2018-02-08 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 8 February 2018

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

 

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 1 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 1 09:31 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I am making a short statement today to the House on the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The royal commission delivered its final report to the Governor-General on 15 December 2017. The report is the product of five years of hard and harrowing work for all those involved, and today we honour the bravest among them—the survivors and their families. They relived the worst moments of their lives, often telling their stories for the first time, so that these terrible abuses will never be allowed to happen again. The report's 409 recommendations propose significant reforms to ensure that children in the care of any Australian institution are protected. There is no more important obligation for every Australian adult than keeping our children safe from harm. Reading some of the witness statements, it's clear that being heard and being believed mean so much to the survivors, so much more than many of us would imagine—three words: 'I believe you', coming after years, often decades, of authorities' denial of responsibility. Over the course of the royal commission, more than 16,000 individuals made contact with the commission and the commission has heard more than 8,000 personal stories. More than 1,000 survivors provided a written account. These were not isolated or only historic cases; more than 4,000 individual institutions were reported as places where abuse has occurred. The youngest victim the royal commission interviewed was seven years of age. He had recently been abused. Some of the victims are still at school now. More than half of the survivors were aged between 10 and 14 years when they were sexually abused. Victims often do not disclose sexual abuse until many years later, and the survivors in the private sessions took around 24 years on average to tell somebody about their abuse. Now that those stories have been told, now that they are on the record, we must do everything within our power to honour those stories and to act. I am committed and my government is committed to doing everything possible to make sure that this national tragedy is never repeated. I urge all Australian governments and the non-government sector—churches, charities and other institutions—to respond to the report by June, as was recommended by the royal commission. To coordinate this formidable effort, my government has established a task force within the Attorney-General's Department. My government has already begun progressing some of the report's key recommendations, in conjunction with the states and territories. We've developed the National Statement of Principles for Child Safe Organisations, and these 10 principles will provide the basis for a culture of child safety in all places providing services to or care for children. I look forward to Friday's COAG meeting agreeing to those principles. We are also strengthening the Working with Children checks. We're leading the development of nationally consistent standards for screening, and last year the former Attorney-General wrote to states and territories offering to fund the creation of a national database to enable these checks to occur. These changes will ensure that only the most trusted people will be allowed to have children in their care. The redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse is another recommendation adopted by my government. The scheme will commence on 1 July and it's important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is about unequivocally accepting that the events occurred. The significance of those three words—'I believe you'—cannot be overstated. Secondly, the scheme recognises the suffering that survivors have endured as a result. Thirdly, the scheme is designed to ensure that institutions take responsibility for the abuse that occurred on their watch, perpetrated by their people, people entrusted with caring for our children, and some of the most vulnerable children. But the scheme will fulfil its promise of justice only if we have maximum participation across all jurisdictions. For this to occur, the states must take urgent action and refer the appropriate power to the Commonwealth in order for them to participate from 1 July. We have been working closely with each jurisdiction to encourage their participation in the scheme. Unless the states agree to participate, institutions within their jurisdictions will not be able to join. Survivors deserve much better and I urge the premiers in all the jurisdictions to prioritise this work and join the redress scheme without further delay. I also urge the non-government institutions to commit now to joining the scheme. We owe it to the survivors not to waste this moment, and we must continue to be guided by their wishes. My government will appoint a survivor-focused reference group to facilitate the delivery of a national apology to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and to advise us on its form and content. On behalf of the nation, I will deliver that apology before the end of the year. As a nation, we must mark this occasion in a form that reflects the wishes of survivors and affords them the dignity to which they were entitled as children but which was denied to them by the very people who were tasked with their care. I take a moment now to express the government's and the parliament's deepest thanks to all those whose selflessness and professionalism have enabled us to shine a light on this national tragedy. I thank the commissioners, Mr Bob Atkinson, Justice Jennifer Coate, Mr Robert Fitzgerald, Professor Helen Milroy, Mr Andrew Murray, the chair of the royal commission, the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan, Senior Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC, and, in total, 680 other members of the royal commission staff, who worked with such dedication over the past five years. I acknowledge the individuals, the expert witnesses, the researchers and the government and non-government representatives who came forward to give evidence over the course of the commission. I look forward, as I'm sure do all honourable members, to doing justice to their hard work and to the survivors by ensuring that together we take the steps needed to keep our children safe. 09:38 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. … we were treated as slaves, beaten and abused, used for their perverted desires. These were terrible years. No love or kindness, no safety or warmth. Always hungry and always frightened. That's a bare 30 words from the royal commission's final report—one survivor's account of the abuse that he suffered and the betrayal he endured. It is just one story among thousands. Open almost any page of the final report and you can find words that shake us to our core. The child with disability abused daily, who couldn't get an uninterested police officer to take any notice of their plea for help. The good Catholic boy who, after each time he was abused sexually by his priest, had to go to confession and confess his sin of impurity to his abuser. And then this boy, this child, being preyed upon by this monster would be asked if he was sorry and told to do three Hail Marys for penance. There was the student who, after years of being groomed and then sexually abused by her teacher, saw her parents take his side of the argument because she was the instigator. Every story is different and every story is individual. But, in every young life broken and betrayed, there are common threads. First, there is the disgusting sense of moral superiority, the presumption that the abuser had the authority—even the right—to commit these unforgivable crimes, because they were an adult dealing with a child, or because they were white and the child was black, or because they did not have a disability and the child did, or because they claimed to be acting in the authority of religion. Second, there is the harsh reality that, no matter where the survivor turned for help, they would not be believed. They were children, seen and not heard. They could not find a counsellor to listen to their story. They could not find justice in a criminal court or compensation in a civil court. These institutions failed our fellow Australians, and then our nation did. People continue to count the cost of that failure in a hundred different way: lives of violence and addiction, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress, poverty and incarceration; lives that never recovered their equilibrium; childhood stolen from children; people who never learned to trust again, who would never love again, whose faith in their fellow human beings was shattered beyond repair. As one survivor put it: I felt dirty, and responsible for what happened to me as a child. I have isolated myself … hidden my true feelings. The loneliness I have experienced is overwhelming … Sometimes, when we say child abuse is unspeakable, actually for too long that was precisely the problem. It wasn't spoken of. Instead, the survivors were silenced. Perpetrators were protected. The reputation of powerful institutions and individuals was put ahead of the welfare of children. Truth was buried, with only trauma and scar tissue to mark its place. But the royal commission stripped away the denial and betrayal of decades. Painfully at times, it exposed the most unforgivable, unimaginable acts of evil. It has shown without doubt or exception the extraordinary courage of all of the survivors who stepped forward to tell their story, the brave souls who reached back into the darkness of their memories and brought their suffering to light, not for their own sake but because they don't want another generation to ever suffer what they did, to be disbelieved the way they were and to live with the pain that they had to. I also think they did it for all of the other kids who didn't make it. Therefore, I want to pay tribute to Julia Gillard for her leadership in establishing this royal commission. I actually think that with every passing day that decision enhances her legacy. I thank the royal commission and its staff, as the Prime Minister has done—remarkable, their work. Even though she's not going to ask me to do this, I also think the House should recognise the work of the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, who supported the endeavour with 100 per cent of her passion for social justice. I had the privilege of standing alongside Jenny and a group of the remarkable campaigners from CLAN when the commission's final day of hearings was handed down and then the report. They're extraordinary Australians, and I know many members of parliament on both sides of the House have spoken to them and know them, so they'll know what I'm saying. These are survivors. They've spent five years travelling to the royal commission hearings around the country to provide support to others as they tell their stories. I pay tribute to each and every one of them. Again, although she would modestly share credit with all others, I think it is appropriate that I note and salute the incomparable Leonie Sheedy—fierce, fearless, with a heart as big as this continent. Australia owes her and all that she represents a huge debt. I have to say about the royal commission, the commissioners and their team that at all times they balance their human compassion for those providing testimony with a legal detachment to recommend a constructive way forward. But, as the Prime Minister has done, every member of this place, I think, would agree that the hardest task, the most important work and the greatest credit belong to the survivors themselves. First, as the Prime Minister has done, I say to the survivors: 'Australia believes you. Australia thanks you. Your bravery and honesty has done something that no parliament, no court, no media outlet on its own could or would ever do. You faced us up to a hard truth about our history, and you have shown us that we must do better in the future.' I can't speak for everyone in this House or indeed Australians, but I for one was shocked at the extent of the abuse. Now it is up to our parliament and to our nation to do just that—to be better, to prove worthy of the courage of the survivors. The report cannot be left to sit on a shelf and gather dust. The stories of raw pain and powerful resilience cannot be consigned to one uncomfortable corner of the national conversation. The royal commission has given us a blueprint; we must follow it. The report calls for the Commonwealth and every state to formally respond to every recommendation within six months. It is a deadline we should meet. Since 2015 federal Labor's focus has been on the design and delivery of the national redress scheme, one where the states and the institutions responsible for the abuse help fund the compensation that is owed. Compensation in many ways is an unfair term, because anyone who has survived this knows that they are not in it for the compensation, and the compensation can never give them back their childhood or their trust. You cannot ever repair the damage done. No dollar figure can make shattered lives whole or bring people back. But that is no reason for delay, no reason for avoiding clear-cut obligations. As of today not a single dollar has come from any of the states or institutions whose names and deeds fill the pages of this report. I say to the institutions and indeed the states: the time for lawyers is over; the time for justice is here. If we believe the survivors, and we do, and if we accept responsibility, and we must, then conscience demands only one course of action: we must deliver a truly national redress scheme, one underpinned by uniformity and equity. Trauma does not stop at state borders. Justice should never depend upon your postcode. The Commonwealth has a contribution to make in dollars and in leadership. I invite the Prime Minister to think about an event at this parliament itself to thank and recognise the survivors. But, having spoken about the Commonwealth's obligations, the bulk of the funds must come from state governments and all those institutions who so badly failed their duty of care and trust to children. The money does matter. Compensation at least helps people get back on their feet a bit, but it is also a tangible admission that the institution was at fault and should pay for its wrongs. I believe that every member of this parliament feels this matter most keenly. When I was a child my mother used to take me to the Polish mass at Sacred Heart in Oakleigh. We lacked Polish ancestry. I said to my mum, 'Why do we go do this mass?' There were four other sessions. It turned out she took us to that service because she didn't like the priest, Father O'Donnell. He approached us to become altar boys. I said, 'What do you think, Mum?' She said no. How lucky was I! It is that sense of a shark swimming imperceptibly, unseen, so close to you. Chrissie and Anthony Foster at that same church, and hundreds of other families affected by this monster, were not so lucky. Thousands of Australians didn't by mere luck avoid their monsters. It is for these people that we must deliver redress. I would not wish to hear anyone describe the push for national redress as 'rushed'. Survivors have been waiting decades for justice that they are owed, and some—too many—have not even lived to see it. To everyone upon whom redress depends, I simply say this: our nation turned a blind eye to the abuse that our fellow Australians were suffering, and now we know the truth, we cannot turn our backs—no more tricky legal tactics, no more litigation to exhaustion, no more artful means of delay. The days of excusing the inexcusable are long gone. This issue is not about politics, but it is what politics should be about: doing the right thing, making good wrongs and helping the vulnerable. Fundamentally, this is a test of who we are as a parliament, as a people and as a country which calls itself the home of the fair go. I wish to conclude using the commissioner's final address. On presenting the report, he said: The sexual abuse of any child is intolerable in a civilised society. It is the responsibility of our entire community to acknowledge that children are being abused. We must each resolve that we should do what we can to protect them. The tragic impact of abuse for individuals and through them our entire society demands nothing less. Let that profound and clear statement guide us and challenge us to right the wrongs of the past and do better in the future. I thank the House. BILLS 4 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 4

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2018

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government is committed to supporting the Australian innovation ecosystem by providing a tax and regulatory environment that will help innovative Australian businesses raise capital, grow and succeed; and get more Australians into more and better-paying jobs. This government, the Turnbull government, is the government of innovation, jobs, business creation and growth. We want to see new businesses and new enterprises get off the ground and get going in creating prosperity for all Australians. As promised in the budget, we are putting in place the world's most forward-leaning regulatory sandbox for fin-tech development. The Turnbull government sees an active fin-tech sector as a critical driver of more competition in our banking and financial system. We want to see more competition, because it will increase the pressure on financial service providers—traditional and emerging—to be more responsive to customers' needs, to the needs of businesses, to the needs of families, to the needs of householders, and deliver better outcomes for Australians. I am a strong believer that choice empowers customers, households, families and small businesses, to seek the financial services that best suit their needs without being tied to businesses that don't listen to them. The enhanced regulatory sandbox will allow firms to test new products and services without needing to obtain a financial services licence or a credit licence from ASIC first. It will allow trial and error in a controlled environment, giving firms a chance to confirm their concept through initial testing with clients. In simple terms, this will help Australians and Australian businesses to access cheaper financing and better financial products so they can grow and they can invest. The productivity benefits that will flow from this are substantial. They're huge. Most investment equals more jobs and better wages. Those in business know the importance of meeting customer needs. The regulatory sandbox will provide a means to test market demand. It will give firms looking to do things differently—to do things better for customers—a real leg-up and clear air to get going. It will reduce the time it takes to make their products and services available to customers and it will mean entrepreneurs are more informed in making decisions on their offering before applying for a licence. We have worked hard to develop a legislative regulatory sandbox which builds on ASIC's licence exemption. But we have also been mindful of ensuring the firms in the regulatory sandbox maintain protections for retail customers. The government's enhanced sandbox is about helping fin-tech businesses overcome the initial regulatory burden and costs of licensing that may otherwise hinder innovative change—disruptive change that will see our banking and financial system become more competitive and more tailored to the needs of customers around the country. Schedule 1 to this bill takes the first step. It extends the regulation-making powers in the Corporations Act, establishing the foundation for the government's new framework. The regulations will then set out the detail regarding eligibility criteria, the types of products and services that can be tested, and conditions that will need to be met during testing. Prescribing the detail in regulations will mean timely adjustments can be made in response to the evolving market. This will ensure the regulatory sandbox stays fit for purpose in this rapidly moving sector. This approach, which combines legislative authority and flexibility, sets Australia apart from its international peers. The draft regulations were released for public consultation between late October and November of last year. The government will consider those responses as we work to finalise the design of the regulations. Under the proposal released for consultation, businesses will be able to test a wider range of new and innovative fin-tech products and services. This includes holistic financial advice, the issuing of consumer credit contracts and facilitating crowdsourced funding. An extended 24-month testing time frame was proposed and will give more time for businesses to adjust their offering as they evaluate commercial interest and test the validity of their concepts. As I've mentioned, while businesses will be able to operate without a licence, they will still be required to meet key consumer protection requirements, including responsible lending obligations, best interests duty, and to have adequate compensation and dispute resolution arrangements. I believe the regulatory sandbox will be a game changer for Australia. It will support businesses that can revolutionise the financial services sector, bring the positive disruption that brings real benefits to customers right across the spectrum of innovation, including payments, insurance, credit, data and analytics and personal finance management. Customers are already benefiting from the emergence of fin-tech firms. These nimble and consumer focused firms are putting pressure on traditional financial service providers and models to be more responsive and to deliver better outcomes for Australians—Australians that would get locked out on the opportunity to access capital. These firms, these innovations, bring the channel of finance that can see their business dreams, their economic dreams, being realised. I would like to thank the fin-tech sector for their work with the government—their very proactive work with the government—to develop the regulatory sandbox and other initiatives we have progressed in the last two years. The regulatory sandbox will no doubt be a source of many breakthrough innovations in fin-tech in the coming years. Schedule 2 to this bill makes a number of minor technical amendments to the early stage venture capital limited partnership, venture capital limited partnership and tax incentives for early stage investor regimes to clarify the income tax law and ensure that these provisions operate in accordance with their original policy intent. The tax incentives for early stage investors measure and the new arrangements for venture capital limited partnerships measure were introduced as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Together, these measures are designed to promote an innovative, risk-taking and entrepreneurial culture by providing incentives for investors to invest in Australian innovative, high-growth potential start-ups and venture capital. This is where growth comes from. This is where more and better-paid jobs come from. This is where higher wages come from. The amendments being made by this bill will ensure that investors in innovative Australian businesses continue to benefit from effective, generous government support and have certainty as to how these programs are intended to operate. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 5

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 2) Bill 2018

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 10:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government wants all Australians to be able to buy a home, where they can, and access housing that is affordable. Housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of all Australians and is a driver of social and economic participation, promoting better employment, education and health outcomes. This bill implements measures announced in the government's 2017-18 budget housing package to improve housing affordability, encourage investment in affordable rental housing and improve the integrity of the tax system. The measures in this bill support those already introduced by the Turnbull government as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. This bill is an important step to ensuring homeownership is more achievable for Australians. Schedule 1 to this bill delivers on the government's commitment to implement stronger rules for foreign residents owning Australian housing to reduce pressure on housing affordability. Schedule 2 to this bill contains technical amendments to support changes announced in the 2017-18 budget to streamline the foreign investment framework. Schedule 3 to this bill delivers on the government's commitment to introduce tax incentives to boost investment in affordable housing, to create the right incentives and improve outcomes for those in need. I will now discuss each of these schedules in more detail. Schedule 1 to this bill implements two of three reforms announced in the 2017-18 budget, to improve tax integrity and reduce pressure on housing affordability by changing the capital gains tax rules for foreign residents. Firstly, foreign residents will be denied access to the main residence capital gains tax exemption from 7.30 pm Australian eastern standard time on 9 May 2017—budget night. A grandfathering arrangement will apply for properties already held at that time, with the change taking effect for these properties from 1 July 2019. The main residence exemption allows individuals to disregard a capital gain they make on the sale of a property established as their main residence. No longer allowing foreign residents to claim this exemption will send a clear message that foreign residents will have to comply with our stringent capital gains tax rules. Secondly, this schedule addresses an integrity issue with the capital gains tax rules for foreign residents that hold indirect interests in Australian real property, such as land, from 7.30 pm AEST on 9 May 2017. Foreign residents are required to pay tax on capital gains made in relation to interests in Australian real property, including indirect interests, where certain tests are met. This reform addresses an integrity issue with one of these tests—the principal asset test—to require a foreign resident to consider any interests held by its associates, if it disposes of an indirect interest in Australian real property for example by selling shares in a land rich company. This integrity fix will ensure that the principal asset test cannot be circumvented by disaggregating holdings of membership interests. I would like to thank those that contributed to the public consultation on the draft legislation for these two reforms, held between 21 July and 15 August 2017. The third reform announced in the 2017-18 budget, expanding the foreign resident capital gains tax withholding regime, has already been enacted and came into effect on 1 July 2017. The regime was expanded by increasing the withholding rate from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent, and decreasing the withholding threshold from $2 million to $750,000 to capture more properties. Combined, these three integrity measures are expected to have a gain to revenue of $570 million over the forward estimates period. Schedule 2 to this bill contains technical amendments that introduce a reconciliation fee on developers for dwellings sold to foreign persons under a near-new dwelling exemption certificate. The near-new dwelling exemption certificate was introduced through regulatory amendments that took effect from 24 June 2017. Schedule 3 to this bill allows resident investors in qualifying affordable rental housing to obtain a capital gains tax discount of up to 60 per cent from 1 January 2018. Currently, capital gains tax arising from the sale of capital gains tax assets of individuals that are held for at least 12 months generally receive a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount. This includes residential investment properties that are supplied for affordable housing. Under this measure, an additional capital gains tax discount will be available to resident investors—mums and dads—who hold affordable housing directly or through certain trusts, such as holding units within a managed investment trust. Qualifying affordable housing will need to be managed through a registered community housing provider and provided as affordable housing for at least three years. Community housing providers will be responsible for assessing tenant eligibility. The government does not want to duplicate state and territory housing policies, so community housing providers will need to assess tenant eligibility against relevant state and territory housing policies and registration requirements. We respect the role of state and territory governments in pursuing affordable housing policies and making the necessary assessments of where these measures should be targeted in their jurisdictions. This measure encourages increased investment in affordable rental housing and forms part of the government's broader housing affordability package announced in the 2017-18 budget. This measure is estimated to have a cost to revenue of $15 million over the forward estimates period. Again, I would like to thank those that contributed to the public consultation on the draft legislation for these measures. In conclusion, the government through this bill is creating the right incentives as part of our comprehensive and targeted plan to improve outcomes for Australians across the housing spectrum. Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-new Dwelling Interests) Bill 2018 7

