world, most specifically from South-East Asia. So the difficulty we have is that because it is so small in volumetric terms, we cannot expect our Customs and Border Force officials, who are doing a tremendous job and who we congratulate on the many successful seizures that they have recently made, to solve this problem on their own. We have to work on strategies to reduce the demand for this drug in our society and reduce the damage that it does.</para>
<para>This report was the first report of the inquiry. The committee will also undertake a visit to Portugal, after which it will present a second report where we will consider evidence in further detail concerning treatment and rehabilitation services, harm reduction measures that can be undertaken and the allocation of the National Ice Strategy Taskforce funding. I commend the report to the House.</para>
<para>I would like to congratulate and thank the other members of the committee and compliment them on how we've been able to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue, because this is a most serious issue that is causing untold harm throughout our nation. We need to come up with new strategies and new ways of tackling this problem.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9517</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9517</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5927" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9517</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my pleasure to conclude my remarks on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill. In reflection on my earlier comments, the important thing about this bill is that it's designed to assist those who are living in hardship and to help them ultimately break free of the cycle of welfare dependency. It recognises that these people are living in very difficult circumstances and that these people are crying out for assistance.</para>
<para>Income management is already in place in Logan. There are some 360 BasicsCard merchants in Logan and a further 2,100 in the greater Brisbane area that accept the BasicsCard, including the major supermarkets. This is important because it gives those who end up on a BasicsCard as a result of a positive drug test the capacity to carry on their lives as usual. They will have access to the merchants and services they require on a day-to-day basis.</para>
<para>You'd think from the contributions of those opposite that if a person has a positive drug test their name will be splashed all over the media and everybody in the community will know—you'd almost think they'll be put in a pink jumpsuit and stuffed in the back of a truck! That's not the case at all. Of course, the drug-testing results will be kept private and, importantly, the positive drug test will not be shared with anybody. This is not about punishment; this is about seeking a new way to assist people at a very difficult time in their lives.</para>
<para>There have been calls, in particular from the mayor of Logan City, for the drug trial to be suspended. Well, I have news for the mayor. In a poll in the local newspaper as a result of his comments earlier in the week, 78 per cent of the people that responded to that poll support this particular measure. So he's on the wrong side of the fence. It's very important that this trial goes ahead. We will work constructively with the community organisations that are already in place in Logan to ensure this trial is a success. This trial is not about seeking to shame people or demean them, or about stigmatising Logan. As I said in my earlier remarks, we have to acknowledge that we have a problem. It is about developing a proactive strategy that deals with drug addiction and the issues that flow from that, and works to improve the lives of those in need.</para>
<para>Ultimately, these are the key facts. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016 National Drugs Strategy Household Survey showed those who were unemployed were 2.4 times more likely to use ice and other amphetamines than those who were employed. In 2016, there were 22,000 temporary incapacity exemptions given to 16,000 jobseekers because of drug and/or alcohol dependence issues. Australia's expenditure on alcohol and other drug treatment services in 2012-13 was some $1.2 billion, with about a third of this coming from the Australian government.</para>
<para>As a community and as a nation, we have an obligation to provide extra support to help people deal with drug addiction and alcohol issues. The trial is one of five measures announced in the 2017-18 federal budget that aim to better support people into work and ensure this country's welfare system continues to be a viable and secure safety net for those who need it most. This trial has the potential to change the lives of people who, because of drugs, are not able to focus on getting off welfare and becoming active members of our community through work and social participation. I believe that helping jobseekers overcome their substance addiction problems will improve their chances of finding a job and reduce the risk of ongoing welfare dependency. It will also significantly help their families. It will reduce incidents of domestic violence. It will put families in a much stronger financial position. All of those things go to creating a stronger economy where we have strong families that are supported through a difficult period in their lives. This is why I fully support this trial and this bill. This will benefit not only the jobseekers but also their families. Importantly, as I have outlined before, it is consistent with community expectations for the receipt of taxpayer-funded income support. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the measures in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. The complexities and detail involved in this bill are unsurprising, given the high importance of its subject matter and, indeed, the impact any changes to Australian welfare will have on those Australians most in need. As a result of this, the bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for review—a review which I believe was completed yesterday and will be tabled later today in the Senate. I look forward to reading the committee's report, and I thank the lawyers involved for the work they've done on it.</para>
<para>In the meantime, it is important to note that this bill includes several measures from the 2017 budget that overlap and intersect across the portfolios of social services, employment and human services. Some of these measures have merit and are integral to the task of the ongoing development of the welfare system—that it ensures payments are sufficient and are going to targeted areas of need in order to maximise the limited resources of the Commonwealth. However, there are a number of other measures in this bill that are concerning for a number of reasons and which will exert undue and unreasonable pressure on some of Australia's most vulnerable people. While these measures are included in this bill in its present form, I cannot and will not provide my support for it and neither will my colleagues. Again, I stress the importance of the Senate inquiry into this bill and look forward to the recommendations that may see some of the measures drawn out and looked at individually.</para>
<para>I'd like to take time to outline some of the more aggressive measures in this bill that are specifically my reasons for opposing it, and how some of these measures will impact constituents in my electorate of Brand. Firstly, schedule 4, the cessation of bereavement allowance: this is a short-term payment available for a maximum of 14 weeks for individuals whose partner has died. Paid at the rate of the aged pension and subject to the same income and assets test, this payment has been used as a means of relieving the initial financial impact of the loss of shared income as well assistance for the initial stages of grief. Schedule 4 replaces the bereavement allowance in its current form with some short-term access to the jobseeker allowance, which is paid at the lower rate and is tied to a means test. This lower rate, $535 per fortnight, is the same as the Newstart allowance and means that future recipients will receive $1,300 less over the 14-week period than under existing arrangements. This is no small amount for the most vulnerable in our community. Subjecting people in a vulnerable position to further financial hardship is an awful thing to do, and it doesn't help in the naturally fragile emotional environment which any bereaved person finds themselves in.</para>
<para>My electorate is home to a large number of elderly couples—as all of our communities are—and I cannot imagine voting for a bill that doesn't provide the utmost support for these fine people when they need it most. I call on the government to remove this schedule and to provide stability and certainty to those who have suffered the loss of their life partner. If ever we've seen this government choose to make budget repair off the back of the vulnerable, we see it here—taking the allowance off elderly pensioners as they deal with moving to living alone for the first time in decades. This government is taking the bereavement allowance off those needing a social safety net while giving out a $65 billion tax cut to big business. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: what are the priorities of this government? It clearly isn't elderly couples on the pension facing loss. They're not the on government's priority list.</para>
<para>I turn to schedule 10, which deals with a start date for some participation payments. This schedule changes the start date at which those participating in the RapidConnect program are able to receive income support. This measure changes the start date and pushes it back to when the person had their first interview with their job service provider as opposed to the current arrangements whereby a person can receive a payment from the day they claim. It increases waiting times for a payment even if the person complies with the RapidConnect requirements.</para>
<para>At the start of 2016 unemployment was nine per cent in Kwinana and 10 per cent in Rockingham, both well above the national average. How on earth, then, does this latest idea ease the pressure on people by making them wait longer for welfare payments to make ends meet? Even if people have been fully compliant, they still have to wait for their payments. It's a cruel and mean-spirited move by a government who clearly have no notion what it is like to walk in the shoes of some of these people that need help the most.</para>
<para>This takes me to schedule 11, the removal of intent-to-claim provisions. This removes the provisions that allow people making a claim to, effectively, have their claims backdated to the time of first contact with the Department of Human Services. This will have a devastating effect on a group of people who do not have the capacity to collate the required information in the time required by the department. These circumstances could be due to homelessness, separation, hospitalisation, health issues, mental health issues or access to technology, all of which—particularly access to technology—are issues that affect my electorate. How is it possible for residents in the suburb of Baldivis to log on to myGov or Centrelink when they can't even get a reliable fixed-line connection, let alone a decent mobile connection? And the NBN remains far away in the never-never for many people in my electorate. It's just another instance where the Prime Minister's version of the NBN is failing the community.</para>
<para>The extension of one week to the waiting period is a long time for young people and pensioners in my electorate who live from payment to payment and tread water trying to keep their heads above the poverty line. Many of them, sadly, are unsuccessful, and this in itself then leads in many cases to homelessness and on to drug dependency.</para>
<para>I now come to the most controversial measure in this bill, the one that has generated significant attention in the national media and an issue that I have received a large volume of correspondence on. That is the proposal of drug testing for welfare recipients and the establishment of a drug-testing trial, which is included in schedule 12. This will seek to establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of the youth and Newstart allowances in three locations, one of which is proposed to be in the suburb of Mandurah in the electorate of Canning, which is to the immediate south of my electorate of Brand. New claimants of both payments will be included in the trial and will be forced to acknowledge that they may be required to participate in the drug-testing trials. This will be a condition of receiving the payment.</para>
<para>There has been a lot of talk on this issue, and make no mistake: we face significant problems with drug addiction in the wider community across Australia and particularly in Western Australia. However, Labor has met with a range of experts in the health industry, including doctors, addiction medicine specialists and many community organisations, and confirmed what we already knew: it is a murky proposal. They have made it clear that they do not support the trial and have said that it may lead to a rise in crime. We cannot support it, and I and the rest of the Labor opposition call on the government to halt this proposal.'</para>
<para>There has been a lot of talk of financial cost and social implications in the community, but what about the simple right of human dignity? Imagine the sea of hopelessness that many will face while they continue to comply with the rules and try to support themselves and their families. Imagine for a moment what it would be like to have to go and do a urine test to try to put food on the table. It's shameful, it's wrong and it's degrading. I'd even go so far as to say it's inhumane. This is from a government that does not understand the idea of a social safety net that catches and supports those in need, instead choosing to stigmatise and demonise a group of people who rely on welfare payments just to get through the week.</para>
<para>If the government wants to talk about financial costs, we can go there, too. Maybe talking about the cost of these tests will make some sense, but maybe not; they've just dropped $122 million on an absurd non-compulsory survey to change legislation we here in this place could vote on right now. When those opposite are done with accusations of collusion and conspiracy, they might like instead to take a leaf from the book of our friends across the Ditch and learn the lessons they have already learned over there. New Zealand has tried this already. They already had a trial and they also have their results. In 2015 only 22 of 8,001 New Zealand participants returned a positive result. That is less than 0.3 per cent. This cost New Zealand taxpayers around NZ$1 million. In America, in the state of Utah's 2014 testing program, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare recipients were screened, and 29 returned a positive result. Effectively, they were both a waste of money and a waste of time—and an exercise in humiliation for the vulnerable. And that's what's going to happen here as well. Those opposite seem more interested in a headline and an image that makes them look tough on drug related crime and feeds their voter base.</para>
<para>Instead of wasting $122 million on that postal survey, imagine what we could put that towards in the community. It could be put towards drug rehabilitation programs that actually address some of the issues that vulnerable people face. This government should be focusing on real policies to combat drug dependency—policies of education and rehabilitation. I hope such proposals will come forward. While I wait for this to happen, I remain astounded, as do my colleagues, at some of the measures proposed in this schedule, such as measures that state recipients who fail to attend an appointment will have their payment suspended or that jobseekers who refuse to take a test will have their payment cancelled and a penalty of four weeks will be imposed until they can apply again. It gets worse. In a proposal that is yet to be determined, should a positive result be detected, jobseekers will be put on income management. Recipients will then be subject to a second drug test, and, if it is positive once again, they will need to repay the cost of the tests. As we know, the details of this test are still murky and there is the risk of lower cost tests producing inaccurate results—that is, false positives. This can take the form of a recipient on antidepressants testing positive for amphetamines. For a reliable test to be undertaken, there are significant cost factors involved, with proper urine tests costing between $550 and $950 to administer. If the federal government think these people are going to be able to pay for these tests, I would ask them to have another think about that. Clearly, they can't.</para>
<para>Health and welfare groups have lined up to raise their concerns about this proposal, including St Vincent's Health, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, ACOSS and UnitingCare. There has been no flurry from any health or welfare group to support this—none at all. I want to ask members to think about the possibility that this will force users onto less traceable drugs such as alcohol or synthetic cannabis. What about the fact that a long-term cannabis user will test positive six weeks after they have last used the drug? What about the risk this might pose to Centrelink staff, who will deal with the threat of increased violence and aggression? That's something no-one wants to see.</para>
<para>I can only imagine how hard the member for Canning lobbied the member for Pearce to get this degrading trial happening in Mandurah. I think I have spent more time playing hockey in Halls Head and swimming and surfing at Florida beach than the member for Canning has spent in Mandurah. I doubt he cares for the people of Mandurah. If he cared for them, the member for Canning might have applied his efforts to programs that help people beat drug addiction rather than stigmatised and humiliated them. This is a man that talked on television about his version of what marriage is and didn't even mention love. That speaks volume about the priorities of the member for Canning.</para>
<para>In the short time remaining, I'd like to urge my colleagues opposite to think about striking up some empathy for the people on welfare in these very difficult positions. There seems to be a misconception floating around that people like to be on welfare and that they think it's fun to be on the dole and to be dependent on the government and the Commonwealth and living off the taxpayer. It is not fun being on welfare. In no way is it fun. It is no fun when you have to scrimp and save to make ends meet and go into Centrelink and sit on the phone for hours when there's a problem.</para>
<para>There is a drug problem in this country; we all admit that. There's a drug problem around the world. We could make people on welfare have no interaction with drugs whatsoever and go and do urine testing so they can receive welfare payments to feed their families, but put yourself in their shoes. How are they going to feel when we treat them in this manner? Are we just going to presume that everyone who isn't able to work is in some way acting incorrectly or not doing the right thing and not trying their best? My greatest objection to this is that it's not really dealing with the drug problem in society; it's just seeking to wrap up a whole lot of mean-spirited, misguided and ill-conceived conceptions about who the people on welfare in this country are and what they want to achieve for their families—and it's not to stay on welfare, and it certainly isn't to go through the ritual humiliation of having to do some kind of drug test so they can feed their families and put food on the table at night. It's a very depressing bill. It has depressed me a lot. I hope the government may reconsider it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to be speaking on the very important and comprehensive reforms contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. It is a wide-ranging piece of legislation, but what it speaks to most centrally is the importance of reforming welfare to ensure that it works for the people for whom it is designed, to ensure that welfare exists as a support mechanism for people who are going through difficult times, who need that support. I think that this House would widely support the notion that people who find themselves in those difficult moments in life receive some support. But what we on this side of the House say is that that support should be targeted, that it should be focused on getting people back into the workforce and that a lifetime of welfare dependency is not a good thing for the person receiving the welfare, for society and for taxpayers.</para>
<para>It is very important in this policy area that government very sharply focuses its efforts on helping people in genuine need but also on doing everything that it sensibly can to help people get off welfare and into work. Being in a long-term welfare-dependent situation is bad for the recipients and their families and it is not something that any government should encourage. We live in a society of immense opportunity and a society that we should be extraordinarily proud of. In the hundred or so years that the Commonwealth of Australia has been around, we've created, in my view, the best nation in the world. We've done that in many different ways, but the central organising principle that's made it happen has been a belief that individuals can do anything if they set their minds to it. That is something that I strongly believe and it's certainly something that informs the philosophy of this government, because our success is only limited by the intensity of our efforts.</para>
<para>That's why these bills are so important, and we reject the grim and bleak view of those opposite that somehow people's circumstances in life are predetermined by the circumstances of their upbringing. When you think about it, every person in this place and all around Australia has pursued their own path in life, and the overwhelming factor that leads to the success of their life is their own effort. On this side of the House, we embrace that, we celebrate that and we do everything we can to encourage that. But the Leader of the Opposition, in a recent speech, said that there was a sense in Australia that your success in life is predetermined by your parents' income. That is an absurd statement, and it is expressive of a bleak and depressing view that the fix is in, that the game is stacked against people and that people don't have the capacity to affect the outcome of their own lives. That is just wrong, because we all do have that ability. That is why we love this country so much and why it's such a wonderful place. We need to speak very emphatically against that bleak vision of Australia and that notion of a society where we envy a small number of people and say that it's all too hard for everyone else. That just isn't true, and the stories of many people in this place and all around Australia demonstrate the fact that people can do anything if they set their mind to it.</para>
<para>If you're on welfare and you have a drug problem, there are two clear things that follow from that. The first is: you're going to struggle to get a job. If you've got a drug problem, if you are drug dependent, you're probably not going to be able to get a job. That's bad. It's bad for you and it's bad for society. The second thing is: even if you do happen to get a job while you're drug affected, you're not going to hold it for very long, because your employer is going to work out pretty quickly that you are drug affected and you're going to lose that job. We don't want that. Indeed, many employers in Australia—Qantas, WIN, FOX and many other large and small companies—test employees for drug usage. Understandably, those employers want to know whether this person who is employed by their company is affected by drugs. They obviously want to identify that risk in their workplace if it exists. So if you're on drugs you're probably not going to get a job and, even if you do, you're probably going to lose it pretty quickly—so it's not a good thing.</para>
<para>If people who are receiving welfare have a drug problem, then, because their source of income is a taxpayer fund, that means that in a very literal sense the funds of taxpayers are being redistributed to drug dealers. The taxpayer is paying the welfare recipient affected by a drug dependency, who then provides money to drug dealers, which underwrites the lifestyle of drug dealers. I don't think there's a single person in my electorate, and I doubt there are very many in Australia, who would say that that was in any way appropriate. I don't think any of us would want to see the hard earned money of taxpayers used to subsidise and underwrite the lifestyle of drug dealers, so we've got to try and stop that. We've got to take serious policy steps to address these issues. That is what this bill, which was put before the House by the Minister for Social Services, does. It says we want to test if people who are receiving welfare—particularly Newstart payments and some other payments—are affected by drugs. If they are affected, they don't lose their welfare payment. Those opposite say this will be a calamity and it's going to cause financial problems for people who are drug affected. The problem with that argument is that it doesn't make sense, because the people who are receiving welfare will still receive precisely the same amount of income, it's just that 80 per cent of it will be through the means of a card that can't be used to purchase drugs. So whatever amount of money in total the person is receiving now they still receive, but 80 per cent of it is provided in a form that can be used in shops to purchase lawful goods but can't be used on drugs, and surely that's a good thing. So the notion that this somehow affects the income of people who are drug affected is wrong. It is utterly wrong.</para>
<para>If someone tests positive to drugs for a second time, then we say let's get them on a medical management plan to help them with their drug addiction. That is an act of compassion from the taxpayer to say we want to actually provide you with additional support—not less support, more support—to help you get off drugs, because if you don't get off drugs, you're not going to get a job, and if you don't get a job, you're going to be on welfare for the long term and that's not good for you, your family or, frankly, anyone else.</para>
<para>These should be unobjectionable measures, and certainly in the Bankstown community, which is one of the three trial sites and adjacent to my electorate, this has been very, very warmly welcomed. I have been overwhelmed by the level of support for the proposed trial in my community, because people see it as a commonsense measure that gets to the heart of the fundamental problem of helping to get drug affected welfare recipients off drugs and ensuring that taxpayers' money, to the greatest extent possible, is used for the right things and not the wrong things. What could be wrong with that?</para>
<para>The member for Barton disagrees. She says that this is an attack on South-West Sydney. Helping drug affected people to get off drugs, according to the member for Barton, is an attack on South-West Sydney. It's the exact opposite, in fact. It's about helping drug affected welfare recipients to get off drugs, and it is also about ensuring that the taxpayers of Australia don't underwrite the lifestyle of drug dealers. Why should we underwrite the lifestyle of drug dealers? But the member for Barton says it's an attack on South-West Sydney.</para>
<para>The member for Isaacs says that it's likely to lead to an increase in crime, an increase in inequality and further harsh treatment of welfare recipients. If I break that down, the welfare recipient who is on drugs gets a card of exactly the same value. They don't lose any money; they just lose the capacity to spend their money on drugs. That is all that is happening. They are losing their capacity to spend money on drugs. But the member for Isaacs, in his professorial manner, says that the fact they can no longer spend money on drugs will lead to an increase in crime. I am very interested to hear how we would follow the logic through on that. He says it will somehow increase inequality—but it won't, because the amount of money received by the welfare recipients stays exactly the same. And he says it will lead to further harsh treatment of welfare recipients. But it won't lead to further harsh treatment of welfare recipients, because it will actually ensure that the welfare recipient gets the same amount of money but in a format where they can't spend the money on drugs. That is why this reform, so ably championed by the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services, is such an important one.</para>
<para>The member for Jagajaga often comes out with interesting statements, but on this she said she is worried that vulnerable Australians may be pushed into poverty, homelessness and, potentially, crime as a result of this proposed trial. That is just absolutely absurd. They are getting the same amount of money. They are getting the same amount of money if they test positive to drugs, but they just can't spend it on drugs. That is what is happening, but what those opposite are representing is that it will somehow drive people into poverty, homelessness or crime, and that is absurd. That, frankly, is why the vast majority of the community—certainly in my part of Sydney and, I suspect, around Australia—have so enthusiastically embraced this trial and so comprehensively rejected the ideological and impractical opposition of those opposite. It should be embraced because it's a very, very sensible trial. It will take place in the Canterbury-Bankstown region, not far from my electorate; in the Logan area in Queensland; and, of course, over in Mandurah in Western Australia.</para>
<para>Under schedule 12 of this bill, we will see 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance randomly drug tested in a two-year trial. It's a very big bill, but this is a particularly important feature of it so it is important to focus on this. They will, if they test positive on that first occasion, be placed onto the income-management card. And should they test positive on a second occasion, they will be provided with a comprehensive case-management program to help them to get off drugs.</para>
<para>It is a very sensible program and one that should be commended. The reality is that welfare reform is a very important public policy area. About 41 cents in every dollar the federal government spends is for welfare. As I said before, the vast majority of Australians support the notion of helping those among us who are in very difficult situations. We do support that. The vast majority of Australians support that. But they don't support and shouldn't support—and we on this side of the House certainly don't support—the notion that people should be in permanent reliance on welfare. It's not good for them and it's not good for the community.</para>
<para>Schedule 14 of this bill outlines allied changes to the so-called reasonable excuses provision. This is an important one as well. At the moment, there are rules that say if you don't show up to the various meetings you are required to show up to when you are on welfare payments, there can be penalties. However, if you have a reasonable excuse then that's okay and there's no penalty. The problem at the moment is that if you are affected by drugs, you can say, 'Well, look, I was affected by drugs and that's why I didn't show up to the appointment.' And you still just get the payments. The payments just keep going even if you don't show up to the appointment because you are affected by drugs. Schedule 14 says that if there is an appropriate treatment program for you and you don't avail yourself of it, and you don't show up for your appointment, then there will be a penalty applied—and, frankly, so there should be. If the reason you are not showing up and not fully participating in your mutual obligation is your drug addiction, surely the minimum obligation on that person should be to take proactive steps to help themselves to get off drugs by attending what is a publicly funded program to assist them to get off drugs. At the moment, you can not go to the program and not show up to a meeting and still get paid. In the future, you will be required to attend those meetings, put your best foot forward and try to get off drugs so you can get more heavily involved in society. That's a very good thing. That's a very appropriate welfare reform.</para>
<para>It is a massive public policy area. This is a very substantial and wide-ranging bill, and I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is simplistic, patronising and demonising and shows a complete lack of insight on the part of the government and the social services minister. For the benefit of those just tuning into the debate, let me recap. The bill will rename the Newstart allowance and combine it with six ancillary unemployment related benefits to, as the government says, simplify the working-age payment system. The bill also aims to streamline a number of the government's own administrative processes. It is, in part, a tidying-up exercise—that's fine. The bill, though, falls well short of being a systematic realignment of welfare payments. Vast areas of administrative complexity remain, and those in need of help won't find it noticeably easier or any less daunting to gain access to their rightful entitlements. You read this bill and you wonder just how many will continue to struggle or miss out simply because they don't understand the system or know their rights.</para>
<para>But there are multiple stings in the tail as well—there always are with this government. The bill significantly raises the bar on those with medical problems who need to access the social security system because they cannot find a permanent or semi-permanent place in the world of work. It's merely the latest instalment in this government's crusade against the disadvantaged. It's already the case that a jobseeker who fails to attend an appointment without reasonable excuse with their employment services provider will have their jobseeker payment suspended. When a jobseeker fails to attend a further employment appointment, they incur what is eloquently dubbed 'a reconnection failure', and their benefits are suspended until they comply with the relevant statutory requirements.</para>
<para>The overwhelming majority of jobseekers comply with the law, and, on the government's own admission, there are only a small number of jobseekers who repeatedly miss appointments or try to game the system. Nonetheless, compliance measures are to be further tightened from 20 September 2018. Jobseekers aged 30 to 49 will have activity requirements of 50 hours per fortnight, up from 30 hours. Jobseekers aged 55 to 59 will no longer be able to meet their mutual obligation requirements solely by undertaking voluntary work. Jobseekers aged over 60 will be required to participate in defined mutual obligation activities of at least 10 hours per fortnight. It would seem the government has discovered a solution to the age discrimination in the labour market but just hasn't bothered to tell us about it. Sometimes older people must have the feeling that someone is out to get them.</para>
<para>In addition, the bill introduces an entirely new element—the proposed trial drug-testing regime for all persons seeking access to Newstart and what will become jobseeker payments. The sharp end of the government's approach is best captured in the minister's second reading speech where he boasted that these reforms will make access to unemployment benefits even more conditional than they are and will target those who run foul of the government's burgeoning compliance framework.</para>
<para>Labor's starting point is that we don't see welfare recipients as targets or lab rats. Labor recognises that the existing arrangements are robust and subject to the laws of increasing costs and diminishing returns. That is exactly the case with these measures. They will cost a lot and they are not likely to give any meaningful return. We recognise that the Australian welfare system—and both sides of politics can take credit for this—is very efficient at reducing inequality and is amongst the most highly focused and lowest cost in the world. It's also the case that lifelong welfare dependency rates in Australia are comparatively low, and the vast majority of those in need of support tend not to stay on support for lengthy periods. As a result, the great majority of beneficiaries are, for the bulk of their lives, also taxpayers. They pay their share of income tax and, even if they are on benefits, they have to stump up for their share of the GST.</para>
<para>Labor's starting position is that the bill should be considered on its merits, and where verifiable improvements can be demonstrated we will support them. Part of that verification process is a clause-by-clause examination of the bill by not one but two parliamentary committees. Unfortunately, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in its report on 9 August, expressed concerns about the diminution of individual rights and a lack of clarity in core provisions in the bill. As one would expect, given the far-reaching and contentious nature of the measures involved, the substance of the bill went to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry on 22 June. It hasn't been reported until recently. We certainly have not had time to scrutinise its findings.</para>