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-new Dwelling Interests) Bill 2018

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 10:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill contains technical amendments to support changes announced in the 2017-18 budget that streamlined the foreign investment framework. These amendments introduce a reconciliation fee on developers for dwellings sold to foreign persons under a near-new dwelling exemption certificate. The near-new dwelling exemption certificate was introduced through regulatory amendments that took effect from 24 June 2017. This bill is further evidence of the government getting on with the job, reducing compliance, making the law more fair and getting reforms done. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 7

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 10:08 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, the government introduces the additional estimates appropriation bills. These bills are: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018; and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $1.4 billion. I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill. First, this bill would provide the Department of Home Affairs with approximately $576 million, including for further support for regional processing arrangements and additional support for processing increasing numbers of visa applications. Second, the Department of Education and Training would receive approximately $95 million. This includes just over $69 million for enhancing the current National Computational Infrastructure supercomputer at the Australian National University to bring it to current world-class standards. Third, the Attorney-General's Department would receive approximately $70 million. This includes approximately $38 million in 2017-18 for the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018 8

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 10:11 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, which was introduced a moment ago, are the additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $133 million. I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill. First, this bill would provide the Department of Education and Training with just over $27 million. This includes approximately $24 million for payments to the states and territories to implement national reforms in the non-government school sector and to help schools transition to the new schools-funding arrangements. This forms part of the additional funding for the Quality Schools reform package. Second, the Department of Human Services would receive just under $16 million in 2017-18 including capital funding of around $11 million to implement three projects being brought forward to tranche 2 of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program. This program will progressively replace Centrelink's ageing technology platform. Third, the Office of National Assessments would receive approximately $12 million in capital funding as part of the establishment of the Office of National Intelligence. This bill also proposes the repeal of 15 old annual appropriation acts from 2012-13 and 2013‑14. This is simply a housekeeping measure, as the appropriations in these acts either have been exhausted or are no longer required. Schedule 3 of the bill provides a list of the annual appropriation acts proposed for repeal. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules 1 and 2 to the bill and the portfolio additional estimate statements tabled in the parliament. I commend this bill. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 8 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 8 Membership 8 10:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Bartlett has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. BUSINESS 9 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 9 10:13 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I declare that the Federation Chamber order of the day relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 is returned to the House for further consideration. Ordered that this bill be considered at a later hour this day. BILLS 9 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 9

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017

Second Reading 9 10:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Firstly, I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. This bill delivers on the remainder of the government's enterprise tax plan introduced in the 2016-17 budget. The first element of that plan, which has been previously legislated for firms earning up to $50 million in turnover each year, was a watershed change for businesses around this country, particularly for small businesses earning between $2 million and $10 million in turnover each year. Not only does that reduce the tax rate for those businesses but it also provides businesses that have a turnover up to $10 million access to the small business tax incentives: the instant asset write-off, pool depreciation and GST on a cash flow basis. All of these are important measures that assist genuine small businesses which, this government believes, are businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million. That is a different view to those who sit opposite. The Labor Party believe a small business should only be defined as a business earning up to $2 million. The Henry review suggested it should have been up to $5 million, and we thought it should go further than that. A business earning up to $10 million can have some 22 employees. It is not Google or Microsoft or any of those sorts of businesses—they're genuine small businesses which we find in all of our electorates. This government provided those businesses with the most significant tax relief that those types of businesses have ever seen, because we understand small businesses. We know what a small business is. We know where they are, we know what they need, we know the support they need and we know the recognition they need. That's why we legislated tax relief—tax cuts—for small businesses, and the Labor Party opposed it. We know, because the Labor Party have said—in relation to these measures and in relation to the $65 billion of estimated revenue impacts over the 10 years, which includes the tax relief to not just businesses earning between $2 million and $10 million but businesses all the way to zero in turnover—that they have factored that into their costings. They've spent all that money and they still have a deficit which is greater than what the coalition put forward at the last election. They spent all that and then spent more and then had an even worse fiscal position. It's clear that the Labor Party, if they are elected at the next election, have factored into their costings the reversal of tax cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses. The bill that's now before the House would see the next cab off the rank—businesses earning between $50 million and $100 million—get a tax cut. It's bad enough that the Labor Party would deny those businesses that. Again, they're not multinationals or even big domestic companies necessarily but businesses in South Australia, businesses in Tasmania—businesses all around the country—that are modest, growing and hungry businesses that want to put more and more Australians into jobs. I cannot understand how keeping taxes high for these businesses helps them employ more Australians or boost their wages. It doesn't make any sense. I know there are plenty of critics of the government's plan that we have consistently held to, that we took to an election and that we won an election on; it was confirmed by the Australian people. I know that. But what of the question put to the counterfactual? How on earth does keeping business taxes high help one business employ one more Australian or give one more Australian a wage rise or help them invest one more dollar in their business—in plant, in equipment, in technology, in training, in developing new products or in going after new markets? Keeping business taxes high is a complete numpty of an idea. It doesn't make any sense. Anyone who thinks that's good economic policy has absolutely lost their economic compass and cannot find their way around the economic debate in this country. We're putting forward the continuation of our plan to continue to drive the jobs and the growth that we are seeing. Last year over 400,000 jobs were created. That was a record year for jobs growth, eclipsing all others since records were first taken for jobs in this country. It is stronger than the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government's best years, stronger than the Howard government's best years, stronger than the Keating government's best years, stronger than the Hawke government's best years, stronger than the Fraser government's best years and stronger than the Whitlam government's best years—the strongest jobs growth on record. It's part of a plan. It's not the whole plan. There's our $75 billion infrastructure investment, which we know is equally, for similar reasons, supporting investment in our economy, supporting growth and supporting the case for strong wage outcomes for Australians. There's our investment and stickability when it comes to the issue of opening up new markets through trade. That's something the Labor Party used to believe in but, like everything else, have changed their tune on. We stick to things, and we're sticking to this plan. We're sticking to this plan because we know it's in the economic interests of Australians. It's often said to me, 'It's unpopular with some.' That may cause the Labor Party to lose their faith, to lose their belief and to lose their conviction that these things are good for the economy. But what I do know is popular is this: more and better paid jobs. As a government you've got to be prepared to do the things that achieve those outcomes and not go to water the first time that someone makes a criticism of your policy. This government will not relent to that. We stick to our plans, practically, to get the outcomes that we know produce more and better paid jobs. That's why we're sticking to our plans on innovation. Just this morning we announced further changes, particularly to the early stage venture partnerships, which is part of that innovation agenda that continues to be rolled out by the government. The defence industry plan is supporting Australia's advanced manufacturing industry to transition. Our global economy is changing, and we're supporting our advanced manufacturing sector to change with it through the biggest recapitalisation of our defence forces since the Second World War, producing the two great dividends that coalition governments have always delivered—national economic security and national economic growth. The importance of these reforms cannot be understated. The academic debate about this, I am sure, will continue, but Australians are interested in the results that the coalition government is delivering. And it's not just us; around the world, the global economic consensus of sensible governments is that we must reduce the tax burden on businesses that employ our citizens so as to give them the headroom to ensure that they can give our citizens more and better paid jobs. The Labor Party have opposed us on this. They want Australia to be stranded on a high-tax island. They want to see jobs, investment, innovation and training—all of these things—go offshore. That's their choice and they must own the consequences for those decisions done on the basis of populism, not on economic policy. They have lost their economic compass in opposing this bill. We know that they once supported these measures. In government, many years ago, under treasurers and prime ministers, they implemented similar measures. So it is disturbing that we see this shift occurring in the Labor Party when it comes to economic policy and the re-education program that has been put on the Labor Party by the Greens in this country as they move ever closer to the cohabitation on economic policy with the Greens, which we will only see further fused in the upcoming by-election in Batman. It was the Leader of the Opposition, then Assistant Treasurer, who said on 30 March 2011: … corporate tax reform helps Australia’s private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder. … lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses … creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize. In worse case scenarios some businesses might actually lay people off to get smaller—and the size based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth. We know that the Labor Party have stood for these sorts of changes before, but today in this place they continue to make excuses as to why they will not vote for their previous convictions. Their convictions have evaporated in the face of having to actually stand for economic common sense. The shadow Treasurer joins me at the table—not out of flattery but because he's on duty and he is welcome. With his leader, on 6 June 2016, he said: 'You'd need a microscope to find the impact of the corporate tax cut on economic growth.' But this stands in stark contradiction to what he said in his own book in 2013, where he said: It is a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth. So Labor says that it can't be done because it cannot be afforded. What I don't understand, then, is what I said before: they reverse the company tax cuts and they end up with a bigger deficit. Explain that one to me. It can't be afforded, but, even when they get rid of them, they end up with a higher deficit. We know that the shadow Treasurer said in February this year: 'The objection to the corporate tax rate is that this nation, at this point, cannot afford it. It is the biggest single hit on the budget that either side will propose.' But in 2013 he said, 'The United Kingdom, facing a much tougher fiscal situation than Australia, has cut its company tax rate to 23 per cent in April 2013 to be further reduced to 21 per cent in April 2014.' We know that the Leader of the Opposition talked about the need for company tax cuts to be part of an agenda for investment and growth when the deficit was at $41.5 billion and rising, back in 2011. In 2012, as Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Any student of Australian business and economic history since the eighties knows part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.' The deficit at that point was $37.1 billion and rising. The shadow Treasurer said on 22 September 2015: 'I would like to see the corporate tax rate come down over time'—which is what this bill proposes, by the way. 'I've previously said that the nation should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax rate'—the deficit at that time was $35.1 billion. The problem is that the shadow Treasurer aims for this thing but can't hit it, because he's lost his conviction to follow through on the things he once believed in. The shadow minister for financial services said on 2 February 2016 that Australia would go better with a lower company tax rate. The deficit at that point was $37.4 billion. Then there's the case regarding inequality. 'Recent trends,' the shadow Treasurer said in 2017, 'certainly don't inspire optimism when the government tells people to trust them that the tax rate cut for business will magically trickle down.' Yet his own leader said on 30 March 2011, in a speech to ACOSS, 'Reducing the corporate tax rate sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will flow on to workers in the form of higher wages, thereby improving the standard of living.' Finally, they say you can't have the AAA credit rating and a corporate tax cut. With no help from the opposition, Australia has retained the AAA credit rating from all three ratings agencies—that was confirmed in the last few weeks—and we're one of only 10 countries to do so. These are excuses for why the Labor Party are not supporting this bill. As to whether they've changed their mind, never believed it in the first place or have lost their way, I'll let the Australian people decide. When they stand in this place today and vote against a plan that has already demonstrated in its first instalment its support for jobs growth in this country, and go against everything they've previously believed in government to court the chorus of populism, it's a sad day for the Labor Party. This is the day when in this place they will vote their economic credentials out of existence. This is why they cannot be trusted to manage our $1.8 trillion economy—because they have lost their economic compass. They don't know where they're going. They don't know how to drive growth in the economy. They have no plan to lift wages in this country. They have embarked on their voyage to the other side to cohabit with the Greens, who now write economic policy for the Labor Party. As I said the other day in this place, when it comes to economic policy, if you don't know what you believe, no-one will believe in you, and that's why no-one believes in the Labor Party's economic credentials anymore. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that certain words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question negatived.

 10:40 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be read a second time.

The House divided. [10:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 14 10:46 The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately? Mr Bowen DZS Not when they're giving away $65 million. No, leave is not granted. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Treasurer. 10:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is the motion moved by the Treasurer be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question agreed to.

 10:49 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a third time. 10:49 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Well, the government which gave us the debt and deficit emergency, the crisis in debt— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call. 10:49 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That the question be now put. 10:51): The SPEAKER ( 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Treasurer be put.

The House divided. [10:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question agreed to.

10:52 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. [10:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 COMMITTEES 18 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Committee 18 Report 18 10:55 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the listing of Islamic State Khorasan Province and the re-listing of al-Murabitun as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HASTIE 260805 by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's report on the listing of Islamic State Khorasan Province and the relisting of al-Murabitun as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code enables the committee to review the listing of terrorist organisations and report its findings to the parliament within the 15-day disallowance period. This is the first time Islamic State Khorasan Province has been listed as a terrorist organisation. Islamic State Khorasan Province is a recognised partner of Islamic State with an estimated membership of up to 11,000 members. The group's primary objective is to establish the province of Khorasan (a region encompassing Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia) as part of the global caliphate of Islamic State. Since 2015, the group has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks including suicide bomb attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al-Murabitun is an al-Qaeda aligned Sunni Islamic terrorist group that is committed to enforcing sharia law in West Africa and uniting Muslims and Islamic movements across Africa against non-Muslim and secular influences. The group was first declared a terrorist organisation by the Australian government in November 2014. Since then the group has reaffirmed its alliance to al-Qaeda and continues to conduct attacks in West Africa. The group funds its activities through smuggling, connections with other terrorist organisations and kidnappings for ransom. In 2016, the group kidnapped Australian citizens Jocelyn and Kenneth Elliott. The group claimed the primary motive for this kidnapping was to gain the release of their captives. Jocelyn Elliott was released but Kenneth Elliott, sadly, has not yet been recovered. In conducting its review, the committee considered publicly available information and carefully reviewed the procedures followed by the government and the merits of the listings themselves. The committee was satisfied that appropriate processes had been followed and that both organisations should be listed as terrorist organisations. The committee therefore supports the listing of Islamic State Khorasan Province and the relisting of al-Murabitun, and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instruments. I commend this report to the House. Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 19 Report 19 10:58 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner In accordance with standing order 216, on behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the Report concerning the registration and declaration of members' interests during 2017. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 19 BILLS National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017 19

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 19 Third Reading 19 10:59 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017 19

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017

Second Reading 19 11:00 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Firstly, I'd like to thank the members who've contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017. The amendments in this bill will clarify the criteria for the lower company tax rate. Businesses that derive more than 80 per cent of their incomes in passive forms will not have access to the lower company rate. This new 'bright-line test' will replace the 'carrying on a business test' and make it easier for companies to determine which tax rate applies. It will operate from the 2017-18 income year. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Fenner be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 67 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 77 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 21 11:13 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move government amendment (1): (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 18) to page 4 (line 13), omit section 23AB, substitute: 23AB Meaning of base rate entity passive income (1) Base rate entity passive income is assessable income that is any of the following: (a) a distribution (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) by a corporate tax entity (within the meaning of that Act), other than a non-portfolio dividend (within the meaning of section 317 of the Assessment Act); (b) an amount of a franking credit (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) on such a distribution; (c) a non-share dividend (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) by a company; (d) interest (or a payment in the nature of interest), royalties and rent; (e) a gain on a qualifying security (within the meaning of Division 16E of Part III of the Assessment Act); (f)a net capital gain (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997); (g) an amount included in the assessable income of a partner in a partnership or of a beneficiary of a trust estate under Division 5 or 6 of Part IIIof the Assessment Act, to the extent that the amount is referable (either directly or indirectly through one or more interposed partnerships or trust estates) to another amount that is base rate entity passive income under a preceding paragraph of this subsection. (2) However, if an entity has assessable income that is interest (or a payment in the nature of interest): (a) treat the assessable income as not being interest (or a payment in the nature of interest) of the entity for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d) if:    (i) the entity is a financial institution (within the meaning of section 202A of the Assessment Act); or    (ii) the entity is a registered entity (within the meaning of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001) that carries on a general business of providing finance (within the meaning of that Act) on a commercial basis; or    (iii) the entity holds an Australian credit licence (within the meaning of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009), or is a credit representative (within the meaning of that Act) of another entity that holds such an Australian credit licence; or    (iv) the entity is a financial services licensee (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) whose licence covers dealings in financial products mentioned in paragraph 764A(1)(a) of that Act (securities), or is an authorised representative (within the meaning of section 761A of that Act) of such a financial services licensee; or    (v) the entity is an entity of a kind specified in a legislative instrument made under subsection (3); and    (b) treat the assessable income as not being interest (or a payment in the nature of interest) of the entity for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d) to the extent that it is a return on an equity interest in a company. (3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify one or more kinds of entities for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(a)(v). This amendment will provide additional certainty that passive investment companies cannot access the lower company tax rate. It does this by tightening the definition of 'interest income' in the bill. This amendment is of a technical nature and responds to an issue identified by the Australian Taxation Office. The amendment modifies the definition of 'interest' for the purposes of the passive income test so that all interest is treated as passive, except if earned by genuine moneylenders. Specifically, this means that interest will be passive unless earned by authorised deposit-taking institutions or cooperative housing societies, non-ADI lenders that report data to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Australian credit licensees or representatives, certain Australian financial services licensees or their representatives, or other categories of entities prescribed by legislative instrument. The ability to prescribe additional categories of entity by legislative instrument will mean the provision can be expanded, if necessary, to ensure genuine moneylenders can get access to the lower company tax rate. (Fenner) (11:15): Dr LEIGH BU8 It's important that the House realises what the government is doing with this amendment. The bill itself is a patch-up. The government is responding to an issue raised in September 2016 which they initially dismissed, an issue which has caused significant consternation among Australia's small business community. Now, as the government brings in its own patch-up, the minister at the table has just patched the patch-up. They are amending their own amending legislation. How have we got to this point? It is because the government is so fixated on looking after millionaires and multinationals that they can't get the basics right. They can't ensure that a small business tax cut which enjoys bipartisan support is implemented clearly and in a straightforward manner. Small businesses have better things to do than to deal with the stumbling and bumbling of this government. Tax practitioners warned the government in September 2016, but it took the government a year to act. Then when they acted, they didn't get it right. It's so characteristic of this government—a government which has staggered from crisis to crisis, which has talked about raising the GST, which has talked about the 'excesses' in negative gearing and failed to do anything. The minister at the table can't work out whether Labor's negative gearing policies will drive up house prices or drive down house prices. I was a little disappointed that, in the vote we had just now on the second reading amendment, we didn't get the minister's support, as indeed we'd received for a second reading amendment that I'd moved previously. A government that can't get the basics right on tax implementation is a government that is failing to deliver the economic leadership that we were promised. Don't forget, when Prime Minister Turnbull rolled then Prime Minister Abbott, his chief reason for so doing was the need for economic leadership. If you can't get the basics right, you're not providing economic leadership to the nation. If you are patching up your patch-up job, if you've mucked up your fix-up, then you're not able to command the credibility to which Australia's tax professionals and the small business community are entitled. Labor will support this bill, but we do so with a shake of our heads, as do the broader community, at a government unable to get the basics right. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 22 11:18 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 22

Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017

Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017

Second Reading 22 11:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 11:20 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In the brief time I had last night, I was outlining to the House how it is possible that the government thinks, in this migration legislation that it has put forward, that people on this side of the House and people in the community can be expected to trust the Minister for Home Affairs when it comes to the critical issue of labour market testing. Why is labour market testing critical? Because it goes to the fundamental reason for temporary skilled migration. We have a real problem in this country and it's been building over time, for almost a generation now. A generation ago, you could finish school, finish university, finish your TAFE qualifications and walk into an entry-level job. They existed—the Commonwealth Bank, the Public Service and anywhere there were jobs available. People who are in their 50s and 60s say that, even if you didn't like that job, you could quit that job and get your next job tomorrow. Today those entry-level jobs don't really exist. There are fewer and fewer of them. Even in the Commonwealth Public Service today, we're employing far fewer young people in entry-level jobs than we did a generation ago. What that has meant is that over time we have created skills gaps in some of our industries. I want to acknowledge that there are genuine skills gaps in our country, and I think what the government is trying to do is actually create a fund to help train people to fill those gaps. However, they cannot be trusted in that commitment, given the funding cuts that they've already made to skills, education, TAFE and vocational education; the way in which they've really failed to prioritise, within their own procurement policy, such things as apprenticeships; and the way in which they have forced casual jobs upon the Public Service as opposed to creating good, secure full-time jobs. I know that in my part of the world we do struggle to attract chefs. I personally think we've got to do better at promoting ourselves. We have some fantastic foodie restaurants that people can work in. We aren't that far from Melbourne, we have affordable housing and we have a great lifestyle, but we have struggled to attract qualified chefs to our region. This isn't just Bendigo; this is throughout regional Victoria—in fact, throughout Australia. There is a disconnect there, however, when the same enterprises try to sit down with TAFE and talk about the need for training chefs. They struggle. When they try to raise this issue with the federal government or federal MPs on the government side of the House, they struggle to get them to understand. There are other industries where we have skills gaps that from time to time need to be filled by temporary skilled migration. As a personal position, I prefer permanent skilled migration, giving that person and their family the opportunity to choose to settle here, over temporary skilled migration. We are Australia. We've been built on a proud history of migration. My parents migrated here, and there are so many Australians who have migrated here or whose parents or family migrated here. It was never temporary. They got to choose to move here and bring their families with them. There are real problems with our temporary skilled migration program. It is being gamed and manipulated by some employers and some sectors. Rather than investing and training and skilling up Australians, they are choosing this alternative. Corporate Australia and big businesses have really broken the social compact that we had for a long time in this country with the current generation of young people. They are no longer doing what they did a generation ago, which was to take on people at an entry level and train them up, giving them that same opportunity. Instead, they are going overseas and looking for workers who have skills and experience. I have a real issue with that. I want to see corporate Australia and our businesses do better. The role of the federal government is to engage with them and to encourage them to put a system in place that sees them once again give young Australians a go, and they're not. I should say that it's not all companies. We have a mine in Bendigo. We've discovered gold again, and the mine is doing well. Over the last 12 months they've increased their workforce by at least 25 per cent. They've employed an extra 100 people. They are entry-level jobs. Hopefully, those people will now have a career in mining. They are learning skills on the job. We want to encourage and bring back that culture, that style of system which used to happen in Australian workplaces. Unfortunately, the scrappy way in which this bill has been put together is a demonstration that the government doesn't understand that. They haven't engaged with and put it to big business and corporate Australia to give the next generation a go. I spoke briefly last night about our problem that people who have skills and qualifications are not able to get a start—for example, young nurses. The nurses' union has raised on several occasions that young graduates are not able to get a start in our health system, because of 457 visas. I know that, within the aged-care sector, recently arrived nurses, unaware of their conditions, are quite often working in very crowded, unsafe situations, because they're here as guest workers and feel pressure about raising workplace issues. This is not isolated to nursing. A report released by the Fair Work Ombudsman not that long ago, which the government hasn't properly acted on, found that one in five people who are here on a temporary skilled migration visa—back then 457 visas—were being underpaid or not working in the role in which they were recruited. The government hasn't put forward a comprehensive plan on how to stop that exploitation. Whether they be 457 visas, backpackers or international students, the exploitation of temporary and migrant workers in this country is ongoing. The Ombudsman continues to release report after report that people are having their visa held over them as leverage, that they are not being paid and that they are literally taking jobs away from locals. That's a practice that has to stop. In this legislation the government is also putting forward their attempt to take money from the employers of people entering this country on a 457 visa and put it into a training fund. However, as others on this side of the House have highlighted, their numbers don't stack up. There's no commitment in this funding to TAFE. The public vocational education sector around the country has been gutted by conservative governments at state and federal levels, particularly in regional Australia, where we have some of the skills shortages I just referred to. There's no commitment whatsoever in this bill that funding will go towards rebuilding our TAFEs. The Abbott-Turnbull government have ripped $2.8 billion out of TAFE skills and training over the past five years alone, including $637 million in the last budget, yet they're hoping that taking money when people enter the country will help bridge that gap. It will not. The other thing that the government has failed to do is properly engage with the sector and re-establish the tripartisan way in which we used to approach skills shortages. We have heard from our pilots and our pilots' union that we have a shortage of pilots in this country. It's too hard to train people. Australians aren't going to stop flying. We are an island nation. This is one of the industries and jobs that we can attract young people into—encourage them to become pilots—but, as the pilots' association says repeatedly, it's too hard in this country to train young pilots. There has been no commitment by the government to engage unions collaboratively in how we can help fix our country's skills shortage. This legislation that has been put together by the government lacks any decent understanding of how we can create the good, secure jobs of the future. It doesn't really offer, in a meaningful way, real jobs for Australian workers. Their continued attack on unions, their continued attack on workers, just demonstrates how so many of their ideas are driven by their own political agenda. We saw in this place, not yesterday but the day before, the minister who would be responsible for labour market testing attack a group of workers because of a logo that they had on their T-shirts. This is clearly not somebody who's thinking logically or realistically or inclusively about how we can bring workers and employers and industry together. It is true that our economy is going through transition; however, a lot of the jobs that we have today will still exist in the future. We need to work together, through reforms in the IR system and partnerships, to make sure that these are good, secure jobs going forward. This is why we've moved an amendment and why we're referring this bill to a Senate inquiry: because we really need to test out how committed they are to labour market testing. You know, it's a fundamental belief of Australians that you give local jobs to locals first—and they're right. You should be made, as an employer, to look locally. Our job agencies, another area with real problems in our community, must be made to work with employers to match people. I've had an unusual experience in my electorate. We have a Karen community that have moved in. They've chosen Bendigo to settle in. They're a big part of our community, the Karen Australians. There is such a disconnect going on with the job agencies in my part of the world that I was the one who introduced the Karen community to our local meatworks, which wants to move away from 457 visas and backpackers and wants to employ locals. We've become a matchmaking service between people who are looking for work and employers who want to take them on. These are more of the entry-level jobs that I was talking about. It shouldn't have to be about an MP's personal relationship; this should just be what the government, government contractors, government agencies and government funded services do. The government, when it comes to labour market testing, cannot be trusted. The minister that they want to put in charge of labour market testing cannot be trusted. That is why Labor will refer the contents of this bill to a Senate inquiry, so it can be properly scrutinised to make sure that, if there is a local job in this country, it is offered to a local first. We must really put it on corporate Australia to step back up to the plate and recreate entry-level jobs. (Time expired) 11:33 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 because there are so many parts of this legislation that directly relate to my electorate in north-west Tasmania. The previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, talked about labour market testing. A little bit later in my speech, I will give an example of how this coalition government and the Tasmanian Liberal government have failed not only local workers but also local businesses in that area. So there is a little bit of a bittersweet irony that this government proclaims itself to be supporting Australian workers and their skills, when all actions to date really suggest that it's the complete opposite. Labor does have genuine concerns that this legislation will not go far enough, that it will not legislate strict labour market testing across not just a number of occupations but all occupations and all skilled visas. Ordinarily, legislation that seeks to protect the jobs of Australians from overseas labour would be something that this side of the House would endorse, but, when it comes to matching the rhetoric with reality, this government cannot be trusted. The member for Bendigo gave examples of how that has occurred in her own electorate. For each of these policy failures, Labor has a solution—a solution that this government seems incapable of finding and implementing because it's simply blinded by ideology. As I have said, this government has form when it comes to labour market testing. When Labor were last in office, we strengthened visa laws so that employers were required to look locally first. The now Prime Minister, the now minister for immigration and the now Treasurer all voted against Labor's sensible changes. When in opposition, they voted against better market testing and more controls, and they've taken almost five years in government to do something about it. But even now what the government is proposing comes nowhere near Labor's policy to support local workers. Labor's policy genuinely puts local workers first. Our Labor leader and member for Maribyrnong has previously introduced a private member's bill to this place on these issues. That legislation is about supporting the Australian wages system, upholding our standards and creating Australian jobs. It sets more rigorous evidence requirements for labour market testing for firms seeking to use 457 visas with: a mandatory requirement for jobs to be advertised for a minimum of four weeks; a requirement for labour market testing to occur no more than four months before the nomination of a visa worker position; a ban on job ads that target only overseas workers or specified visa class workers to the detriment of locals; and a crackdown on job ads that set unrealistic requirements for vacant positions, as specifically designed to exclude locals. Under Labor's plan, if employers genuinely need a 457 visa holder for their business, they should have to provide evidence and information to prove it. Labor simply asks employers to show their need for the nominated occupations and to prove none of these positions can be filled by Australians. This brings me to the example in my electorate where a couple of years ago the state Liberal government decided to use some money in cash reserves to refurbish the Spirit of Tasmaniavessels. It was a $20 million to $30 million project. They contracted a UK-based company to undertake the work, and that company brought in 44 per cent of the labour used in that project from overseas. I remember getting a phone call from a local businessman who, after complaints in the media that local businesses and workers were being excluded from this work, said to me that the government had asked the contractor to drip-feed local businesses some work—a little bit here and a little bit there—to keep them quiet. This man, who had his own business, said to me, 'There are foreign electricians running cables on the vessel that any electrician can do.' It was absolutely disgusting, but he could not speak out about it, because if he did the government would exclude him from any further work. This impacts on not only the workers but the businesses in my community. I'm absolutely outraged that the federal Liberal government is doing nothing and that the state Liberal government is complicit in bringing in overseas workers on a publicly-funded project. On this side of the House, we know temporary work visas are not the long-term answer to the national skills shortage. We need a national training agenda. We need to invest in TAFE, training, skills and apprenticeships. We should not be discouraging people from learning a trade or getting a qualification by sending them the message that employers can just bring in someone else who is willing to do the job for less. The policy failures of this government, when it comes to skills and training, have hit hard in Tasmania. Under the Liberals, 1,900 apprentices have disappeared from Tasmanian industry. The biggest loss has taken place in my electorate of Braddon, where there are now 704 fewer apprentices than when the Abbott-Turnbull government was first elected. The trend continues under the Hodgman state government. The skill sector and TAFE have lurched from one crisis to another. Overall, the amount of federal government support for apprentices, TAFE and VET has been cut by $3 billion under the Liberals. The Abbott-Turnbull government has also abolished the Industry Skills Fund and has dismantled the cooperative approach to skills involving unions, employers and government. When it comes to growing the skills base of Tasmanians, this is simply not good enough. I am pleased that the Tasmanian Labor leader, Rebecca White, has formulated a real plan to deal with the issues at a state level. Tasmanian Labor will establish industry advisory councils to create what is missing—a strong link between industry and education providers. I can tell you from every meeting I have with industry in my electorate that there's no connection between them and education and training. I know from the work I have been doing as the secretary of Labor's Australian Jobs Taskforce that there is real disconnection between schools, training providers and industries, not just in my state but across the country. The first task of Tasmanian Labor's industry advisory councils will be to conduct industry audits to gain an understanding of what the skills needs are in those various sectors—a very sensible first approach. State Labor will also back business with an apprentice bonus scheme, which state Liberal leader Will Hodgman belatedly copied, of course—it's a good thing when your opponent copies good policy—after sitting on his hands for four years. At a federal level, Labor's plan for jobs and skills development will see increased investment in TAFE and increase quality traineeships and apprenticeships. Federal Labor will restore the $637 million cut by the Turnbull government from VET funding in the 2017 budget. Federal Labor will make TAFE the centrepiece of our training system by guaranteeing that at least two-thirds of all government VET funding goes to TAFE and by investing $100 million in revitalising campuses across the country. Federal Labor will ensure that one in 10 jobs on all Commonwealth priority projects is for an apprentice. Labor will expand pre-apprenticeship programs for young jobseekers and invest in advanced adult apprenticeships for workers in transition. This side is serious about lifting our skills base and is serious about giving our young people across the country the ability to gain a trade. If there is one area in my electorate, in Tasmania, that highlights the government's policy failures when it comes to skilled labour, it's of course the agricultural sector, and particularly the horticultural sector. Just last week, along with the member for Bendigo, I met with industry players and heard that the Tasmanian horticultural industry is facing a severe labour shortage. This means that the crop will fall to the ground. I want to put on record my thanks to Mike Badcock from Enchanted Isle Farms for his help in bringing these people together. The forum heard that, while the industry has just managed with the summer harvest, a much larger workforce is required for the late summer and autumn harvests as apples and pears come on line. The forum highlighted a number of issues, including the backpacker tax—funnily enough; I think the writing was on the wall on that one—and changes to the 88-day second visa requirements. The forum was also told that exploitation by unscrupulous labour hire companies, strip picking versus select picking, and inconsistent piece rates are just some of the contributing factors. There is no consistency among the ways in which farmers secure their labour. Some use labour hire; others, Gumtree; and others, word of mouth, and many just pop up on the doorstep. Without a consistent method of securing labour, farmers are continually struggling to meet their labour needs. It was pointed out that a lack of support from regional job service providers—we hear this everywhere, and the member for Bendigo mentioned it as well—was another issue, with examples of providers not being connected to local farmers. These farmers should be the clients of these agencies, and they are not, because it's the jobseeker who comes with the money, so they can just tick the box and send them on their way. Some don't even go to the farms and talk to the farmer about what he or she needs. They are just not interested in securing a person capable of doing these jobs. Another well-made point is that there is a need for the department of employment to gather the empirical data on why young people do not last working in the horticultural sector. They come for a day; they leave; and no-one knows why. What are the barriers put in place for this person in not staying on? That's the information we need to know to help support these industries and young people in our communities. The overwhelming consensus from the forum is that the agricultural labour supply issues are a mess, created by a series of policy failures. The industry is calling on all levels of government to come together and work collectively to find a solution. Labor is prepared to do that. One outcome from the forum is that the Tasmanian horticultural industry will supply case studies and evidence to support future policy development, and I thank them for that. Part of this policy solution may include what I consider to be a very valuable suggestion from the forum—that we trial community hubs where potential worker and industry needs can be matched up. It is pretty simple. I'm sure that, with some work on it, it will work. These hubs will potentially remove the middlemen and make it much easier for industry to secure a workforce—whether that is local or backpackers. We understand there is always a need for backpackers. The Tasmanian industry generally want to engage with all levels of government, but, to date, all they have received from this government is lip-service and an industry-destroying backpacker tax fiasco. After the forum we also met with a local orchardist who told his story of trying to secure labour and what visitors tend to do. I have previously mentioned the disconnect between education and industry as being a contributing factor. A number of speakers at the forum were at pains to point out that there was no encouragement at school for young people to pursue a career in the primary industries sector. Today I received a real-life example of this situation. I received a copy of a letter written by a young person from my electorate to Costa Group, who have a number of berry farms across my electorate. This young person has been fortunate to receive a North-West Scholarship in Agricultural Science from Costa Group. I want to read into Hansard the last sentences of his letter to Costa Group. He said: 'Your generosity has inspired me further to help others and to give back to the community. I also wish to advocate for change in Tasmanian's secondary education. During my secondary education, I found you were not educated about agriculture in any of the core subjects and did not have the opportunity to study agriculture as an elective.' This young person's letter sums up just how much work is needed to address the labour and skills shortages in our primary industry sector. The legislation before the House is just one small piece in the jigsaw but a piece that can and should be better. What is needed is a government that has a genuine plan for education and training, a government that has a genuine plan to ensure employers look locally first before employing overseas labour, a government that will genuinely work with industry, unions and key stakeholders to develop the policy solutions that are needed to create decent and secure jobs for Australian workers. I am sad to say that I don't think this current government can deliver that. 11:47 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I'm pleased to speak in this House on something that's incredibly important—the training of Australia's workforce and the rather poor efforts of this government to improve what has been an appalling standard of and commitment to training over the last five years. The member for McPherson, speaking yesterday, summed up the whole problem in one paragraph. I'm going to read a little bit of that and explain why that single paragraph sums up the problem of this government when it comes to training. This is what she said: 'The Turnbull government, in last year's budget, announced the $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund, designed to inject much-needed funds into the apprenticeship space.' When I speak about apprenticeships, I'm talking about Australian apprenticeships, including apprentices and trainees. We know that a lot of work needs to be done just to start to lift us up to the levels we had back in 2012-13. In case anybody doesn't understand what that date is, it's the date Labor lost government and the Liberals won government. Since then, training and apprenticeships have fallen to such an extent that the government now needs to act. The member for McPherson goes on to talk about the disability sector, for example, and health and ageing as some priority areas where 'we know we need to make sure that we have people who are properly skilled, so the $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund will put a much-needed injection of funding in there to deal with the shortfall in apprentices'. If you don't know the background to this, all you get out of that is that single sentence which says that the numbers have fallen so seriously since they came to government that they now feel the need to act. But what the member for McPherson doesn't say in there is how much money the government have cut, how they have slashed and burned training in this country. They have actually cut $2.8 billion out of skills and training since they came to government. On top of that, last year alone they cut $637 million from TAFE and training and apprenticeships. So we are now in a situation where there are close to 140,000 fewer trainees and apprenticeships than when the Liberals came to government, including 41,000 fewer trade apprentices. Since Labor lost government and this government got their hands on the training levers, we have seen an extraordinary drop-off in the amount of money that is invested in our workforce and an extraordinary drop-off in the number of apprentices, the number of people actually training in our workplaces. It is really an indictment of this government. At a time when we know that skills are one of the most important determinants of a country's future, at a time when the need for different skills is changing and growing so rapidly, at the very time probably in the last hundred years when you would be least likely to pull money out of training, that's exactly what we've done. We've got small businesses now saying that finding skilled people is one of their biggest problems, and we're seeing businesses bring people in from overseas in record numbers. This is entirely in the government's lap. This is entirely the result of this government's policy. And now we see a bit of a bandaid. There are some good things in this legislation. The government are increasing the levy that businesses pay when they bring in an overseas worker, but they are only increasing it by $10 a week—hardly enough to dramatically change the behaviour of businesses in the decisions they make about whether or not to bring people in from overseas. But it still shows no real commitment. For a start, they are not even beginning to undo the damage they have done—not in any way. It's such a small amount of money relative to the damage they've already done. The money itself also depends on overseas visas. It essentially comes from there. There's $1.47 billion in the budget papers, which the member for McPherson calls $1.5 billion, with $1.2 billion of that coming from these training contribution charges and about $261 million coming from government funds to tide the program over until the fees start to be collected in March 2018. So, really, the small amount that they are contributing comes from bringing in skilled migrants. If that number