<para>The parliament should deal expeditiously with this, but proper care and diligence with these matters are very important. We've been denied this. The current debate in this chamber has been called on without allowing members adequate time to consider the Senate committee's findings. It's not just a matter of allowing enough time to read the community affairs committee's report, but it's about hearing feedback from those affected by the government's proposals. Again, there has been nothing. It is frequently said that parliamentary and political processes lack community respect. How, one might ask, can we expect to engender such much-needed respect if we don't respect those processes ourselves? Labor has, from the outset, recognised that there is good and bad—and some very big dollops of ugly!—in these proposals. Two Senate reports have raised similar concerns, but we haven't been allowed time enough to scrutinise them.</para>
<para>Importantly, it's also beyond doubt that a number of the practical matters require further elaboration by the government. The treatment of medical complaints should not be interfered with by excessive moralising or by the promotion of social engineering. As a doctor, you don't deny help to a patient on the basis that it's your own bloody fault. By contrast, this bill is rife with value judgements and is, seemingly, intent on making an art form out of compliance arrangements. They don't recognise the disadvantage that they're dealing with and don't allow the human rights of welfare recipients to be respected. It smacks of regulatory overkill and a complete lack of understanding of the complex nature of addiction and drug dependence. In his rather simplistic announcement of the drug-trial sites, Minister Porter failed to justify any support at all for this part of the bill.</para>
<para>There's ample evidence, too, that coerced medical treatments produce high-cost outcomes and very poor results. Researchers, such as the respected Professor Peter Whiteford of the ANU, have pointed to overseas research that suggest there's only a very limited link between substance abuse and continued reliance on income. If you're going to resort to compulsion, you need to be certain that you don't put lives at risk, that you treat people with respect, that you get the right connection between cause and effect, that you ensure that whatever you do is effective and that you don't waste money or resources that could be better deployed elsewhere. You also set yourself proper standards and proper benchmarks. The proposed drug trial, for instance, fails on all of these criteria. You can add that to the fact that similar trials have failed or yielded unimpressive results, or have been curtailed, in New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the USA, where they have been attempted.</para>
<para>Allow me to quote my Royal Australasian College of Physicians colleague Associate Professor Adrian Reynolds on why the proposed drug trial is poor policy, practically un-implementable and a wasteful distraction from the very real needs of Australians suffering from addiction.</para>
<quote><para class="block">As doctors we value evidence and we don't accept that this trial will create a meaningful evidence base. History shows that drug testing people is an unreliable and ineffective way of identifying those who are suffering from substance abuse issues, particularly when used indiscriminately.</para></quote>
<para>These are not isolated or novel comments from a senior member of the medical community. Go to the evidence presented to the Senate community affairs inquiry and read on if you need more convincing. The AMA, St Vincent's Health, Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Penington Institute, the Australian Drug Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre all see the drug-testing trial as an expensive and ineffective dud. It's hard to find someone in the know who doesn't see this government's strategy as seriously flawed, ill-judged and, to my point of view, just plain nasty. I note, too, that even those such as Senator Lambie, who are happy to support the increasing use of a cashless welfare card, are less than enthusiastic about the government's drug-trial proposal.</para>
<para>For a political party allegedly deeply committed to controlling the excesses of governmental power, this bill is literally bursting at the seams with authoritarian fervour and populist excess. Governments that are free and easy with terms like 'mutual obligation' should be doubly sure to have met their own obligations before they set about preaching to others. Quite understandably, the government's announcement that it wanted to run drug-testing trials and further tighten the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits was greeted by calls for politicians to be subjected to similar testing. That's not solely because, as a group, politicians are particularly on the nose—even if we are. The reaction in the community may stem from many in the community rightly thinking that high levels of unemployment represent a failure on the part of government to discharge its primary obligation to the community: creating the preconditions in which all those who want to find a job can find one.</para>
<para>Whole industries have been allowed to go to the wall. Macroeconomic policies have been geared to fighting inflation by allowing unemployment to rise or by leaving unemployment at levels designed to fight inflation first. If you are one of the 800,000 unemployed people, the chances are it's a lot less to do with you and a lot more to do with policy failure, forces beyond the control of the government, global economic difficulties, technological change, predatory business conduct or just plain bad luck. Those who want to blame the victim and deny access to unemployment benefits and the like are often hard-pressed to explain how that sits with the six or seven people frantically chasing every job vacancy and a record number of Australians, over a million, wanting more hours of work than they can get. It makes no sense either to worry about the $10 billion annual spend on jobseeker payments but care little about an annual government IT spend of $10 billion and be faced with multiple IT failures, which we've already seen.</para>
<para>Those opposite might—although they would be ill-advised to do so—look to the lift in the Australian labour market in recent months. Yes, that is welcome, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the sorts of measures we have before us today. Before we all get too excited, let's not forget that the current rate of unemployment is no lower now than it was when this government came to office four years ago and the rate of underemployment has actually risen in the last four years.</para>
<para>The government has given no indication at all that it will lift existing benefits. For singles without children, Newstart provides the princely sum of $267.80 a week—not enough to live on—so they rely on family support and the support of others. The value of the Newstart allowance has declined in real terms over the last decade. The bill fails to address any of those issues. Presumably, the available options for those who will be forced to the wall will be living rough, seeking help from friends, family and others, and charities or turning to crime. If turning to family and friends is the government's plan B, perhaps it needs to think again. The most recent household income and labour dynamics survey shows household incomes have also stagnated.</para>
<para>I want to conclude with two particular aspects of the bill that also give concern. The appeal rights are atrocious. The bill allows for the imposition of financial penalties by the department. It does provide for those decisions to be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, jobseekers will no longer be paid, pending the outcome of any appeal, and will only be back-paid if their appeal is successful. We know that appeals to the AAT can take many months to complete. For welfare recipients, who are often from families that are themselves on limited incomes, the practical operation of these items appears to diminish the effectiveness of the right to seek review. Also, there is no entitlement to practical or financial support in pursuing appeal rights, and even successful appellants can't claim the legitimate cost of exercising those rights. To me, that seems like stacking the deck against the individual, who is often disadvantaged, in favour of what those opposite might be minded to call 'Big Brother'.</para>
<para>The bereavement allowance has already been dealt with on multiple levels by multiple speakers and is absolutely appalling. The government is proposing to cut government allowances for those in bereavement situations by over $1,200 per claimant. It will affect about 1,000 people annually. The government's saving is minuscule. It really is just mean-spirited and atrocious.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill demonstrates to me that the government really does not understand addiction at all. People have addictions because they have medical problems. Addiction is a longstanding medical issue in Australia. I went through the time when we had a high incidence of narcotic addictions. We're now seeing amphetamines and ice addictions. We are dealing with people who often have multifactorial medical and social problems. They will not be fixed by this bill. It's an atrocious infliction on people's human rights. It fails to take on any of the advice from the experts who deal with this on a day-to-day basis. It fails to understand how people will be impacted. It fails to acknowledge that people will move from the trial testing sites to other areas. They'll probably walk away from social security because they're so threatened by it. They will certainly turn to crime. And it is likely to save the government very little money at all. This is an atrocious bill. It is a signal to me that the government is out of step with what a humane government should be. I feel that it is really at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to social security benefits.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is a comprehensive reform of Australia's working-age welfare payments. The system will be simpler and focused on getting people off welfare and into work. A new framework will better identify and support vulnerable people, like those with drug and alcohol abuse issues, and support them to get treatment.</para>
<para>It's likely that your position on these important reforms will depend on how you see the purpose of welfare in our society. Is working-age welfare compensation for the situation someone finds themselves in? Or is it an investment in their future? Is working-age welfare a socialist redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to non-taxpayers? Or it is a safety net designed to help people when they need it?</para>
<para>For me, working-age welfare is an investment in the future. It's about making lives better. I am a compassionate conservative and one who's very proud that Australia has a safety net to support those in need. But, sadly, our welfare system fails many. The concept of mutual obligation does, and must always, underpin our welfare system. We require welfare recipients to look for work or attend training, but, if you're as high as a kite or bombed out of your brain on drugs, there's no point in attending interviews for jobs you'll never be able to get. This cycle of failure is dangerous and real.</para>
<para>This bill will introduce a two-year drug-testing trial across three locations and will test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and the youth allowance for illicit substances like ice, ecstasy and marijuana. This drug-testing trial is compassionate in making sure people with drug problems can get the help they need to beat their addiction. The bill also introduces a new single jobseeker payment called the JobSeeker payment, because that's exactly what it is. This one payment replaces seven existing payments and streamlines administrative processes. Non-compliant jobseekers will also face real and real-time penalties. This bill benefits jobseekers, their families, the community, and our economy.</para>
<para>On the matter of the new JobSeeker payment, multiple working-age payments are a product of many years of ad hoc changes that have created a welfare system that is hard to understand and administer. This new JobSeeker payment is simple, combining seven current payments and supplements. From 20 March 2020, Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension and bereavement allowance will cease, and most recipients of these payments will transition to the JobSeeker payment, aged pension or carer payment, depending on their circumstances. Widow allowance and partner allowance will cease from 1 January 2022, and all remaining recipients will transition to the aged pension. Just one JobSeeker payment will ensure that all people of working age who can work will have a clear understanding of the purpose of their payment. This safety-net funding is there to do what the name says—it's a jobseeker payment for jobseekers. It's there to help people find work and to accept jobs where they are available. Replacing seven existing payments with one working-age payment is a critical step in reforming our welfare system. It will make long-term employment the goal of all Australians receiving working-age welfare.</para>
<para>So perhaps the most important part of this legislation relates to jobseekers with substance abuse problems. For the first time, people on a JobSeeker payment who are undertaking treatment for drug and alcohol problems can have the treatment count as part of their job preparation plan. Why? Because being drug-free is an essential step towards employment. The federal government will also introduce a two-year drug-testing trial across three locations and will test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance for illicit substances like ice, ecstasy and marijuana. Testing new jobseekers for drugs is not about stigmatising people. Those opposite want you to believe that when you're detected with drugs in your system, you'll lose your payments. That is not the case. It's about making sure that those people with drug problems can get the help they need to beat their addiction and to get on the right path towards securing a job and building a better future for them and their family. Drug testing will help; it can be the intervention that people need to make a positive change in their lives.</para>
<para>The community is very supportive of these measures. Millions of Australians are used to accepting drug testing for jobs in mining, construction, transport and many of our large corporations. Common sense says that, as hardworking Australians, we can also rightly expect taxpayers' money to be invested in helping people find work and not be wasted on life-destroying drugs. Jobseekers who test positive to a drug test will have their payments placed on income management for 24 months. There will be no cut in income, but there will be assistance to spend their funds wisely. This is designed to limit the use of payments to fund further harmful drug use. Jobseekers who test positive will also be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days. If they test positive to more than one drug test, they'll be referred to a medical professional with experience in drug and alcohol treatment, who will assess their individual circumstances and may put in place a treatment plan.</para>
<para>Substance abuse is a significant problem for many people on welfare and is directly impacting on the ability of many jobseekers to find work. As part of the drug-testing trial the government will provide a dedicated treatment fund of up to $10 million. It is not just the testing that is being trialled; the support services are being trialled as well. If it turns out that the support services and the additional support services are insufficient, that is a lesson that will be learnt in this trial. This funding is in addition to the Australian government's commitment of almost $685 million over four years to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on individuals, families and communities. Drug-testing new recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance will help make lives better by supporting people to beat their habit, to get off drugs and into work, and to become active members of our community.</para>
<para>I have seen firsthand how drugs can burn even the closest of bonds, and I've seen the intersection of welfare and drugs in our community. Through my high school years my parents took full-time care of my nieces, who were aged around five and six. My nieces were living in a drug-fuelled, welfare-funded, abusive environment with their mother. My nieces' mother and her friends would laugh at my parents as if they were mugs. Their attitude was, 'Why would you work for money when the government gives it out for free?' My nieces' mother and her friends are not representative of the vast majority of people on welfare. My parents were no mugs. They were decent, hardworking Australians. They expected their taxes to be invested in making Australia even better, not simply redistributed to those who will not apply their own effort to improve their own lives.</para>
<para>I don't believe for a second that the life—if you can call it that—being lived by my nieces' mother today is one she would choose, a life that resulted last year in her being critically ill in a hospital ICU. Hate is a very hard word, but the hatred that I had for my nieces' mother because of the environment she put my nieces in was something that I'm not proud of. And there is the resentment that I have for my brother for not fulfilling his obligations and commitment to his children. But when I've reflected on this bill I've considered that, albeit that my nieces' mother chose to take drugs, she certainly didn't choose the life that she has today. Back in her day there was no drug testing. There was no intervention to provide the help that she needed. It was simply set and forget. I'm absolutely of the view that the intervention and support we are hoping to test could have made a big difference to my nieces' mother and to my family.</para>
<para>This bill also includes greater compliance measures that will create a simpler, fairer and certainly more effective system that ensures jobseekers, firstly, understand and, secondly, meet their mutual obligation requirements. Multiple working-age payments are a product of many years of ad hoc changes, which have created a welfare system that's hard to understand. The complexity leaves many areas of our welfare system open to exploitation. Two-thirds of jobseekers attend all appointments or miss only one every so often. At the other extreme there are a small core of jobseekers who are gaming the system by attending appointments only to reactivate suspended payments. Those jobseekers are otherwise healthy, able individuals who have no underlying reason for persistent noncompliance, other than the enjoyable lifestyle provided care of the taxpayer.</para>
<para>Jobseekers who wilfully and repeatedly fail to comply with their agreed job plan will face real and real-time penalties. There are two simple-to-understand phases of compliance—a demerit point phase and then a three-strike phase. Jobseekers will accrue a demerit point if they do not have a valid reason for failing to meet a requirement. Job providers will assess the situation after a third demerit point is accrued, and the Department of Human Services will also do so after a fourth. At either point, if a jobseeker is found to be unable to meet their requirements because of some underlying issue, those requirements will be adjusted. It's about helping people.</para>
<para>If a jobseeker accrues four demerit points within six months, they will enter the three-strike phase. The first strike is a loss of half of their fortnightly payment if they miss a requirement without a reasonable excuse. They will lose all of their fortnightly payment if they do not meet a requirement a second time. After a third failure, they will face payment cancellation for four weeks. Once a jobseeker is in the three-strike phase, they can avoid penalties by simply meeting their mutual obligation requirements. Those who remain fully compliant for three months will reset their demerits points and strikes. This is a very strong incentive to change behaviour.</para>
<para>Jobseekers in either phase who refuse an offer of suitable work or fail to start in a suitable job without a reasonable excuse will have their payment cancelled and will face a four-week non-payment period before they can receive a payment again. This penalty recognises the seriousness of refusing to work and the importance of reducing reliance on welfare whenever reasonably possible. The new compliance measures are considerably simpler than the current system. It will be easy for jobseekers to, first, understand and, second, meet their mutual obligation requirements</para>
<para>I'm in this place to back hardworking, aspirational Australians who want to apply their effort to get ahead. I believe that if you are a young person on welfare you can be a hardworking, aspirational Australian who wants to apply your effort to get ahead. I also believe that, if you've chosen to take drugs, you may not necessarily have chosen the life that will lead to, and that we need to be there as a government to intervene to give that person the opportunity to direct their life in a more positive direction. For me, working-age welfare is an investment in the future. It's about making lives better. Working-age welfare is not a socialist redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. It is not compensation for where someone has found themselves in life. A failure to identify and assist people with drug dependency leads them to rot in the cycle of lifelong welfare dependency. We should not be blinded by ideology in this chamber. We should give a chance to trial drug testing and the important intervention that this will create to identify and help those people that need help.</para>
<para>This bill will deliver a simpler system for people receiving working-age payments, providing greater incentive for people transitioning to work and enforcing stricter compliance. This bill will better support people on welfare with substance-abuse issues. Labor and the Greens must reconsider their opposition to this trial—for goodness sake, this is a trial! It might work. It might fail in some respects, but let's give it a go and learn. Let's not close our minds to an opportunity to provide someone with the support they need and to also provide someone with the intervention they don't know they need. I call on Labor, the Greens and the crossbench members of parliament to support members on this side and pass all parts of this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HART</name>
    <name.id>263070</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill absolutely reaffirms to me that the Turnbull government is more interested in the name of so-called welfare reform and putting down and demeaning the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community, instead of providing our unemployed and our underemployed with the means to improve their circumstances—indeed, more interested in labelling those who suffer from addiction than supplying a real social support for people to find work which sustains individuals, families and communities, or supplying medical treatment for addiction or mental health issues.</para>
<para>This bill, like so many bills since the horror 2014 budget introduced this reform, aims to target Australians already struggling to make ends meet. Let us not forget that this government's predecessor sought to defend the denial of income and supports to people under the age of 30 for six months in each year. There are aspects of this bill which are deeply concerning to many who are providing services, including health and social services, to those affected. Labor has referred this bill to a Senate inquiry, which is due to report its findings today. Yet here I stand, speaking on the legislation ahead of the conclusion of the Senate inquiry. Once again, this shambolic government is attempting to avoid scrutiny—for yet another of their poorly-written pieces of legislation, which has the effect of demonising welfare recipients. It is not coincidental that certain news outlets have run what I can only describe as dole-bludger stories recently, highlighting those who—they say—are rorting the system.</para>
<para>Labor takes the issue of social welfare very seriously. With careful study, there are some elements of this bill that Labor could potentially support, if they were separated from other measures in this bill. But, as presently drawn, this bill is fundamentally flawed. Overwhelmingly, these are measures that Labor cannot and will not support, as the government has not made out any case in favour of the reforms sought to be advanced. In particular, this includes the establishment of a trial of drug-testing of people looking for work—and yes, we do understand that this is a trial, but it's a trial without purpose and without the necessary supports.</para>
<para>From 1 January 2018, the government is seeking to trial the drug-testing of 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance. This is a solution for a problem which lacks any evidentiary support. What is the reason for this policy? Is the government seeking to begin a program of rehabilitation for people found as a result of drug-testing to be drug-dependent? Is there funding for treatment of addiction? Is the welfare of people found to be taking drugs really at the heart of this decision? The answer to these questions is a resounding no. This government is simply not interested in allocating sufficient funding for programs aimed at assisting people who return a positive drug test.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Bass, there are waiting lists to use the limited facilities available for serious issues of addiction, let alone mental health treatment. Medical professionals in the drug and alcohol treatment sector have raised significant concerns about the measures in this bill. And of course, all we get from this government is criticism of the 'leftie' medical professionals who are opposing this. The main concerns, including those I've raised here, are that the program won't be effective in identifying those with a serious problem, nor will it be able to provide them with the treatment that they require. At this stage, the government has not explained what the costs involved in the program will be, nor do they know what type of test will be conducted.</para>
<para>There is little evidence to support how a program like this will be effective. It's not the case that these programs haven't been tried elsewhere. Our neighbours in New Zealand began a drug-testing program in 2013 among their welfare recipients. Despite the program running for a number of years, in 2015 only 22 of 8,000 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. I say again: 22 out of 8,000. In 2014, in the US state of Missouri, 446 welfare recipients were tested, with only 48 testing positive.</para>
<para>Testing for drugs is an expensive exercise that doesn't address the issue of a person's addiction—unless, of course, there are also treatment options available or the testing is part of, for example, a court-sanctioned program. Unlike drug testing in connection with a person's work for occupational health and safety reasons, there is no proper rationale for linking the receipt of Centrelink benefits with drug testing. Community groups that are at the coalface of addiction, dealing directly with people who struggle day to day, have publicly raised concerns about these measures and what the consequences might be. Again, all they receive from this government is criticism. The government is showing its usual disdain for listening to community concern and is recklessly placing mentally vulnerable people under ever-increasing pressure. Despite the government asking the House to vote on this bill today, they have yet to fully disclose the detail. Addiction specialists have voiced their concerns about technical aspects of the trial. There are a number of ways that drugs can be tested for, with some testing being more reliable than others. With cheaper tests comes the risk of false positives—for example, if a person is taking antidepressants, my information is they can test positive for amphetamines.</para>
<para>I have spent some time talking about the government's flawed drug-testing proposals, but there are other significant difficulties with this legislation. Schedule 9 changes the activity test for persons aged 55 to 59. Under the present regime, Newstart and some special benefit recipients aged 55 to 59 may satisfy the activity test by volunteering for 30 hours per fortnight. This is a positive thing. Our communities benefit from that. But, under the proposal, recipients will need to fulfil 30 hours per fortnight of activity with voluntary work and suitable paid work, with 15 of the hours constituting paid work. There are already significant problems with age discrimination within the workforce. This is, not surprisingly, an issue in areas of high unemployment, particularly in areas with high youth unemployment. The high rates of youth unemployment are mirrored by high rates of unemployment for those aged 55 to 59.</para>
<para>On a number of occasions I have already attended distressed constituents. These constituents completely understand their obligation to undertake paid work, but they have expressed to me their extreme frustration at the absence of any real employment, despite, in many cases, their wishing to work and possessing advantageous life skills and significant workplace skills. I'm concerned that this proposal has been undertaken without proper consideration of the opportunities that this cohort can actually receive in the form of paid work. The overwhelming evidence provided by experts to the Senate inquiry suggests that mature jobseekers face significant adversity, including ageism and age discrimination, and that prevents them from entering the workforce. The policy underpinning this change suggests that these people will obtain work by forcing them to enter the workforce. The government, however, has not provided any additional support to help this cohort overcome the significant barriers which exist to obtaining and retaining employment. This is yet another example of government by decree, as it were, providing a solution, just as it proposed with respect to young persons only receiving benefits for six months in any one year.</para>
<para>In addition, experts in the volunteering sector are very worried—and they should be—that the changes may reduce the number of people volunteering in Australia. I've spoken in this place on a number of occasions about volunteering, in particular in the context of community legal centres. There is no doubt that my local community legal centre receives a significant benefit from the many hours donated to it by its legal literacy volunteers. It's perfectly appropriate that the sector has raised its concerns about the loss of volunteers, who play an important role in providing support in a range of areas to other people within our communities.</para>
<para>Whilst the government has announced a new program targeted at helping people over the age of 50 back into the workforce, the Career Transition Assistance Program, it is not due to be rolled out nationally until 2020, while the changes in this schedule come into effect from September 2018. The plan for a targeted program shows the government is concerned about this cohort's ability to re-enter the workforce, but the government has fallen into significant error by tightening their obligation years before introducing this support.</para>
<para>The final area or aspect of this bill I need to mention is the introduction of the new targeted compliance framework. This schedule, schedule 15, changes the compliance framework for income support recipients subject to mutual obligations and participation payments. A two-phase framework will be introduced. Phase 1 gives demerit points to a jobseeker for failing to comply with obligations. Four demerit points in a six-month period trigger an assessment to see whether support is required or whether the jobseeker needs to enter what's called an intensive phase. The intensive phase includes three escalating penalties, not ironically called 'strikes'.</para>
<para>With further failure, strike 1 is one week of payment lost; strike 2 is two weeks of payment lost, and strike 3 sees the cancellation of payment and a four-week exclusion from reapplication. Demerit points accrued during the first phase will be removed on a rolling six-month basis, something like a driver's licence penalty, so that they are not permanently accrued.</para>
<para>Payment suspensions would also apply for every failure to attend appointments, activities or job interviews; failure to enter or comply with an employment participation plan; failure to show up to a job referral; and/or refusal or failure to commence a suitable job. Misconduct and unreasonable behaviour would also result in suspension. The scheme also imposes the obligation to meet a requirement to end a suspension. Jobseekers who have failed to attend or have committed misconduct will be able to be fully paid back once they have re-engaged by entering an appointment. Jobseekers who are suspended for failure to enter a BPP or complete job search will need to enter the plan or complete job search to end suspension and be back paid. There are other requirements which I will not detail.</para>
<para>The problem is the fact that this compliance reform was produced without employment sector consultation. There is no doubt that this will cut more people from welfare payments in the current system without any apparent improvement to jobseeker employment outcomes. The government claims that the best form of welfare is a job—it has said that time and time again—but where is the evidence regarding the outcomes with respect to this particular proposal? Yet again, they are more interested in imposing a penalty than understanding what will produce the best outcomes. Under the present system, 72,000 or more financial penalties are applied each year. It's estimated that under the proposed system this will rise to 147,000 penalties. Despite introducing a system of suspensions for the first four demerit points to allow some people to reform their behaviour before receiving a financial punishment, this system will see more people losing payments than before because waivers and discretion are currently given to employment service providers and those waivers and discretions will be removed from the present system. This is a system which has been operating reasonably effectively.</para>
<para>The government remains determined to introduce changes without providing any evidence that cutting more people off welfare will improve their ability to obtain a job. It is obtaining jobs by decreeing that you need to be in employment. The stakeholders, the employment industry stakeholders, the National Employment Services Association and Jobs Australia have voiced concern that the government has not consulted with industry about how the proposed system will operate. ACOSS has expressed its concerns, noting that modelling should be completed—it is currently absent, we believe—to determine the impact of the proposed new system of moving people into paid work. They went on to suggest that an independent review of the whole compliance system should be considered as one has not been completed since 2010.</para>
<para>There are obvious negative outcomes for mental and physical health. The experience in the United Kingdom shows that tougher compliance sanctions have a reverse effect and would increase the risk of participants becoming homeless, with obvious negative outcomes for success in seeking employment. Again, there are obvious negative outcomes for mental and physical health. Self-esteem, relationships and engagement with the labour market will be adversely affected. Further—and I think this is something of significant concern—they say that the strict sanction regimes harm psychological wellbeing and affect a person's ability to secure work in unintended ways, such as distracting their attempts to find secure work by concentrating on compliance alone rather than obtaining the best job available. Again, this government fails. It fails by seeking to decree that people should be in employment. It fails in the sense that it hasn't done the work and it hasn't produced the evidence. It needs to be condemned. This legislation should be opposed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have a bill before the House which seeks to discriminate, demonise and deter people from seeking genuine help. Whilst there are measures contained in this bill—some that on this side of the House we would potentially support if they were separated—it's largely a bill that has been thrown together by the government with next to no consultation and zero evidence as to whether any of the measures would actually make a difference to Australian's lives. It's a bill based on a hunch—not on evidence, not on medical advice—just a hunch.</para>
<para>Along with introducing drug testing for vulnerable Australians seeking to enter the workforce, the government also wants to again increase the time a jobseeker has to wait to receive payments—something which it seems hell-bent on doing. It wants to remove the provisions that have previously been put in place to allow people to effectively have their claims backdated to the time of first contact with the Department of Human Services. They want to remove exemptions for drug or alcohol dependence as a reason for not being able to attend jobseeker meetings.</para>
<para>All of this is expected to cost the taxpayer over $100 million, with savings only achieved by forcing desperate people into a life of poverty by ripping out the safety net that currently supports them. This is absolutely clear from the government's planned savings of $200 million by pushing back the start date for some participation payments and forcing people to go hungry whilst they wait. But this is just the tip of the iceberg for a bill which implements a range of complex measures accompanied by very little detail and no evidence.</para>