falls because the training miraculously improves—unlikely—we would then see that amount of money shrink again. So the training actually comes from the bringing in of overseas workers. It's a strange sort of reliance between the amount of money we have to train and the number of people that are being brought in from overseas. It's too little and it should have been addressed quite some time ago. On this side of the House, we've been talking about skills shortages since we lost government. Since the first cuts came through, people on this side of the House that care passionately about skills have been talking about TAFE, have been talking about our vocational education and training system. We were talking about it while we saw it go into freefall with the rorts in the vocational education system, with colleges that had virtually no graduates—no graduates at all—in spite of receiving millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We have been talking about it—we on this side have been yelling about it— Mr Giles interjecting— Ms OWENS E09 Yes, the member for Cunningham has been incredibly vocal on this, but so have industry groups, so have our TAFEs, so have people in my community. People all around the country have been yelling at this government, asking them to do something, and this is too little and much, much too late. The biggest concern for me is that this approach by the government has no real commitment to labour testing. In my community, where about 60 per cent of people were born overseas, I have people coming into my office who have come to Australia from elsewhere—they have come from India, Malaysia, Africa, you name it. They have come with skills. They have come as skilled migrants, and they have watched other people from their first homeland come into Parramatta on skilled visas, with no better skills than theirs, and occupy the jobs that they could have got. My Indian Australians in the workplace know who's an Indian Australian and who's a foreign worker, and they're two different things. My Indian Australians work here. They came to Australia to settle. They have families here. This is where they live. This is where their commitment is for the rest of their life and their children's lives. Yet they are being squeezed out of the labour market now by people with no better skills who come in on temporary visas. And this doesn't happen just occasionally. This is a common story now that I hear in my electorate. So the commitment to labour testing—making sure that, in order for a business to bring in a worker from overseas, they have tried to find an Australian first—actually matters. I doubt that there's anybody out there, other than the people on the government benches and a few businesses who seek to exploit foreign workers, who wouldn't agree with me. We need Australians to work, we need our young people to know that they can and, in order to ensure that, we need to make sure that we have proper market testing. The ACTU released some interesting figures lately that say that 10 per cent of the Australian labour force are on temporary working visas. That's extraordinary. So I would say to people that, when the government stand up here and talk about the number of jobs they've created in the last year, you have to ask them how many jobs they've created for Australians, or whether the slack nature of the market testing means that many of those jobs are filled by people who do not have better skills than Australians, but those jobs are in companies that didn't bother to make sure there wasn't an Australian available first. The proper market testing in Labor's policy gives a real indication of just how serious this is. I'm going to read Labor's market testing requirements, which were put forward in our private member's bill Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill, back in 2016. When I read these to you, you'll think, 'What? That isn't already the case?' Because it's not. There will be a mandatory requirement for all jobs to be advertised as part of labour market testing obligations, a requirement that jobs be advertised for a minimum of four weeks, a requirement for labour market testing to have been conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a 457 visa worker and—the fact that you even have to put this next one in, but you do, because this is what is actually happening—a ban on job advertisements that target only overseas workers or specified visa class workers to the exclusion of Australian citizens and permanent residents. In other words, Labor believes that you should have to advertise to Australians—that it's not okay to place ads where Australians don't see them. It's not okay to do that. It's not okay to say, 'Only people on 457s may apply.' The government thinks it's okay to do that. The government isn't interested in ensuring that Australians get the first crack at jobs. We also require a crackdown on job ads that set unrealistic and unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions with the effect of excluding otherwise suitable applicants, because we know that's happening too. So that's Labor's policy. But, in this bill in front of us and the government's approach to this, labour market testing is not strict enough. They do not have a commitment to ensuring that Australians get the jobs first. In my electorate, that is incredibly important. Those in my electorate come from all over the world. They bring skills from all over the world. They bring language skills, they bring knowledge of culture, they bring flexibility, they bring an ability to span more than one cultural norm. They are incredibly valuable workers, and we can see that in the fact that there are now head offices and regional offices of some of the big accounting firms moving in. You can see the big companies starting to move into Western Sydney because they want its labour force. But, in spite of that, we have far too many—far too many—people who are unemployed. Parramatta's unemployment rate in the 2016 census was 2.5 per cent higher than the average in Sydney and 1.5 per cent higher than the national average. So we have a high unemployment rate and many, many skilled people in my community that should be in work can't get in. They tell me of labour hire companies that are being used to fill vacant positions in some of the companies in the area, and that those labour hire companies only employ overseas workers. They recruit overseas, they do not recruit locally—and this government thinks that's okay. This government, the Abbott-Turnbull government, is not prepared to stand up for Australian workers when it comes to market testing. Youth unemployment in some areas of Parramatta can reach over 50 per cent. In the south of my electorate, according to the social atlas commissioned by the Parramatta City Council, there are areas with over 50 per cent youth unemployment. That's not okay, and it's not okay that you say to those Australians: 'We don't require businesses to look at you first. We don't require businesses to train you.' It's not okay that the government has cut $2.8 billion out of the training budget and left so many of those young people without the opportunity to gain skills. We also have a situation in Parramatta where we're already seeing the effect of that slash and burn in training, with fewer and fewer people doing diplomas and certificates in vocational training places. We're already below the national average by five per cent for cert III, and that is a direct result of this government's incompetence in managing the vocational education system when we saw it in freefall due to the rorts and ripping off of taxpayers' money by various training companies, who were taking money and not providing the training. When I'm doorknocking in some of the areas in the south of the electorate, I'm finding people who were enrolled in courses without their knowledge—incredible rip-offs. This government was so slow to act, just as it has been slow to react on the reduction in apprentice numbers. There are 1,111 fewer apprentices in Parramatta now than there were when we lost government in 2013. It is shameful. Areas like Granville South have seen people dropping out of school before year 9 at rates five per cent above the Sydney average. Again, what have the government done to give young people the idea that there is actually a place for them in the work force and a training path for them? They have hacked away at our training system, cut $2.8 billion and sat silent and inactive while our vocational education system went through the floor in terms of its standards and quality. Now what we've got is a bandaid solution that does not actually deal with the issues. There is insufficient money and commitment to training, and there is insufficient genuine commitment to market testing that ensures that Australians get a first crack at a job when it becomes available—that Australians get a job and Australian families get the first crack. These labour hire companies that only recruit overseas should not exist here. There should be no job given to an overseas worker unless we have sought an Australian first. It is a bandaid solution, not good enough, and you will be condemned. 12:02 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, training and skills shortages are a significant issue in this country and they have been for many years. In fact, I remember about a decade ago holding a policy consultation in Emerald, which, as people will know, is a town quite near Gladstone in Central Queensland. There was a lot of talk at the time about the resources boom and what might be done to ensure that we would have the skills needed for the jobs that existed then and the jobs that would, people hoped, exist in the future. People came to that consultation from a lot of different places. Some of them drove for many hours to be there to raise their concerns that they had then about the use of guest workers, the failure to train people, big firms' failure to invest in training people, and big firms assuming that small business would undertake the training and then poaching people once they'd completed their apprenticeships and traineeships. It was clear then, as it's clear now, that the training system that we have in this country needs a lot of work. When I say it's also clear now, one example that was given by the member for Parramatta is the drop in apprenticeships since this government was elected. It's the same in my electorate, where apprenticeships have fallen through the floor. They've dropped by about a third since this Liberal government was elected back in 2013. So I think we would all agree that what this country needs to do is to work on the issue that we're facing, which is that we don't have enough apprentices or trainees being trained, employers aren't necessarily investing in training people to the extent that we would all like, and vocational education has been underfunded for a very long time now. That's why it's important to acknowledge that the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, which seeks to impose a training levy on those employers who use guest workers, temporary skilled migrants, will make a contribution to apprenticeships and training in this country. It's something that a number of people, including me, have called for in the past, saying that, if you are going to benefit from the fact that, for specific skills shortages purposes, we will allow into this country temporary skilled migrants, then you ought to make a contribution to our community in return for that benefit, and the contribution should be in the form of training new people for the jobs that exist now and the jobs that will exist in the future. The corollary to that is that, if we want to be serious as a nation about saying that temporary skilled migration is for skills shortages, then we need to be confident that temporary skilled migration is actually being used for that purpose and not for other purposes. I'm sure you will have heard, as I have heard, from people who say that on worksites where they're working there are people on 417 or 457 visas working next to them, doing the same sorts of work that they're doing, while at the same time there are people in our community who live here, who are permanent residents or citizens, who are unable to get that sort of work. We need to stop this. Temporary skilled migration should be for the purpose of filling temporary skills shortages. That means that, firstly, before we have employers hiring temporary skilled migrants—people on 457 visas particularly—they should have to be absolutely prudent and confident in ensuring that there are not Australian citizens or permanent residents with those qualifications who would be suitable for the work. In other words, labour market testing is very important. Secondly, we must do what we can to ensure that skills shortages are genuinely temporary. The point of temporary skilled migration is not to obviate the need to train for the future; in fact, it emphasises the need to train for the future. If the use of temporary skilled migration is an admission that we do not have sufficient skilled workers in Australia to undertake certain jobs, certain roles and certain functions, then that is a clear signal that we need to train people now to develop those skills so that they can fill those jobs. It's not enough to look at the importance of labour market testing when you talk about skilled migration. You cannot talk about temporary skilled migration without also being committed to training to end the skills shortage. We know that we hear from employers from across all industries in respect of skills shortages from time to time and to varying degrees. I've certainly spoken to people in the oil and gas industry, for example, who are frustrated when they can't necessarily obtain the local skilled labour that they're looking for in relation to specific types of work. You hear that in all sorts of occupations—in construction and in other occupations as well—and I've certainly got a lot of people in my electorate who are here on temporary skilled visas. The fact that everyone is talking about these skills shortages should be a very clear signal to government that there needs to be serious investment in training. We need to be training people for the jobs now and the jobs of the future. That should also be made clear by levels of youth unemployment, not just in my electorate, where it is usually in double digits, but in more regional areas and more remote areas such as Far North Queensland, where youth unemployment can be up around the 20 to 25 per cent mark. It is an absolute indictment on this country when we have regions in which youth unemployment is so high, and at the same time we still have such a large temporary skilled migration program. For those reasons, I want to make a couple of observations about the bill in respect of labour market testing, and I want to make some observations in respect of the investment in training that's needed in this country. Firstly, in respect of labour market testing, Labor wants genuine labour market testing. We do not want a box that can be ticked so that you can say, 'Yes, I've certainly looked around, and, sure, there are definitely no Australian workers that can do this.' We don't want a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise that can be easily undermined; we want genuine labour market testing. The reason that we want genuine labour market testing is that Australian Labor wants to put local workers first. Australian Labor wants to put local workers first. Not only can you see our commitment to that from the responses that we're making to the bill that we're discussing today but you can see that in the private member's bill that Australian Labor have moved in this parliament; you can see it in the policies that we took to the last election; and you can see it in the policies that people like the shadow minister, the member for Gorton, and the Leader of the Opposition have been announcing. We are concerned that the labour market testing obligations under this legislation are insufficient, will not be genuine and will not lead to employers being forced to offer employment to Australians first where there are suitable Australians ready, willing and able to do the job. That's all we ask for: that locals be given that opportunity. If you've got a suitable person in the community who doesn't have a job, then they should get it before you start to import people from overseas. The second thing I wanted to say about labour market testing is that, whenever we have raised concerns about international agreements that have eroded labour market testing, the epithets hurled across the chamber towards us that we're somehow against free trade for doing so are completely unreasonable. We will never make any apologies for standing up for labour market testing. We of course want to see international trade. Of course we do; it's incredibly beneficial for the community. But the support of international trade is not something that requires you to be uncritical about the provisions of bills that you feel are not sufficiently respecting the interests and rights of Australians, including Australian workers. In saying this, I wanted to make the very clear point that labour market testing remains important to avoid the misuse of temporary skilled migration, and I don't want to see the misuse of temporary skilled migration. Temporary skilled migrants are vulnerable compared to Australian workers. They're at risk, if they lose their job, of having to return home. That, of course, puts them in a slightly different power dynamic to the power dynamic that Australian workers have. The consequence of them having less power vis-a-vis their employer compared with Australian workers is that they may be less willing to stand up for themselves. They may be more prone to vulnerability and exploitation. I've spoken here before about a former client of mine who was a temporary skilled migrant who was expected to work unpaid overtime. He actually stood up for himself, and the consequence for him ultimately was that he prevailed, but in the meantime he had to go back home because falling out with the company meant that they left him in a situation where he was no longer eligible to hold the visa. Ultimately he prevailed, as I said, but not all temporary skilled migrants are so lucky. They are vulnerable compared to Australian workers, so we do need to be very careful before we start to increase the numbers of temporary skilled migrants. Their vulnerability doesn't just affect them, of course. They may be less willing to stand up for strong pay and conditions. And in a nation like ours where we have incredibly weak wages growth—in fact, the lowest levels of wages growth since we started keeping the wage price index in 1997—the last thing we want to do is have a workforce that feels too cowed and too weak to stand up for better wages and conditions. So it is important that we remember, when we're using temporary skilled migrants, whether they are 417 or 457 visa holders, that they may be less powerful and therefore may be more prone to accepting lesser wages and conditions and to voting in enterprise bargaining ballots for conditions that may be less appropriate or less generous than might be voted for by Australian workers. I also said I wanted to say something about investment in training. As I said, the use of temporary skilled migration implies that there is a temporary skills shortage. If we want the skills shortage to be temporary and not permanent, the way to deal with that is to invest in training. Investing in training is important not just for Australian businesses, to ensure that they will not face skills shortages in the future, but also for Australians more broadly, because people who are in the workforce now do not want to have to be in a situation where companies might avoid labour market testing or comply with weak labour market testing requirements and, therefore, seek to hire temporary skilled migrants rather than local workers. It's also important for young people who are looking into the future and thinking about what they might want to do. It's important for them that there be training opportunities. That means investing in training. When you look at the funding of vocational education in this country, the erosion of public funding for TAFE, the attractiveness of trades training, the fact that, for example, this government cut funds to trades training centres in schools so that very few of them, particularly in my electorate, actually have trades training centres, it's no surprise to anyone that the message that is sent about training is that it's something that is not particularly attractive to young people. That's the last thing we need. We need training to have the same status as university education. That means we need to invest in training. When I say that, I don't mean that middle-class kids should go to uni and working-class kids should go into training. That's the opposite of what I mean. If training had the same status then a kid with a great academic record at an elite private school would be equally attracted to the trades as to academia. We're seeing more and more people doing both vocational and higher education. If we can make our trades more attractive, including by investing in training, that will open up more and more interesting career paths for the kids today who are looking around and trying to make a decision about what to do. That's really important, because as an economy we don't want skills shortages that will lead to distortions in the way that firms operate, but as a nation we want our citizens to have every opportunity available to them into the future. While I welcome the levy being discussed in this legislation, it's not enough to say, 'We're going to start this Skilling Australians Fund using the levy.' It's a good start. I don't oppose the levy; I support the levy. It's something I've previously called for myself as many as 10 years ago—I started this speech by talking about a policy consultation I held back in Emerald about a decade ago—but it's just not enough. We seriously need to invest in training. We need to get TAFEs up to scratch. We need investment in public TAFE. We need skills focused training that looks, as best we can, at what changes might happen in the future, what industries might exist in the future and what skills people might need for those future industries and future jobs. We need to make sure that training is directed towards those things. There are some great things happening in training. It is not all doom and gloom. In my home state of Queensland people like Construction Skills Queensland, Electrical Skills Queensland and Industry Training Queensland are doing some absolutely fantastic training work. A range of training bodies have been set up in a tripartite partnership between government, industry and unions representing the workforce within those sectors. Good work is being done. The resources states, particularly my state, are facing challenges as the resources boom winds down. About 10,000 people were working to construct Curtis Island. It's now constructed, and you need only a few hundred people to operate an LNG plant like that. We have a lot of people who need to look at what their skills can evolve into. I suggest that, if there is funding in this fund, my state of Queensland would be a very good place to look at for the expenditure of that funding. I'm sure you may have a slightly different view, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, being a Western Australian. Regardless of what happens, this is a start but is so far from being enough. We need to invest more in training, we need to support the futures of our kids and we need to support the future of our economy. 