<para>Currently, as we've heard, Newstart and special benefit recipients between the ages of 55 and 59 can fulfil their activity test by volunteering up to 30 hours per fortnight. Under this proposed legislation by the Turnbull government, those eligible volunteering hours would be slashed in half, having a direct, negative impact on thousands of community and non-profit organisations who rely on volunteers.</para>
<para>It was only last week that I had the privilege of celebrating National Meals on Wheels Day and was able to recognise and support the incredible work of volunteers who serve within national Meals on Wheels organisations in the Oxley electorate. I went out on runs with volunteers from Centenary Meals on Wheels and Woogaroo and District Meals on Wheels. These volunteers, who I acknowledge today in the House of Representatives, are directly affected by the proposed changes and rely on the current legislative provisions to meet their activity test requirements. That includes their essential work with organisations like Meals on Wheels, which delivers nutritious meals to seniors and pensioners throughout the community.</para>
<para>It's absolutely clear from examples such as this that giving older Australians the ability to meet their activity requirements through volunteering benefits not only the organisations they volunteer with but the wider community. The overwhelming evidence provided by experts to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry considering this legislation was that mature jobseekers face significant adversity, such as ageism, when they try to enter the workforce.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of meeting with Volunteering Australia's CEO, Ms Adrienne Picone, to discuss the importance and work of volunteers, who make an estimated annual economic and social contribution of $290 billion. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, Volunteering Australia stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the tightening of the Activity Requirements will:</para></quote>
<list>Do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians, which are an already disadvantaged group in the job market, and affect their compliance.</list>
<list>Move people away from volunteering positions, that will have a detrimental impact on the volunteering sector.</list>
<para>This is the peak body representing volunteers in Australia. What the government is doing by passing this legislation will have a direct negative impact—this may be news to those government members in the chamber tonight. I would urge every government member to talk to the volunteer organisations in their electorate. Better still, set up a meeting with Volunteering Australia and hear from them firsthand. This is not the Labor Party. This is not some political motive. This is the direct impact of these changes, from people working in the volunteering sector.</para>
<para>Volunteering can be an effective way to engage in society—such as a pathway back into gainful employment—encourage economic participation, build work skills and keep people healthy and active. However, these punitive measures for older Australians fail to recognise this. Instead, they force people to give up voluntary work to undertake job related activities that fail to improve their job prospects. The government proposal seeks to adjust the obligations of the 55-to-59 cohort by forcing them to enter the workforce, even though the government hasn't provided any additional help to overcome the significant barriers they face.</para>
<para>While the participation rate and unemployment rate for this cohort is similar to the population overall, once out of work, the length of time a person aged 55 to 59 spends looking for work is 73 weeks. This compares to the overall average of between 40 and 50 weeks, according to the Department of Employment during the Senate inquiry hearings. This change in provision also affects schedule 3 in the legislation. When taking into consideration that widowed women will be most affected by halving the number of volunteering hours that people aged 55 to 59 can use, Volunteer Australia said that 80 per cent of volunteers aged 55 to 59 were women and often had lost their husband. The government must reconsider this change that would see huge impacts for the volunteering sector.</para>
<para>However, as we know, perhaps the most disturbing of all these measures is the government's plan to introduce drug testing to welfare recipients. This is a short-sighted, ideological plan that carries a next-to-zero evidence base on its effectiveness. The minister even said so in this place while delivering the second reading speech, when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… there is little comparable evidence available to tell us whether this sort of intervention would be effective in the Australian welfare context.</para></quote>
<para>That's the minister who was introducing this change. What are we doing here when the minister himself admits in this place that there is little evidence available to tell us if this will be effective? In this debate tonight, we've heard lecture after lecture from members opposite. When we look at the speakers' list, we see that they are members in ultra-safe Liberal seats—no marginal members, besides the member for Forde, and I'll come to that.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pasin interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take the interjection from the member for Barker, who wants me to acknowledge that he is a marginal seat holder. He received a 14 per cent swing against him at the last election. That's how popular the member for Barker is. He almost lost his seat.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pasin interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection. He wants to be known as the person that is unpopular in his electorate. Well, I can tell the member for Barker that these changes will make him more unpopular. But I'm not here to give the member for Barker any free advice.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Burney interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, member for Barton; I'll take your guidance. When there is so much at stake, when Australians' lives are on the line, what does this government do when it's in trouble? It always attacks the most vulnerable. If it's not migrants or new Australians arriving into this country, it's pensioners and, if it's not pensioners, it's unions standing up for workers. We see this time and time again, and this is the latest of the government's tricks. We won't stand for it and neither will the community. Don't take my word for it. When submissions were called for the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry and report on the bill, the committee was inundated with submissions from groups and organisations who were almost unanimous in their objections to what the bill entails.</para>
<para>We've heard from the minister and eight members of the government who are so proud of this bill's effects. According to the government, groups such as the National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children, People With Disability Australia, the National Council of Women of Australia, the Australian Association of Social Workers, Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Anti-Poverty Network SA and Anti-Poverty Network Victoria, the Law Council of Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Social Policy Research Centre, Community Mental Health Australia, St Vincent's South Australia, Volunteering Australia, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Salvation Army, Uniting Care Australia, the Australian Medical Association, and Care Australia—and the list goes on and on—are wrong. According to the government, all of those people are wrong. All the experts and health professionals in the sector are wrong and we are to take the word of eight government backbenchers that somehow they know better.</para>
<para>I advise the chamber that further to that long list, nearly 1,000 doctors, nurses and healthcare workers from organisations have written an open letter to this parliament calling on federal MPs to reject the proposal. But that evidence is all irrelevant to the government and to the minister. These medical professionals, who have more than 20,000 years of combined practical experience, state in their letter:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This bill is not only going to fail, it will increase crime in the community and that should be a major concern for all Australians.</para></quote>
<para>But, apparently, all of those health professionals are wrong, all of the experts in the sector are wrong, and the minister has got it right. Well, I can tell you that out in the real world, out in the community, they know—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They love it!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection from the member for Barker that they love it. That's the reason they are doing this—popular politics. That is the only reason the government is giving tonight, because somehow this is a popular measure. Doesn't that, writ large, say exactly what this government's priorities are? All the health professionals are wrong! They think, 'We'll get a good headline out of this!' and that's why they are doing it.</para>
<para>I can tell you that I back the experts in the field 100 per cent. The National Drug Research Institute summed it up best when they said in a submission, 'Based on our expertise in drug policy, and the social conditions—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pasin interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And now the member for Barker is an expert in drug policy and health science—great! They said, 'Based on our expertise in drug policy and the social conditions of drug use, schedule 12 of the Welfare Reform bill should be rejected.' The simple truth is that no health or community organisations have come out publicly to support the trial—not one. If they have a list, I will sit down immediately and they can table it. I'm happy to do that.</para>
<para>But it gets worse. Logan City is one of the trial sites in Queensland. The member for Forde, being a marginal member, did defend this tonight. I'm advised that no LNP member in Queensland wanted the trial site, but he boasted to the community sector and to the media and civic leaders that he asked for this. I have talked to the Logan City Council, and the Mayor of Logan was in Canberra this week asking to work alongside the government. Of course, the NGOs, the Queensland Health department or the local government authority weren't consulted. We were also advised that the government wasted nine months in trying to find these trial sites. Did they think to talk to the organisations that were going to be impacted by this before the announcement? No. As we just heard tonight from the member for Barker, they were more interested in the headlines. Remember their focus group test about what words they should use in the budget? They came back with the word 'fairness'—remember the front page of <inline font-style="italic">The Daily Telegraph</inline>?</para>
<para>The member for Barker's agreeing with me; he knows that's true. So, we know that for nine months they've been negotiating, and not a word to the local council, Queensland Health, the Queensland government or to those people involved.</para>
<para>The irony of all of this is that in the same week that this was announced we heard that the member for Warringah was too smashed to turn up to the parliament to vote on some of the most important economic reforms that this nation's ever seen—boasting about it! That's fine; he can answer for his actions, about how he was too drunk to get off the couch to come down to actually participate and vote on some of the most important economic legislation that this nation has ever dealt with, right? The irony you have this week is that the government, that pack of snobs, just wants to demonise local people who are doing it tough and wants to make it harder for their lives, not easier. The irony of all of this is that there is not one extra dollar in the budget to deal with any of these issues that people may have. Not one extra dollar to deal with this. That says it all.</para>
<para>We know that the minister was quoted in <inline font-style="italic">The Sydney Morning Herald</inline>. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… based on what we know about compelling people into treatment it has a reasonable probability of helping sufficient numbers of people to make it worthwhile.</para></quote>
<para>I would be interested to hear what evidence the minister has, because we've seen nothing about this whatsoever.</para>
<para>We know that this program simply doesn't work. The testing proposal by the government could potentially encourage people to use less-traceable but more harmful drugs, such as synthetic cannabis, or to move to using alcohol, which is not being tested as part of the government's trial—not being tested! I call on the government and the minister to rethink this potentially disastrous policy and to get on with the job of helping people to actually get into work.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to join with my colleagues on this side of the House including the shadow minister for social services, Jenny Macklin, in opposing this legislation. This is not welfare reform. It is anything but. These arbitrary changes seek to create more efficiency at the expense of having any consideration for the personal circumstances of people. I am deeply concerned by many aspects of this bill. In particular, I will address the schedules that I have responsibility for as shadow minister for human services. I will speak about the government's proposal to have claims for Newstart or youth allowance backdated only to the date of initial appointment as opposed to the date of initial contact, in schedule 10. I'll also speak about schedule 11, the government's proposal to make it more difficult for claimants who are unable to collate personal documents and information in a timely fashion. I will also address schedule 12, which is what many people have spoken about—that is, the proposal for the government to drug-test Newstart and youth allowance recipients in a number of electorates, including a very large part of Barton, the electorate that I represent. I'd also like to address schedule 17, the government's proposal to erode the privilege against self-incrimination and the application of natural justice.</para>
<para>In relation to schedule 10, the government's proposed changes to backdating for Newstart and youth allowance are simply punitive and arbitrary. Once again, this government is attacking our young people, those who are doing it tough trying to find a job, and some of our most vulnerable individuals. That is why this is such repugnant legislation. The government is chipping away at their income support at a time when they need income support the most. The purpose of schedule 10 is to change the backdating date of Newstart and youth allowance claimants from the date of initial contact to the date of initial appointment. Currently, a person who claims Newstart or youth allowance and is subject to Rapid Connect is required to attend an initial interview with an employment services provider before their income support is payable. If the person attends the interview as required, the start date for their payment is the day on which the claim is made. But under these proposals, which move the payment start date from initial contact to initial appointment, claimants potentially lose out on much-needed income support at this very uncertain and vulnerable time of their lives, the time when they most need that payment.</para>
<para>These measures do not consider applicants living in rural or remote communities who may have limited access to job providers, or their travel arrangements. These changes will mean applicants need to wait longer to access income support on top of the existing one-week waiting period that applies. Let me be clear, the government is doing what the government does best—that is, chipping away at income support for our young people, jobseekers and those who are down on their luck, at a time of great uncertainty as to how they will meet their daily living expenses. This is arbitrary, it's cruel and it's unnecessary.</para>
<para>I am concerned about the government's proposal in schedule 11 to repeal sections 13 and 14 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. These sections empower the department to deem a claimant is entitled to a payment or a concession card from the day the department is initially contacted in the following circumstances: if the person lodges a claim for the payment or concession card within 14 days of initially contacting the department; if the person has a medical condition; if the person was caring for or was a partner of someone suffering from a medical condition which impacted on the person's ability to lodge a claim earlier; or if the person was otherwise unable to lodge a claim by reason of special circumstances. It just beggars belief that those considerations can still not be part of the government's way forward. The government has thrown out all common sense by ending backdating in special circumstances. These circumstances could be a result of homelessness, separation, hospitalisation, health issues or difficulties in accessing technology. Repealing sections 13 and 14 would add further hardship to those already facing hardship. Again, the government is attacking the most vulnerable individuals in our society. The government doesn't care if you have a medical issue, if you are caring for someone with a medical issue, or if you have extraordinary circumstances that have prevented you from making a claim. This government boasts about agility and innovation, but there is none being shown here. Where's the agility in throwing out common sense? Where's the ability in ignoring individual circumstances?</para>
<para>I'm also deeply concerned by schedule 12, which many people have addressed. This is the schedule that proposes to trial drug testing of income recipients in selected suburbs around Australia. Many people have articulated well why Labor is most concerned about this. The government crows that this is very popular. Perhaps on the surface out there in some parts of the electorates, it does appear to be popular. But when you start to understand in a really deep way what this actually means, that popularity evaporates. The evidence is just not there. In her opening address, the shadow minister for social services named all of the medical organisations, all the addiction experts and all of those community organisations that work with people with addictions on a daily basis who, speaking with one voice, said clearly to the government, 'Do not proceed with this; this is not a good idea, and it will not lead to outcomes that are positive for the people that you are targeting.' They said that with one voice, and that is quite remarkable.</para>
<para>In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted drug testing, which has been spoken about. Of the 8,000 participants tested, 22 showed positive results for illicit drug use. There is this inherent assumption, this prejudice, with this government that if you are on income support then somehow or other you must be a drug addict. That is obviously far from the truth. These are costly initiatives that will drive people into poverty and crime. As I said, more than 982 doctors, nurses, addiction specialists and allied health professionals signed an open letter calling on the government to end its mandatory drug testing for people receiving income support.</para>
<para>I want to say something about the people who work in Centrelink. It should not be their job to randomly select people who should be subjected to these drug tests. They, together with the experts that I have spoken to, know that this is a foolhardy way to deal with what is a very serious issue. This requires a medical response; it does not require the punitive actions that this government is undertaking. The government has confused addiction, a healthcare issue, with income support and welfare.</para>
<para>We know from the evidence and from what the experts have said that this won't stop addiction and dependency. In fact, these initiatives will turn people away from income support, when they are one of the groups in our community who need it the most. The notion that somehow or other controlling someone's income is going to deal with the very serious and complex issue of addiction is just a nonsense. This government and this minister must understand that. They don't understand it, or they don't care—one of those two things. This will drive people into homelessness. It will create more crime and, of course, it will impact heavily in terms of poverty.</para>
<para>I want to tell you a personal story. This is a true story about Family Drug Support Australia. Each year I attend Family Drug Support Australia's Annual International Remembrance Day for families who have lost family members to accidental overdoses, drug-related suicides and other drug-related deaths. I attend with my dear friends Kay and Karli Bellere, who go to remember Malu. I also remember Tina at that service. Family Drug Support Australia fulfils a very important role in the community by providing support to family members of those with an alcohol or drug dependency through education courses and training programs. FDS was founded in 1997 by an amazing man that you would all know, Tony Trimingham. He lost his son to a heroin overdose. It's also attended by Pastor Bill Crews of the Exodus Foundation.</para>
<para>This is the story of Tony, a man who turned personal tragedy, pain and experience into a meaningful and helpful service to others struggling through the pain and isolation of having a loved one with a drug dependency. Tony and the FDS family know the complexities and pain of addiction and of dependency. FDS also advocates for health based approaches to addiction and dependency. If you ask them, they'll tell you that criminalising, stigmatising and otherwise penalising drug use is no meaningful way to address addiction dependency. Healing, touching people's lives and loving is the way in which Tony and Bill, and all of us that attend that annual service, say this should be responded to.</para>
<para>This government has thrown out common sense. It simply refuses to consider the complexities of addiction and dependency. Schedule 13 will prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the reason is wholly or predominantly attributed to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness, injury or special circumstances such as eviction associated with drug and alcohol issues. Currently, jobseekers can be penalised for a range of very common participation failures, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. These penalties are not applied where a person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses a drug and alcohol dependence as an excuse for participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up that treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements. If they refuse, we know what will happen—they will be suspended. The experts say the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse. Ask FDS, AMA and the massive list that the member for Jagajaga read out.</para>
<para>I will just say a few things in conclusion. Schedule 17 is a proposal to affect information obtained by DHS for claims to be used in subsequent investigations or prosecutions of criminal offences—it erodes the privileges against self-incrimination. This is not to be supported. The purpose of schedule 17 is to align coercive information-gathering provisions in the acts governing the new tax system, parental paid leave, social security administration and students' assistance. Currently, the four acts empower the relevant department secretary to seek information about persons subject to these laws. These relate to payments under those laws.</para>
<para>The government says that it's concerned that the administrative focus of these provisions currently inhibits the admissibility of evidence. The government says that it's concerned that the provisions relating to the privileges against self-incrimination are vague. Let me be clear: this is a blatant attempt by the government to roll back the privilege against self-incrimination. These are people on low incomes and with limited access to quality legal representation. This is a blatant attempt by this government to intimidate and frighten the most vulnerable class of individuals, with hints of investigation and prosecution.</para>
<para>In the last minute or so that I have, I will say as the shadow minister for human services that we have seen the blundering, stumbling way in which this government is handling the social security portfolio. In particular, I refer to the robo-debt debacle, which people will not forget, where people were stigmatised and accused by the government of committing offences and crimes that they had not committed, where the government took no responsibility and the onus of proof was left with those being falsely accused. Labor will stand up for those that need a hand up. Labor will stand up against these draconian, dreadful, cruel attempts to undermine the people in this community that most rely on government, that most rely on us to be able to give them that hand up when they need it. People on welfare are not second-class citizens. They are people like any one of us, who could fall on hard times and, from time to time, need the assistance of government to get them through the day and the night. This bill and these reforms and these changes are draconian. They are unnecessary and they are cruel. I oppose this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make my position very clear regarding the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. I am always open to considering genuine efforts to assist and support people who are struggling with drug dependency to access appropriate treatment and supports. I don't believe that income support is best utilised to support a drug habit; however, vulnerable people's lives are extremely complex. What is very clear to me is that this bill is not a genuine attempt to assist people struggling with drug dependencies. It will do nothing to stop the use of illegal drugs, it will do nothing to prevent ongoing drug use and it will not deliver appropriate treatment or supports.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill will have a severe impact on the lives of people with complex needs, pushing them into serious financial hardship and potentially crime. This bill is full of holes and is based on misunderstandings of data that are so large that you could drive a truck through them. I cannot and will not stand in this place and support legislation that will do absolutely nothing to address this serious and complex problem. I cannot believe that in 2017 this government considers drug testing people on Newstart and youth allowance as a serious solution of any kind.</para>
<para>We have all seen the national footage where former Prime Minister Tony Abbott admits to Annabel Crabb that he was passed out drunk whilst on the job and, by his own admission, missed a very important division. Yet the same person who passed out drunk whilst on the job wants to enforce drug testing on people struggling with drug addiction. Talk about double standards and entitlement! Does former Prime Minister Tony Abbott not realise the hypocrisy? Does the Turnbull government not see the hypocrisy in this situation?</para>
<para>There is also the blanket prejudice and ageism that people on youth allowance and Newstart must be the people on drugs. A study by the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction found that drug use is significantly more prevalent amongst those in the paid workforce than those not in the paid workforce. Furthermore, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the median age of illicit drug users has risen from 32.8 years in 2001 to 36.5 years in 2013 for any illicit drug. Research has also shown that people over 50 years of age are responsible for the largest rise in illicit drug use and were the only group to show a statistically significant increase in use. The most common age for illicit drug use is 36.5 years of age, as I have said, yet the Turnbull government are choosing to test those on youth allowance recipients, which you have to be under 24 years of age to be eligible for. What an ageist approach. This simply does not make any sense.</para>
<para>This bill is clear evidence that the Turnbull government doesn't give a damn about vulnerable jobseekers or young people, nor is it interested in assisting people struggling with drug addiction into treatment and support. If the Turnbull government were in any way genuine or cared one iota about helping people struggling with drug addiction, it would increase funding to prevention and early intervention supports and treatments. In my electorate that would fund the Townsville Salvation Army youth drug and alcohol detox centre. The only political person who has been concerned about this issue in Herbert is me. In both the 2013 and 2016 campaigns it was Labor who committed $5 million to the Salvation Army detox centre to assist our young people.</para>
<para>The government has not been able to provide any evidence that its strategy or measures will actually work, nor has it revealed the actual cost. Medical professionals, along with the drug and alcohol treatment sector, have raised significant concerns about these measures. Not only will they have a negative impact on jobseekers but, importantly, they won't be effective in identifying those with a serious problem or provide them with appropriate treatment options. This is yet another attempt by the Turnbull government to demonise jobseekers without any evidence that their measures will work, and it is likely to be at a very significant cost to the budget. Experts warn that these changes will not help people overcome addiction, because this is not how addiction works. Instead, people will be pushed into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime.</para>
<para>From 1 January 2018 the government wants to trial drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart and youth allowance in three locations. Testing will be undertaken by a contracted private provider. The government has not announced what this will cost, nor has it provided any detail regarding the types of tests that will be conducted. Where is the evidence? Where is the detail? Surely, the government should be looking at evidence based practice, especially when large sums of funding are involved, along with people's lives. Overseas examples of drug testing for income support recipients has clearly demonstrated that there is no evidence to support that these measures are effective.</para>
<para>In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program for welfare recipients. In 2015, only 22 of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. The detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general New Zealand population estimated to be using illicit drugs. Similar results were found in the United States. In Missouri's 2014 testing program, of the state's 38,970 welfare applicants, 446 were tested, with 48 testing positive. In Utah, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, with 29 returning a positive result. These were extremely costly initiatives—costly initiatives that could drive people into poverty, homelessness and crime. Yet the Turnbull government is determined to implement this regime, with no detail on real costs and no evidence based practice.</para>
<para>Concerns have been raised about these measures by health and welfare groups, including St Vincent's Health, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, ACOSS and UnitingCare. No health or community organisations have come out publicly in support of these trials. Addiction medicine specialists are concerned about the technical aspects of the trial. The Turnbull government have no idea what sorts of tests will be used. For example, will they be urine, hair or saliva? With lower-cost tests there is a risk of false positives. For example, if a person is taking antidepressants, they could test positive for amphetamines. Reliable tests can be extremely costly and unlikely to be affordable in this trial. For example, according to the RACP, a gold-standard urine test costs between $550 and $950 to administer. While people taking prescription medicine could be exempted, this would not guarantee that they are not also taking illicit drugs and thus undermining the purpose of the trial.</para>
<para>The testing could potentially encourage people to use less-traceable but more harmful drugs, such as synthetic cannabis. Or it could encourage them to use alcohol, which is not being tested for as part of this trial. A long-term cannabis user who is attempting to address their drug use will still test positive for up to six weeks. How will Centrelink know if they have actually stopped using drugs?</para>
<para>The Turnbull government claims that the availability of treatment will be the criteria for selecting trial sites. But Senate estimates revealed that the Commonwealth does not have access to data on availability and will need to rely on the states to provide this information. Well, how is this going to work? For example, if you were a young person tested in Townsville who returned a positive test, where would you go? We have no youth detox centre and our youth have to travel to Brisbane or Melbourne because North Queensland just doesn't have the facilities. The Turnbull government won't match Labor's commitment to fund the Townsville Salvation Army detox and rehab centre. They won't be able to provide or offer any treatment for people in North Queensland if they choose to run a trial in Townsville. There are very lengthy waiting lists for treatment around the country. These trials will put increased pressure on the health system, and where treatment is unavailable, jobseekers that are identified as having a problem with drugs will have difficulty accessing any necessary treatment or supports. The flaws, gaps and traps in this bill are enormous.</para>
<para>But one thing is evident: the Turnbull government doesn't have a plan to address any real drug issues. But they do have a plan to attack vulnerable jobseekers and to make the poor poorer, whilst appearing to do something—something that delivers nothing but further distress and disadvantage. This government doesn't want to help the sick, as is obvious in their cuts to Medicare. This is a government that doesn't want equal access to quality education, as is obvious by their savage cuts to education. This is a government that doesn't want the poor to become middle-class, as seen through their policy to increase university fees.</para>
<para>This bill will also cut the bereavement payment to those who have lost a loved one, which is just another example of punishing our most vulnerable citizens. The bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died. It is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension and is subject to the same income and assets tests. For a pregnant woman who has lost her partner the allowance is paid for 14 weeks or the duration of the pregnancy, whichever is longer. Schedule 4 of this bill will replace the bereavement allowance as it currently exists with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance, which is paid at a lower rate and will have a more stringent means test from March 2020. While the schedule provides transitional arrangements that mean bereaved people receiving the allowance on 20 March will be no worse off, further recipients will receive the rate of the jobseeker payment, which is $535 a fortnight. That is the same as Newstart. This means a bereaved person in need of income support will receive $1,300 less over 14 weeks than they currently would. This is a cruel cut without justification to people receiving short-term income support following the loss of a loved partner.</para>
<para>When you are sick, you should always have access to health care. Where you live shouldn't affect your child's access to a quality, needs based education. The size of your wallet or trust fund should not determine whether you can attend a university. When you lose a loved one—someone close to you—you should be allowed time to grieve without the fear of not being able to pay for the simple costs of living. But the Turnbull government is completely out of touch with vulnerable citizens. It is not a government for the people. Rather, it is a government out to make life harder for our most vulnerable. The Turnbull government is a government for the wealthy, not the battler.</para>
<para>I want those people that the Turnbull government is neglecting to know that you do matter to the Labor Party, and you matter to me. I will fight for you every minute of every day in this place. I will continue to fight against the Turnbull government's savage cuts. I will continue to fight for real action on drug related issues and not for useless, unfair bills like this one. I will continue to fight against the government's top-hats approach and for hard hats. I will continue to fight for jobs for Townsville. I will continue to fight this government's neglect of our veterans and ex-service personnel. I will continue to fight for aged care, child care and Medicare. And I will do so because Labor actually cares.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and the amendments moved by Ms Macklin. Where I grew up and where I come from, I am fairly well known as someone who calls a spade a spade. This piece of legislation is a continuation of this government's attacks on the most vulnerable in our communities.</para>
<para>The 2014 budget was like a sledgehammer on Australia. Since the leadership changed from the member for Warringah to the member for Wentworth, all we've seen from this government is a change in the salesperson and a change, through legislation, to find clever, more devious ways to hurt the poor, hurt the vulnerable and unpack the social compact that this country has relied on for decades. This bill is another example of that. There are a few simple, cosmetic changes in this bill that are not controversial, but hidden behind them are some of the most controversial things that we have seen happen in this space in decades. At a time when inequity is at a 75-year high, we are witnessing a government attempting to make people think not once, not twice, but three, four, five or six times before they reach or ask for assistance. That's what's happening here.</para>
<para>There is a building of bureaucracies that is finding small ways to lock people out of welfare and out of the support that they might need to get through the toughest days of their life. Let's build small things that incrementally, one on top of the other, spread like a disease through the community so that people no longer say, 'You should go down to Centrelink. You should be able to get Newstart. You've been unemployed now for a while, and your family could do with that income.' No, what's going to spread through the community is: 'Don't bother trying. Centrelink's an awful place. Centrelink can make you unwell. Centrelink is where you have to deal with uncaring people with no discretion about how they apply the laws. Centrelink is a place that is not friendly to people who are doing it tough.'</para>
<para>This legislation is about kicking people when they are down. It's been dressed up all day as being about love and about the taxpayer not supporting an addict's habit. What a ridiculous thing—to suggest that is contained in this bill. What this bill contains are measures that, if broadly advertised across this country, will mean that young people in my electorate don't apply for Newstart, and that's the aim of this legislation. It's a message to any young person who may indulge on the weekends in what the law determines is an illegal drug. We don't want them to do that—nobody does—but that's not what this bill's about. This bill's about telling them not to apply for Newstart. This bill's about telling them, 'There's a trial going on in your community. You should move electoral boundaries; get yourself out of that community.' So, what's going to happen in Mandurah? Well, a lot of people who may be on Newstart and are worried about a drug test may just move a couple of blocks away and get themselves out of the testing space. Of course, they'll be people who are more likely to be renting than owning, and therefore more likely to move than not.</para>
<para>This legislation has a couple of really key things, some really nasty things. The wife pension cuts—it's being phased out. Only a sadist would put this into a piece of legislation and stop that support. New people cannot apply. We're looking at a cohort of people who are going to be phased out naturally as they go to the age pension—to save what? There are others, like the changes to bereavement support. Speak of kicking people when they're down. Here it is, hidden in there. A group of people on their very worst day, when they've lost their partner, are no longer going to get the kind of support that they came to expect.</para>
<para>The broader picture here is about sending messages. It's about signalling. It's more than a drip. The 2014 budget was a sledgehammer aimed at the poorest. This piece of legislation is part of the Turnbull government's much slicker operation, but the impacts are exactly the same. This is a government that brings on this legislation aimed at actively discouraging people from seeking support not only for their drug addiction but also for their poverty. That's what this bill does, and it comes on the back of the government wanting to give corporate tax cuts worth billions. I don't know how this government can justify putting in the bill what it wants to wrap up as some tinkering-around-the-edges changes but then come in here and say it's a massive reform. It's massive, all right, because it's going to see the number of people being supported by our welfare system drastically reduced.</para>
<para>When I look at the drug testing and the ramifications, the worst part is that if those people who are using drugs don't apply for Newstart, or if those people worried about being caught using drugs go off Newstart, the government will walk into this chamber and they'll say, 'Look at the success rate we've got,' because nobody's testing positive. It's a perfect scenario, really! Luckily, on this side of the chamber, we're onto them. Luckily, on this side of the chamber, we know people doing it hard and we know the number of people who have a relative or someone who lives on their street doing it hard. This is not the Howard era; you can't divide this community so neatly anymore. Equity's at a 70-year high. There are more Australians doing it tough, and wages growth is minimal. There are more Australians not looking over their shoulders, being jealous of one another; they're looking at one another, worried about one another.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>9548</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>9548</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</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 talk about is who we represent. I just heard the member for Lalor speak about those who are doing it hard. Those who are doing it hard around my area, especially in the Latrobe Valley, are those people who have lost their jobs because of the closure of Hazelwood. They're doing it hard. And I'm their representative. I represent those people who are doing it tough out in our communities.</para>
<para>The second part about the closure of Hazelwood was the production price of electricity. Because of the closure, it has gone from $35 to $40 a megawatt to nearly $100 a megawatt. The competition that Hazelwood produced—27 per cent of Victoria's power; some three or four per cent of Australia's power—was removed immediately. So the competition was taken away. And, in my view, we've been gouged by electricity companies, which are making enormous profits.</para>
<para>My concern, though, is for the people that have had their power turned off or their gas turned off, or any utility turned off, or who are actually, in this case, going to relatives to borrow money to pay their bills. It's a call tonight to people from Lalor to Lilydale and to Longwarry, from Perth to Parramatta and from Cairns to Cygnet: if you're doing it hard tell your representative that you're doing it hard. Tell your local member exactly what's happening in your household. I heard from a nurse today who is on casual rates. When she doesn't work, she doesn't get paid. She's got two kids at uni. She had to go to her sister, who she doesn't like very much, and ask to borrow some money to pay her electricity bill so the house could keep working. For all those people out there who have had their electricity turned off and who are using gas burners and other arrangements to get through this winter, I know you're out there. But I can tell you something: your local member doesn't. And it's time. I have to listen to my community—right across this nation. I want to hear how you are doing it, because your members need to know.</para>
<para>I know the world that I live in, and it's not the world that you live in. I know you're doing it hard and that because of your pride you're not telling anybody. You're just getting through. Well, this is a wealthy nation. You need to be cared for, and we are your representatives to do exactly that. We are representatives of the people of this nation, whichever party we represent and whether it's local, federal or state. If you're doing it hard, I'm calling out to you tonight: tell your local member. If they don't know, they can't act on your behalf.</para>
<para>Whatever is happening in the utilities across this nation, we are the wealthiest nation when it comes to natural resources. Because of the policies that have been imposed at a state and federal level over a long period of time, we now find ourselves in one mess that is not delivering on behalf of those that need us most. They need us as elected representatives to represent them on a daily basis and to think about how you who are doing it hard. I know you're working. But I know you're not being able to meet your bills. There are too many across this country who are just putting up with the problem and saying nothing. And I know another thing: I know you're angry, I know you feel alone and I know you feel unloved. Well, that's not the truth.</para>
<para>So I appeal to you tonight: write a note, make a phone call, send an email. It's a call to you to tell your local member so we can act on your behalf. I know the criticisms of Centrelink. So tell us so that we can tell them, so that we can tell our executives, and so that we can help. Because that's what we're here for. We're elected by you to represent you in this place. And we do represent you. We represent all of the people of Australia. The 150 people in this parliament represent this nation. And we want to hear from you. I want to hear from you from my area, too. And so does every other member of parliament.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Asialink Leaders Program</title>
          <page.no>9549</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's often said that every generation of Australians discovers anew the importance of Asia for our nation's future. Leaders and policymakers recognise the inescapable importance of the region—our region—to Australia's economic and strategic interests with cliched regularity. All too often, though, we fail to follow through to develop the capabilities to shape our own future in the region. Progress has been made, no doubt, over the past 40 years, but we've never truly followed through on the long-term commitment that we need as a nation to develop the language skills and the broad-based cultural and historical understanding of our region required to be deeply enmeshed and influential in the region. Even today, only nine per cent of Australian businesses operate in Asia.</para>
<para>The economic rise of Asia has been an undoubted boon for Australia, but the rise of the Asian middle class, 1.7 billion strong, creates new challenges. Selling middle-class goods and services—health care, aged care, financial services, arts and culture—to the burgeoning middle class of Asia will require more sophistication from Australian businesses than was needed during the mining boon. It's often said that Australia is now a services economy, but services currently represent only 15 per cent of our total exports to Asia, the vast bulk of which are education and tourism services provided from Australia. Free trade agreements are all well and good, but it's people who execute investment decisions and contractual agreements—people who know each other, understand each other and can build relationships of trust. Australians working in every segment of our society need to be investing in the capabilities needed to engage with Asia now, as a matter of urgency.</para>
<para>We ought to practice what we preach in this building, and, to this end, I've been completing the 12-month Asialink Leaders Program this year. Asialink was founded in 1990 by the Hawke government, in conjunction with the Myer Foundation, in response to the recommendations of the Commission for the Future. It's one of Australia's oldest institutions dedicated to cultural connection with Asia through arts, education and business. The Asialink Leaders Program is one of its flagship programs for developing Asia capability in Australia, and, as a participant, I can attest to its rigour and value. It's been an opportune time to undertake the course as Asialink recently released its <inline font-style="italic">Match fit: shaping Asia capable leaders</inline> report, produced in partnership with PwC and the Institute of Managers and Leaders.</para>
<para>This report systematically evaluated the Asian capability of more than 1,000 board members and nearly 500 senior executives from the ASX 200 and the top 30 private Australian companies. The findings were not encouraging. The companies studied in the report were judged against six capabilities: sophisticated knowledge of Asian markets; extensive experience operating in Asia; the existence of long-term trusted relationships in the region; the ability to adapt behaviour to the Asian cultural context; capacity to deal with government; and a useful level of language proficiency.</para>
<para>Despite 40 years of consensus that Australia's economic future lies in Asia, 67 per cent of ASX 200 board members have no observable evidence of extensive experience in doing business in Asia. Only 55 of the ASX 200 disclosed revenues earned in Asia. The biggest outbound destinations for overseas direct investment remain the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. We're confronted by the same story: an Australian business community—both investors and management—that perceives doing business in Asia as too risky and lacks the long-term commitment to make it work. Not only is Australian business unwilling to invest in the development of Asian capability over time; it does not value it where it already exists. The report also highlights a shocking underrepresentation of Australians with Asian heritage in the senior management of boards of our major companies.</para>
<para>The report calls for a shift in mindset throughout Australia for an understanding that Australia's economic future, our growth prospects, depends on a long-term investment approach to engagement with Asia. The report argues that there's an urgent need for Australian businesses to invest in and recruit Asia-capable talent to execute this strategy. Other recommendations include reporting market-specific returns rather than region-wide returns, engaging Asia-capable advisory boards and building awareness in the media and the investment community of what's required for investments of this kind.</para>
<para>I asked my fellow participants in the 2017 Asialink Leaders Program—via WeChat, of course—what message they had for the parliament. They wanted me to tell the parliament of the urgency of investing in our Asia capability. They wanted me to tell the parliament that no-one owes us a living in Asia and that other nations are acting more decisively than we are to develop the capabilities needed to realise the opportunity. Many of them expressed the importance of developing Asian languages capability, but, beyond that, ensuring that our primary and secondary schools teach Asian history and cultural understanding to all Australian kids. They wanted more exchange opportunities with Asia to allow mid-career Australians in business and arts and culture to develop these capabilities. More than anything, though, they wanted government to make Asia capability a priority, not a slogan. I'm committed to making sure that that becomes a reality in the coming months.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>9551</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to stand here tonight and take this opportunity to espouse the strength of our economy and the way that the Turnbull government, the Liberal Party and our National Party colleagues are driving growth through economic reform. As evidence of this are some of the indicators that are hitting the market at the moment. In recent weeks and months we have seen evidence of yet more jobs—240,000 jobs created this year under this government—along with more investment, more wages and more exports.</para>
<para>Mr Speaker, you would remember during the last campaign that the Australian public probably tired of hearing members on this side of the House profess 'jobs and growth', 'jobs and growth'. It wasn't a complicated slogan; in fact, it was quite appropriate. We have created 240,000 jobs through investment on the back of a downward spiralling economy, as we come off the resources sector. Real growth in our economy grew by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter, more than double the pace of 0.3 per cent in the March quarter. Growth is important for us. Dr Philip Lowe, the Reserve Bank governor, is forecasting that growth will trend upwards into the threes—we are currently in the late twos—that is, growth of three per cent. But it's not Australia that's experiencing rising growth; it's an international phenomenon. As the economies of our trading partners—China, Europe, America—strengthen, they will help us build our growth rates as well.</para>
<para>Nominal GDP grew, as forecast, by six per cent in the 2016-17 period. Household consumption, the largest contributor to growth in the year, increased by 0.7 per cent in the quarter to be 2.6 per cent higher than 12 months ago. That's a significant increase—that's 2.6 per cent stronger than this time last year. Those growth rates do not materialise purely by accident. They come about through strong fiscal settings that this government has put in place. I commend the Turnbull government, the Treasurer, and associated portfolios—trade and investment through our free trade agreements—for ensuring that our fiscal settings are strong, to set us into the future.</para>
<para>This is in line with the government's record $75 billion investment in economic infrastructure. Of that 75 billion, two-thirds will be provided to the states. The great state of Queensland has been the beneficiary of some of that funding—in particular, for the Bruce Highway and, closer to my electorate, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, which is Australia's single largest inland road infrastructure project in modern history. Money will also be invested in railways, water projects and other projects.</para>
<para>I will touch on our trade capabilities: capital imports rose more than 25 per cent over the past year, the strongest annual growth since around the peak of the mining investment boom five years ago, and that is further evidence of the improvement of private investment including the non-mining sector. The strength of rural and services exports have been supported by the government's trade agenda, duly headed up by the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, who has done an outstanding job in that space. In year average terms, the rural and services sectors drove growth in the economy in 2016-17, contributing no less than 0.5 percentage points and 1.8 points respectively. This performance was particularly welcome in my electorate, which is starting to see more of the rewards of their hard work.</para>
<para>In my electorate, the Lockyer Valley and the Fassifern Valley are rated among the world's top 10 fertile valleys. Farmers there grow carrots, onions, lettuce, celery, broccoli and all the brassica family. Some of the growers have water and some have additional capacity to put in extra crop. They are very conscious about oversupplying, because they know that if one grower puts in too much it can crash a market. They can increase their net outputs by 30 per cent, and they're starting to do that by tapping into the wonderful trade opportunities from the free trade agreements that have been negotiated by this government.</para>
<para>The 240,000 jobs for the year show the strongest growth since before the GFC, with 100,000 jobs in the June quarter alone. Just think about that, Mr Speaker. We spoke about jobs and growth in the last election campaign; we are putting our money where our mouth is. We are making sure that we are driving the economy—and the Turnbull government needs to be applauded for the way we are driving the economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rape &amp; Domestic Violence Services Australia</title>
          <page.no>9552</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAYES</name>
    <name.id>ECV</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I want to speak about the government's effective defunding of Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia, a service that has existed for the last 50 years, and one which is internationally recognised for its extraordinary and groundbreaking work as a specialist provider of sexual assault and domestic violence trauma counselling. The ramifications of defunding this service are terrible and can't just be put down to commercial realities. Thousands of women, children and men who are living with violence turn to the RDVSA every year. I don't know how anyone can make a profit operating a service for the victims of rape and family violence. I'm not sure what sort of organisation would want to make a profit in that way.</para>
<para>Yesterday, the member for Newcastle told the House of her concerns about Medibank Health Solutions, MHS, in its role with Garrison Health in a security breach that led to details being provided to China of personal records of Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Garrison Health is one of these so-called 'telehealth services' at the same call centre that operates the rape and family violence centre counselling service, 1800RESPECT. This security breach was referred to by the chiefs of our Defence Force as extremely serious and of particular concern because of China's extensive involvement in state-sponsored hacking and cyberespionage.</para>
<para>Besides this data breach, there are other problems. Past AMA president, Professor Brian Owler, referred to the Garrison Health security breach as just, 'the latest incident' showing that, 'the problems are not going away'. He called for an urgent audit of the service. Dr Terry Gavaghan, a Canberra specialist dealing with Defence Force personnel, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's been a complete debacle. The whole thing has been a disaster.</para></quote>
<para>Dr Gavaghan referred to the ongoing problems with MHS, including its failure to pay invoices. He also referred to specialists refusing to sign up to MHS contracts because of unilateral fee cuts, new contract provisions and what they see as the potential for interference with the doctor-patient relationship.</para>
<para>In a damning assessment of the firm's operation, creditors were warned that MHS' health services arm had a poor record when it came to paying bills on time. While MHS has admitted there were problems, it seems that nothing has changed. In March this year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission accused Medibank Private, the parent company of MHS, of engaging in a cover-up of unconscionable behaviour which appears to put profits over people. The ACCC is now taking action against Medibank Private in the Federal Court over misleading and deceptive conduct as a result of behaviour it describes as cynical, high-handed and, in effect, putting profits ahead of people.</para>
<para>In the face of these damning reports, how could the Minister for Social Services not put to tender the contract held by MHS to operate 1800RESPECT when the contract expired in July this year? Like everyone in this House, I understand the need to be careful and sensible when it comes to public funds. I also understand the need to ensure that the 1800RESPECT service operates in an efficient and effective manner. However, given what we have witnessed of the extraordinary behaviour of MHS and its parent company, I believe it is untenable that they be allowed to continue to operate 1800RESPECT.</para>
<para>In fact, its contract has been extended for a further two years by this government. Meanwhile, the government is defending the decision by MHS to put to tender—and effectively defund—the services provided by Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia. This is a travesty that must be recognised. Clearly, there should be a public inquiry into the actions of MHS, but, more importantly, the funds necessary for Rape & Domestic Violence Services to serve our community must be restored.</para>
<para>To Karen Willis and the team of dedicated counsellors at Rape & Domestic Violence Services, on behalf of a very grateful community, I appreciate your dedication and your professionalism. You have made a difference for the better in the lives of many families and individuals touched by the trauma of rape and family violence. For your work, dedication and commitment, I thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Marriage</title>
          <page.no>9553</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Notwithstanding any extraordinary intervention by the High Court next week, the Australian people will be asked a question about changing the definition of marriage, a fundamental building block of our society. Giving people the right to have a say on an issue of such cultural importance is the right thing to do. Politicians have already voted on this issue four times: in the Senate in 2010, 2012 and 2013 and in this House in 2012. Each time the answer was no. But that's not the answer that the activists pushing this wanted, so they harassed and bullied the national conversation into asking the question again and again until they got the answer they wanted. A definitive answer from the Australian people, one way or another, is the only hope we have of moving on to other important issues. It comes down to one simple question. A lot of column inches and air time have been devoted to what this question is and isn't. That's the issue I want to address.</para>
<para>Let's start with what this question is not about. It is not about equality—it never was. De facto couples, including same-sex couples, are already considered under the law to be equal to married couples, with access to the same rights and privileges. No-one is barred from getting married because of their sexuality. That is the reality. It is not about equality; it's about changing the definition of marriage into something it has never actually been. Why would the activists want to so aggressively push to deconstruct the meaning of marriage rather than establish a new construct with all the same rights and privileges that come with marriage? I note the activists happily expanded the concept of sexuality from being either heterosexual or homosexual to an acronym of many—LGBTIQA—and, further, what used to be two genders, male and female, have been expanded to a multiverse of genders. That is the real driver here. Removing gender from marriage is just one part of this process. Gender will be removed from words, jobs, names, institutions, schools, and even birth certificates and passports. People like to say that's a slippery-slope argument. This is a slippery plateau argument because these things are already happening around us. They'll be sped up if the answer to this plebiscite is yes.</para>
<para>One collection of activist groups has made a declaration that not only calls for same-sex marriage but refers to gender classification as 'structural violence' and calls for it to be removed from birth certificates and identification documents. It's already been removed here in Canberra, in the ACT. Our children are being taught in school that gender is not determined by biology but by a feeling. The Australian government's guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender says 'gender refers to the way a person feels.' Schoolboys are told they can use the girls' toilet at school; children are made to role-play as if they were in a same-sex relationship; teenage girls are told in schools that chest binding is a great way to reduce the size of their chest. And parents don't get a say in this. This stuff comes through city programs like the Safe Schools program, which next year will be compulsory in the state of Victoria. Any education about marriage or sex must include education in this new universe about the multiverse of possibilities.</para>
<para>According to the Labor Party's policy platform, they are 'committed to making sex education inclusive of all sexualities and gender identities.' What's more, they're going to appoint an LGBTIQA sheriff, a new human rights commissioner, to ensure that it happens and it happens in schools. How many genders will Labor pander to in this new world of sex education? New York City's Commission on Human Rights officially recognises 31 genders, and businesses risk a six-figure fine for failing to accommodate them all and use the politically correct pronouns of each and every one. Researchers at QUT, the Queensland University of Technology, listed 33 gender options on their Australian sex survey, and the Genderfluid Support website lists 114 different genders, none of which are male or female. Facebook gave 10 genders to choose from, but that wasn't enough, so now there's a custom button. Google pronounced it would support an infinite number of ways to express gender identity. This isn't a slippery slope; we are sliding out of control, really. A good place to start to regain control would be for people to vote no on this important question. Saying no and supporting Australian law is not hate speech. Australian values are worth preserving. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>9555</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Those on the conservative side of politics often like to talk about their perceived need for industrial relations reform. The systemic exploitation of workers and noncompliance with legal obligations, highlighted by the discovery that 7-Eleven franchises, Caltex servos, Domino's and Pizza Hut were underpaying workers, just goes to show that there is something wrong with the way that we regulate employers in this country.</para>
<para>One of the goals of the Fair Work Ombudsman in carrying out its enforcement activities is general deterrence. So, as well as specifically punishing an employer found to be in breach of the law, it is expected that the ombudsman's enforcement activities will influence the compliance behaviour of other employers. General deterrence is even a key pillar of the Fair Work Ombudsman's strategic plan. But this approach doesn't seem to be working. In fact, I'm not sure that the Fair Work Ombudsman is even attempting to carry out this part of its strategic plan, because a study conducted by the University of Melbourne's Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law found that most employers thought that the risk of getting caught for exploiting workers was highly unlikely, unlikely or fifty-fifty at best.</para>
<para>One may say almost as a result, we see reported in the Fair Work Ombudsman's last annual report that more than a third of audited businesses had committed a monetary contravention of industrial relations legislation. It also reports that, of the 29,900 reports of noncompliance to the Fair Work Ombudsman, only six per cent were addressed through enforcement action. With such a low rate of reprisal, it is no wonder that this agency is seen as a toothless tiger, and employers are not deterred from ripping off their workers.</para>
<para>What's worse is that, even in instances where the Fair Work Ombudsman finds an employer has been involved in criminal activities, the Fair Work Ombudsman then fails to refer the case for criminal prosecution. Just this week, the Fair Work Ombudsman trumpeted its success when a dodgy labour hire firm— which failed to pay an apprentice mechanic and used the visa holder's wages to make progressive down payments on an expensive European car—was hit with the maximum penalties and had his case referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for criminal proceedings. But the case wasn't referred by the Fair Work Ombudsman. No, this case came before the courts not for the failure to pay the worker but because the Fair Work Ombudsman eventually took civil action after the employer refused to comply with their compliance notice.</para>
<para>According to the judge hearing the case, the actions of the employer were so appalling that the judge not only imposed the maximum financial penalty but also referred the matter—he himself referred the matter—to the Commonwealth DPP. The Fair Work Ombudsman, Natalie James, applauded the court's decision, saying that 'it delivers a clear statement that ignoring a compliance notice will not be tolerated'. I think the real message that this sends is that, if you underpay your workers and are involved in criminal activities by doing so, as long as you comply with any notices that might eventually be issued by the Fair Work Ombudsman—should you ever be issued with one—you needn't worry about civil or criminal court proceedings being brought by this regulator, no matter how appalling your behaviour might be.</para>
<para>So, for little more than a slap on the wrist, bosses can get away with rorting the system and can rest easy knowing that they are unlikely to ever face any real consequences. Imagine the furore if the reverse were true. If an employee was found to be stealing from their employer and had produced fake documents in order to cover their tracks, they would definitely be facing criminal charges. But, as this dodgy labour hire company found, this is not the case when you steal from your employees.</para>
<para>The Criminal Code makes it an offence to deliberately provide false or misleading information to government investigators. This crime carries a penalty of 12 months imprisonment—something that cannot be avoided by putting your company into administration. The Fair Work Ombudsman litigation policy states: 'Where the FWO becomes aware of offences having occurred, it will, in the ordinary course of events, refer a brief to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.' As a former prosecutor, I know that many government agencies regularly provide briefs to the CDPP for possible prosecution. However, the last time a criminal prosecution was mentioned in the Fair Work Ombudsman's annual report was in 2008, almost a decade ago.</para>
<para>As long as our national employment standard regulator maintains its reputation as a toothless tiger, there will always be businesses out there that are willing to take a gamble—an all-too-easy one at the moment—on the illegal exploitation of our workers. In order to see a change to this sort of thinking, the Fair Work Ombudsman needs to get tough and start taking real action. So much for this government being about protecting the rule of law in industrial relations laws. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Pride</title>
          <page.no>9556</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to highlight a fantastic sporting success in my electorate of Blair. Last Saturday evening, the Western Pride FC senior men's team scored their first-ever victory in the National Premier League Queensland grand final. The 2-1 victory over Moreton Bay was made more special because it was in front of their home crowd in Ipswich. Western Pride represents the Greater Ipswich and Western Corridor football heartland, providing opportunity to over 6,000 players and supporters in the community. There are many people who want to see the Western Pride in the proposed FAA Hyundai A-League expansion, currently rumoured to commence in 2018-19. General Manager Pat Boyle and his team have fixed on that target and I wish them every success. Pat has had a long career in Ipswich football, representing Ipswich Knights and Coalstars. I congratulate the whole team for what they have achieved. Well done, Western Pride.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>9556</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 6 September 2017</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Price</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 10:00.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>9558</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits, Youth Jobs PaTH Program</title>
          <page.no>9558</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to raise in this place my concerns about the direction that this government is taking in relation to unemployed people across this country. It seems that its continuing obsession with dividing our country has found new depths, when we look at what's happened across this week. The most vilified by this government, it appears, are our most vulnerable, those people who are in receipt of benefits and seeking employment—and it doesn't seem to matter how old you are.</para>
<para>At one end, we have this government incensed, punishing people between 55 and 59 who are looking for work. Currently, mutual obligation requires this group to do 15 hours of volunteering. This government has in the past spared these people, in an age where even this government has conceded that employers are not giving unemployed 50-plus people a fair go. It has conceded it in the past, but now this government is going to change those conditions and insist that people aged 55 to 59 who are unemployed meet the same mutual obligations as others.</para>
<para>This seems cruel. It seems to lack empathy. The people who are in this category in my electorate I spend time with, and I am very concerned about what this will further do to their self-esteem. It is not easy to find yourself in your 50s and unemployed, and these people deserve empathy—something that it appears the member for Pearce and the member for Aston are devoid of.</para>
<para>And it is not just this age group. Then we look at our young people. Just in the last week, we've seen the PaTH internship program bring itself and the government into disrepute when it was found that a coffee chain has been suspended from being involved. Despite the government promising us that this program would be reeled out in a just way, a young person was found working extreme hours for $4 an hour on top of their payments and another young person was being paid in vouchers. Then we find that, although the program is failing, at the other end of the spectrum 1,300 young people are going to be punished for what we were assuming was going to be a voluntary program. We are now finding that young people are going to be punished for not taking up the opportunity to work for $4 an hour. People are being asked to before they've signed contracts.</para>
<para>This government needs to take an empathy pill. It needs to stop and think about how it's treating the most vulnerable. They are not a target. Stop dividing this country and start looking after people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Berowra Electorate: Local Government</title>