12:18 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley One industry sector in this country is paying particularly close attention to this debate and the broader policy development occurring in this area. It's our local tech sector, which provides a lot of jobs for a lot of young talent and is generating a lot of wealth for the country, but is also confronted with the fact that skills shortages are holding back their further growth and their ability to meet the needs of so many other firms that are reliant on either the innovations they produce or the support they are able to provide, bearing in mind that tech is a massive enabler of industry. We all feel it as well. Every single member of this place is loaded up with so many items of equipment: phones, iPads, laptops, desktops. All the people that work with those MPs are reliant on technology solutions to do their jobs. All the people employed within the Australian parliament—not just the hardware but the brains behind it—to support them to meet the needs of business and government, shows that this is massive. You need talented people to make that happen. We have had estimates produced about the likely shortfall in the number of people required versus the number of people being produced, and one suggestion is that we will be 100,00 short in the number of people required in the ICT space to meet the demands of local industry. So, it's two things; it's not just the support that's provided at the moment but, importantly, the brains that are used to help drive growth within early-stage innovation companies, particularly. Having those people available is crucial for them when they have a concept and need a tech solution to help create the bridge from where they are at the moment as a concept to it becoming a reality. This is not a new thing. These skills shortages have been known about for many years. It has been well understood that the inability to access talent is, I would dare say, holding the Australian economy back. Just in the last few months we've had people who are closely tied to innovation in this country raising again their concerns about some of the problems that we're facing. Someone I've got a lot of time for is Bill Bartee, who runs the government's own $200 million CSIRO Innovation Fund Main Sequence Ventures, who stated: If you look at the number of computer science graduates coming out of universities it is actually declining and half of them are foreign nationals who are going to leave the country. So we have a declining population of developers and engineers at a time when we need them more than ever. Bill Bartee has been involved in supporting innovation in this country for many, many years. I too have been speaking up for the sector by saying that we need to focus more on this, because I believe it is choking the local tech sector. It is holding back the digital economy. Skills shortages are preventing us from being able to reach our full potential. I emphasise that this has been known for a while. We're not producing enough graduates. There are concerns about the quality of graduates being produced. The ones who do get produced get poached by overseas firms. The ones that do remain are in high demand and, given that high demand, they are rightly asking for better remuneration outcomes, which drives up costs for business. A number of different proposals were put many years ago, some of which are now being embraced by our competitors—for instance, creating ICT digital traineeships, providing a vocational pathway and a vocational entry point for people to enter the tech sector and get involved. That was proposed in the Australian context nearly five years ago now. This type of thing has been put forward because people know that we need to find not only tertiary sources, from our universities, sources of people who can provide talent, but also vocational pathways. Now we see, in the UK for instance, major tech companies and players opening up those vocational pathways. What's being done here? Not much. In regard to digital traineeships, it is very hard to see much evidence that a lot is being done to provide young people in this country with a pathway into the sector, so there's this whole pressure building up locally. It's been known about for a long time, but not much is being done. Bizarrely, we have a government—this government—cutting investment in schools, in TAFEs and in universities at a time when we need greater generation of talent. The answer that you would assume would help in part to alleviate this is not being done, so you have this as well. Then what happens? In this environment, last year the government suddenly decided that it will cut, through these rushed changes to the 457 visa arrangements, the only other pathway for getting talent into the local sector. We need to find a way to generate jobs for locals. But, if we're not doing enough to generate the skills to fill those jobs and then we make changes to the way in which these firms, who are hard pressed to find anyone, fill those roles and we suddenly turn off the tap, what's supposed to happen? Are these firms supposed to be told: 'We just expect you to wither on the vine. We expect you to be choked of talent. If you can't find anyone locally, tough'? This is exactly what happened last year. Atlassian is a massive success story for Australia. It originated here in this country and is now spreading and is being recognised all over the world as successful. It's an Australian success story. When local players and local tech firms, like Atlassian, say to the government, 'Changing these visas will affect us and the broader sector badly,' Peter Dutton, the immigration minister, doesn't listen to what's being said. In the classic hit-first-think-later response, he chips Atlassian for having the temerity to raise their concerns about a legitimate problem. He said that Atlassian should focus on hiring more local people. Well, Atlassian have done just that. They have an active program of recruitment to bring in locals to be able to fill local jobs. They support people locally. One of their founders, Scott Farquhar, is a great Western Sydney success story. He emerged out of Western Sydney and has now been involved in this fantastic company. He is part of a firm that invests in skilling up, particularly low-income countries. He also invests in local skills development to ensure that young people are ready for the jobs of the future. They hire people locally as much as they can and they invest in skills development through their foundation, and then they are told off by the immigration minister, who says, 'Do more.' Scott Farquhar rightly pointed out: The Australian government has gone a long way towards damaging our reputation as a place that people want to come and work globally. …   …   … Even before these new ideas have become law, the sentiment that the government has sent globally is that they are almost shouting out that Australia is closed for business. We cannot have a situation where the government cuts funds to skill up Australians, does not provide enough support in schools, vocational education and university education and then suddenly decides it will cut off any other source of talent from overseas to be brought into these firms. The government then tells the firms to, effectively, shut up and not complain about it and to hire more locals, when it is not doing the heavy lifting in terms of skills development. It's an outrage. You can understand why people are upset. The government has talked a lot in fits and starts about innovation. When it wants to get positive media coverage, the government manages somehow to find a report that it can release and says it's committed to innovation, but it actually doesn't do the things in a meaningful, tangible, concrete way to support innovation in this country. The government believes innovation is generated one report at a time, rather than through long-term investments in people that will ensure our country is a smarter country and a country that does things smarter, has a much more efficient economy and generates long-term jobs. That is not the stuff of press releases; it is the stuff of policy. The commitment is there for a longer period of time than the fleeting moment of a tweet. This is where we need to invest real dollars long term to build up local skills and determine how we can bring in people to help work with local talent to build up the broader sector. That's what's completely missing from the government's agenda. I rate the skill shortages that are affecting the tech sector as the biggest issue confronting that sector right now in this country. We know that automation and technological change are going to have a big impact on the world of work in the longer term and that the jobs people are currently performing are likely to be radically transformed. The race is on to skill up our people so that we have a bridge to take them from their jobs now to new jobs that emerge, so that they're ready for that process. On our side of politics, we are acutely aware of this. It is why we are so focused on this; it is why we intend to set up a particular portfolio relating to the future of work. We recognise that we need to be prepared. People's jobs, as I said, are going to be changed by technology. The jobs they're performing today may not be there tomorrow. New jobs will open up; we need to get people ready. Being able to address the types of things that are required for this sector means that not only young people get skilled up for it but also people in the workforce at the moment who want to get new skills. We need to have some ability to do that. Our vocational sector is the prime supporter and enabler of that. It should be increasingly seen as the mechanism that will be used when people in workplaces affected by technological change need to get new skills. We must have our vocational sector, our TAFE sector, there at the ready to help people and to help industry with employer-run training to help their workforces, the people who work for those companies, get ready. This is the stuff that's required. But if the government aren't making the investment, aren't making the changes necessary to skill people up, and then suddenly make these rushed changes that they're doing, then they basically put the handbrake on particular sectors like this, like the tech sector, from getting the job done. And it is simply staggering that they would be prepared to tell local firms: 'Just starve yourselves. Don't do your work, because we're not investing in education and we're making these hurried changes.' It's really Labor that have been pushing the agenda to ensure that we skill up people locally, that we give them opportunities to perform and that we keep a close eye on 457s schemes so that they are not abused and do not deny locals the ability to get the work that they richly deserve. We need to do all this sensibly, not in a rushed or hurried way but with an eye to meeting the needs of companies and workers now, as well as looking after them into the future. Again, Labor have very deep concerns about what has been done previously by the government, and we trust that they will act properly, responsibly and accordingly in the future. 12:32 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin In speaking on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, I speak in support of the amendment moved on behalf of Labor by the member for Blair. This legislation is a dismal response by the Turnbull government to what has become a very serious problem for Australia, which will become an even greater problem in the future if it continues to be mismanaged. I refer to the situation that Australia currently has where around three-quarters of a million people are unemployed and more than one million people are underemployed, but overseas workers are still coming into Australia to fill jobs that could be filled by locals. It's an absurd situation to be in. Of course the simplistic response is that the local unemployed are not suitably skilled for the jobs listed, but I have real doubts about that. It's true that as a result of flawed and short-sighted government policies over many years Australia has been left with a shortage of skills in many vocations. There were years of shonky 'skills-training' organisations rorting the system and producing very few properly skilled people for the jobs where genuine skill shortages existed. The sell-off at state and federal levels of government-operated utilities and workshops in building, construction, electricity, transport and other areas, which were once where most of Australia's apprentices were trained, also saw a marked drop in apprenticeship training across Australia. The private entities that took over those entities and those responsibilities did not continue to employ the apprentices as did the governments when they were responsible for them. The skills shortage then created an opportunity for unethical migration agents and employers to exploit the 457 visa process and bring in cheap labour from overseas or labour from high unemployment countries. Over the last five years, the Turnbull government has also slashed skills funding to TAFE by $2.8 billion, including a $637 million cut in last year's budget alone. Not surprisingly, there are now around 140,000 fewer trainees and apprenticeships than there were five years ago when this government came into office. Communities understandably expect that, when jobs become available, priority should be given to Australians looking for work. They also understand that, from time to time, overseas workers with specific skills may be needed. That's why a labour market testing process was made a prerequisite to the import of overseas workers. But that very process of labour market testing has been rorted. What has been happening is that workers have been brought in under a claimed skills shortage application, but when they get here they're actually employed in another area of industry, in another area of the business that brought them in, where indeed there was no shortage. I have known of cases where workers in a particular area also managed to get colleagues from the country from which they came here to Australia under the same rorting of the system—a combination of rorting by the employers and by the migration agents. Not only were the labour market testing provisions being rorted or circumvented; but the coalition government entered into free trade agreements that specifically excluded labour market testing with China, South Korea and Japan. Now we have the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement being negotiated where countries like Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam may also have exclusions within that agreement with respect to labour market provisions. The government's commitment to labour market testing is indeed shallow. It's very easy to understand that, however, because it fits in with the coalition government's ideology and its agenda—an agenda which wants to keep wages down and to weaken unions. Bringing in workers from overseas enables the government to put pressure on wages in Australia and ensure that they do remain down, because, as we all know, workers from overseas are prepared to work for lower wages because most of their money goes back to the countries they came from. And in their countries, even lower wages represent a good income for them and their families, so they will be prepared to make that sacrifice and come to Australia. I totally understand that, and I do not criticise them for doing that, but that is the reality of the situation. In turn, it means that, if they are prepared to work for lower wages, employers will offer the jobs to them ahead of offering the jobs to the Australians who apply for the jobs and are suitably qualified to do them but who will not get them because they will have to be paid the full rate of Australian wages. We also know—and I have had discussions with people with respect to this matter—that when people come over here from overseas, even if they are being paid lower wages and even if they are being exploited, they are less likely to go to the authorities and make complaints or raise concerns about what is happening to them, because they know that, if they do, they will lose their job. They would rather have their job than do that, and again that's something that seriously concerns me. The other matter is, of course, that whilst that is all happening and the jobs are going to people from overseas, we know full well that those people are very likely not to become union members. The union members lose their jobs, and again that's an indirect attack on the unions, which this government is renowned for. The labour-market-testing provisions in this legislation also give me real concerns. I'm not surprised that the labour-market-testing provisions in this legislation give the immigration minister new powers, which ministers in the past have not had, to prescribe by legislative instrument how the testing will be done. But the minister wants the legislative instrument, which is effectively a law of parliament, to be exempt from disallowance—unlike all other legislative instruments or regulations that come before this parliament, which can be disallowed. The minister wants to deny parliament its right to approve or disapprove what are effectively the laws of this land. This is a minister who is getting carried away with his self-importance and his authority. I contrast that with federal Labor's approach. If Labor is elected, a new independent labour-market-testing body, which will be known as the Australian Skills Authority, will be established. That body will work with all of the stakeholders—employers, union organisations, training organisations and the like—to establish not only the list of skills shortages that occur or skills that are needed in Australia but also how the labour-market-testing provisions might apply. It will assist the government in an independent way in managing what is often a complex matter. That's what should be done rather than saying, 'We have a minister who knows everything, and he's the expert, and we will trust his judgement about what we should and should not do.' Even if it were the case that the minister felt that he did know everything, and the parliament had confidence in the minister, once legislation is enacted it's enacted for all future ministers as well. I believe that giving any minister this kind of authority is the wrong course to go on. Put simply, this legislation imposes a fee of around $10 a week on foreign workers, paid for by their employer, with the money collected then going into a Skilling Australians Fund. This is the Turnbull government's miserly commitment to skills training in Australia. A fund will be established, at the rate of about $10 a week for each employee that comes in from overseas, that will be used to train the rest of Australia and meet the skilling needs of the rest of Australia. The problem with that is twofold. Firstly, the fund will never be sufficient to meet all the skilling and training requirements of Australian young people and others that want to be skilled. Secondly, it creates a situation where the government is dependent on bringing in foreign workers in order to fund the program that is then going to be used to skill up the rest of the nation. It's a contradiction, and it creates a dependence for the government to continue to do what we all know is wrong. I also point out that I have no doubt that the $10 a week will ultimately come out of the pockets of the workers who come here; I am sure most employers will find a way of doing that. The new skills shortage list that the government has produced and touted as the government's clampdown on 457 visa rorting is more spin than substance. I will make some specific comments about that in respect of the medical profession and the recruitment of overseas doctors over recent years. It all began with the medical profession limiting the number of university places for medical students. That created a genuine shortage—there is no question about that—which triggered an influx of overseas doctors and overseas medical students training in Australia then getting work here. They filled a gap and provided necessary medical services, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia. Indeed, the AMA believes that around 40 per cent of the doctors working in regional, rural and remote Australia are overseas medical doctors—that is, they either come from overseas or they came to study here from overseas and then got work here. On my figures—and I stand to be corrected—that means we have about 7,000 doctors working in regional, rural and remote Australia who are working under our visa program, which enabled them to do so because there was supposedly a shortage in the bush—and there was. Universities then opened up extra medical places, and new universities also came on board with new medical training skills. I understand that there are some 22 universities across Australia today that now provide medical training. Now the medical profession is saying that Australia is heading towards an oversupply of doctors, and we no longer need overseas doctors coming into Australia. Yet there is still a shortage of doctors in the bush, and so the government has resisted calls by the medical profession to limit the entry of overseas doctors. What is the government's solution to what is clearly a dilemma for it? The government doesn't have one and just muddles along, hoping that the problem might one day go away and solve itself. Well, it won't, and it's a serious problem because it affects the health quality of people in regional, rural and remote Australia. In closing, I say this is important legislation. It's important legislation because it goes to the heart of managing the workforce needs of Australia now and into future. It's important legislation because it deals with and tries to address the very important issue of skilling up our workforce for the future needs of this country. It's about supporting families that already live in this country and are struggling to find work—or find more work if they are underemployed. It's a case of building the Australian economy through having a competent workforce that can actually innovate and deal with issues that emerge and that will continue to emerge in the future. But the simplistic answer of this government is a miserly change to the 457 visa program which will be grossly inadequate to adjust and meet the future needs of this country. That's why the amendment moved by the member for Blair should be supported. 12:47 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I'd like to sum up the debate and, in doing so, I thank all the speakers from both sides of the chamber for their contributions to the debate on these two bills, which we are debating concurrently: the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, as well as the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017. As members are aware, these two bills collectively introduce a training contribution charge, known as the SAF levy, which is a critical element of the reforms to sponsored skill migration in this country to ensure Australian workers are given first priority for jobs. The revenue collected, in essence from the sponsoring business of the short-term skilled visas, will be going into a new fund called the Skilling Australians Fund. The idea behind collecting this revenue and putting it into this fund is that that training fund will then be used to go towards precisely the training in the areas where we need further skills so that, in the future, we hope, businesses will no longer need to bring in as many foreign workers to fill the gaps that exist presently. We estimate that about $1.2 billion will be raised in this fund, and that will support an estimated 300,000 apprenticeships and traineeships over the forward estimates. So it's a very significant amount of money which we forecast will be raised and a very significant contribution to the upskilling of Australians in order to ensure that they can fill the jobs of the future. The bill also amends the act so that the minister may determine the manner in which labour market testing must be conducted. This enhanced labour market testing will ensure employers are first providing Australians with the opportunity of a job before they seek to bring in workers from overseas. The bill also amends the act to formalise the current practices of accepting nominations for temporary overseas skilled workers by businesses that have applied to be a sponsor or entered into negotiations for a labour agreement rather than awaiting the outcome of that process. The bills complement the other 457 visa changes we are making—very significant changes, which we announced last April. The overall objective of these changes is to ensure that, as much as humanly possible, Australian workers get the first opportunity to get Australian jobs. Of course, there will be cases where there are no Australian workers able to do those jobs, so we still need a system for businesses to be able to fill those particular positions by bringing some skilled people into the country on a short-term basis. We were concerned previously that there were problems in the 457 visa category. We have addressed those problems by making significant changes. We have had wave 1 of the reforms already, which, for example, involved reducing the number of occupations on the skills shortages list from 651 down to 461. We have introduced two lists: one for very short term skills shortages, for two years, and the other for medium and longer term skills shortages. We have already introduced new integrity measures, and next month, from 1 March, we'll be introducing the next wave of reforms in relation to the 457 visa process. We are doing so in order to ensure that Australians have the best chance of getting those Australian jobs. I just want to reflect on a couple of the points the shadow minister and other Labor members have raised, including reflecting on the amendment they're foreshadowing. In essence, they are saying—and it is even in the amendment they have foreshadowed—that the government has failed to protect local jobs. I find this astounding. If they are criticising us for failing to protect Australian jobs, clearly the shadow minister is not up to date on what is going on in the Australian economy today. For the benefit of members opposite I'd just like to go through a few key facts that show how well we are doing in ensuring that Australians are getting jobs. The first point is that in the last 12 months alone 400,000 jobs have been created in the economy, three-quarters of which are full-time jobs. That is a record for the number of jobs ever created in this country—400,000 jobs were created in this country. The second point I would make relates to this, and it was in part due to the good work of Minister Porter, who is sitting beside me in the chamber. It is that the number of people on unemployment benefits or on working-age welfare payments is at its lowest level in 25 years. The number of people on working-age payments has dropped by 140,000 while we've been in government, whereas it actually went up by 250,000 when Labor was in government. I have talked about the new jobs created and I have just mentioned that, as a process of that, we have the smallest proportion of people on welfare we've had for 25 years. The third element of that, which goes directly to the bill we are discussing today, is that we've done this at the same time that the number of people coming out on 457 visas has actually dropped significantly. So it's quite an incredible trifecta that we can have more jobs being created, fewer people on welfare and fewer overseas workers coming in and being needed to fill the gaps. That's a good outcome overall for Australian workers. The contrast is stark when we compare it with what occurred under the previous government, where the welfare queues went up, where job creation was lower and where we had a record number of people coming in on 457 visas. While the welfare queues were going up, they were bringing in a record number of people on 457 visas. That's why we are so strongly saying that the amendment they're proposing is so fundamentally flawed and so fundamentally wrong. This government has done very, very well at job creation. We've still got more work to do. We've done very well at reducing the number of people on welfare—we still have more work to do—and we've done well at ensuring that Australians get the first opportunity for those jobs before we need to introduce people from overseas to fill the gaps. I once again say thank you for the contributions of people to this House. I hope the members opposite will reflect on the trifecta which I've just outlined in terms of job creation, fewer people on welfare and fewer people from overseas coming into this country. It is something that we can all be justifiably proud of because it means that more Australians are getting good jobs in this country and they are more secure jobs. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Therefore, the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 38 13:06 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 8), before "The", insert "(1)". (2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 22), at the end of section 140ZN, add:    (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) (e), the penalty payable must be a civil penalty not exceeding 60 penalty units. The Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide for the collection of a nomination training contribution charge for employers nominating overseas skilled workers. This measure is a critical element to the government's employer sponsored skilled migration reforms, ensuring that Australian workers are given the first priority for jobs in this country. The amendments to the bill set 60 penalty units, which is currently $12,600, as the maximum penalty that may be prescribed in the regulations for underpayments of a nomination training contribution charge. The amendments will provide certainty regarding the maximum amount of any penalty that may be prescribed in the regulations for underpayments of a nomination training contribution charge. This addresses the concerns of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, the amendment bill. The administration of the Skilling Australians Fund will increase the transparency and accountability of training contributions made by employers utilising the skilled migration program. This will increase public confidence that skilled migration and the businesses that bring in skilled migrants are doing their part to help Australians prepare for the workforce. 13:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Labor will support these amendments. This is just fixing up sloppy drafting, and we are happy to assist the government in whatever way we can in a bipartisan way. We support the amendments. Question agreed to. 13:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 14, insert: 14A At the end of subsection 140GBA(4)    Add "The period must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.". (2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (after line 24), after subsection 140GBA(6), insert:    (6AA) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection (5) unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:    (a) will be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and    (b) will set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position.    (6AB) A duration determined for the purposes of paragraph (6)(d) must be at least 4 weeks. As I highlighted in my speech in the second reading debate, these amendments are to ensure proper labour market testing is in place. There needs to be real, genuine and strict labour market testing. Labour market testing requires that employers who want to bring in overseas workers test the local labour market first, to give Australians and permanent residents the first chance at local jobs. This is to make sure that, if no suitably and qualified local workers are readily available, we can bring people from overseas with the skill, talent and ability to contribute to our economy. These amendments are all about putting local workers first. Although the legislation allows the immigration minister to determine by legislative instrument the manner of labour market testing, it doesn't provide that he can follow through on it. The minister may only include the following in the legislative instrument: the language to be used in advertising, the advertising method, the period during or prior to nomination in which the advertisement must occur, and the duration of the advertising. The government's bill asks Australians to trust the immigration minister to do the right thing in this legislative instrument, which is non-disallowable. Many on the opposite benches, including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, when he was the shadow minister for immigration, have voted again and again in this place against labour market testing. They can't be trusted to do the right and proper thing to protect Australian jobs. I remember in the last days of the Rudd government, back in 2013, when those opposite, then in opposition, including the now Treasurer, went on the rampage against us when the member for Gorton tried to bring in proper labour market testing. We had to go to the crossbench, and didn't get the strictness we wanted, because the then opposition, now government, opposed us. They have voted in this place again and again against labour market testing. What have we seen since they announced their clampdown on 457s? Have we seen any details of the legislative instrument? Have we seen media reports, pronouncements or major speeches by the immigration minister, anything that would give us any confidence whatsoever that they will do the right thing? We have not. I have been in this place for 10 years, and I know the Liberal and National parties haven't been committed to this. They haven't been champions of proper labour market testing. At the public hearing of the Senate inquiry the ACTU, the organisation that represents workers, testified: Labour market testing is critical to this whole debate. The fact of the matter is the government opposed labour market testing up hill and down dale until April 2017, when they suddenly were converted to the idea of labour market testing. It's probably the greatest conversion since Saint Paul on the road to Damascus—and we believe they're going to carry through and not backslide? I think they're going to commit apostasy. They don't have any religious fervour in this area. They have no commitment whatsoever to labour market testing. I'll talk about what those opposite will do in due course during this consideration in detail. The ACTU, a great organisation whose unions represent workers in the workplace, said: … quite frankly, given the government's history on labour market testing, why would you trust this government to implement a serious regime of labour market testing? We just don't. And neither do we on this side of the chamber. We know that the Turnbull government has failed to protect penalty rates for 700,000 Australian workers. Now this out-of-touch government wants us and the Australian public to believe that it'll do the right thing with this legislation, yet for month after month it has done absolutely nothing, made no announcements of details, and put in place these very narrow guidelines for a legislative instrument. These amendments, which were circulated in my name, reflect the provisions of the opposition leader's private member's bill: the Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016. Amendment (1) circulated in my name ensures that labour market testing must not start earlier than four months prior to the nomination. We've got details about what the minister must be reasonably satisfied about, and we've also put in a provision that the advertising must be real and the duration must be at least four weeks. There is more I'll say in the course of this debate, but I urge my colleagues to also say more words about it. 13:15 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy He died with a dozen spears in his back—I know the feeling! We people in the mining industries or representing the mining industries of Australia are particularly perturbed because it's very rare now for a coalminer or a hard-rock miner to get three years of continuous work. It's all done on contract now, and the CFMEU, God bless them, have pointed out again and again the nature of the casualisation of labour in Australia. If you don't have a permanent job, you can't buy a house. The bank won't loan you money. If you haven't got a permanent job, you can't buy a car. The bank won't loan you money. So it is all part of the new contractor, fly-in fly-out mining. Everyone accepts fly-in fly-out mining, which is quite remarkable because I was brought up in a world where it was rejected totally. It was banned in Western Australia under Charles Court, which precipitated WA Inc. Some $240,000 was donated to a stamp album so that Alan Bond could fly in his workers to his diamond mine, the Argyle. So fly-in fly-out mining was born in corruption. In Queensland, it was banned under the Bjelke-Petersen government. Here are two of the most conservative governments in Australian history. Neither of them would allow fly-in mining. There are destructive implications for families from fly-in mining. If you're a fly-in miner, you don't see your daughter at the eisteddfod or the ballet. You don't see your son playing football on the weekend. Do we work to have a life, or do we have a life to work? That is the question that is always asked. The ALP are not the innocents in this. Thirty-six thousand were coming in under the LNP, and that was raised to 147,000 under the ALP. So as far as fly-in fly-out workers from overseas are concerned—section 457, which is what we're talking about here today—the naughty boys were the ALP. You took it from 36,000 under the LNP up to 147,000, which was pointed out with great venom, God bless him, by Michael O'Connor, President of the CFMEU, no less, to the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. He said, 'Don't go blaming the Tories, because, Prime Minister, it was you, and this union is not going to brook any further section 457s coming into this country.' And they say, 'Oh, we can't get Australians to work these days.' Well, as an Australian, I don't particularly like being called a bludger, and the people I mix with I wouldn't call bludgers either. So who exactly are these Australians? Fifteen years ago we didn't need any section 457 workers. There were virtually none coming into this country. So how come suddenly, in 15 years, the people of the country have all become bludgers and we need to bring in section 457 workers from overseas? The illustrious and highly respected cabinet minister at the dispatch box, no less, referred to the fact that welfare will jump from 25 per cent of the federal budget to 50 per cent of the federal budget over the next 10 years. Why? Because we're bringing 640,000 people a year into this country on long-term visas, which means they're not going to go home. They get four years and they can extend it for four years. They're never going to leave the country. Like Mexican wetbacks, once they cross that border you won't ever get them out. They haven't done it in America and you're almost certainly not doing it here, in respect of the major parties. There are 640,000 people and there are only 200,000 jobs. And there are over 200,000 school leavers. We've got 840,000 people chasing 200,000 jobs. Something has got to break here. I suspect it's the social welfare system. And, as Minister Porter pointed out, the welfare budget is going to jump from 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the federal budget—of course it is. You're bringing in 640,000 people a year from overseas. Australians are losing the jobs, because preference is being given to people from overseas— (Time expired) 13:21 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston We won't be supporting these amendments. We understand their intent. The government is, as part of its reform package, putting forward a stronger regime of ensuring that there is good advertising to ensure that Australians get that opportunity to get that job. The amendment bill that was put forward provides the framework for an instrument to be tabled in the parliament and to detail exactly what is going to be required for the market testing. It's interesting that those opposite, and particularly the shadow minister in his initial contribution, made as one of their critiques of the government in relation to our significant changes to the 457s that there was supposedly a lack of consultation, and yet that is exactly what we are doing right now in relation to the labour market testing. We are putting up the framework today, and then we've got an opportunity to consult in relation to the labour market testing. So, I would have thought that those opposite would actually want to support that particular proposal to do proper consultation in relation to this. I'll finish, because I don't want to delay the passage of this bill, but let me remind those opposite—and the member for Kennedy pointed this out in his eloquent manner—that in fact the world record holders for the number of 457s coming into this country is the Labor Party opposite. It was back in 2012, and guess who the minister in charge of that was at the time when that world record—130,000—was achieved in terms of the number of 457s coming in? It was none other than the now Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. It was the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who was in charge of that program, taking in 130,000 people, and now we're down to about 70,000 people who are coming into this country. As I said previously, we're only taking 70,000 people into this country on the 457s, at the same time that we have record jobs' growth in the country and at the same time that we have the lowest proportion of people on welfare payments in 25 years. That is a great trifecta. It means that we are prioritising Australians for Australian jobs, and we are growing the number of jobs so they can have the wealth and prosperity which they expect and deserve. 13:24 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It is very disappointing to hear that the government will not be accepting Labor's amendments, because we are trying to help the government out here. The Australian people don't believe them when it comes to labour market testing, and they have good reason not to believe the government when it comes to labour market testing, or to leave it in the hands of the minister when it comes to labour market testing. It wasn't that long ago that members opposite, when we were talking about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, accused this side of the House, and accused Australian workers, of being racist and of being xenophobic, because we wanted labour market testing to be in place. This is the track record of those opposite. They have vilified people for standing up to say, 'We want there to be a test. Before you bring a temporary worker into this country and hire them, we want to know that you've actually gone to market and tested it.' Quite frankly, this idea of consultation that the minister is talking about—allowing it to happen by the minister's decision—is again more delaying. When we were in government, they voted against our changes to strengthen labour market testing. They voted against it. That's their track record. They have fought it every step of the way. Now they have an opportunity to support sensible amendments which will give Australian jobseekers and Australians confidence that the government finally understands the importance of labour market testing, that they will live up to the 'locals for local jobs first' plan that is being put forward. Instead, they're saying, 'Nothing to see here. We're going to come up with a couple of instruments.' Australians don't trust this government when it comes to temporary work visas. The government is also not doing anything to really lift standards and crack down on some of the exploitation that we've seen of these temporary workers. I really feel for some of the temporary guest workers who come into our country. They don't know that Australians are missing out on jobs. They don't know that they're taking a position that hasn't been properly labour market tested. They aren't aware of the circumstances in which they're entering this country. Yes, it is true that a lot of them come here on a temporary arrangement with the want and the willingness to stay. We should encourage more migration to this country. We should encourage people to migrate here. What we have before us is a real lack of commitment from this government to genuinely have labour market testing. That is why Labor has moved these amendments. We are calling on the government to do the right thing by Australian jobseekers and accept Labor's amendments around labour market testing. We need to mandate to make sure that companies advertise for a minimum of four weeks—and that it's not just a Facebook ad to a closed group. We need to mandate to make sure that it is done no more than four months before nominating a worker—that it wasn't done two years ago. I've met some employers who have said, 'I did that 10 years ago,' or 'I did that a while ago' or 'I just put it up on Facebook.' That is not enough. There need to be targets set. We need to make sure that we are prioritising Australian citizens and permanent residents for jobs and positions. Quite frankly, as a country, we need to do better at matching jobseekers with the available jobs. It is far too easy for companies to look overseas and use a labour hire company to recruit people in. That is why it is so disappointing that the government is again using another delaying tactic by saying, 'Trust the minister to do it.' Given the track record of this government and given their failure to genuinely crack down on visa rorts and exploitation, we cannot trust them. They should accept the amendments Labor has put forward. They should listen to the Australian people, listen to the union movement and genuinely engage. Their blind hatred of the union movement has again come up in this debate. Our unions raise issues that Australian workers raise. When they raised this issue about the importance of the labour market testing, what did they get from those opposite? They were told that they're racist—they're racist for saying, 'We want Australians to have jobs.' That is the kind of maturity that we have from the government when people say that workers coming into this country are, firstly, not being treated properly and, secondly, being brought into the country under false pretences because there hasn't been proper labour market testing. Corporate Australia needs to be held accountable. That is why we need to put these rules in place. The government should join with Labor, support these amendments and give young jobseekers in this country not only an opportunity but also the knowledge that they will be considered first. 13:29 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Normally I'd like a bit longer than a minute but I'll make a start on my speech on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017. I'm just going to restate a couple of propositions which are important, because they underpin the principal, the foundation, as to why we believe labour market testing is required. If there is an Australian who can do the job, they should get the job and you should only have access to the temporary skilled migration system if there is no suitable Australian who can do the job. The government is proposing through this bill, the substantive bill that the House has now read for a second time, to remove all of the specific requirements currently in the Migration Act for labour market testing and to come up with an instrument. We don't know what that instrument is. Maybe the minister here has it under the table. You could show us the instrument. You could tell us what's in it. Then we might be able to make an informed assessment about what the government actually proposes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Bruce will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Herbert Electorate: Employment 42 13:30 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand in this place today to make it crystal clear that I will always fight for jobs for the people of my electorate of Herbert. My position on Adani has always been very clear: it must stack up both environmentally and commercially, and if it does it will go ahead, but I will never support giving a billion taxpayer dollars to a billionaire foreign company. I will fight every day in this place for real, quality and secure jobs for the people of Townsville. We suffered Clive Palmer from the Gold Coast axing 800 jobs from QNI, we suffered Campbell Newman's government in Brisbane slashing jobs in our community, and now we are suffering the Turnbull government in Canberra cutting jobs in Townsville in our schools and hospitals, more than in any southern capital city. I am sick of these jobs cuts, and I am sick of the missed opportunities for Townsville. I will never back down from arguing for secure and quality jobs for the people of Townsville. I fought for the Townsville Stadium. Labor promised to deliver, and it is now delivering 750 local jobs. I fought for large infrastructure projects that Townsville needs to secure our energy and water future. Labor has provided $200 million to support hydro on the Burdekin Falls Dam, which will deliver 150 construction jobs. Labor will provide $100 million to ensure Townsville's water security. I will continue to fight for real, quality jobs in all sectors in our community. (Time expired) Forrest Electorate: Piacentini & Son 42 13:31 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I want to congratulate Piacentini & Son—Kim in particular. He has driven the design, manufacture and sale of the company's Panther series II 360T low-loader innovation for the mining industry. I want to acknowledge the company's 45 apprentices and their highly skilled workforce at their Picton site in my electorate. This is a custom-designed piece of equipment for the mining industry in Australia and around the world. It's very heavy duty. It was designed and fabricated in the South West by our local workforce, with great attention to detail. It's a 360-tonne low loader. It has a LeTourneau front-end loader with 2,350 horsepower on the front, and the first one is being exported overseas to work on a major mine site. It is a very stable platform, quite high off the ground and capable of working in some of the toughest mining conditions. It also has a very sound rear axle rotation system, again designed and developed by Piacentini & Son. It is modular in design and can be shipped anywhere. I'd encourage people to have a look at the video. Congratulations to everyone at Piacentini & Son in my electorate. Banking and Financial Services 42 13:33 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I think it's safe to say that the one thing that we can all agree on in this place, no matter where we sit, is that when we are out in the community we constantly hear from mums and dads and from those people who vote for us about the need for genuine bipartisanship in this place, and more of it. Well, have I got a deal for you! To her credit, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services put into place reforms called the SACC reforms by way of review back in 2015 and 2016. For those who aren't aware of what the SACC reforms do, they go to the heart of the payday-lending and rent-to-buy industry. Those reforms were released in March 2016. The government commented in relation to those reforms in November 2016. The government, to their credit, recommended in principle to support all of those reforms. Those reforms will help vulnerable Australians achieve some relief from a relentless debt spiral that comes from entering into payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes that they cannot afford. Federal Labor support those reforms. The minister supported those reforms. So why, you might ask, has it taken from November 2016 until the present day to actually get something meaningful to vulnerable Australians done? Well, the answer is that the government are not taking the step they need to. I challenge them to put their money where their mouth is. (Time expired) Tangney Electorate: Australia Day 43 13:34 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney It was great to celebrate Australia Day this year. I celebrated Australia Day with a fantastic Australia Day breakfast at the Rossmoyne Shelley foreshore, a breakfast put on by the Rossmoyne Rotary Club. I also made it to a barbecue run by the Lions Club of Bull Creek, the City of Melville and volunteers from the SES and Neighbourhood Watch. There were citizenship ceremonies at both events, and my sincere congratulations go to those new Australians. It was great to see the community coming together to celebrate and to welcome them into our community. It was, however, disappointing to see families in my electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Fremantle missing out on Australia Day fireworks and celebrations due to pressure from left-wing activists, who ensured the Australia Day celebrations in Fremantle would not go ahead. This vocal minority is set on divisive actions on a day that should be about unity. This contrasts with the fantastic celebrations in the city of Perth, which were inclusive and respectful of our First Australians. The city of Perth brought together 300,000 people to celebrate with family events, including the Indigenous focused Birak concert at the Supreme Court gardens, full of music, dance, art and food. The Birak concert celebrated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and communities, recognising our diversity and celebrating our unity. That's exactly the Australia Day that we need. Moreton Electorate 43 13:36 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Constituents know they can say g'day to me everywhere, and so they should—they're my boss. So in May this year I will spend six days methodically walking around my electorate of Moreton saying g'day to them, just after the Turnbull government budget is handed down. I'll be saying g'day from Chelmer to Acacia Ridge, from Oxley to Runcorn, from Annerley to Sunnybank and every suburb in between. Moreton people can join me for a longer early morning walk or a shorter stroll throughout the day or for a coffee or a snack in between. They can come and check out the community groups that I'll be hooking up with along the way. Saying g'day is so simple but so important. Community connections actually mean that people become healthier. The culmination of the walk through Moreton will be a massive morning tea to showcase the many community groups who service the Southside. The Moreton Say G'day Showcase will invite all Moreton community groups and individuals to come along to see for themselves what groups are available, who they are, what they do and where they meet. I'm excited about the Moreton Say G'day Walk and the community showcase to follow. I encourage constituents and community groups to get involved. Details of the walk will be distributed closer to the date in May. If you or your community group would like to catch up on the walk or would like to host an event along the way, please call or email my office and we'll make sure that we can say g'day in Moreton in May. Queensland: Infrastructure 43 13:37 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I, like my Team Queensland LNP colleagues, am proud to be part of a government that is investing record amounts of money into infrastructure in Queensland. But we can't afford to be victims of our own success, and this is why we continue to prosecute the case for our state. One of the projects that we are going after is a proposal for fast rail that would connect Brisbane through Moreton Bay, up through the Sunshine Coast. This is a bold and transformative project, and right now it is one of 11 proposals in front of the federal government seeking co-funding for a business case for fast rail so that we can then put our hands in the kitty for the $10 billion National Rail Program. No decision has yet been made, but I stand today to say thank you, not just to my LNP colleagues, the Team Queensland crew, but to our state colleagues, to the mayors of Brisbane, Moreton Bay, Sunshine Coast and Noosa. If we continue to unite and work together, we could get this job done. Tasmania: Health Care 44 13:39 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon Tasmania's hospital system has been in crisis since the coalition's horror budget of 2014, which cut $1 billion from Tasmania's health system, and the first budget of the state Liberal government cut $210 million from an already pressured system. Health professionals, peak bodies and Tasmanian residents have been calling for urgent funding to fix the system. Statistic after statistic continually identifies Tasmania as having the worst-performing health system in the country. The state's wonderful nursing and medical staff are under enormous pressure—under-resourced, overstretched and dealing with ambulance ramping at every hospital. So it was absolutely disgusting that yesterday it was revealed that the Turnbull government has been called out for wanting to cut hospital funding even further. This government is seeking a five-year deal offering no new money for public hospitals. It will result in inadequate funding until 2025. But what will the current Liberal Tasmanian Premier do? He continually shows he cannot stand up to the Turnbull government and he cannot stand up for Tasmanians. Tasmanian Labor, if elected on 3 March, has committed to a half-billion-dollar injection of funds into our health system. Health is Labor's priority, but the Liberal Party continues to put the health of Tasmanians last. Elective surgery wait times will continue to blow out and emergency departments will be clogged, putting lives at risk. Make the change a priority— (Time expired) Veterans 44 13:40 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I have spoken here before about the recent veterans ministerial statement, the first ever warts-and-all frank assessment of how we're doing in supporting our ex-service personnel. I concluded at that time that this journey we're committed to, especially in areas like veterans' health and mental health, requires us to measure our performance more often, to learn quickly, to try new things, to fail fast if things aren't going to work, and, when programs do work, to ramp them up very quickly. Last week I was again down at the RSL Queensland offices in Spring Hill. This time I took the opportunity to learn about a trial they're running to improve employment outcomes for veterans. The trial is being run by the RSL, with a $123,000 grant from this government under the Supporting Younger Veterans program. It focuses on intervention and case management in transitioning ex-service personnel into employment. Importantly, it applies to both ex-service personnel and their partners. The trial is not yet completed, but what I saw suggests that this pilot is indeed succeeding—about 90 people enrolled, good outcomes and a return on investment that appears likely to stack up quite well when compared with some other employment programs I can think of. At the end of this trial, if this program is indeed successful, it should be expanded quickly. I understand that the RSL in Queensland are planning that expansion and, when they do, we should support