          <page.no>9558</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge three councillors not seeking re-election to the local council on Saturday. I didn't know Steve Russell until after he was elected as Mayor of Hornsby, and I played no part in his election campaign, but I've come to have enormous respect for Steve. Steve transformed Hornsby, a council in debt and deficit, and brought it into the black. He kept a tight rein on staff numbers and regularly compared Hornsby's efficient staff-to-resident ratios with those of other, less efficient councils around New South Wales.</para>
<para>Steve developed a national reputation for his work. He was strongly opposed to the constitutional recognition of local government, which was bad for councils and ratepayers alike, and sought to withdraw Hornsby from the Local Government Association in protest. He's been one of the most effective and persuasive advocates for local government amalgamation. Steve's legacy is the Hornsby Aquatic and Leisure Centre and the Hornsby Quarry remediation project, turning a disused quarry into the Centennial Parklands of our district. I would like to wish Steve and his partner, Christine, well and thank them for their outstanding service to the community.</para>
<para>I got to know Yvonne Keane when she became Mayor of the Hills Shire last year. Well known to Australian audiences for her small stature and her determination as the 'pocket rocket' on the TV show <inline font-style="italic">Hot Property</inline>, she brought the same determination to her mayoralty. As a child, Yvonne experienced domestic violence. As a social entrepreneur, she founded the sanctuary as a shelter for women and children escaping domestic violence in the Hills. She wanted to link her passion to do something about domestic violence with her role as mayor of the Hills.</para>
<para>Last week I was delighted to join Yvonne for the launch of a transitional housing strategy, a fantastic initiative she spearheaded. Under the strategy, developers who build developments of at least 50 units and incorporate a high-quality transitional housing unit within their developments will be able to build two bonus units. This groundbreaking initiative would have application in other areas of Australia. I'd like to wish Yvonne, her husband, Anthony, and their children many years of success and happiness. I'm sure this won't be the last we'll see of Yvonne in public life.</para>
<para>After a record 26 years at Woollahra council, Andrew Petrie is retiring. First elected in 1991, Andrew Petrie was Mayor of Woollahra five times. During the day he was a director of major investment banks, and in his spare time he served the community through council. Woollahra's a municipality with well-financed residents who know their rights and aren't afraid to resort to law to enforce them. Andrew was always fierce in protecting the interests of the municipality.</para>
<para>I served with Andrew on the council between 1995 and 1999. He was an excellent debater, and it was always easier to win the argument if you had Andrew on your side. Together we worked to reduce the BA and DA backlog, crack down on unauthorised works and develop senior accommodation for the council. More than anyone, Andrew's been responsible for the revitalisation of Double Bay, returning it to being one of the great shopping precincts of our city.</para>
<para>At one point we nearly lost Andrew when he had surgery that went horribly wrong and he was hospitalised for the best part of a year. Serving for 26 years is a remarkable achievement, I wish Andrew, Edwina and their family many years of happiness and health in retirement. I thank him for his support and friendship over many years.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Care</title>
          <page.no>9560</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about the importance of appreciating and valuing our childcare workers, often referred to, importantly, as our early educators. Ask any parent who sends their child to child care and they will tell you the value and importance that our early educators bring. Our early educators provide essential care for children. Most families need two incomes to get by, and this would be impossible without childcare centres providing a safe place where parents can trust their children are looked after. But our childcare centres are more than that. Our childcare workers and early educators play an invaluable role in educating our children.</para>
<para>We know that early education is fundamentally important to the development of our children. Around 90 per cent of brain development occurs in the first few years of life, and early education is vital to continuing the teaching parents provide at home by giving children the opportunity to further develop their social skills and their literacy and numeracy skills. I know that when my son, Percy, comes home from child care he loves to be tested on his ABCDs, and I know that that is the type of input that he is getting from his early education. Early education gets children curious and interested in learning, and it helps them develop problem-solving skills and other important skills that will set them up for life. Particularly for disadvantaged children, education in the early years can lead to better outcomes at school and in life. Too often the importance of early education is minimised. In reality, early educators are helping to lay the foundations of learning and development for our children.</para>
<para>There are so many fantastic early educators right across the country and in particular in my electorate of Kingston. In my electorate, I have met so many passionate early educators who are dedicated to ensuring children are given the best possible start. The value of our early educators cannot be overstated, but currently their value is not reflected in their pay. Early educators are paid significantly less than primary and secondary educators. In fact, they are amongst the lowest-paid professionals in Australia. Around 95 per cent of early educators are female and, as is the case with a number of other highly feminised industries, their wages are lower.</para>
<para>It is important that our early educators get acknowledged. They should get the recognition they deserve. We are putting our most important asset in the hands of our early educators, and that is our children and our future generations. So today I would like to pay tribute to them and to thank them for the work they do right across this country and in my electorate. I would also like to give a shout-out to Percy's early educators, who do a fabulous job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fisher Electorate: Sunshine Coast University Hospital</title>
          <page.no>9560</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to ensure that the seat of Fisher is the place to be for education, employment and retirement. This mission is the driving force behind the campaigns that I fight for at a local level and defines much of my advocacy with my ministerial colleagues here in Canberra.</para>
<para>In my 14 months as the member for Fisher, I've been able to deliver many successful projects to enhance the lifestyle of my constituents, such as funding for upgrades to the Bruce Highway and funding for the Thompson Institute and the Events Centre Caloundra. These local wins have certainly been immensely rewarding, and I know that the broader Sunshine Coast population will benefit from such unprecedented federal spending.</para>
<para>Being able to deliver a project that provides outcomes in all three areas of education, employment and retirement was therefore a very proud moment for me. Just last week, my colleague Ted O'Brien and I welcomed the federal Minister for Health and Minister for Sport, Greg Hunt, and the Assistant Minister for Health, David Gillespie, at the new Sunshine Coast University Hospital to formalise the agreement with Griffith University to establish our very own medical school, with 50 Commonwealth-supported places to commence in September 2019. Two students from the Fisher electorate, Carlos Brady from Kawana Waters State College and Jack Gaffney from Unity College, attended the formalisation ceremony last week. Each of them have expressed an interest in studying medicine at the medical school when it opens. Both of these young students shared their excitement that this facility would be right on their doorstep, allowing them to remain living at home whilst continuing their studies. Being supported by their families during this intense and, at times, stressful period of their lives will no doubt be vital to their success.</para>
<para>We know that graduating doctors are more likely to remain living in the region where they've studied. This partnership agreement with Griffith will have a long-term impact on employment opportunities on the Sunshine Coast. I am passionate about finding ways we can offer meaningful employment for our community, and this is certainly one way we can achieve this.</para>
<para>As much as the coast is experiencing growth in young families, we are also seeing an increase in our ageing population. Not surprisingly, more and more people are choosing to retire to the coast for the relaxed lifestyle and ideal weather conditions. Knowing that the coast will have increased services, by way of additional medically-trained professionals and a state-of-the-art hospital and teaching facility, no doubt provides peace of mind that they will be well cared for into the future.</para>
<para>I would like to thank my colleague Ted O'Brien who worked so hard with me to secure this fantastic outcome. I would also particularly like to thank the health minister and assistant health minister and Griffith University for their help in achieving this goal.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>9561</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been presented with a climate justice petition signed by nearly 800 residents from my electorate of Mayo. These signatures are among the more than 25,000 signatures collected in 90 electorates by a coalition of faith based organisations across Australia. Their names have become part of one of the largest ever multi-electorate petitions calling for stronger action on climate change and calling on this country to reduce its emissions, to transition to renewables and to support vulnerable communities during that transition. This coalition includes Catholic Earthcare, Caritas Australia, the Edmund Rice Centre, the Multifaith Association of South Australia, TEAR Australia and the Uniting Church in Australia, to name just a few.</para>
<para>There is no denying that climate change is happening. The science is in.</para>
<para>The policy vacuum created by the lack of action by this government and its predecessor is not only hurting the environment for future generations; it is eroding investor confidence and crippling businesses and everyday householders with ever-climbing energy bills. It is time for the Prime Minister to show true leadership on this issue. Despite the Finkel review being published in early June, we are yet to see any action on the clean energy target. We cannot wait for months to pass without any meaningful action. So this petition is a reminder to government that people of differing faiths can join together and work together to see better federal policies to protect our world.</para>
<para>Climate change is the No. 1 issue that concerns the young people in my electorate of Mayo and, in particular, Young Mayo, my youth advisory committee—so much so that, during the July school holidays, we walked up to Mount Barker's summit and unfurled a banner calling for action on climate change. Young people wrote messages to the Minister for the Environment and Energy, because young people want our government and our community to do all it can to address climate change.</para>
<para>Later today, I will take great pleasure in presenting that banner to Minister Frydenberg. I would love to show you the banner itself, but, alas, props are not allowed in the chamber; however, some of the messages from young people include, 'Can I have the ability to breathe in the future?' And for future generations, 'Please do something'. The action and this petition demonstrate that climate change is a critical issue for the Australian community, irrespective of your faith or your age, or, indeed, your political allegiances. I will be referring this petition to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration and action, and I look forward to this continuing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Mayo, are you actually handing in your petition at this point in time?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Sharkie</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I'm not handing in the petition. The petition is going to the committee.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capricornia Electorate: Awal Medical Centre</title>
          <page.no>9562</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month, I had the fortune of meeting Dr Rajendra Awal and Yogita Awal, a formidable team delivering medical care for the people of Sarina. I was in Sarina to announce that their practice, Awal Medical Centre, would receive $300,000 in funding to expand medical services and training after they were selected for a federal government grant. Patients in Sarina will soon feel the benefits of improved facilities in the Awal Medical Centre, a bonus in and of itself. The practice was amongst 67 offered grants under the government's Rural General Practice Grants Program. This grant will enable Awal Medical Centre to expand and improve its facilities. It will enable the Awals to improve the structure of the existing building, adding an additional four consultation rooms. They will also have a training room for student doctors and health specialists coming through.</para>
<para>What touched me the most about this announcement was learning what an integral part the pair has played in the wellbeing of the Sarina community. Dr Awal, with support from Yogita, is trying to train as many medical students as possible so they retain them locally. Better facilities will allow more doctors, nurses and other health workers to gets hands-on training in general practices in regional areas like Sarina. They will be able to attend to patients and also, when they are fully qualified, are more likely to decide to stay in the region or in other regional communities.</para>
<para>The funding will also deliver a big waiting area where they can provide education for their patients to change lifestyle issues, using the area positively for the community at large. Dr Awal is absolutely dedicated to regional medical practice and ensuring that people in regional areas have access to decent health care. Their dedication to training and retaining local doctors goes beyond the call of duty, and I am so honoured that our government are supporting their endeavours through this new funding. Improving access to doctors and other health professionals in rural and regional Australia is a priority for our long-term national health plan. I applaud this wonderful duo for their ongoing commitment to the Sarina community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macarthur Electorate: Ganeshotsav Festival</title>
          <page.no>9563</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Saturday, 2 September, I attended the 22nd Ganeshotsav Festival at the Whitlam Leisure Centre in Liverpool. This is an event to celebrate Lord Ganesh, the Hindu god of learning and of wisdom. I was invited to attend by my friend and colleague Dr Rajeev Jairam, a child psychiatrist with whom I've worked closely for many years. I was there with my Labor colleagues, and friends, Anne Stanley MP, the member for Werriwa; Anoulack Chanthivong, the state MP for Macquarie Fields; and Paul Lynch, the MP for Liverpool and shadow Attorney-General in the New South Wales parliament. Liverpool councillors Nathan Hagarty and Geoff Shelton also attended, as did the wonderful Charishma Kaliyanda, a Liverpool councillor, occupational therapist and prominent member of the local Hindu community.</para>
<para>I had a great time. It was wonderful to see so many talented and beautiful young people. In south-west Sydney, we are blessed to have such a strong subcontinental community. They are an asset to us and value education, family and community. I am very grateful for their support, as are my colleagues. We discussed many issues pertinent to the community, such as developing a community centre in the local area and the possibility of developing a school for the Hindu community.</para>
<para>The subcontinental community is a very diverse one and is spread throughout Australia, numbering almost half a million. At present, we only have one member of federal parliament of subcontinental origin, Senator Lisa Singh, who, all would agree, is a great asset to this parliament. It would be great to encourage more parliamentarians from the Subcontinent. Charishma Kaliyanda is the Labor candidate for Holsworthy in the state parliament, and we could not have a smarter or more hardworking person to represent us.</para>
<para>I was honoured to be present at the festival and humbled to see so many kids with great talents, so many patients of mine, so many beautiful young children and so many parents relishing the talents of their children. We are truly blessed to live in such a vibrant, multicultural society where we can celebrate our origins and rejoice in our great good fortune to be Australians together. I was grateful to be invited. I had a wonderful time. I found it very uplifting and I'm grateful for the fact that we can have such a diverse group of people from the Subcontinent providing talents and skills to our great Australian community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dunkley Electorate</title>
          <page.no>9563</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CREWTHER</name>
    <name.id>248969</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been an honour and a privilege to serve the people of Dunkley over the past 12 months and the extraordinary area in which we live. Dunkley has, as I like to say, the best of the city, the country and the coast—I'm sure the member for Groom, who is in the chamber, will agree. Together, we are working to protect, to enhance and to further each and every aspect of our wonderful electorate. Dunkley is a major hub of health services, servicing people from all over the Mornington Peninsula, out towards Cranbourne and further up the coastline, back towards Melbourne, and I secured via the federal government $6 million in funding for a full Medicare licence for MRI at Frankston Hospital, which was the No. 1 health concern for many local residents and others in our region. Additional funding of $536,000 has also been delivered for Peninsula Home Hospice, who provide important palliative care services, to be provided at home. Headspace in Frankston have also had a boost of $240,000 for lead mental health site funding, to enable them to provide essential support and resources in this field.</para>
<para>One of my strongest areas of advocacy, however, has been a focus on the facilities, resources and rehabilitation available to people and families of people who have had their lives damaged by the impact of alcohol and drugs. Dunkley's local drug action task force was the first to be announced in the country. We are working with a number of local stakeholders, such as Peninsula Health, Victoria Police, sporting clubs, schools and local elders, to prevent alcohol and drug use in our region. I have reached out to each and every resident to let them know that there are important supports available locally by delivering <inline font-style="italic">An Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Resource Guide</inline> to every household in Dunkley.</para>
<para>Dunkley also has over 16,000 small businesses, equating to 97 per cent of our local economy. I worked with my coalition colleagues to reduce the tax burdens for small business and I am proud to have fought, along with the coalition government, for a reduction in the tax rate for small business from 30 per cent to 27.5 per cent. In addition, our Dunkley apprenticeships have grown as a result of the Dunkley Apprenticeships Drive we recently undertook, which resulted in a 31 per cent increase in local apprentices taken up compared to the same period last year.</para>
<para>I know my time is short, but I lastly want to mention the school funding reforms which have resulted in funding being increased for every school in Dunkley. We have also funded several Green Army projects and locally we have cooperated to save the Frankston Dolphins, who will now have their VFL licence reinstated for the 2018 season. And we have done much, much more. Also, I have released a Facebook video over the last week commemorating what has been achieved locally over the last 12 months and I look forward to working with the local community to continue to advocate for the people of Dunkley over the year to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parramatta Electorate: Merrylands Soccer Football Club, Parramatta Electorate: Wentworthville Tamil Study Centre</title>
          <page.no>9564</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms OWENS</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to congratulate the Merrylands Soccer Football Club premier league team for their success not only on the field but in making our community a better place. Most of the team are refugees from Sierra Leone, including their coach, Sam Sesay, who arrived in Australia in 2001. In 2015, Sam formed Parra United, a community group to foster African youth and adult development, doing their bit to build a community where all people reach their full potential. They do this through sport and recreational activities as they believe sport can be a vessel to bring people together and foster inclusion. At that time, many of the boys played for different clubs but dreamed of playing in the premier league together. So Sam and the boys approached Merrylands and, in this, their first year as a team, they made it to the Granville and Districts Soccer Football Association premier league grand final. They're not only winning hearts; with their new club Merrylands SFC, where they coach junior players and support their club's coaches, they are making a difference. The team hopes their story will inspire the community and promote cultural diversity and integration. I'd like to thank all of the Merrylands SFC Premier League players and their coach, Sam Sesay, for their commitment to our community. They lost the finals, unfortunately, but they'll be back next year.</para>
<para>On the weekend, I went to an extraordinary event and I met a man called Nathan Rajan, who started a Tamil school 30 years ago at Darcy Road in Wentworthville. It now has over 650 students and hundreds of teachers and parents that work to ensure that their children can speak Tamil. I attended a celebration of the annual Kalai Vizha festival in Blacktown and, as usual, these wonderful young Aussie Tamil kids were up there in their costumes stamping their feet, singing their Tamil songs and performing Tamil dramas with gusto—that's the only way to describe it. The thing you notice most is how much they're enjoying it. These kids love learning Tamil.</para>
<para>So I'd like to thank all of the parents, all of the past students and all of the teachers who have worked over the past 30 years to make this school the success that it is. It's not just about having fun for the kids. It's about ensuring that they speak the language of their grandparents and that they understand the culture and philosophy that underpins their parents and their lives. I'd also like to thank the current President Kathirgamanathan Narenthiranathan for inviting me to be part of the festival, and I congratulate all the children for their wonderful performances. Like so many of the parents, I had my mobile phone out. You'd look at the audience and what you saw was a whole stack of parents documenting the moment when their children got up to celebrate not only who they are in this country but their history and the culture of their parents.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Groom Electorate: Highfields and District</title>
          <page.no>9565</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr McVEIGH</name>
    <name.id>125865</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak of the magnificent community of Highfields, which is just north to my home city of Toowoomba. It was settled many years ago by originally largely German families as a rural area. It has grown over the years and through the decades as a dormitory suburb of Toowoomba city and nowadays is very much a standalone, independent and self-sufficient community that is continuing to grow at the rate of about three per cent per year. Highfields has a current population of roughly 13,000 people and it is projected to grow by another 10,000 over the next 15 years. That is quite significant. It places Highfields up there with other regional communities in my part of the world such as Warwick and Dalby, for example, which are going to be very quickly surpassed by Highfields in terms of population growth in the coming years.</para>
<para>This is a community that I was fortunate to spend part of my childhood in, and my wife, Anita, and I certainly had very enjoyable years in the Highfields community when our children were younger as well. I can recall very clearly waiting for the school bus on a dirt road, surrounded by paddocks and acreage that now accommodates a Catholic primary and secondary school in the form of Mary Mackillop Catholic College, a pub and a shopping centre. Whilst that might make me sound a little old, who would have thought?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr McVEIGH</name>
    <name.id>125865</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for acknowledging that I'm probably not that old, Madam Deputy Speaker.</para>
<para>Over the last 12 months, as the federal member for Groom, I've attended numerous meetings in the Highfields community as it grapples with this growth. They are largely led by the Highfields and District Business Connections group. Their president is Jim O'Dea. That group and his efforts have brought the Highfields community together to consider its future growth options. Later this month, I will be attending a roundtable meeting looking at the business and community heart of Highfields and its options going into the future. I launched those discussions just recently with the assistance of Toowoomba Regional Council, led by Mayor Paul Antonio, and my good friend and colleague the state member for Toowoomba North, Trevor Watts.</para>
<para>When a community, local government, state government and federal government come together to talk about community growth and managing that growth in the years to come, I believe it lays down a vision and, certainly, an example for the rest of regional Australia to consider. It is for that reason that, along with the member for Paterson, who is on our Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, I will put forward Highfields as a model for consideration.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. I call the member for Paterson.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paterson Electorate: Hunter Youth Transition Advisory Group</title>
          <page.no>9566</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>High unemployment is a continuing blight on my electorate of Paterson. It currently stands at 10.8 per cent, while general unemployment is 4.1 per cent. I'm therefore really pleased to be helping to drive a new initiative in my region that pulls together people from the education, training and employment of our youth and puts this on top of the agenda. The Hunter Youth Transition Advisory Group brings together stakeholders from industry, education, community and government. The goal is to partner and collaborate to achieve positive results for youth as they transition from education to employment.</para>
<para>In 2017, young people are the product of an education system that funnels many of them towards a tertiary education rank and therefore a university degree. There's nothing wrong with getting a university degree but not everyone aspires to or is suited to a university degree; it doesn't actually serve everyone well. Even a university degree is no sure path to financial stability or career longevity. The average gap between a young person completing their degree and attaining full-time employment is 4.7 years. These are current figures. Tack onto that a three-, four- or five-year degree and you have a situation where a young person has little earnings potential for an average of eight years. Plus, they have a HECS debt on the end of that.</para>
<para>Wind the clock back a few years and there was absolutely nothing shameful about leaving school in year 10 and getting an apprenticeship. The Hunter region has a long history of high-level manufacturing that requires heavily and practically skilled workers. Yet it has become evident in recent years that young people aren't going into trades. Australia needs these tradespeople but the Turnbull government's policy hasn't encouraged workers or tradies. At the end of the day, it's government policy that regulates and shapes how this works. The whole system is in very poor shape. The government has slashed $3 billion from support for apprenticeships, TAFE and VET. Vocational training has been privatised. There are 148,000 fewer trainees and apprentices than there were when the Liberals came to government and 46,000 fewer trade apprenticeships. In contrast, under a Shorten government, we are going to reinvigorate TAFE. We are going to make sure that, for every government infrastructure project, one in 10 jobs is an Australian apprentice. We are going to put our faith back in good old-fashioned apprenticeships because we need those jobs and we need those people. They are incredibly important to the future of the Australian economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: St. Raphael's Catholic Primary School, Australian Lebanese Chamber of Commerce</title>
          <page.no>9567</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 21 August, I visited St Raphael's Catholic Primary School in South Hurstville to talk to kids in year 5 and 6 about government. They had visited Parliament House on 11 August. It was really good to have an informal chat with the kids and teachers about what they learned here during their visit and also to be asked some very interesting questions by the kids. St Raphael's in South Hurstville has about 220 students. Its history dates back to 1929, when the classes were held in the church and in local homes. The school itself was established on its formal grounds back in 1952. I would like to thank the principal, Annette McKenzie, for all the work she does in the community and also all the kids I visited on the day. I look forward to future visits.</para>
<para>On 21 August, I attended the annual business luncheon hosted by the Australian Lebanese Chamber of Commerce at Doltone House in Sydney. The ALCC has a long history of advocating for the concerns of the Australian Lebanese business community and also for fostering trade links between Australia and Lebanon. In my electorate more than 7,000 people trace their ancestry to Lebanon. It was good to meet with the leaders of the Australian Lebanese business community on the day. It was also good to see His Excellency Bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay at the event. I would also like to thank the president of the chamber, Joe Khattar AM, as well as the ALCC director, Adam Malouf, for his kind invitation. I look forward to continuing to work with ALCC in the future.</para>
<para>On 29 August I visited Peakhurst South Public School, a fantastic, vibrant school in the heart of my electorate which is very ably led by its principal, Natasha Eaton. I spoke to the kids in years 5 and 6 about our federal government and how it works, and also took a number of great questions from the kids. Peakhurst South celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2013. It has children not only from the Peakhurst South region but also from surrounding suburbs, including Lugarno and Mortdale. I would like to thank the students at Peakhurst South for their questions, and I also thank the teachers from stage 3, Andrew Marshall and Josh Hurkett. I look forward to visiting the school very soon in the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Broadband</title>
          <page.no>9567</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEAY</name>
    <name.id>262273</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Urquhart and I are again calling on the Prime Minister to direct NBN Co to deliver fibre-to-the-curb technology to the west coast of Tasmania. NBN Co's response last week to questions on notice demonstrates its west coast rollout is in chaos. The response revealed NBN Co has still not finished the design work for the region, the ready-for-service date has been pushed out to late 2018, and NBN Co has no idea about local employment during construction.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, NBN Co changed designs for some mainland towns from fibre-to-the-node to fibre-to-the-curb technology. This is not surprising, as fibre to the curb pushes fibre deeper within the network and delivers faster and more reliable download and upload speeds compared to fibre to the node. It's something the people of the west coast of Tasmania and everywhere else in regional Australia deserve. After the announcement, Senator Urquhart wrote to NBN Co CEO Bill Morrow to inquire if the west coast fibre-to-the-node rollout would also shift to fibre to the curb. What an opportunity for the people of the west coast to have this new technology! At the time, NBN Co staff were noncommittal and replied that fibre to the curb would likely be incorporated in Queenstown, Zeehan and Rosebery, but not for the whole towns.</para>
<para>In its latest response to questions on notice, NBN Co somehow claims both that the west coast design is too far along and that the detailed design process has not yet concluded, so it cannot disclose the exact technology to be used. This was a question on notice, and this was their response through the Senate process. But I was on ABC radio in Tasmania last week, talking about this unknown technology the people of the west coast are going to get, and a minute after I finished my interview Russell Kelly, the Tasmanian manager for NBN Co, tweeted on Twitter that they were going to get fibre to the node. So we can't get a proper response through the Senate questions on notice process, but on Twitter we can get it within a minute of going on radio. NBN Co cannot have it both ways.</para>
<para>Households and businesses on the west coast are screaming out for improved broadband. This is a region that has had significant downturn through mining, but the local copper mines of Tasmania are set to reopen after a number of years of being on shutdown. This is a great opportunity for that mine to get greater technology to be able to communicate with Mineral Resources Tasmania and their parent company in India, which they now have to do by sending a CD-ROM or USB stick through Australia Post. This is critical technology that regional Australia deserves, and it's about time the Prime Minister does something about it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Farrer Electorate: Business</title>
          <page.no>9568</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to provide the House with an overview of a very welcome visit by the Prime Minister to my electorate a fortnight ago, despite his enormously busy schedule. It was my pleasure to show the Prime Minister through two local businesses in Albury. Both are great examples of how our government is working in the interests of all Australians from sea to sea and city to country. One of our stops was the Ettamogah Rail Hub, a privately operated freight logistics centre which can now plan for the future on the back of our government's go-ahead with the Inland Rail route from Melbourne to Brisbane. I cannot overstate just how important this project is in backing producers and manufacturers around Albury and many other parts of the region.</para>
<para>The other location I want to focus on today is Overall Forge, a great Australian die-forge company founded in Sydney over 130 years ago that relocated its base to Albury in the 1990s. The factory employs 48 people, creating machine parts and materials for mining, marine and power industries across the Asia-Pacific. It's fair to say that turning a state-of-the-art furnace up to 1,000 degrees Celsius, as well as operating lathes, drilling machines and vertical borers, consumes an enormous amount of power. The company called me earlier this year expressing concern over impending gas supply charges, due to rise by over $100,000 a month. Here we had a local business and exporter trading 40 per cent of its production overseas, a company which shifted its operations away from the east coast to reduce overheads, facing the dead weight of power costs absolutely beyond its control.</para>
<para>During the visit, we spoke to Overall's boss of operations, Glen Nagle, about the Australian government's approach to curb these price rises. There is no doubt that, without our plan to ring-fence some of the natural gas we produce here so it's locally affordable, the situation at Overall Forge would remain, in Glen's own words, 'grim'. Their gas costs are still too high right now, but we're providing a path forward for them to steady the balance sheet and plan for the future in the knowledge that the cost of manufacturing won't outweigh the cost of staying in business.</para>
<para>This is extremely important. When our government says it wants to put Australian families and Australian jobs first, they're not just words. It is absolutely imperative we deliver action to ensure this is the case. Many of the factors which have led to a leap in electricity and gas charges are not of the Commonwealth's doing, but they are part of our responsibility. Support for reliable, efficient and affordable renewable energy into the future is also our responsibility, but it can't be undertaken blindly, at the risk of hurting the now.</para>
<para>Finally, a big thankyou to the local Star Hotel and publican Ron Nairne for his superb country hospitality on the Prime Minister's last stop—because, as we all know, no trip like this is complete unless you pass the pub test.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chifley Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>9569</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I extend my congratulations to two major businesses that have opened up in the last couple of weeks in the Chifley electorate that are providing hundreds of jobs to locals. To Costco, I extend my congratulations to CEO Patrick Noonan and all the team there. It opened up at Marsden Park, creating 300 jobs there, allowing people who live in the local area to work locally as well. It's been tremendous to see them open up their operations on the site of the Sydney Business Park. The week before, IKEA opened. It was fantastic to see one of the largest IKEA distribution centres in the country opening up in the electorate of Chifley at Marsden Park, again at Sydney Business Park. It was a huge announcement. It is great to see those 200 jobs join the 300 jobs that have now opened up down the road at Costco. I'm proud to say 75 per cent of the jobs there, as a result of efforts we had undertaken to make sure we could maximise job growth in the area, went to locals. Forty-four went to people from low socioeconomic backgrounds or kids from Aboriginal backgrounds.</para>
<para>This is huge. Sixty thousand jobs will be created by the Sydney Business Park project alone in the course of the decade. This is the thermonuclear version of a jobs generator right in our backyard. It is a fantastic thing to see. It opened up because the infrastructure was there. The M7 has allowed the Sydney Business Park, where Costco and IKEA are located, to operate. There are a lot of other firms, too, that are taking advantage of well-placed infrastructure. Getting these jobs in place is a priority, as 150,000 people are expected to live in Marsden Park. We need to make sure that the jobs are there, supported by good infrastructure.</para>
<para>The other big infrastructure project is the M9. The M9 will be crucial; otherwise, we will have traffic jams as far as the eye can see, and an impact on local job creation because the infrastructure isn't there. The New South Wales government announced just $2 million for the M9 project in their last budget. They're clearly not serious about this. This project needs to go ahead to unlock business development. We know hundreds of thousands of residents are forced to go east to work every day. But back in July 2015 the project manager for the M9 corridor told local media, 'A short list of corridor options will be presented to the public by 2015.' That was two years ago! The last newsletter for the M9 corridor on the Transport for NSW planning page is dated 2015. We need this investment in this motorway now. We need to see things happening now. Otherwise people will be paying very soon for the lack of infrastructure. We need that motorway and the challenge is: will it be a motorway without a toll bucket on it?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hinkler Electorate: HMAS Tobruk</title>
          <page.no>9570</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to update the Fed Chamber on the HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Tobruk</inline> and progress on hopefully soon creating a dive wreck in my region of Hinkler, about 15 nautical miles off the beach from a lovely place, Woodgate Beach. The idea was first floated with me by a local Hervey Bay identity Nicky Schulz, a well-known local fisherman, way back in 2013. I spoke about it many times in the lead-up to the election, and in May 2014 I wrote to the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, Darren Chester to seek advice on what vessels might be available. The minister visited the region in November 2014 and in July 2015 we officially formed the Regional Dive Wreck Advisory Group. The establishment of that group was a masterstroke, I have to say—they worked incredibly hard, they brought a lot of talent and skills to the table and they were very successful. The group met with then defence minister Kevin Andrews and Parl Sec Chester. We launched a petition in October 2015 and in December 2015 that petition was tabled, with some 4,042 signatures gathered in just 21 days.</para>
<para>Clearly in my region the big issue is jobs, and tourism is a great generator. We had a $1 million commitment from the Fraser Coast Regional Council and finally sourced a $1 million commitment from the Bundaberg Regional Council, so we commenced this process with $2 million on the table. That process went on and on and on, and can I acknowledge and thank, once again, the work of the Queensland Labor government. We did manage to put this project together, and we got it over the line, in conjunction with them, because we do need to work together on these occasions.</para>
<para>However, the HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Tobruk</inline> was delivered in December of 2016 and it remains in the Bundaberg port, tied up to the wharf in the Burnett River. Work has not commenced. The state government did invest money for dredging works, with a tender put out in February 2017, to be completed by 30 April. They have called for a principal contractor. They spent $350,000 on dredging, only to discover it wasn't suitable. The advice is it is in the wrong place. The <inline font-style="italic">Tobruk</inline> is still there. An additional $240,000 spend was required for a molasses pipe. That is great, and that is very helpful, but I say to the Queensland state government that the money is budgeted and the project is agreed to. The cynical side of me is looking at this and saying surely they are not waiting for a state election for this project to commence. We desperately need jobs in our area. The money is in the budget and the project should be underway—it should be underway now. When the ship was delivered, I clearly remember I stood up and said, 'Christmas for our region has come early.' I hope it isn't another Christmas before these jobs are provided, because we simply cannot wait. We need the <inline font-style="italic">Tobruk</inline> to be in place. It will be internationally recognised as a dive wreck. It will bring tourists from right around the world. I say again to the Queensland state government, please don't delay any further. Get on with this project, get the work underway, and let's get it in place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petition: Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>9570</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to table, with the indulgence of the chair, a community petition on climate change signed by around 200 of my constituents. They came to see me in my office. This shows that, as we talk about energy prices here in Australia, people are still concerned about climate and energy together. It is not just about energy prices; it is about energy prices and about climate change. Indeed, these petitioners want us to commit to deeper and more urgent reductions of greenhouse emissions, they want a plan to ensure Australia achieves zero net greenhouse emissions by 2050—obviously I don't agree with everything that my petitioners are asking for—and they want to provide additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change. They have presented this petition because they are concerned about climate change in a state where over 80 per cent of our electricity generation is already renewable, with our hydro-electric scheme. The Tasmanian people have invested billions of dollars over decades in our hydro and windfarm renewable energy. So Tasmania has baseload renewable energy already, with over 80 per cent of our state's power being generated through renewable energy at the moment.</para>
<para>But we've had a lot of debate in this place in recent days, because what we've seen from the government over four years is complete inaction. They had a plan to wreck Labor's climate change and energy plans, which they did—one might say very successfully. But of course there was nothing then to fill that vacuum of policy. There was no plan to deal with climate change and energy prices in Australia, and now, two months since the government got Chief Scientist Alan Finkel's report talking about an urgent need for a clear and early decision on what we're doing in relation to a clean energy target, we still have nothing.</para>
<para>It is the policy paralysis of this government when it comes to energy and climate change policies in Australia that is causing the energy price rises. In four years, all we've had is two cups of tea with energy retailers. I can tell you, on behalf of Tasmanians, that doesn't help us. We have one monopoly retailer. We are not going to get any cheap discounts or anything like that. We're not going to get people writing to us about better deals. That is not happening in Tasmania. Tasmanians today are continuing to struggle to pay their electricity bills, even though we've invested billions in renewables and have done the right thing by the climate. Even though we have done the right thing, we are still being penalised because of the inaction of this government and the failure to recognise those billions of dollars of investment that the Tasmanian population have put into renewable energy. It is simply not good enough, and the government needs to act.</para>
<para>I would like to table the document.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This document will be forwarded to the petitions committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goldstein Electorate: Community Planning Forums</title>
          <page.no>9571</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to talk about two upcoming forums in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. On 12 September there will be two community planning forums held, in Highett and Beaumaris. They will be organised by the Hon. David Davis, the state shadow minister for planning, and by the Liberal candidate for the seat of Sandringham at the 2018 state election, Brad Rowswell. The objective of these forums is to discuss the liability of the Bayside and Kingston areas given the alarming plan by the Victorian Labor government to radically shift planning regulations, to the detriment of the community. There has been a great deal of concern about the push for unlimited dwellings by the Andrews government, allowing up to 10 residences on a single block, and planning continues to be an important issue in the Bayside and Kingston communities in making sure the communities maintain control of their community and its character. In addition, the state government is talking about increasing height limits to 11 metres, allowing three storeys in general residential zones. Unsurprisingly, this justifies a planning forum and bringing together the community to raise concerns.</para>
<para>At the heart of this campaign to make sure we hear from and listen to the community is Brad Rowswell, the state candidate, who is a fierce advocate for community safety and protecting the Bayside area from overdevelopment. He grew up in Beaumaris and cherishes its tree-lined streets, open parklands and beaches. Tragically, this is the thing that's under threat from the Daniel Andrews state Labor government in Victoria. It's a misunderstanding about the importance of community and the natural assets we have in the Goldstein community and the Bayside and Kingston communities as well.</para>
<para>Brad would also like to see more critical infrastructure in Victoria, including more car parking at train stations. That's important particularly at Sandringham train station, where a lot of people go to the end of the line for the opportunity to get into the city. He is also a strong advocate for the Bayside community and is listening to the concerns of local residents. That's why Brad will be a strong candidate and voice in the state parliament and follow the legacy of Murray Thompson, who has been an outstanding representative for that community for many years. Brad brings a wealth of private and public sector experience working at senior levels of government, as well as the largest provider of independent education in the great state of Victoria.</para>
<para>The Highett Community Planning Forum will be held at the Highett Bowls Club at 6 pm on 12 September. If you're in the Highett community, I strongly recommend that you attend. The Beaumaris Community Planning Forum will be held at the Beaumaris Community Centre hall at 8 pm on the same night, 12 September. Tragically I won't be there, because I'll be here in the federal parliament, but I encourage people in the Highett and Beaumaris communities to get along to those important forums. You can RSVP for them at bradrowswell.com.au. Brad is a truly exceptional candidate, and I thank him for the outstanding work he is doing in voicing the concerns of the Bayside, Kingston and Goldstein communities. May it, hopefully, be the beginning of many things to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wakefield Electorate: Holden</title>
          <page.no>9572</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
    <electorate>Wakefield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If I have my figures right, we're coming up to the four-year anniversary of the Abbott-Turnbull government—</para>
<para>An opposition member: Shame!</para>
<para>A government member: Four years too short!</para>
<para>An opposition member: Joyce.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Abbott-Turnbull-Joyce. My colleague across the chamber says, 'Four years too short.' For my community it's four years too long. I can remember pretty vividly just after that election, on 3 October 2013, the then industry minister, Ian Macfarlane, having me, Nick Xenophon, and the then member for Hindmarsh, Matt Williams—and I think a couple of Liberal senators came along—for a tour of the Holden Elizabeth plant. I can remember Minister Macfarlane posing with one of the tradies there, with a ballpein hammer, for the media. He was well received by the workforce at that time because he was giving them hope that they might receive a fair hearing from this government.</para>
<para>What we know is that sometime later, in December, there was the infamous headline 'Hockey dares GM to leave'. Of course, we know what happened with this government thumbing its nose in their face. GM took $1 billion worth of investment elsewhere, and, tragically, we're going to see later, on 20 October of this year, the closure of the Holden Elizabeth plant—a great plant. It's one of the few plants in the world, in the GM family, that can take different cars down the line—a sedan, a station wagon, a ute, a Caprice and, before that, a Cruze.</para>
<para>Last week, we went on a tour of that plant again with a lot of state Labor MPs and the shadow federal industry minister, Kim Carr, but not one Liberal Party MP and not one minor party MP. It was just Labor MPs touring that plant for the last time. The thing that makes me most proud is that, for those workers, that factory is the top factory in the world for quality in the GM family. Those workers are going out with their heads held high and with the factory as absolutely No. 1 for quality in the GM world. They are fighting the good fight by making the best Australian cars they can right up to the very end. They deserve a government that pays them due respect, that actually shows up, not just for the good times but for the bad, and that explains its policy. Labor will forever regret the decision made by the Abbott-Turnbull government to close Holden.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Junior Mineral Exploration Tax Credit</title>
          <page.no>9573</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to thank the Prime Minister for his visit last week to your home town, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Price, the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. While the big-ticket item was the welcome announcement that the Goldfields region would be the next site for a cashless debit card trial, another fantastic announcement slightly slipped under the radar.</para>
<para>Today I inform the chamber that on the weekend the Prime Minister announced a new $100 million scheme to stimulate investment in mining exploration, which is a fantastic result for the mining industry and completes what I think has been a positive week for the Goldfields region. This innovative Junior Mineral Exploration Tax Credit scheme is a replacement for the discontinued Exploration Development Incentive. Similar to the EDI, the program allows junior explorers reporting losses for greenfield exploration to offer a tax credit to their investors. We have dubbed this initiative the Junior Mineral Exploration Tax Credit, but it is more than a rebranding of its predecessor.</para>
<para>Three years of the EDI taught us some valuable lessons, given the industry take-up of the scheme was less than we hoped and evidence suggested it wasn't achieving its intended purposes. Because the EDI had a cap on maximum expenditure for each year, we applied a modulation factor to manage the limited pool of funds available. Essentially, if the scheme was oversubscribed and the submissions exceeded the cap for that financial year, applicants would receive a reduced pro rata portion of what they expected. This created a degree of uncertainty for investors, given companies would not be able to guarantee an offer back to the market. We've removed the modulation factor and applied a first-in-best-dressed method that will ensure successful applicants are guaranteed the tax credit they sought.</para>
<para>The other important factor of the JMETC is that only newly issued shares relating to capital raising for new greenfield exploration activity will be eligible for these tax credits. This scheme is expected to leverage $300 million of investment and exploration over the next four years.</para>
<para>The latest figures for gold exploration in Western Australia are positive, but we know that there is no justification for the industry and government to rest on their laurels. We're still short of the investment in exploration that we saw several years ago, and it is my hope that, as a government, we can help the industry return to that very high level.</para>
<para>I want to give a big shout-out to Simon Bennison, Graham Short and his team at AMEC for the hard work that they did in getting this proposal back up before the government.</para>
<para>On that note, it is with great pleasure that I will be attending the opening of the Independence Group's Nova nickel mine at the Fraser Range, 130 kilometres east of Norseman, this Friday. It was discovered in 2012 by prospector Mark Bennett's Sirius Resources. This is a classic story of greenfield exploration opening up enormous opportunities in the Goldfields economy. The Nova mine will produce, in financial year '18, 25,000 tonnes of nickel, 11,000 tonnes of copper and around 1,000 tons of cobalt, bringing much-needed jobs and income to the national, state and local economies. I want to congratulate Independence Group Chairman Peter Bilbe and Managing Director Peter Bradford and their team for bringing this project to fruition and wish them all the best in the future.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9574</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017, Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9574</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <p>
              <a href="r5936" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r5935" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9574</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We were hoping there'd be one more constituency statement then, because we had the third Wilson in and we could have had a hat-trick of Wilsons, but, nevertheless—another day.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know; it was a very good point—a substantive point! I'm really rocking this Federation Chamber stuff!</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you! I'm pleased to express support for the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017. They are, overall, sensible changes to the Tuition Protection Service. The Tuition Protection Service was introduced by the Labor government in 2012, under then Minister Chris Evans. It was an important part of the response to problems. 'Problems' is an understatement; indeed, it was a crisis that had emerged across Australian international education in 2009. The crisis took many forms, as was well reported in the media—dodgy private providers, first and foremost. I think we all may remember the reports, particularly in Melbourne, of the cooking schools with no kitchens. So we had hundreds or thousands of international students enrolled to learn cooking in schools which were then revealed by the media to not even have kitchens.</para>
<para>An honourable member: Toasters!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, indeed—probably toasters! There were also the international reports of violence—terribly unfortunate incidents—against students. Some of those reports, as was later seen, were somewhat confected or exaggerated by the media, or indeed, in one famous case, it was actual fraud by the purported victim. But, overall, the crisis at that time hurt students. Providers went broke, leaving students stranded and, particularly, out-of-pocket with lost fees, and with problems with their visas and so on.</para>
<para>Importantly, the crisis damaged Australia's hard-won reputation for quality and hurt public confidence in international education and also in our migration program. This is no small matter. It sounds like ancient history, but international education was and is enormously important to the Australian economy. Indeed, last year the economic value reached record heights, in the order of $24 billion. That is comprised of direct economic value of $23½ billion and a bit over half a billion dollars worth of indirect value—fees, jobs, retail housing and the direct expenditure. It's now officially our third-biggest export sector and has achieved record growth, in the order of 18 per cent in the last year.</para>
<para>This is directly relevant to the bill and not just an ad for the sector because, whilst overall growth is good and the number is good—I think we reached, in June 2017, 583,243 students studying in Australia; the highest ever number, which shows strong recovery from the 2009-13 slump—ultimately we have to be aiming for sustainable growth. Growth that is too fast is risky. It poses risk to our quality of delivery, which is incredibly dangerous for Australia's sector because our position in the global market is as a quality provider.</para>
<para>It also poses risk for the student experience. Our student experience is also important for future sustainability of growth because, overwhelmingly, this is an industry which is driven by word-of-mouth marketing. All the work we do to position ourselves as a destination of choice is important. But in this market all the research says very clearly that student experience is important—telling their friends and telling their family. Indeed, we have generations of people whose parents may have studied in Australia and the children, nieces and nephews return. Risks of too fast a growth where quality or student experience is impeded threatens our future growth.</para>
<para>The growth is reasonably balanced across sectors although there are worrying signs starting to emerge of imbalance between states in particular. The last year or two have shown significant growth in the eastern seaboard states—the sort of elephants in the market of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—but, quite concerningly, a slowing growth or lesser growth in the smaller states. Those smaller states need to focus particularly on their niche strengths and student experience to compete. Most concerningly, I saw the WA English language enrolments were particularly low with a sharp drop well over 15 per cent. By itself that's not of huge economic import but English language enrolments are the canary in the coalmine for future enrolments because they tend to be the lead indicator of what's going to happen in the next year or two with the much more economically valuable and important higher education enrolment. So there are some matters of concern. We do need to monitor these levels of growth very carefully for any negative signs of an unsustainable growth bubble.</para>
<para>There are also many other benefits which I won't go into now. Suffice to say, we have a lot to lose if we get this wrong—the current value as well as future growth potential. In that context, the Tuition Protection Service is a key plank of the consumer guarantee to protect the student experience and our international reputation. In essence, it's a contingent fund to provide assistance for international students, including with fees where necessary but also re-enrolment in other providers that steps in where there is a market failure.</para>
<para>The broad structure of Labor's scheme from 2012 has stood the test of time and has been highly successful. It sees international education providers levied according to risk. The levy is paid into a fund which is then available for the Tuition Protection Service to draw upon if a provider goes broke to reimburse students or is shut down. I think most of the cases where students have had to seek assistance have been because of regulatory action by our regulatory agencies which have shut down dodgy providers for quality. In some cases, they haven't been able to reimburse the fees and the TPS steps in.</para>
<para>There is a risk-rating system and the universities make a bit of noise and don't really like paying because they say they are paying for the less reputable end of the market. But there's a risk-rating system and providers are levied according to the assessment of risk. That approach has stood the test of time and was subsequently drawn on for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection as they started to try and adjust the student visa processing. It's also had that additional benefit.</para>
<para>The issue now though is because of that extensive growth, which I touched upon, over the last few years, we've seen the fund reserves increase sharply. Advice from the Australian Government Actuary and the TPS Advisory Board is that we can lower the collection rate but still preserve the $30 to $50 million in the fund which the government actuary has said is necessary. The proposed mechanism, which Labor supports, is to adjust the administration while preserving the intent of the scheme to give the minister the power to set administrative fees through a legislative instrument. We anticipate that this year, this will lead to a one-off reduction, which if not changed, would then be indexed modestly, but again, provides the ability more flexibly without resort to legislation to keep an eye on the balance of the fund and adjust as needed.</para>
<para>In endorsing the scheme, I also want to note the benefits of stability in administration. The Tuition Protection Service has been a model of stability and I think that we have seen, since its inception, one legislative appointed director sitting over that scheme which gives enormous benefits. I would contrast that with the crisis, chaos and instability that we have seen in the Department of Education and Training of late. In talking to stakeholders about this bill, I've heard a number of reports of growing frustration across the international education sector both from peak bodies and also providers about the musical chair, the revolving door—that is—the general manager position of international education in the Department of Education and Training. This is incredible but there have been six or seven acting or permanent general managers in the last two years alone. In one sense, it is quite impressive that any legislation made it here with that level of chaos, but it's actually quite a serious matter too and the minister needs to sort this out.</para>
<para>Broadly speaking, the commitment to the international education sector in Australia is bipartisan in spirit. I saw that in Victoria when, for some years under a Liberal government and then under a Labor government, I was the executive director of international education in the Public Service. It was a wonderful role—I learnt so much about the education sector and also Australia's international positioning, student experience and so on. I had staff across the globe working on a marketing study in Melbourne, policy advocacy, student experience and so on. I worked closely with the then Commonwealth bureaucrats who were all in their jobs for more than five minutes! We saw in Victoria the benefits of a bipartisan, consistent, stable approach to policy and administration. The Bracks and Brumby government did an enormous amount of good in responding to that student crisis by weeding out the dodgy providers, resetting the student experience and advocating for the establishment of responses like the Tuition Protection Scheme. That was carried forward and built upon by the Napthine and Baillieu governments and then built upon again by the Andrews government. In Victoria, this has been an area of great bipartisanship. We have had a couple of strategies, our market percentage has improved and so on.</para>
<para>At the national level, despite the stated commitment and broad sense of bipartisanship, the effort in the last couple of years can be described as sluggish at best. We have a national strategy, but it is not exciting or ambitious. It is too general. It should be more comprehensive. It should be more targeted and specific in what it is trying to achieve. And there is a clear case for more resources. The $12 million is a pathetic amount that was put behind the administration—and the strategy was reprioritised from somewhere else in any event. I am happy to be corrected on that; that would be a wonderful thing to be corrected upon. Aside from that, in thinking about the context of the Tuition Protection Scheme, I had a look at the first pages of the document. It is still there on the internet. It is a tragicomic reminder of the instability and scattered lack of focus which unfortunately has characterised this government's stewardship of international education. And there was a foreword in the strategy, signed by Richard Colbeck. 'Who is Richard Colbeck?' you might ask.</para>
<para>An opposition member: A collector's item.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's right. For five minutes, under the previous government, he was the world's first international education minister. But he achieved an unfortunate triple whammy: he was not just the world's first international education minister at a national level, he was done over by the current Prime Minister; when the Prime Minister did over the previous Prime Minister, he was dumped from his ministry. But then in an amazing coincidence the Prime Minister's nemesis, Eric the Dark Lord of Tassie in the other place, did him over on the Senate ticket because he voted for the Prime Minister in the leadership ballot, who then dumped him. So it is amazing—</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Bruce will resume his seat. The assistant minister.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs Andrews</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. I would ask the Deputy Speaker to bring the member back to the particular topic. He is harming what was in fact a good speech by digressing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The assistant minister will resume her seat. The member for Bruce will be relevant to the bill. I would also ask the member for Bruce to ensure that he refers to members by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was referring to Senator Eric Abetz, not the well-known drag queen Erica Betz. In closing—and this is important in terms of the coordinating mechanisms that oversight initiatives such as the Tuition Protection Scheme, along with the complementary mechanisms—the National Coordinating Council, which this government put in place, is a great initiative and I applaud it. It comprises ministers from across the government—including immigration, education, vocational training and so on—as well as sector experts. Of course, it is only as good as its attendance—I don't think ministers have been taking this seriously; I really hope to see improvement on that front—and there has been stakeholder and expert frustration in terms of the support and performance of the Department of Education and Training and its revolving set of GMs.</para>
<para>I support this bill as sensible. I call on the minister to take a break from cutting school funding, cutting university funding and jacking up university fees and sort out his department and step up the thinking and support for this critical sector.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Prior to summing up in respect of this legislation, I would like to make a couple of remarks with regard to international education. I listened with interest to what the member said and I would actually like to make a couple of observations. Firstly, I have taken responsibility for international education in the vocational education space in the last couple of months. I recently returned from a visit to Sri Lanka; in fact I was in Sri Lanka on Friday. I also spent the first part of last week in India. I had a couple of days in India, then Singapore, then Sri Lanka. The focus of that was education, clearly—primarily, from my point of view, vocational education but also some higher education in India as part of Australia Business Week in India. I can assure all members, of the House in particular, that international vocational education is extremely important to this government. My focus was to look at building opportunities for growth for our providers from Australia to provide support particularly to our nearest neighbours.</para>
<para>India is a significant market for us and we have to be conscious of the support that we can provide there, given that the statistics say that over the next decade India is wishing to train 400 million people in the vocational education space. The opportunities for our providers clearly are in the 'train the trainer' space. Singapore is clearly a hub. We already have providers working in that space in vocational education and in higher education. This government will be working to increase our presence in Singapore and the support that we can provide in that nation.</para>
<para>Sri Lanka is a significant opportunity for Australia. I hope my visit last week is going to be the start of some fairly strong engagement with that nation. They have some clear areas of need in the hospitality and tourism sector. We spoke to them about opportunities where Australia could support their growth. I believe that we now have in place some clear steps that we can take with our high commission in Sri Lanka, and also with our Indian high commission, to make sure we are developing opportunities for our providers. It is clear that Australia has a very high quality vocational education system, and that is what is so highly regarded by our nearest neighbours.</para>
<para>I turn specifically to the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017. Measures in this bill underline the government's commitment to support the international education sector. These measures will reduce the financial burden on education providers while ensuring that strong student protections are maintained. The Tuition Protection Service, the TPS, is a key contributor to Australia's reputation as a preferred study destination. The TPS is funded by an annual levy on all Commonwealth-registered international education providers. It consists of an administrative and base component and a risk-rated premium paid into the Overseas Student Tuition Fund. The fund exists to protect students' investment in their tuition by providing refunds or placing students in alternative courses where a provider closes or is unable to deliver a student's course.</para>
<para>The success and strong growth of the sector, reflected by the recent growth in student enrolments, has resulted in an increased collection of the administrative and base fee components of the TPS levy. The fund is at risk of accumulating excessive reserves, which has potential to undermine industry commitment. The Australian Government Actuary and the TPS advisory board have recommended the fund remains within the target range of $30 million to $50 million. As at 30 June 2017, the balance of the fund was $34.8 million, including the $9.7 million collected from the TPS levy in 2017. Of this, $4.1 million was collected from providers in the form of administrative and base fees. A reduction of the administrative and base fees will ensure the fund remains within the target range.</para>
<para>This bill provides additional flexibility the government needs to manage the fund in response to changes in market conditions. It will give the minister authority to set the administrative and base fees through a legislative instrument. If the bill is passed, the minister intends to immediately make a legislative instrument to lower the administrative and base fee amounts to reduce the burden on providers. This will ensure an effective price signal is maintained for high-risk providers while low-risk providers are appropriately recognised for managing risk effectively. The government is taking a proactive approach to support the strong growth of international education in Australia. The measures will ensure that Australia maintains strong student protections and contributes to the sustainable growth of the international education sector. I commend the bill to the House.</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>Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9579</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5935" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9579</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9579</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <p>