them. Indi Electorate: Railways, Indi Electorate: Telecommunications 44 13:42 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Colleagues, when I was speaking to my electorate over summer asking them what issues I should address when we came back to parliament there were two priorities: the north-east train line and mobile phone blackspots. Regarding trains, between Boxing Day and 3 January, 23 train services in my electorate were replaced with buses. Imagine the inconvenience. I tell my community that we are making progress. The government has announced $100 million, and we're looking at the scope of works. We have people around the table—the ARTC and the Victorian and Commonwealth governments—working together. I'd like to do a special call-out to Darren Chester for his work when he was minister. Now, I call on the Victorian government, because the Premier said that as soon as we got organised he would put the order in for new rolling stock. To the Premier of Victoria: now it's your turn. On mobile phone blackspots, we all know that when we get the community, local government, emergency services, the state government and the Commonwealth working together we do really well. We had that in rounds 1 and 2 of the mobile phone blackspots program, but now it's fallen apart. So I was really happy to welcome Minister Dalidakis, of the Victorian government, to meet last week with local government people in my electorate. I thank him and his department for the support they're going to give Victoria for mobile phone blackspots. Now to the Commonwealth: it's your turn to come to the party with round 4. As the new year gets underway, I'll continue to fight for trains and mobile phone coverage. (Time expired) Iszlaub, Mr Percy 44 13:44 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I stand today to honour a great leader, Percy Iszlaub, of Wondai. He passed peacefully this week, just two days after his 92nd birthday. He'll be put to rest at 1 pm on Friday, 9 February at Wondai. Only last week I travelled to Wondai to visit Percy. We shared a lot of great memories from over the past 10 years that we've known each other. Percy was known as the face of Wondai, and for very good reasons. He represented all those marvellous trades of the bush. His face would beam with joy every time he would welcome a visitor to his town. For almost 40 years Percy dedicated his time and energy to working for the Wondai community and the shire council. He served as deputy chairman, chairman and, later, mayor. He was critical in achieving so much for the community during his time. At the 2015 South Burnett Australia Day awards, Percy was presented with a special award acknowledging his lifetime of service for the South Burnett. Percy was also a keen rugby league player, cricketer and target shooter. In addition to his family, he loved his tuba and playing for the Wondai and District Band. Percy is survived by his wife, Alison; his two daughters, Jane and Leigh; and four grandchildren. Rest in peace, Percy. National Broadband Network 45 13:45 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I expect a general sympathetic groan of despair in once again having to rise to decry the farcical, wasteful and growing disaster that is the NBN. In my community and in my electorate office 'NBN' has become a three-letter swearword. It was full of promise but bastardised by this incompetent government. It's reached the stage that the only thing worse than waiting for the NBN is getting the NBN. Indeed, the Prime Minister, 'Mr 21st Century Copper', the man who invented the internet, has seen the light; he who was the communications minister has recently described the NBN as 'a calamitous train wreck'. They say people often get promoted to the level of their own incompetence. Well, I think the Prime Minister's certainly gone one above. His record: the cost of this multitechnology mix has blown out from $29.5 billion to $40 billion; it costs more to maintain over its lifetime and—brilliant genius moment—you get lower speeds and less reliability; and the out-of-date network is now horribly exposed to wireless competition. So we anticipate millions of customers leaving the NBN—because it's crap—and going onto 5G. NBN executives have confirmed in the business case that there's no funding to upgrade the copper network. It's not a multitechnology mix; it's a mess. My electorate has now hit the top 10 hot spots for complaints across the country, which is not an award you want to win. So I ask the Prime Minister: how long will people have to put up with this mess before it gets fixed? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I just note to the member for Bruce that there were a couple of words there that were very close to being unparliamentary. He might keep that in mind. Mr HILL 86256 I withdraw 'NBN'! The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN You know what I'm talking about. I call the member for Barker. Barker Electorate: Limestone Coast Wig Library 45 13:47 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to inform the House about a community initiative that has spread from one region in my electorate to another, an initiative I'm proud I can play a small part in. Last Friday night I was privileged to officially open the Limestone Coast Wig Library in Naracoorte and present a cheque for $5,000 as part of our government's Stronger Communities Program. Naracoorte Soroptimists have been responsible for the project from the initial thought bubble through to making it a reality. It began when Norma Davis and Sue Thiele of Naracoorte Soroptimists attended the SA Rural Women gathering in the Riverland. It was there that they learnt about the Caroline Bristow Wig Library that had been established at the Barmera hospital. The driving force behind the Riverland Wig Library, Ellen Traeger, then offered support and seed funding to Naracoorte Soroptimists to establish a wig library for the Limestone Coast. Over the following year, Naracoorte Soroptimists worked to raise money and find a location. This story is one of hard work and dedication that resulted in a fantastic facility that I know will be well used by so many ladies on the Limestone Coast. The Naracoorte Wig Library now joins the Caroline Bristow Wig Library in the Riverland and the Murray Mallee Wig Library in Murray Bridge as valuable services for women suffering hair loss due to illness. Congratulations to the Naracoorte Soroptimists on this fantastic achievement. It's a great example of projects that add to the strength of community in Barker. National Disability Insurance Scheme 45 13:48 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra The Social Services portfolio has had four ministers in four years, a revolving door of ministers, with each new minister failing to address the ongoing issues with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS just isn't a priority for this Turnbull government. Particularly over the Christmas period, my office has been inundated with phone calls and people dropping in and emailing with constant complaints—heartbreaking stories, gut-wrenching stories, about what's happening with the NDIS. There are persistent IT problems, poor quality plans, staff shortages, and mixed messages from the NDIA. Canberrans report inadequate plan reviews being undertaken without consultation with families or based on outdated doctors reports; applications for home modifications taking almost 12 months to be considered; arbitrary decisions to cut funding for specialised school holiday programs; changed interpretation from the NDIA on whether a person actually has a disability; plans going missing about respite care; plans referring to a different person other than the client; applications for equipment taking months to be assessed and processed; and no reimbursement options for families desperate enough for pay for this equipment on their own. Families in my community are frustrated and at breaking point. (Time expired) Education 46 13:50 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler As we all know, in recent weeks and right now, right around the country our children and our young adults are returning to school. From preppies to university and from primary to secondary—I'd like to give a big shout out to all of those kids who are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and getting out there to get an education. I recall my own high school, the Kepnock State High School in Bundaberg, and in particular—Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I know you'll appreciate this—it's motto, which is 'Success is earned'. I say to all of those children: 'There is no doubt that the harder you work the more successful you will be. Always keep in mind that it is never over till it's over. You must continue to work.' And I say to them, 'Don't look at what happens in this place,' because what we know here is that there is half of this room where success is not earned. It's over there; it's with the opposition. Success is not earned with the opposition; it's very, very clear. You don't have to believe me. It's not my statement. In fact, it comes from The Australian, which says: The "backroom buffoonery" of factional warlords has left the Labor Party's members with fewer rights than any comparable movement in the world … …   …   … Continuing to practise the old ways of machine politics will see trust in the Labor Party continue to wither away. Who was it? It wasn't over here. It was an insider; it was the member for Port Adelaide. I thank the member for Port Adelaide for saying what we all know. Welcome to democracy, member for Port Adelaide. Long may the Labor Party continue to wither. Cost of Living 46 13:51 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Here are some facts particularly for the member for Hinkler, the previous speaker. The new childcare package of the Turnbull government—of which he is a part—will see nearly 300,000 families across Australia worse off, and this includes 2,225 families in my electorate of Wills. There are many people in my electorate and across Australia who are already struggling with cost of living pressures. This policy will see their problems persist and deepen. The strain households budgets are already under will only increase. It should be noted that the 176,000 families who are worse off fall into the lowest two combined family income brackets. Under this proposal these vulnerable families will have to adhere to a complex system for childcare subsidies in which a fortnightly period of work will be used to determine the financial relief provided. What does this mean for people who do casual work or seasonal work? I don't think the government particularly cares. The policy not only is arbitrary and inflexible but also discriminates against large swathes of the working population. With increased casualisation a feature of the jobs market, it defies logic that the Liberals have designed policy around a category of employment that they are fast making a relic of the past. This government's dedication to attacking average Australians with tax increases and removing their penalty rates and their childcare subsidies, putting those families under pressure, is unbelievable. The Prime Minister's reward to his mates in the big end of town with $65 billion in tax cuts for big business is at the expense of ordinary Australians struggling to make ends meet. (Time expired) Clontarf Foundation 46 13:53 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey On Tuesday I had the very great pleasure of catching up with Gerard Neesham. I met him many years ago with the great member for Canning Don Randall, who unfortunately has passed now. Gerard was a former teacher, a WAFL and AFL player, and the inaugural coach of the Fremantle Dockers, but his life's greatest work, without doubt, will be the fabulous success in establishing the Clontarf Foundation. It's an Aboriginal boys college. It started in Broome in 2000 with the backing of Brendan Nelson, who was education minister at the time. They had 25 students in the first intake with 12 in year 12. This year they have 7½ thousand students Australia-wide and 700 Aboriginal boys in year 12. Clontarf uses the popularity of football—and not just for champions but for all—as the glue, the enticement, the reward for school engagement, and it works. There are astonishing figures. It operates in all the mainland states in Australia except South Australia. I know the history of why this is so, and this is not the time or the place to dwell on that, but we need South Australia to join this project. Let's look at Broome again, just briefly before I leave. When Clontarf started in 2005 there were 320 kids in the school, 100 Aboriginal kids and one Aboriginal kid in year 12 with a 55 per cent attendance rate. This year there are 960 kids in the school, 320 Indigenous kids and 21 of those kids are in year 12 and there is an 81 per cent attendance rate across the school. Well done, Clontarf. Well done, Gerard Neesham. Tasmania: Biosecurity 47 13:54 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Yesterday this House heard the L-plate agricultural minister make a dill of himself in his first question time outing. When asked about the emergence of fruit fly in northern Tasmania and the failures of the Tasmanian Liberal government that allowed this biosecurity farce to occur, this is what the young fellow said: I'm proud to say that the Hodgman Liberal government are also undertaking their responsibilities … The new minister went on to praise the Tasmanian Liberal government for providing $2 million and a new fund to fight fruit fly. Well, Minister, if the Tasmanian Liberal government had undertaken its responsibilities, it would not have cut $1 million from Biosecurity Tasmania. It would have kept its 2015 promise to ensure that biosecurity guards and dogs met every flight and every cruise ship coming to Tasmania. It would have stopped fruit fly from entering Tasmania in the first place and not had to scramble at the last minute after the horse had bolted. We are now seeing massive biosecurity gaps in Tasmania that allowed fruit fly to enter Tasmania for the first time ever, putting at risk a $200 million industry and thousands of jobs. Yesterday, as the minister was extolling the virtues of the Tasmanian Liberal government, authorities discovered two more fruit fly in northern Tasmania. That's now 18 flies and larvae discovered within the past month alone. It's not a crisis yet but it's getting there. This government has got to go. Fadden Electorate: STEM Education 47 13:56 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden The government's committed to ensuring that young Australians have the skills they need for our future workforce in the increasingly important STEM disciplines—science, technology, engineering and maths. STEM education promotes problem solving, critical analysis and creative thinking amongst the next generation of students. I'm delighted to inform the House of a STEM success story from my local community on the Gold Coast—the Pacific Pines Techgirls. Last year they competed in the Search for the Next Tech Girl Superhero competition. They competed against over 1,000 other students from 260 teams, and they not only won the Queensland state title but also went on to win the national competition. On behalf of my local community I'd love to congratulate the Pacific Pines Techgirls team: Courtney Hall, Emi Reed, Isabelle Matthew, Jasmine Sutton and Milla McCashney. Well done, girls, on an outstanding job. The girls built an app that's been endorsed by the Queensland Cancer Council called SunFun. The app is designed to help kids understand the importance of sun safety in a fun but informative manner. The Pacific Pines Techgirls will now represent Australia on the global stage by competing in the Global Technovation Challenge in the United States. The Technovation Challenge helps develop and encourage girls from all over the world to learn and apply the skills needed to solve real-world problems through tech. On behalf of my local community, I wish the team the best of luck. I know they'll do Australia proud on the global stage. Darwin City Deal 47 13:58 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Two hundred and fifty-seven days ago, a federal government representative came to Darwin and signed an MOU with the Northern Territory for a city deal. That's nine months ago—since then, young Territorians have been conceived and born—and we're still waiting in the capital in the north. When a city deal was established for the city of Townsville, that was finalised and signed in one month. When a city deal was established for Launceston, that was done in seven months. But we are still waiting. The Prime Minister promised this city deal. It's a city deal that is going to bring great prosperity and jobs to the Northern Territory—to Darwin in particular. We are still waiting. We have a new minister now, Minister Fletcher, and I extend an invitation for him to come up to Darwin and sign the deal. As I said, the Prime Minister has committed to the people of Darwin that this city deal will be signed. We take him at his word. But, as I said, we've been waiting for nine months. We need more than words, Prime Minister. Please, make this a priority for the northern capital and let's get this city deal signed. Safer Internet Day 47 13:59 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore We've all heard 'don't be a tosser', and we know what it means. If someone is caught throwing rubbish onto a road, a path or into bushland, they're ashamed and embarrassed. Let's make 'don't be a bully' equally effective. Everyone needs to have the guts to message on a Facebook entry where someone is being bullied 'don't be a bully'. It's time to shame the person who writes insulting or hurtful words or comments like 'go kill yourself.' But don't stop there. Be brave enough to say the same thing to someone who punches, hits, kicks or uses some other act of physical intimidation—'don't be a bully'. If you feel at risk, report it to the police. It's time for all of us to acknowledge this as a problem. We have to collectively step up and stop blaming the victim. Recently, I met with Annette, a concerned adult with a young girl, let's call her Trudy—the mayor and her family. Because of intense bullying and a lack of help from all the adults around her, except her family, Trudy was about to leave school and be homeschooled. This is appalling. Thank you, Trudy, for speaking out for help. This week we launched the Australia Safer Internet Day. This was done by the eSafety Commissioner, the Prime Minister and my colleague Nola Marino, who has been advocating for this for many years. Young people who are experiencing bullying should ring 1800551800 and report it to the eSafety Commissioner. We all have to step up and make a difference or in two or three decades we'll be facing yet another inquiry about our inaction. The 'don't be a bully' campaign can be successful. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member's statements has concluded. PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS 48 PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS The Nationals 48 14:01 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I inform the House that the honourable member for Capricornia has been appointed the Nationals Chief Whip and the honourable member for Page has been appointed the Nationals Whip. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Indigenous Affairs 48 14:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. A review by the Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee has found that this government has effectively abandoned the Closing the Gap strategy. Given this damning indictment, how can the Prime Minister continue to justify half a billion dollars of cuts to Indigenous affairs? 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The government is making substantial progress in Indigenous advancement and there is much more to be done. I will set out, on Monday, in the Closing the Gap report, where we are doing satisfactorily and where there is a lot more work to do. I want to advise the House about the very real advances that have been made. We're making a $5 billion investment over four years to 2021 in the Indigenous Advancement Strategy—front line service funding that'll improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We're providing an estimated loading of $4.4 billion for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, with students with greater needs attracting a higher level of funding due to the implementation of the model that David Gonski designed and that we are delivering. In 2018, this additional funding will benefit over 200,000 Indigenous students. Last year I announced a $138 million education package to further enable the economic and social inclusion for which the 1967 referendum campaigners fought, and that will include more opportunities for our First Australians to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We're empowering communities through our Indigenous Procurement Policy, with over half a billion dollars in Commonwealth spending going to 956 Indigenous businesses. This is a spectacular increase from just $6.2 million being won by Indigenous businesses in 2012-13 under former policies. We're investing $14 million in empowered communities to provide critical capability for Indigenous leaders as they work with their communities and partner organisations to identify local priorities, needs and aspirations. Our Prison to work report commissioned in my 2016 Closing the Gap speech has since been delivered and released by COAG. From early this year a voluntary program will provide sentenced Indigenous people in prison with employment assistance to access the support they need on their release. That will prepare them better to find employment and transition back into the community. And of course last year we appointed June Oscar AO as the first female Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. We've got a lot more to do, but we are getting on with it. We are working with our First Australians. We are doing things with them, not doing things to them. Taxation 48 14:05 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's plan for lower business taxes is driving jobs, investment and economic growth for Australians, including in my electorate of Berowra? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member has thousands of businesses in his electorate, as does every member in this House, that are benefiting from the small- and medium-company tax cuts that we have already passed through the parliament. This morning the House passed the next phase of our plan for lower business taxes. But already firms with a turnover of up to $25 million a year are benefiting from a lower company tax, and on 1 July this year that'll be extended to businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. Collectively, those businesses employ more than half of the Australian workforce, and the majority are of the private sector workforce. We want all businesses to pay lower taxes on the income they earn, and we want them to do that so that they will invest more. Business tax is ultimately a tax on workers. They're the ones who pay for higher taxes through lower wage growth and fewer jobs. And we know the reverse is true: lower business taxes help to grow wages; they have a real, direct impact on Australian families. Backing Australian business, especially small and medium family-owned businesses, is backing Australian workers and ensuring that there are more jobs and better-paid jobs. We're seeing the evidence of that right now in the Australian economy: 403,000 jobs created last year, the most in our history. And overwhelmingly the drive, the impetus, for this job creation is coming from those small and medium companies that are benefiting from the tax cuts and other incentives that we provided. We are hearing a chorus from the business sector reaffirming that they will respond to lower taxes with more investment and more employment, whether it is the small and medium family businesses that all of us know so well in our electorates, or should know, or the big end of town. Those are companies that are competing for capital globally. They've got global options, and they will respond by investing more in Australia when Australia is more competitive. The Labor Party know this is right. This is what they said in the 2010 budget, and I quoted it yesterday—it's what the Leader of the Opposition used to say a few years ago; it's what Paul Keating has said and done. Everyone recognises that for Australian business to be competitive there must be a competitive tax regime for business in Australia. We're seeking to set that up, and the result that we're already seeing in the small and medium sector is more investment, more jobs and better jobs. (Time expired) Indigenous Affairs 49 14:08 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the government rule out giving up on any of the seven existing Closing the Gap targets? And why is the government making it harder to achieve Closing the Gap targets, including the target to close the gap in life expectancy within a generation, by cutting half a billion dollars from the Indigenous Affairs budget? 14:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I'll ask the Minister for Indigenous Health to add to this answer, but I just want to respond to the question about Closing the Gap and the targets. What we are engaged in at the moment is a very respectful and extensive consultation with Indigenous communities and leaders—and, of course, we have a big gathering going on here in Canberra at the moment as part of that—as we seek to frame new Closing the Gap targets that are more extensive and that bring in state and territory governments as well. It is a shared objective. The honourable member, as a former minister in a state government, knows very well that the responsibility for Indigenous advancement and closing these gaps and other gaps is one that is shared across governments. The proposition that the government is cutting funding for Indigenous affairs is simply wrong. We are putting more resources into Indigenous advancement all the time. I want to just remind honourable members of what I said a moment ago in my earlier answer: the signal success of the Indigenous procurement policy. We all understand that economic empowerment is fundamental. The Commonwealth has shown strong leadership there in that regard, and it has been a success beyond all expectations. We're getting buy-in from state and territory governments and from the corporate sector. I'll ask the minister to add to the answer. 