              <a href="r5931" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r5932" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r5933" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r5934" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9579</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PRENTICE</name>
    <name.id>217266</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017. This bill enables the introduction of air pollution standards for products such as small petrol engines, equipment and outboard motors. The bill implements a key aspect of the National Clean Air Agreement agreed to by Australia's environment ministers in December 2015. Under that agreement, a key initial action was the introduction of national emissions standards for new non-road spark ignition engines and equipment, also known as NRSIEEs.</para>
<para>These engines and equipment are a significant emissions source and at peak times are estimated to contribute up to 10 per cent of overall air pollutants in Australian urban environments, the very neighbourhoods where majority of us reside. Everyone in this chamber will undoubtedly remember their childhoods, with the smell of freshly mown lawns on a weekend. Add to that fragrance the ever-distinctive two-stroke exhaust and petrol aromas emanating from mowers, hedge trimmers, whipper snippers and the dreaded leaf blowers. Times have changed little since those days, yet our knowledge of the emissions of such equipment has resulted in the rethinking of small-engine emissions. Madam Deputy Speaker, it may pass your mind but you do know that small spark engines are high emitters of pollution for their size. Two-stroke leaf blowers can produce similar nitrogen oxides to one car. I am told some lawnmowers can produce 40 times the emissions of a car. Consider the number of small spark engines in your neighbourhood being used on a Saturday morning. The emissions figures certainly add up. Fundamentally, these standards will improve the air quality of urban areas and deliver health benefits. With increases in population and transport growth come added pressures on the quality of the air we currently enjoy—quality air that most of us take for granted. Clean air is good air.</para>
<para>The facts that I will set forth in my support for this bill will demonstrate the unsuspected dangers we are all exposed to. This bill will align Australia with other developed countries and other major markets which already have similar standards. Australian standards will be harmonised to minimise any regulatory burden. I note the government has consulted and worked with the industry for more than a decade to develop emissions standards for these products. In order to allow industry time to adjust to these new standards, they will be phased in over the next two years. It is proposed that imports of non-compliant products will be prohibited from 1 July 2018 with the sale of non-compliant products fully prohibited from 1 July 2019. As part of these bills, customs and excise charges will impose fees on the importation of products prescribed under the product emissions standard legislation. These fees will enable the full cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating prescribed products.</para>
<para>Like most federal members, I continually meet with my constituents to hear firsthand their current concerns and issues. One such local resident is Mr Gary Fooks. For those of you who do not know him, Gary is the chairman of Blue Sky Alliance, representing some manufacturers and distributors of non-road engine products who believe that Australians deserve to breathe clean air. Gary has worked in close consultation with industry and government on these standards for the past 10 year and wants to ensure that Australia is stringent in its approach to the enforcement of these standards. Gary's passion for this legislation and for the environment starts in his own garage, where, I understand, much of his small-engine equipment is emissions-standard friendly.</para>
<para>As I mentioned earlier with the emissions from leaf blowers and lawnmowers, these proposed standards will cover noxious air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, which have significant impacts on human health. With estimates that new standards could deliver $1.7 billion in avoided health costs, it is vital that this bill is supported by all in this House. Given that similar standards are already in place in 26 of the 35 OECD countries, Australia has become the dumping ground for high-polluting products manufactured overseas. Manufacturers who produce these old emission-intensive engines have realised that the Australian market is still open for sale when it comes to old emission-intensive engines. You only need to walk into your local large hardware outlet to see the cheap Chinese-import mowers. No-one can expect these engines to be the cleanest and greenest.</para>
<para>These standards will be the genesis of Australia's urban clean-air initiatives. However, I know that more can be done and achieved from here. While many probably relive their pasts of premixed fuel for the old two-stroke mowers, I would like future generations to breathe clean air when they are tending to their gardens and lawns or taking their boats out onto the water at the weekend. Not that many years ago, it was normal for us to have hazy Saturday afternoons with neighbours lighting up their incinerators to clean up gardening leftovers. Since the banning of incinerators in Queensland many years ago, our afternoons are now cleaner and clearer, and neighbours' washing on clothes lines is untainted. While this example has little to do with small engines, it is the type of environmental policy which seeks to ensure the health and safety of Australians. Darryl Kerrigan of <inline font-style="italic">The Castle</inline> fame once said that he loved the smell of two-stroke in the morning. Unfortunately, what he probably could not smell were the undetectable carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides that surrounded him and his boat.</para>
<para>I place on record my support for this bill and the work of the coalition government and industry. I particularly thank people like Gary Fooks, who is in the chamber with us today, and all who strive to ensure the health of our environment and future generations. I commend the bill to the house.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The new standards introduced by these bills are good for the health of Australians and the environment, and they provide certainty for industry. As someone who before coming to this place as the member for Canberra worked on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the department of climate change and worked on the stakeholder engagement strategy with industry, I know that certainty for industry is absolutely fundamental for them to get on board for dramatic change—quite often for the climate change initiatives that the Labor government was proposing at the time. It is vitally important that industry is clear on the way forward, has certainty on the way forward, is clear on what a government is trying to achieve and, most importantly, is clear on its investment strategy for the future. There is nothing that industry hates more than uncertainty. Unfortunately, that's what this government has given industry: uncertainty in the climate change area, uncertainty in terms of a national energy policy and uncertainty in terms of renewables.</para>
<para>The new standards outlined in this bill provide for a reduction of 1.9 million tonnes of CO2 emissions over the next 20 years. This could avoid $1.7 billion in health costs, which is significant, as well as about 3,000 premature deaths. They are significant outcomes. Similar standards are already in place in 26 of the 35 OECD countries, including the United States, Japan and China. By introducing these standards, Australia will finally have a regulatory framework in place that will prevent our country—with some of the world's most unique flora and fauna, and the Great Barrier Reef, one of the seven wonders of the natural world—from being the dumping ground for high-polluting products manufactured overseas.</para>
<para>Environment ministers from federal, state and territory governments agreed to the adoption of these new standards in December 2015, which was the first key initiative under the National Clean Air Agreement. It's taken almost two years for this legislation to be introduced. In the meantime, the ACT government here in the nation's capital, here in the wonderful but freezing-cold national capital, has been doing all it can to lower emissions and help improve what can only be considered a bleak outlook on climate change presented by this Turnbull government.</para>
<para>One of the best things about Canberra—Australia's national capital—is its reputation as the bush capital. That's one of the features that we love about it. The bushland surrounds and intertwines this city, which is why our city is known for clean air, open spaces and convenience. Systems of parks, wetlands and waterways provide a valuable habitat that improves our ecosystems. The design of Walter Burley Griffin is definitely one of the reasons for the city being what it is today—a bush capital with a natural landscape that has, as part of the planning process, green spaces.</para>
<para>Walter Burley Griffin was very much influenced by the notion of a democratic city. He wanted democracy to be encouraged, with the participation of citizens—active citizenry—to be realised through the design of cities. That is why his design has so much interaction with the natural landscape, that is why the architectural designs have so much interaction with and so much sympathy for the natural environment, and that is why there is so much green space, so people have a sense of wellbeing not only from looking onto green space but also from walking in that green space, bike riding in that green space, running in that green space, playing in that green space. It's vitally important to the notion of the wellbeing and health of a community, and it's vitally important to the notion of access and activity citizenry for everyone. So we've got this fabulous city, this fabulous national capital, that realises Griffin's design ideas. At the time, unfortunately, those ideas were attacked by politicians and by the architecture profession here in Australia, as well as by the media.</para>
<para>In much the same way, climate change has been attacked by those who don't believe in the science behind it. But Canberrans believe it and are leading the way for the rest of Australia. With emissions in the ACT already reduced by 20 per cent since 2012, which is significant, we saw an announcement late last year that 100 per cent of the territory's electricity needs will be met by renewable energy by 2020. Canberra is investing in sustainable transport and buildings and is shifting away from a reliance on motor vehicles to more sustainable options. That's a big challenge, because, for all the merits of Burley Griffin's design, he actually had as part of that design a light rail or tram network. Unfortunately, there were various iterations of Canberra's town planning, and in the seventies there was a flurry of activity, and a lot of what's happened, particularly with the satellite city concept, has meant that large parts of Canberra are linked. We have satellite cities that are linked by roads. Despite Walter Burley Griffin's original concept of a democratic city with lots of green space and people actively engaged in the community, thanks to the town planners of the seventies and the satellite city concept, Canberra is connected by a large road network, so we are very heavily reliant on cars.</para>
<para>That is why the ACT government should be commended for the efforts it's made in trying to reduce Canberrans' dependence on cars. It's looking at electric cars, at walking tracks, at cycling and at sustainable public transport systems. They've all been on the agenda to help Canberra into the future, which shows a real commitment to achieving that 2020 emissions target.</para>
<para>This is streets ahead of some states and territories that haven't even set a renewable energy target. It's an interesting point: can you set a target for net zero emissions by 2050 without having a renewable energy target in place? While it's encouraging to see this Turnbull government implementing policies that are expected to reduce carbon emissions, it's happening at a glacial pace.</para>
<para>This is similar to the Turnbull government's response to managing PFAS contamination. Legacy firefighting foams containing perfluorinated chemicals were used extensively in Australia and worldwide from the 1970s due to their effectiveness in extinguishing liquid fuel fires. After concerns emerged about potential environmental and human health impacts of the chemicals, Defence began phasing out its use of legacy firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA chemicals as active ingredients, and it started doing that in 2004.</para>
<para>Defence has identified 18 category 1 properties which have had large quantities or routine and frequent historical use of legacy firefighting foams and prioritised these sites for investigation to determine if any contaminants have migrated off-site and, if so, the extent of their migration. Investigations into the extent of PFAS contamination, its effects on the environment and its effects on human health have been ongoing for some time.</para>
<para>In fact, one of the first areas subject to investigation was around the Army Aviation Centre in Oakey in 2012. Defence completed an environmental site assessment, a human health risk assessment and a preliminary ecological risk assessment for Oakey in 2016, with further investigations still underway. Five years later and the community in Oakey are still facing the same anxiety and uncertainty they have had from the start of the investigation in 2012. There's a class action underway at the moment. Erin Brockovich has been there a number of times to speak to Oakey residents. Five years later, there's still this anxiety and uncertainty facing the Oakey community in terms of the PFAS contamination issue.</para>
<para>The waiting, the anxiety and the uncertainty are also felt by the community in and around RAAF Base Williamtown. Environmental investigations into the nature and extent of PFAS contamination on and around RAAF Base Williamtown began in 2015. The environmental site assessment, human health risk assessment and preliminary ecological risk assessment were also completed in 2016. Following the completion of these assessments, Defence identified data gaps in some portions of the investigation area, so further work is underway to update and refine the 2016 assessment reports. Some of this work is similar to that happening in Oakey. Analysis is happening on the uptake of PFAS in fruit and vegetables and the uptake of PFAS in chicken eggs, and there is seafood sampling and analysis, additional surface water and groundwater data collection and additional sediment data collection and analysis.</para>
<para>This year, updated tolerable daily intake levels were identified by Food Standards Australia New Zealand—and this has been the challenge with this issue, Deputy Speaker. I'm not sure whether you're aware of it, but the challenge has been in the fact that there has been no internationally agreed standard on it. The US has a particular standard. The various states in the US have different standards. Europeans have different standards. Australia now has a different standard. So everyone is really grappling with this issue internationally in terms of working out: what is an acceptable level of reading in your blood with these PFAS contaminants? We are at the beginning of this journey, and it's a real challenge for everyone.</para>
<para>As I said, these new daily tolerable intake levels were identified by FSANZ just this year, and Defence released an additional human health risk assessment report setting out additional precautionary recommendations for Williamtown and Oakey residents to minimise exposure to PFAS chemicals. Williamtown and Oakey residents are facing the uncertainty of what is actually happening to their health, their environment and their property values, and other communities living near those 18 Defence sites are taking note of what is happening in Oakey and Williamtown.</para>
<para>The two locations are considered benchmarks. Oakey's been dealing with this issue for five years, still with no resolution from the government. Five years on; still no clear way forward from the Turnbull government on what should be actually happening. For two years Williamtown residents have been coping with the uncertainty, anxiety, stress and human health concerns. These have not been addressed appropriately by this government. There's still uncertainty around the issue. We have those two sites, Oakey and Williamtown, still with large question marks over them because of inaction from this government. Labor has continually called on the government to actually listen to residents and respond appropriately.</para>
<para>We know that the community living near RAAF Base Tindal in Katherine is also concerned about the impact of PFAS chemicals on its natural water supply. The concern for their community's health and environment has led to a water treatment plant being quickly sourced, built and shipped from the United States to Katherine to help filter the community's water supply. In the meantime, water restrictions are in place to help reduce the community's potential exposure to PFAS chemicals. If the benchmarks of Williamtown and Oakey are anything to go by—Oakey five years, still no certainty; Williamtown two years, still no certainty—then the Katherine community will have to wait before any certainty can be provided by this government.</para>
<para>The leaching of PFAS chemicals off Defence bases into the national environment is a major concern. I have visited almost all of the 18 Defence sites that have been identified as affected by PFAS contamination to find out more. I have received briefings from Defence staff and officers at Navy, Army and Air Force bases right around the country on what is happening to identify potential sources of contaminants, to establish the extent of any contamination, and the management processes in place to prevent any further leaching of PFAS chemicals into the surrounding environment. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those Defence staff and Defence officers who provided their professional advice and opinion and their hospitality in these many briefings and base tours. They've shown me where the PFAS chemicals were used, they've shown me where they were stored, and they've shown me the management arrangements that are currently in place to risk manage it.</para>
<para>Defence is working tirelessly in a cloud of uncertainty that's been created by this government's failure to coordinate a national response to what is an emerging national issue. Labor has led from the front on the management of PFAS. This government largely adopted Labor's policy that we took to the last election in response to PFAS contamination, but it is failing in its execution. It was Labor that called for a nationally consistent approach to PFAS management. It was Labor that called for the Turnbull government to expand its program of voluntary blood testing for only Williamtown and Oakey residents to all 18 Defence sites. It was Labor that called for the creation of an intergovernmental taskforce to coordinate the government's response to contamination. The government finally created a taskforce earlier this year, but the taskforce has yet to make a public appearance, comment or announcement on the government's policy solution. We've heard there's a solution for Williamtown out there. What is that solution? I'm calling on the Turnbull government to let us know what the government's solution is— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 and the related bills currently before the House. This package of bills is long overdue, and I do commend the stakeholders and members of the manufacturing industry, in particular, who've worked long and hard to finally get some emissions standards for small engines in this country. Australia is one of the last major economies to regulate the toxic emissions from lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws and the like.</para>
<para>Although this government is finally doing something about these emissions, a far greater source of toxic emissions continues. Coal-fired power stations are a far greater source of toxic air pollution—including mercury, sulphur and oxides of nitrogen—and yet the government shows no interest at all on acting on this pollution. This government are tough on lawnmowers and leaf blowers, tough on lawnmowers and the causes of lawnmowers, but they let dirty, polluting coal off scot-free. I'll have more to say about coal-fired power stations and their pollution a bit later, but first I want to comment briefly on the bills before us.</para>
<para>The Product Emissions Standards Bill establishes a national framework to enable Australia to address the adverse impacts of air pollution from certain products on human and environmental health. It implements a key aspect of the National Clean Air Agreement established by Australia's environment ministers on 15 December 2015. Under that agreement, an initial action was the introduction of national emissions standards for new non-road spark ignition engines and equipment. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… consistent with the National Clean Air Agreement, it is anticipated that the first emissions-controlled products to be prescribed under the … framework will be NRSIEE products—</para></quote>
<para>non-road spark ignition engines and equipment products. It goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… rules made for NRSIEE will prescribe two broad 17 categories … new small non-road spark ignition engines (up to 19 kilowatts in power) and new marine spark ignition propulsion engines.</para></quote>
<para>In other words, these rules will cover outdoor power equipment, such as leaf blowers, lawnmowers, chainsaws and brush cutters, as well as marine engines, such as outboards and personal watercraft. Emissions from these products include nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxides and particulate matter. But these bills do not regulate carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases. At peak times, these non-road engines and equipment are estimated to contribute up to 10 per cent of overall air pollutants in Australian urban environments. The government claims that this bill will align Australia with other developed countries and major markets that already have similar standards, including the US, Japan and China, and the EU, and that Australian standards will be harmonised to minimise any regulatory burden.</para>
<para>The bill also allows the minister to prescribe products as 'emissions-controlled products' and to make rules relating to those products. It establishes offences and civil penalty provisions relating to the import or supply of certain controlled products, and it also enables the sharing of information with other agencies and the publication of certain information relating to these emissions-controlled products.</para>
<para>The Australian Greens have long called for controls on air pollution, and in 2013 we initiated a far-reaching inquiry in the Senate into the impacts on health of the air quality in Australia. Because we have been the ones leading the charge in the parliament on regulation on this front for many, many years, we support this bill and we will vote for it. But we do share some of the specific concerns expressed by stakeholders that the bill falls well short of what is needed.</para>
<para>As I said at the outset, the bill does not address the main source of air pollution in Australia. For example, the bill fails to make it an offence to modify a machine in any way that changes its certified level of emissions. There is no point in having clean-certified engines imported if there are no restrictions on modifications. It's been reported to my office that at least one existing manufacturer makes modifications to every Honda engine it uses in its Australian manufactured products. So, once it's imported, what then happens to it is completely unregulated. The current automobile standards have a modification restriction, so why not small-scale engines? Why not?</para>
<para>Secondly, it is important to understand that the bill's not just about lawnmowers and outboard motors. It creates a framework that will be used in the future for a range of products, so it's important to get it right. Stakeholders have legitimate concerns about the enforcement of these rules. With 1.3 million small engines imported yearly, enforcing these restrictions on importation is going to be a critical means of ensuring compliance.</para>
<para>But concerns have been raised with me and with my office that the exemptions contained in the bill may be far too lax. It's also been suggested that the department's plan is to allow any products sold in limited numbers under the USA scheme to be sold in unlimited numbers in Australia. Essentially, that gives us the USA 2006 standard, which is not exactly world's best practice. It's also been claimed that abandoning evaporative standards means that we're going to remain behind world's best.</para>
<para>I welcome the minister's response on these concerns, because these may well be issues that we pursue as this bill progresses through the parliament. However, as I've indicated, we do support the bill, because after many years of delay it represents some action—some action—on air quality and tackling toxic pollution. So it's a good step but a very tiny step.</para>
<para>As I said at the beginning—this is part of the reason that it doesn't go anywhere near far enough—the pollution controlled by this bill almost pales into insignificance compared to the massive amount of toxic pollution from Australia's coal-fired power stations and our vehicles. Even the government has agreed that fine particle pollution emissions account for the lion's share of impacts of air pollution. We, the Greens, will continue to pursue the case for a phase-out of coal-fired power stations in this country and a shift over to renewables because of the climate change impact.</para>
<para>But let's just park that for one moment and focus on what this bill purports to regulate and to be concerned with, which is the direct health impacts of particulates and of pollution. We know, as I've said, that as much as 90 per cent of the health impacts across the country are related to fine particulates, and yet small engines are not even listed as a source of PM2.5 in the National Pollutant Inventory. Lawnmowers are listed as a source of nitrous oxide but in 14th place. A total of 390,000 kilograms is regulated by this bill, compared to 360 million kilograms from power stations and 340 million kilograms from motor vehicles. We have to bear in mind that the government is still dragging its heels on vehicle emission standards, where we are way behind the standards set in the US and Europe.</para>
<para>The clear hypocrisy of this government has now been revealed by a major new report released by Environmental Justice Australia just two weeks ago, which shows that Australia's power stations are allowed to emit far more pollution than those in the US and Europe and that many operators are failing to adopt available pollution reduction technologies and in one case even admitted to falsifying pollution reports. That report states that nearly 900,000 Australians in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria live dangerously close to coal-fired power stations that cause asthma and respiratory illnesses and increase the likelihood of stroke and heart attack. Those 900,000 living in close proximity to the power stations are not the only ones who are affected. Emissions from the five New South Wales power stations account for 87 per cent of Sydney's sulphur dioxide pollution. This report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Toxic and terminal: how the regulation of coal-fired power stations fails Australian communities</inline>, is the result of exhaustive research, freedom of information searches, surveillance of Australia's major power stations and advice from health experts and industry whistleblowers. I want to commend the work of Environmental Justice Australia in putting it together.</para>
<para>The report comes up with some incredibly startling findings. They find that coal-fired power stations emit more than 30 toxic substances and are Australia's biggest source of PM2.5, or fine particle sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, and that these substances cause and contribute to asthma, lung cancer, heart attacks, stroke, respiratory disease, headaches and nausea in nearby communities.</para>
<para>The report also finds that, incredibly, in most cases emission limits from these stations in Australia are much more lax than those in the US, the EU and China. In many cases, Australian coal-fired power stations are allowed to be more polluting with the kinds of chemicals that are regulated by this bill than those in China. Mercury limits in some New South Wales power stations are 666 times higher than the United States limits. The report also found that pollution reduction technologies that have been available for many, many years and are used overseas could significantly reduce power stations' emissions but aren't in use in Australia.</para>
<para>It was also found in the report that a representative of the Yallourn Power Station admitted 'that at times of excessive pollution it "simplified" its reporting by stating that it was emitting at levels that correspond with its licence limits'. Shockingly, and this comes back to the question of enforcement, it found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Despite much evidence of failure to comply with pollution licence conditions, no power station in Victoria, NSW or Queensland has been prosecuted for any offence in the past ten years (instead they have been issued with inadequate penalty notices).</para></quote>
<para>One of the report's co-authors, Environmental Justice Australia's lawyer, Nicola Rivers, said, when releasing the report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Fine particle pollution exposure is responsible for 1,590 premature deaths each year in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth … People who live within 50 kilometres of coal-fired power stations are three to four times more likely to die prematurely than people who live further away.</para></quote>
<para>And, because air pollution travels:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 87% of the sulphur dioxide pollution recorded in Sydney can be traced to have come from power stations in the Hunter Valley, more than 100 kilometres away.</para></quote>
<para>She also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Power station pollution is believed to cause 130 premature deaths a year in Sydney.</para></quote>
<para>That report highlights the lack of seriousness of this government in tackling air pollution. It's all well and good to be tough on lawnmowers and leaf blowers but coal-fired power stations are allowed to emit more pollution than in China. Whatever you think about climate change, whatever you think about the current debate about the role of coal-fired power stations, when you know—it's undeniable—that coal-fired power stations produce pollution and the kind of particulates that the government says that it cares about and when there are 1,590 people dying early in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth because we do not properly regulate pollution that comes from our power stations, which we allow to be more polluting than China, then you would think you'd take action on it. If you're prepared to have reviews over several years, go through COAG and talk about how you're going to crack down on lawnmowers and leaf blowers then don't turn a blind eye to the massive power stations that are sitting, in many cases, in people's backyards and are causing people who live within 50 kilometres of them to die and suffer disease more than others in the population. Don't allow these power stations to continue to produce so much sulphur that it travels all the way down to Sydney and accounts for 87 per cent of Sydney's air pollution. Do something about that as well.</para>
<para>Instead, what we know in this country is that the coal-fired power station lobby has this government under its thumb; when it says 'jump', this government says, 'How high?' We know the government doesn't care about climate change. But, again, let's put that to one side. If this government actually cared about people's health and wanted to stop 1,590 premature deaths in some of those eastern seaboard cities every year, then what they would do is say, 'We're going to go beyond leaf blowers and lawn mowers and we're going to tackle one of the biggest sources of preventable pollution in this country and look at what's coming out of the top of those stacks at our coal-fired power stations'. Maybe if the government had the guts to regulate the pollution that comes out of there—to at least the level of, say, China, but, ideally, to the level they're using in the EU—we might go some way to having clean air in this country and stopping people from dying unnecessarily.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very glad to rise today to speak on the Product Emissions Standard Bill 2017 and related bills. It is a package of bills that I'm really glad to support. It may seem to be a relatively minor emissions issue, but I think it is indicative of this government's laissez faire attitude to emission standards, energy policy and climate change.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that in Australia we are way behind the eight ball when it comes to our action on climate change and reducing emissions. In many ways we are going backwards. The news today that the Prime Minister is trying to promote the prolonged continuation of some of our oldest and most polluting coal-fired power stations, and that some government members are advocating the building of many more new coal-fired power stations, to me is absolutely shocking. It is even more shocking because I know the Minister for the Environment and Energy comes from a scientific family and, I suspect, doesn't really believe what this government is promoting. It is symptomatic of the destruction of any real knowledge or action on climate change and environment and it is disgraceful.</para>
<para>Almost all the rest of the world is fighting climate change while some on the other side of the chamber are still debating whether or not it's real. Australia's environmental policy has been smeared by political pointscoring for far too many years and we need to take action now. This bill is a small part of that. The emissions standards bill before us, or something close to it, is already in place in the vast majority of the 35 OECD countries, including America, Japan and China. This is a change that should've been implemented many years ago; it's a real no-brainer. So I'm glad to see that at last the government is introducing these bills that will not only improve our environment but improve the health of Australians and save many lives.</para>
<para>The bills before us relate to air pollution standards on non-road spark ignition engines and equipment. It is absolutely horrifying to know that some lawnmowers emit up to 40 times the emissions of a car per hour, and brush cutters at least 10 times the emissions of a car per hour. In other words, lawnmowers are the equivalent of having 40 cars on the road. We all know that in Australia we love our lawnmowers, and I'm no exception. I love my lawn. I take pride in the fact that my lawn looks good. My grandchildren come and play on our lawn, our dogs run on our lawn, and it looks great. In my house we have lawnmowers, brush cutters, leaf blowers, mulchers, lawn edgers and even, dare I say it, a chainsaw—although my days of playing with chainsaws might be over, I think; they do worry me quite a lot—and it is horrifying for me to know that these machines pollute so much. I wasn't aware, in fact, that we didn't have emission controls on these machines. As well as their being heavily polluting, we use them very close to our faces and we breathe in the fumes, which we know contain things like carcinogenic hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and often particulate pollutants, all of which can be associated with things like cardiovascular disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease and are possibly related to a variety of different cancers, including lung and gastric cancer. Really, this is something that we should've addressed many years ago. In the 1970s we were addressing these issues in our motor vehicles, and the fact that we are only just now thinking about doing something about our leaf blowers, lawnmowers, chainsaws and brush cutters is pretty horrifying and yet another indication that in Australia we are lagging behind in what we should be doing about our air pollution.</para>
<para>The unregulated engines that emit these toxins may be small, but they are definitely highly polluting. On average, they produce between 10 and 20 times more emissions per hour than a motor vehicle engine. These emissions have a significant effect not only on our environment but, as I mentioned, on our health. It's very difficult to understand the actual effect until you look at the statistics, but at least 1,500 lives a year are being lost directly because of environmental pollution and countless people are suffering from early onset cardiovascular disease. We are concerned, in the medical community, about the incidence of relatively young males dying suddenly from cardiovascular disease, and one can only think that our environmental pollution may well have something to do with it. So it's about time we did something about it. When we use these machines, as I've mentioned, we're breathing the emissions straight into our airways, and very quickly these pollutants can enter the bloodstream, and they must definitely be having an effect. It's estimated that environmental pollution reduction could save up to $1.7 billion in health costs and avoid up to 3,000 deaths a year.</para>
<para>Early yesterday I met with Gary Fooks, the chair of the Blue Sky Alliance, and I'm very grateful for his advocacy of these emissions standards. He's been one of the main drivers of this bill, along with David Heyes, the President of AMEC, and Tim McCarthy, the President of OPEA. I am grateful for their support and advocacy on something that should have been addressed many years ago. The Blue Sky Alliance is a joint venture between the two peak bodies that cover the garden equipment and marine engine industries, and they represent about 95 per cent of the 1.3 million small non-road engines sold in Australia each year. These organisations have done the research for many years and have proven that no-one will be worse off under the implementation of these emissions standards and we will be a lot better off in terms of our environment. In fact, over half the market is already filled with clean engines and every brand available has a clean engine available. All this bill is doing is regulating the dirty engines, and this legislation will not make it illegal to use our old equipment but will mean that the new equipment we buy will be low-emissions machines. So this is a very good outcome.</para>
<para>To be honest with you, this bill is dealing with the low-hanging fruit. It's addressing a fault in our system that should have been dealt with many years ago. It's about ensuring that Australia can meet international standards. While it's great that we're finally dealing with the Product Emissions Standards Bill, there is a long way to go in addressing Australia's lack of environmental policy. The government is letting Australia's environment be destroyed, and we are seeing absolutely no action at all to protect our oceans, the Murray-Darling Basin, which we know is being allowed to be degraded surreptitiously without proper action, and our wildlife and their habitats, which are being damaged continually. The Great Barrier Reef is another case in point where the government has done very little to support environmental protection and, in fact, looks like supporting a coalmine that may well signal the end of the Great Barrier Reef as we know it.</para>
<para>As a father and a grandfather, it is shameful for me to have to tell my children and grandchildren that much of their environment will be destroyed because this government refuses to protect it. We're now faced with the disastrous effects of climate change. They will know that this government let Australia fall behind the rest of the world in any action to stop it. I'm very happy to support this bill, but I hope we can start seeing some courage from this government and from the minister in shaping some real environmental policy that will deal with the challenges ahead. Even in my own electorate, we're seeing the gradual loss of our koala colony, the only chlamydia-free urban koala colony in Australia, by ongoing development, but neither state nor federal governments will lift a hand to protect it. It is absolutely shameful.</para>
<para>We know that in south-west Sydney we have very poor air quality, yet we have no clear emissions policy or energy policy from this government and this minister, who are wilfully ignoring the advice from their own Chief Scientist. This government is mired in a right-wing reactionary ideology that fails to protect its people from pollution, climate change and environmental degradation. It is an absolute disgrace that members of the government could think it funny to bring lumps of coal into the parliament to demonstrate their support for the coal industry and coal-fired power stations. That they think this is a joke, to me, is absolutely shameful. I really think it's time that some courage be shown by the environment minister and by the Prime Minister to try to make things different. We need courage, we need to keep up with the rest of the world in our environmental policy and it is time for change.</para>
<para>I'm also very concerned, apart from this bill, about whether the government will put in place mechanisms for imported engines to be tested appropriately. We already know the government is allowing suspect building materials, flammable building materials and building materials containing asbestos into the country without proper checks and balances. We know they've let motor vehicles come into the country with fairly easy to check brake linings made of asbestos, which have been illegal in Australia for many years. Even if we do introduce these bills and even if we do want to have low-emission engines, we need to make sure that imported engines, which are the majority of what we use in Australia, are properly tested by Customs and by pollution control authorities.</para>
<para>I commend the bill, and I commend it as something that really should've happened a long time ago. I ask that Minister Frydenberg urgently develop an energy and emissions policy to protect the Australian people. I also ask the government to fully implement the recommendations of the Finkel report. I ask them to reassure the Australian people that they are actually doing something about our environmental pollution. And I ask them to develop an energy policy that can reassure people that their power bills won't continue to skyrocket, and that we do have a clear and appropriate emissions policy so that power companies can develop mechanisms to develop their resources appropriately. We are crying out for leadership in this debate. I am grateful for the members supporting the bill, but it is only part of what is a very big picture. It is time for courage from this reactionary government. Thank you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those in favour say aye, those against no. I think the noes have it.</para>
<para>An opposition member: The ayes have it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9592</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5932" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9592</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9592</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5933" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9592</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>9592</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" 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" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a href="r5934" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9592</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>9592</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation</title>
          <page.no>9592</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>9592</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in this place today to stand up and fight for regional jobs. I cannot talk enough about regional jobs and how much those regional jobs mean to my community in Herbert. Jobs truly matter to regional Queenslanders, and jobs are critically important, as I have said, in my electorate of Herbert. Townsville's unemployment is currently just under 10 per cent, and our youth unemployment is just under 25 per cent. People in the Herbert community want not only the promise of a job but a secure and well-paid job.</para>
<para>Under the Turnbull government, job security in regional Queensland has become a thing of the past. Everyone that I have spoken with in Townsville simply wants to be able to take a breath, relax and feel secure that their job is safe. I have met people who have given 26 years of loyal experience to their employer, who work full-time and yet feel that their job security is under threat at this point in time. It is a sad day when a permanent, full-time employee does not feel that his or her job is safe under this Turnbull government.</para>
<para>It is not just the tradies, the sparkies or the miners who are feeling that their jobs are under threat; it is also people who work in what used to be known as cushy, safe, government jobs. This is because the Turnbull government have started to attack the public servants in their own departments. The government have started culling jobs in government departments left, right and centre. This carnage is happening in Townsville, where hundreds of public sector jobs have been cut. If the Turnbull government want to know how they can create jobs in the regions, they could start by replacing the jobs that they've cut.</para>
<para>The Turnbull government has cut 200 jobs from the Australian Taxation Office in Townsville alone. The Turnbull government has closed the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, forcing five of our local veterans out of a job and ending any sort of career transition pathway for our local veterans and ex-service personnel. The Turnbull government has cut more than 19 jobs from the CSIRO, with five more to go this year. The Turnbull government has relocated two Department of Veterans' Affairs positions to Brisbane. I ask you: when did Brisbane become regional?</para>
<para>On top of all of this, the Turnbull government has threatened to close the Bureau of Meteorology in Townsville. Has the Prime Minister already forgotten the devastation caused by Cyclone Debbie? Has the Prime Minister forgotten the destruction of Cyclone Yasi? How could the Prime Minister possibly even think it would be wise to close the Bureau of Meteorology office in tropical North Queensland? The great work of the Bureau of Meteorology's office in Townsville has saved many lives over the years and decades. It is because of their great, on-the-ground local knowledge and networks that they have been able to act quickly to provide local and relevant information to local councils, the state government, Defence and of course the broader community. Governments, businesses, community organisations and the broader community were able to prepare quickly, thanks to the great work on the ground of the staff at the Bureau of Meteorology, thus saving lives in our recent episode with Cyclone Debbie. Tropical cyclones are a regular threat to the people of North Queensland, and I say to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull: closing this office shows how completely out of touch you really are with regional communities.</para>
<para>I am calling out the bare-faced myths of the Turnbull government and in particular the misinformation peddled by the candidate for New Zealand, the New Zealander of the year, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. The Turnbull government's budget has highlighted the absolute hypocrisy of the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, and his regional jobs plan, because nowhere in this year's budget has funding been allocated for government departments and services to be decentralised. The Deputy Prime Minister has delivered a false message to regional areas regarding his so-called decentralisation plan. I have spoken to and with disappointed organisations in North Queensland who have now seen that the Deputy Prime Minister does not truly care about regional Queensland. No funding in the budget for jobs—this has been a kick in the guts, a stab in the back and salt rubbed into our wounds. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister can be assured that North Queenslanders will not forget this.</para>
<para>The issues paper released by the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation has so far identified a number of suggestions for regional development. I urge the Turnbull government to listen to some of these suggestions, because they are pertinent and meaningful for the regions. The issues paper outlines the Regional Australia Institute discussion paper, <inline font-style="italic">The future of regional Australia: change on our terms</inline> and states that governments 'continue to have a role in providing the right political and policy settings for fostering regional growth.' The federal government has a key role in assisting to shape and develop policy which will directly impact on the growth and successes of regional Australia. But the Turnbull government's policy of cutting jobs in regional Australia, with more than 200 jobs lost in Townsville alone, is definitely not a policy that Townsville wants and not the policy that Townsville needs.</para>
<para>If you want to understand regional Queensland then you have to go to regional Queensland. The Prime Minister will not get to understand regional Queensland by sitting in his Canberra office, making policies. He needs to visit the regions regularly and talk with the people so that he actually gets what it is like to live in regional, rural and remote Queensland. We don't want the Turnbull government's cockatoo service of fly in, drop mess all over us and fly out. Townsville wants real action and a genuine commitment to creating jobs. Townsville isn't asking for much, Prime Minister Turnbull—just a chance to have a good, secure job and enough money to pay for a roof over our heads, put food on the table, educate our children and have access to quality health care. Townsville is just demanding the bare necessities and we are not even getting that.</para>
<para>Townsville is also asking for a sound regional decentralisation policy that would assist our ex-service personnel and veterans as they transition from the Army. Townsville is the largest home to the defence forces in the country and therefore we have the largest population of veterans and ex-service personnel. They are screaming out for jobs as they transition into civilian life. I say to the Prime Minister: 'We are just demanding the bare necessities and we are not even getting that at the moment.' I urge the people of Townsville to lodge a submission to this very important inquiry because our future may well depend on it.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 12:22 to 16:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>9594</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>9594</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>9594</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I've been horrified to read of the evidence presented in this inquiry. I'm horrified that in 2017 there are 45.8 million people living in slavery around the world—almost twice the population of Australia. I'm horrified that human trafficking, forced labour, sexual slavery, child labour and trafficking, domestic servitude, forced marriage, bonded labour, including debt bondage and slavery, are still being inflicted on our fellow human beings in the 21st century.</para>
<para>It is estimated that around two million children, some as young as eight years old—the same age as my youngest son—are being used as child slave labour on cocoa plantations in Africa. These children are living in terrible conditions and given little food, they're not being educated, and they're made to work in the hot sun for long hours with beatings being not uncommon. Some of these children have been abducted or kidnapped before being made to work. These are the children who are producing much of the three million tonnes of chocolate consumed in Australia each year. We cannot sit back and allow this cruelty to continue, not on our watch.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to be a member of this committee that has recommended the government consider supporting the development of a modern slavery act in Australia. But enacting a modern slavery act is only the start. There is already legislation designed to combat modern slavery enacted in the United Kingdom, in France, in Canada and throughout the European Union. Labor has already committed to a modern slavery act, an act that would have penalties for noncompliance. The committee, in its report, gives in-principle support for developing a modern slavery act in Australia, including mandatory supply chain reporting requirements for companies, businesses, organisations and governments.</para>
<para>Two-thirds of the 45.8 million people trapped in slavery or slavery-like conditions are in our neighbourhood, in the Asia-Pacific region. These people are right on our doorstep. Many of these people are enslaved in the global supply chains of companies that provide products and services to Australians every day. The chocolate that we eat is but one example. Exploitation is occurring in industries such as manufacturing, construction and agriculture. Australian companies have acknowledged to the committee that they have found forms of forced labour in their own company supply chains, and these are well-known companies like Fortescue Metals and Wesfarmers.</para>
<para>There was significant support in the inquiry for supply chain reporting from NGOs, charities, religious leaders, unions, legal experts and consumers in particular, but there was also support for supply chain reporting from the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions—two groups that don't always agree on things. The ACTU submitted that supply chain reporting is a game-changer in fighting slavery in supply chains. There was widespread support from Australian businesses for legislative measures to address the risk of modern slavery in their supply chains. Businesses in the retail and clothing sector, the food and grocery sector, the mining sector, and the finance and investment sector all acknowledged the need for supply chain reporting.</para>
<para>Not only is modern slavery reprehensible and completely unacceptable in any supply chain, but it is also economically unsound for companies to ignore this issue. The Responsible Investment Association Australasia told the committee that modern slavery in supply chains:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… when poorly managed, may impact negatively on the long-term value of companies …</para></quote>
<para>The committee has given in principle support to key elements of the United Kingdom's model of supply chain reporting, and obviously many of the great Australian companies already operate in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions that have supply chain reporting requirements. The UK legislation requires annual reporting of steps taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in any part of its business or supply chains. The statements need to be approved by the board of directors and signed off by a director. The committee heard support for the UK model—in particular, the requirement that board-level approval was required. The Australian Food and Grocery Council in support of that model said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the real change here will come from elevating this to a board level—</para></quote>
<para>where the board is signing off on the assurances. The committee heard very positive accounts from companies operating in Australia, as I said, who are already required to report under the United Kingdom's legislation, and they can talk to their fellow companies about what the requirements are. The United Kingdom Home Office made a submission to the inquiry and reported that early signs of the impact of the legislation were promising.</para>
<para>I attended a human rights conference in London in January and met with people who are advocates for this. It is certainly popular throughout the Commonwealth and among other nations that were there as part of that Commonwealth human rights gathering. This will roll out to other countries, and not just those in the Commonwealth.</para>
<para>The committee also recommended that the Australian government consider supporting the implementation of an independent antislavery commissioner. When we talk about slavery, we don't think about it happening here, in Australia, in 2017. But, sadly, there are estimated to be around 4,300 people trapped in slavery in Australia, right now—today.</para>
<para>It is often difficult for the victims of modern slavery to get justice. The Josephite Counter-Trafficking Project in their submission to the inquiry said that human traffickers prey on the vulnerable. Often the victims of human trafficking are from poor areas and have low levels of education. The Human Trafficking Resource and Assistance Centre reported to the inquiry that Australia is predominantly a destination country for trafficked women and girls forced into the sex trade and for adults, including men, forced into labour—yet another reason why we need strong unions and a strong government regulator when it comes to our labour market and labour supply.</para>
<para>There are, on average, 25 allegations of trafficking in persons reported to the Australian Federal Police each year. Despite that, the number of convictions is, sadly, very small. Since 2004, there have been only nine convictions of slavery offences, three convictions of sexual servitude offences and one conviction of a people-trafficking offence. The Human Trafficking Resource and Assistance Centre reports that, in several Australian cases involving sexual exploitation, women have been made to work under deprived conditions to pay off fabricated and unlawful debts enforced by the offenders, ranging from $18,000 to $53,000. The victims often have their passports confiscated and are forced to work 12 hours per day, seven days per week, and even when ill.</para>
<para>The introduction of an antislavery commissioner would provide oversight of supply chain reporting, and that is what is considered in the committee's interim report. But the other key role of a commissioner would be in law enforcement and victim support. I note that the committee will be considering the exact role of an Australian independent antislavery commissioner in its final report.</para>
<para>There are lessons to be learnt from the other countries, particularly the United Kingdom. They have had a strong role in this. And I acknowledge the role of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, who actually had a lead in this when she was a minister. I'd also like to acknowledge another politician, or former politician, and that is former senator Chris Evans from Western Australia, who has been pivotal in working with some of the Western Australian companies in this area and taking a lead on making sure this is rolled out.</para>
<para>It is our responsibility to end modern slavery now. We all have a role to play, whether as consumers, company directors or lawmakers. I'm pleased to support the tabling of this interim report and look forward to the government of Australia leading businesses to embrace the enabling legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to take the opportunity to commend the work of the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in their inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia and also looking at the global supply chains. The broad support of the committee in its interim report for a modern slavery act—including supply chain reporting requirements for companies, businesses, organisations of all kinds and governments—as well as the in-principle commitment to the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner are really good to see. I'd like to speak about some of these elements even though I haven't been on the committee.</para>
<para>Firstly, though, I'd like to talk about the women I've met who have been slaves. This inquiry has, rightly, been focused on supply chains that businesses operating in Australia use and the relative lack of reporting that we have compared to other nations, like the UK. But, of course, we do have slavery happening here, and I'm very pleased that the committee's looked at that too. I was privileged in my pre-politics life to work with an organisation that helped slaves, and that's where my eyes were opened to just how scarily easy it is for someone to be enslaved. The Salvation Army's Freedom Partnership supports people who were slaves. One woman was working as a housekeeper and child carer. She had no freedom, no rights and no independence; her whole life was ruled by the family. She had no opportunity to contact her own family, yet she was able, through contact with one human being, to escape that situation, and now she's on a path of recovery. Another woman—a young, intelligent woman—had been trafficked by a pimp from Australia across several countries. It was thanks to her evidence that a major joint operation by Australian and US authorities led to the arrest of this man and his jailing in the United States. It's her story to tell and I'm not going to tell it, but what I saw was enormous bravery from both these women to recognise that the situation they were in was not one where they were free. They needed to get out and they had somewhere to turn to for help. The stories are painful and the details are painful, and I was so privileged to be able to help them tell their stories. We need to ensure that an antislavery commissioner is there to help victims like these, the victims of modern slavery, right here in Australia, right now.</para>
<para>This committee report also seeks to address the issues facing women, men and children whose stories we are much less likely to hear, often because they're not in Australia or they're very hidden. It's about how we as consumers unwittingly support their slavery in the decisions that we make. I'm very supportive of an Australian modern slavery act that would require major Australian companies to publicly report on the steps they're taking to tackle slavery in their business or supply chain. It would ensure no Australian company is either directly or indirectly engaged in modern slavery. Members of my community met with me about these issues last month. Libby Sorrell and Yvonne Harrison are part of Stop the Traffik, which is a coalition of organisations and includes the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans, ACRATH, whom I also met with recently—and I'm sure other members in this place have as well. I want to echo their concerns, some of which are highlighted in this interim report. I also particularly want to note that it's thanks to Libby Sorrell that I became aware of the push to have an act that would prevent and respond to modern slavery in Australia, so I offer my thanks to Libby.</para>
<para>One concern that my constituents have is the threshold at which companies will be required to report. A figure is obviously really difficult to come up with, but I'd urge the committee and the drafters of any subsequent legislation to have a model which considers the level of risk involved. A big business with complete visibility in its supply chain is lower risk than a small or medium business with a supply chain across a number of countries which are high risk and in an industry which is high risk. As the committee's evidence has shown, we know that several of our neighbouring nations are more likely to have people living in slavery. Production in those countries may be considered higher risk. We also know some industries in some places—agriculture, mining and manufacturing—carry higher risk. So I'd urge real thought to be given to the best way to determine who is required to report and who's allowed to have a choice to opt in. I was pleased to see the committee gives in-principle support for lists of at-risk industries, at-risk areas and at-risk groups in Australia and with the Australian supply chains and for those lists to be published by the government.</para>
<para>Another issue that has come up is around the central registry of these documents. The reports on supply chains and antislavery efforts need to be available and accessible. Baptist World Aid, who compile the <inline font-style="italic">Ethical Fashion Report</inline>, suggest using a standard template that would allow an easy comparison of data. I note that the interim report talks about flexibility in reporting but at the same time recognises that reporting requirements should be clear for businesses and organisations. I know that a number of Australian businesses are already reporting in other countries that they operate in and that they are very comfortable in extending their reporting requirements to Australia.</para>
<para>I want to talk about penalties. It's all very well to have recommended legislation, but I think we need to be looking at penalties. It's really crucial that penalties be part of any modern slavery act. I'm disappointed to see that the committee does not in principle support penalties, as it says they may act as a deterrent to companies investigating the ethics of their supply chain. We should not leave big business to police itself. It doesn't have a great track record of it. Without penalties, any act is toothless and, quite frankly, will be a disappointment to people who've been fighting for this for a very long time.</para>
<para>I want to go back to the recognition in this report that there needs to be an independent antislavery commissioner. I realise that the committee will address this issue in more detail in its final report. The role of the commissioner can include working with companies to assist them in establishing practices to avoid slavery in their supply chains with guidelines and resources. A commissioner can make sure victims are connected to necessary support services, and we already have some of those support services here in Australia. A commissioner could investigate reported slavery, and it can be constantly prompting and advocating on this issue in the way that community members from my electorate have been doing for many years.</para>
<para>In 2015 Australia agreed to support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Member states have a target to meet these objectives by 2030. Goal 8.7 is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms</para></quote>
<para>Surely this is not too much to ask. The only way Australian consumers can be aware of the potential connection between the products they consume and human trafficking, forced labour and slavery is if all organisations are required to be transparent about the way their products are sourced or made. The only way we can fulfil our international commitment on this issue is to have really robust legislation and an eagle eye on those supply chains.</para>
<para>There are nearly 50 million people estimated to be living in slavery around the world. Two-thirds are in the Asia-Pacific region, and 4,300 of them are in Australia now. I want to thank the committee members for their hearings and work to date, and I look forward to a final report being a blueprint for Australia to truly tackle modern slavery.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great pleasure to rise on this occasion to speak to a matter that really goes to the heart of universal human rights. The Australian parliament and Labor's Doc Evatt were instrumental in the formation of the United Nations and the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so this parliament has both a longstanding attachment to international laws and order and a deep commitment to human rights.</para>
<para>I guess it's been a long time coming, but it gives me great pleasure that this parliament is now turning its attention to the issue of modern slavery. I know that it comes as a shock to many people when you begin this discussion about modern slavery, because for many people their first response is, 'Surely not; this doesn't exist.' But it is, in fact, estimated that there are 45.8 million people trapped in slavery and slavery-like conditions worldwide. That, to our great shame, is more than at any other time in human history. That is a pretty shocking thing to reflect on. Two-thirds of those 45.8 million people trapped in slavery are found in our very own Asia-Pacific region.</para>
<para>So Australia has a very big role to play in this area, and that's why I'm delighted to be standing here in support as a member of both the subcommittee that has drafted this interim report and, indeed, the larger Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It has been an inquiry that has enjoyed bipartisan support. There are some points of differences, which I will go to, but there is amongst the committee a very, very deep commitment to seeing an Australian modern slavery act.</para>
<para>In Australia alone, a country assumed to be long rid of this horrible scourge, there are an estimated 4½ thousand people living in slavery—in our own country. These people tend to be men, women and children trapped in forced labour, sex traffic and debt bondage, living lives of unimaginable trauma, often under the control of criminal organisations. And yet, whilst we know this is going on, there is a real lack of public recognition of modern slavery by most Australians. They are unaware that this slavery still exists, not only internationally but in our own backyards.</para>
<para>The time has come to acknowledge that slavery is not just a historic concept; it is, tragically, hidden but a very real part of our society. The time has come also to take action to fix the significant gaps in the Commonwealth's response to the problem of slavery. We need an Australian modern slavery act to improve transparency within business supply chains and to help break the chains of modern slavery in Australia.</para>
<para>Labor have long supported going down this path and indeed announced a policy, many months ago now, that we would in fact introduce an Australian modern slavery act, that that act would include supply-chain reporting requirements for major Australian companies and that it would establish an independent antislavery commissioner. Both recommendations, I'm pleased to say, are strongly supported by this interim report.</para>
<para>Labor, I am proud to say, has absolutely led the way on this issue. Earlier this year, Bill Shorten and Labor committed to a modern slavery act with penalties for noncompliance and, as I said, an independent antislavery commissioner. This response will ensure that Australia is at the forefront of the fight against modern slavery and will create the infrastructure necessary to make a real difference in combating this problem.</para>
<para>The Turnbull government have recently followed Labor's lead and committed similarly to a modern slavery act, and that's to be commended. Regrettably, they have so far failed to commit to the penalties for noncompliance or to the establishment of this fully independent antislavery commissioner, although I am hopeful that on both these fronts there is room for the committee to do further investigation. Both are crucial recommendations to ensure that the modern slavery act that we arrive at here in Australia is in fact an improvement on those existing elsewhere.</para>
<para>While Labor have acknowledged that the government's agreement in some parts is a great step in the right direction, we would say it just doesn't go far enough. The government really need to strengthen their resolve on this issue and commit to powerful penalties for those who propagate slavery and to back in the independent antislavery commissioner. Slavery is a cruel and barbaric practice. The fact that the government have yet to commit to imposing penalties on those big businesses that breach the modern slavery act is not acceptable, in my view. The need for penalties is reflected in the interim report, so the committee is very alive to this issue. We have indeed recommended—there's further discussion there—that penalties and compliance measures would in fact aid the enforcement of the act. That is why Labor supports a modern slavery act with these penalties and non-compliance measures. That's what gives the act the teeth it needs to actually operate effectively and to really make inroads into what we all agree is an utterly barbaric practice.</para>
<para>Labor will enforce supply chain reporting requirements for all businesses—that is the commitment we have made—ensuring no Australian company is directly or indirectly engaged in modern slavery. Major Australian companies would be required to comply with that. These companies would be required to report to government annually on the steps they have taken to ensure modern slavery is not occurring in their businesses or indeed anywhere in their supply chains. They would do so through making a slavery and human trafficking statement. There really is no alternative. We've had discussions with a number of other international jurisdictions here. It seems that the issue of compliance is critical to the successful abolition of practices both domestically and also further down the supply chain, to ensuring that we stamp out modern slavery. Baptist World Aid has suggested that currently 31 per cent of companies know that more than 75 per cent of their input suppliers have had issues around being involved in some of those antislavery practices.</para>
<para>We face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to partner with business to help stamp out this abhorrent practice with legislation that will actually make a difference. An Australian modern slavery act must have an effective compliance regime. That's the argument I've made here and that I'll continue to press in our committee deliberations. There is no hope unless we as a society take strong action—not action that will simply have an impact limited to Australia but action that will help people held in slavery and slavery-like conditions elsewhere. That's why Labor has long committed to an anti-slavery commissioner to ensure that there is help for victims of modern slavery right here in Australia and to fight slavery both here and overseas. We call on the government to now commit to doing the same. The hidden nature of modern slavery makes it very difficult for authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute incidents when they do occur, so you need every tool in your kit in order to stamp out these abhorrent practices when you have the opportunity.</para>
<para>I commend this interim report to the House. I think there is more work to be done, but it's an absolutely terrific start.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 16:29</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>