14:11 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck The priorities that have remained as the targets for Closing the Gap have been consistent. What we have is a 200-year level of disparity, and in 10 years we've set targets that address health and education. We're extending that to employment opportunities and the way in which we bring forward some of the levels of disparity, in a way that we've not been able to achieve to the extent that we had under the 10-year bilateral agreement between both sides of this chamber. But the level of commitment to making a difference doesn't diminish. Certainly, within the health sector we've had some significant gains made, and we will continue to look at how we access mainstream resources that are available to all Australians. That will include the use of MBS items and the PBS, to make sure that the journey, just in health alone, incorporates other opportunities. But that doesn't diminish the existing effort or the commitment to funding. We will continue to focus on making sure that we close the gap in every facet of lives for Indigenous Australians. Economy 50 14:12 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance for governments of developing and implementing sensible and consistent economic policies to drive economic growth and deliver more and better-paid jobs for hardworking Australians? And is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. Welcome back to the member for Bennelong! Our government has a strong economic plan—a strong economic plan for jobs and growth that was endorsed by the Australian people at the last election, when this government was re-elected to get on with implementing that plan. We are getting results with our jobs and growth plan, as we know, with some 1,100 jobs and more created every single day. You'll be interested to know that more than half of those jobs, more than half of those jobs— An opposition member: Boring! Mr MORRISON E3L I hear, 'It's boring.' This is 'boring'—boring for the member for Lindsay! She'll be interested to know that more than half of those jobs are for women. She'll be interested to know that female participation in the labour force is at its highest level on record. More than that, not only are women not left behind by this government, but one in five of those jobs is going to older males, those men aged over 55. The NAB quarterly business survey was out today, and that has further evidence, with both business conditions and business confidence at below long-term-run levels; expected new capital expenditure is at 10-year highs; expected new employment is at 10-year highs. And that's why we're sticking with this plan. That's why we're sticking with the economic compass that is followed by the Liberals and Nationals, on this side of the House, that leads us to more jobs and to more growth. That's why we're sticking with our convictions on the economy. The only convictions the Labor Party know are the convictions of Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald, Craig Thomson and Labor thugs—those that that side of the House give life membership to. Those are the convictions they know about. That mob over there have lost their economic compass. They don't know where they're heading. But there are some who are prepared to admit it. We read in the Fairfax press today about a Labor MP saying that the Leader of the Opposition is 'tilting left', and 'the party should be playing up the contrast' with the Greens. Well, good luck with that! There is no difference between the Greens and the Labor Party now when it comes to economic policy. Higher taxes, more regulation, higher deficits, uncontrolled spending, anti trade, anti mining, anti jobs—that's the Greens agenda; that's the Labor agenda. You can't pay your workers more if you've got to pay the government more. And that's what the Labor Party did today when they rejected, once again, a plan that has already demonstrated its worth for companies under $50 million. The next cab off the rank is companies of $50 million to $100 million, and they say, 'No tax cut for you.' Housing 50 14:16 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister today commit to renewing, in full, the National Partnership on Remote Housing which expires in June this year, or is the Prime Minister preparing to give up on this critical part of the Closing the Gap framework? Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lingiari is now warned! 14:17 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for her question. As I indicated yesterday, the focus on remote housing remains a strong feature of the work that we're doing to close the gap. It has resulted in over 400 local Indigenous jobs being created and 92 apprentices, so it is adding to the growth in both housing and employment opportunities. There are 1,150 new homes and 1,500 refurbishments— Ms Macklin interjecting— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The members for Jagajaga and Griffith will cease interjecting. Mr WYATT M3A and we will continue to build the infrastructure needed in Aboriginal remote communities to ensure that the quality of housing meets the needs that will address the underlying issues and the social determinants that impact on housing, safety, education and the comfort that they can take for granted as being theirs within the community. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned! Mr WYATT M3A The reduction in the number of homeless people now in Aboriginal communities is far better than what it was. This government will leave with a legacy that housing has been a strong feature of our Closing the Gap strategy. The negotiations that we will continue to have with state and territory governments on this are important because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are citizens of each state and territory jurisdiction and must be accorded the same consideration as the general population in terms of the housing bilateral agreements that exist between the Commonwealth and the state and territory jurisdictions. They have to be considered in that context, because what we tend to do is set up separate programs that become the feature and focus of access to infrastructure and housing. This takes this beyond that. This is about Indigenous leaders having raised the issue of the contribution of both the Commonwealth and the states and territories to their living standards, to their way of life and to the equality they seek in every aspect of what they hope to be their journey within our country. We will not resile from our commitment to housing in remote communities and we will continue to plan, develop and implement the programs that are needed to effect that—and that includes creating jobs for young people, which is what I started with. That is an important economic driver that will give them the wealth and social capital to make a difference to their own lives and not rely on welfare. Housing 51 14:19 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy This is the first time I'm in danger of being boring! My question is to the Prime Minister. The National Partnership on Remote Housing is already terminating now. Queensland, over the 10 years, gave $660 million and Canberra $1,100 million. The LGAQ says there have been 400 jobs and apprenticeships and 1,500 new houses. Occupancy rates are still, abysmally, around 15 people per house. The Rudd-Abbott legacy was 1,500 homes. What do you want to be yours, Prime Minister? 14:20 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for the question. Of course, the subject matter is the same as that of the question asked by the member for Herbert, so I refer the honourable member to the minister's answer. I just confirm that we are negotiating a new agreement for remote housing with the jurisdictions who remain part of the terminating program. It is very important. As the honourable member knows, as a former minister in Queensland, housing is a core state responsibility, and it is very important that, in any new arrangements, the states step up to their responsibility. I hope the honourable member is not disagreeing with me, because housing is a core state responsibility, so that renewed agreement is under discussion and negotiation by the minister, ably assisted by the minister who answered the previous question. Mr Perrett interjecting— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is continually interjecting, as he does most question times. If he continues, he'll be out, as will the member for Griffith, who has already been warned. Infrastructure 51 14:21 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how this government's infrastructure investment pipeline is driving record jobs growth across the country, particularly in my electorate of Capricornia? Is he aware of any threats to these job opportunities across Australia? 14:22 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question and note her hard work in making sure that such projects as the Yeppen flood improvement for the Bruce Highway, an upgrade which is worth about $170 million, have been completed. In the floods last year in April, we saw that it was well at work, with the traffic still flowing. That supported about 200 jobs. I remember it very well because, back in the Senate estimates on 12 February 2013, I asked: Is there any funding for the construction of the Yeppen Floodplain in the forward estimates? I asked that of a Labor government, and the answer that came back was quite direct: 'No, there isn't, Senator.' So it was the coalition—Warren Truss—who went to work and made sure that that vital upgrade on the Bruce Highway came about. In Central Queensland, in the member for Herbert's electorate and also that of the member for Flynn, we've also had further major investments. Notable amongst them would be the in excess of $190 million that the Commonwealth put towards defence spending there in addition to the $2 billion that our allies the Singaporean government invested in Rockhampton. This shows substantial investment in Central Queensland. There's more work to do. The Rocky ring road corridor upgrade is $65 million, and we're well underway with that, making sure that that vital piece of infrastructure, which takes the traffic around the airport, is part of the planning for the great city of Rockhampton into the future. Of course we have to have a vision for our nation, and of course the vision for our nation is quite closely attached to the money that our nation can earn. We see the revitalisation of the sale of chickpeas in Central Queensland, as well as beef and cotton. This is also bringing money into Central Queensland and underpinning the economic growth of Central Queensland. What would be of great assistance to Central and Northern Queensland would be the further opening of the Galilee Basin. The Galilee Basin is a vital precinct and helps the wealth of the nation. Today we are talking about closing the gap, and the best way to close the gap is for people to have a job. The member for Lindsay thinks that people having a job is 'boring'. But people don't find it boring in Townsville, where the member for Herbert's from, where youth unemployment is in excess of 20 per cent. They don't find having a job boring at all. They find having a job essential. So we need the Labor Party, in the current Batman by-election, to stand behind the coal workers of the Galilee Basin, to stand behind the coalminers of Central Queensland and to stand up for their core constituents. We need the Labor Party to not announce to workers that their lives are 'boring'. And we need the Labor Party to not support the member for Lindsay when she says the prospect of them getting a job is 'boring'. We have to make sure that we get the vital infrastructure so they get a job. (Time expired) Taxation, Employment 52 14:25 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Despite company profits increasing by 20 per cent last year but average wages for Australians only growing by just two per cent, every member of this government voted five times to give big business a $65 billion corporate tax cut. Why does every member of the government only ever look after the big end of town and ignore ordinary workers struggling with a record low wages growth? 14:25 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The government can point to one policy after another that is delivering stronger economic growth and more jobs. We can point to those. And we've seen 403,000 jobs created last year. The Leader of the Opposition said 2017 was going to be about 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. Well the government delivered on jobs, and we have more to do. But we need to give business the incentive to invest; we need to encourage the private sector. These are the same private sector businesses that the Leader of the Opposition, in his latest incarnation as a political populist whatever—he's impersonating Jeremy Corbyn at the moment—now wants to declare a war on. I'll remind the Leader of the Opposition that there was a time when he knew that cutting tax on businesses created more jobs. He said so, and he and all of his side of politics voted for it again and again because it was common sense and orthodox economics. But let's look at what he's opposed. He opposed the tax cuts for small and medium-sized family businesses that are now creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. He voted against them. He opposed the legislation that funds every school according to need. For the first time there is national, consistent needs-based funding, as recommended by David Gonski. He voted against that. He voted against the childcare reforms that will deliver benefits to one million Australian families on lower and lower-middle incomes and enable them to stay in the workforce, that will enable them to get that balance of work and family and stay connected to the workforce. That extraordinary reform, rationalising the childcare subsidy system, providing substantial additional money and real equity and availability, was opposed by Labor. He opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Just think about this: this is a trade deal which opens up even wider existing markets that we have access to and opens up a whole range of new markets. It will create thousands of jobs, just like the other trade deals Labor's opposed. Now when the United States pulled out, what did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said: 'Just throw in the towel. Give up.' 'Give up,' he said. He wanted to give up on Australian jobs, give up on Australian businesses, give up on Australian investors. Giving up on Australia is his way; it's not our way. We stuck with it. We stuck with it, we worked hard and the TPP 11 is now happening without the US. We'd rather they were there, but it'll still create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of opportunity for Australian businesses. (Time expired) Murray-Darling Basin 52 14:29 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on the importance of delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on time and in full? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that threaten delivery of the plan, and the thousands of jobs it supports, including in my electorate of Parkes? 14:29 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member, being from Parkes, knows full well the importance of delivering the plan in full and on time. But what he also understands, and fears, is that if one part of the plan falls over it puts at risk the entire plan. The reckless actions of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens in supporting a disallowance motion against the Northern Basin Review does that. It puts at risk the livelihoods of the hardworking people in Parkes, who are now fatigued from the emotional and physical strain that these actions have put on those people. No Australian should have to go through that. But the Australian Labor Party and the Greens are doing that. This is the Labor Party's plan, this is their review. They had 14 months to come back to us and say whether they had problems about the Northern Basin Review, but not once, until yesterday, did they say they had problems. The reality is that they are playing politics above leadership, they are playing with people's lives. Let me tell you, this plan is at real risk of falling over if we vote against the Northern Basin Review. Let me put this in perspective, because we need the states to come on this journey with us. Noel Blair, the New South Wales water minister, said on ABC Radio on 7 February this year: We are really questioning whether we should bother with any of the other implementation of the plan if it's being treated like this. The hard work that's been done bringing communities along for the difficult conversations—to then have it just thrown onto the scrap heap like this, I don't know whether we'd want to be in a position to put our communities through that again. Lisa Neville, the Australian Labor Party water minister in Victoria, put out a media release on 2 February 2018 in which she said: The decision to disallow the Northern Basin amendment by the Greens and the federal Labor Party raises serious concerns about the future of the Murray-Darling plan. We will be assessing our position on the plan as a result of this decision and we will have further discussions with New South Wales. The Senate has created huge uncertainty about whether the plan can be delivered. There you have it. There is the proof. We are playing with the future of the plan right here, right now. This takes leadership, and if it falls over, it will hang around the neck of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens for generations to come. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is now warned. The member for McMahon has the call. Taxation 53 14:32 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Every member of this government today voted five times to give big business a $65 billion tax cut. Why is the Prime Minister increasing taxes on millions of working Australians by $300 every year to pay for his $65 billion big business tax cut? 14:32 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Mr Speaker, this from the honourable member who was one of the more eloquent and, indeed, extensive advocates for cutting company tax! He actually wrote a book about it. He wasn't content with some well-chosen words at the dispatch box. No, he went out and wrote a whole book about the need for following in the footsteps of his mentor, Paul Keating, and cutting company tax—precisely for the purpose of being competitive with the rest of the world. He thought we were uncompetitive a few years back when he wrote the book. How does he think we are now, when the US has a company tax rate of 21 per cent and we're sitting at 30 per cent for larger companies? Our reform plan is heading to 25 per cent, but the US is at 21. Does he seriously think Australian jobs will be protected with such an uncompetitive tax rate? The member for McMahon, who wrote that book, knows we are not competitive at that rate. But now, of course, he's changed his spots and he wants to impersonate some sort of job-destroying, business-hating populist. Let's get back to some of the other things the Labor Party is doing to undermine jobs. Not only are they opposing business tax cuts, not only are they threatening to increase the tax on the very companies that had employed most of the 403,000 additional people who got new jobs last year, not only are they opposing the childcare reforms and the school reforms; they opposed every step of the way our energy measures which are putting downward pressure on energy prices. They ridiculed the efforts with the retailers which are saving families hundreds of dollars right now. They ridiculed our efforts with the gas companies that have brought down the wholesale price of gas, saving thousands of jobs in energy intensive industries and, again, putting downward pressure on energy prices. They opposed the National Energy Guarantee, which has received support from across industry and which we know, from independent modelling, will reduce wholesale energy costs by 23 per cent. There is not one policy that the Labor Party has that will encourage one business to invest one dollar or employ one worker. When we make that challenge to them, they cannot volunteer one. They do not have one business-supporting, investment-creating, job-creating policy. Every job and every business would be at grave risk if the Labor Party were to occupy the benches on this side of the House. Trade 54 14:35 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on the real benefits that Australian workers and businesses are seeing from the coalition's free trade agreement achievements? Are there any alternative approaches that would jeopardise economic growth and the creation of jobs for hardworking Australians? 14:36 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Forrest for her question—another passionate believer in, as we've outlined over the past several days, the trade export opportunities this government is opening up for Australian small and medium-sized businesses, in particular our agribusinesses. We continue to see the jobs benefits—the jobs bonanza, frankly—that flows from opening up export opportunities. The member for Forrest has one of the best wine regions in the country—not the only one, but one of the best—and she'll know that under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement we've seen wine exports to China grow by 129.5 per cent since the coalition put the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement in place—nearly $500 million worth of wine exports. But the member for Forrest asks about alternative approaches, and I've got to say there are some alternative approaches. I was thumbing my way through any favourite broadsheet, The Australian, the other day—some great columnists in The Australian. One of my favourite columnists, and I think I'm on solid territory when I say he's a man who embodies the best Labor virtues, Graham Richardson, in a very interesting article on Australia Day titled 'Unpopular tack on trade pact could doom Bill Shorten's leadership', said: The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal brought one of Labor's biggest difficulties into sharper focus. Every time a new deal is approved, the unions immediately oppose it. It gives good insight into Labor thinking on all of this. He went on to say: To follow the unions from which Labor descended, and which bankroll Labor's election campaign, is almost an automatic reaction. He was talking about my shadow minister when he said: I don't blame Clare. Labor was caught by surprise with its pants no further up than its ankles. It starts to give some insight into Labor thinking on the TPP. But what's interesting is where Labor's going to go. He said: Labor will still have to outline a detailed response. You can filibuster and obfuscate for a while but eventually Shorten will have to say yes or no. If he says yes, the trade unions will react angrily. So, we know that this puppet on a string is waiting to get his marching orders from the Australian Labor Party. That's why we see ridiculous claims from the CFMEU. This is what they said about ChAFTA, which boosted wine exports by 129 per cent: ChAFTA is the worst trade agreement that an Australian government has ever signed and attempted to impose on the Australian public. Now, I smell a rat. I think he is being set up, because I don't think this was just Graham Richardson; I think the member for Grayndler was involved as well. It finishes: He might have scraped through if he was regarded merely as untrustworthy. Being tricky as well as weak could well be the political death of the Labor leader. (Time expired) Taxation 54 14:39 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, every member of this government, including the member for Gilmore, voted five times to give big business a $65 billion handout. And, if the government has its way, a single-income family living in Nowra earning— Government members interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cunningham will resume her seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting, including, as always, the Leader of the House, and the member for Deakin and others. I can't hear the question. The member for Cunningham can begin again. Ms BIRD DZP My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, every member of the government, including the member for Gilmore, voted five times to give big business a $65 billion handout today. If the government has its way, a single-income family living in Nowra, earning $60,000, will pay an extra $300 in tax every year. Why is the Prime Minister hurting families in Nowra and my community to pay for his $65 billion handout to big business? 14:40 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member, no doubt, has many families in her electorate who are clients of the NDIS and look forward to having services paid for through the NDIS. No doubt those very people would be concerned that the NDIS is actually paid for, because they'll want certainty. When they say to the honourable member, 'How can we be sure it's paid for?' if she told the truth, she'd have to say, 'Labor has no plan to do so.' Labor announced the policy, secured the agreement of the coalition, then in opposition, for an increase in the Medicare levy, which we supported and which was widely supported in the community, and then failed to deliver the funding to pay for the rest of the NDIS. So it's the Labor Party's shame and failure that we are addressing at the moment with the measure that she speaks of in the Senate. The real question is this: is the Labor Party prepared to look into the eyes of a parent with a disabled child and say to them, 'We can't guarantee the funding for your NDIS'? Because Labor can't. Labor has no plan and no money. Honourable members interjecting— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! The member for Sydney! Mr TURNBULL 885 What they are voting against now is the certainty and the compassion that those families deserve. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is now warned. Economy 55 14:42 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Will the Minister update the House on action the coalition government is taking to generate more and better paid jobs for hardworking Australians? How does this compare to alternative approaches, which fail to stimulate jobs and growth? 14:42 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Boothby for her question. This week the government has been absolutely getting on with the job of focusing, as a good government should, on the creation of jobs, stimulating investment and growing the economy, and we are getting the necessary measures passed through both houses of parliament to do so. This week we passed the Regional Investment Corporation Bill through both houses of the parliament. Today we passed the second tranche of the corporate tax changes through the House of Representatives, the balance of the reforms that we passed last year, which will now go to the Senate. We also passed the banking executive accountability regime bill, to ensure that banking executives are properly remunerated. In a social area that still impacts very much on the lives of Australians, we continued the pilot of the cashless debit card. This government is focused on the things that the Australian public care about, and the first one of those is having a job. We've created 403,000 new jobs in the last 12 months—a record number. This week, we announced more jobs in defence industry in regional Victoria and regional New South Wales. We announced more jobs near Parkes, with the collection of the first links for the Inland Rail project, one of the great nation-building projects of Australia's history, promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister along with defence industry, making huge changes to the economies of regional Australia. These issues, which we regard as critically important to a good government, the member for Lindsay regards as boring. Doesn't it really sum up where the Labor Party has sunk to, that what Hawke and Keating used to describe as the most important responsibility of a Labor government—providing jobs for working people—the member for Lindsay now describes as boring? She is only following the example of her leader, because he is making the transition for Labor from the party of Hawke and Keating, which knew they had to have economic credibility after the Whitlam fiasco, to the party of Guevara and Chavez yet again. That's where the Labor Party is taking you to win a by-election to defeat the Greens in Batman—which he still may not win. Batman is a safe Labor seat, and, to hang onto it, the Leader of the Opposition is taking you to the party of Chavez and Guevara rather than the party of Hawke and Keating. How sad for Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, who transformed the Labor Party, for the Leader of the Opposition to drag you back to the far left of Australian politics, where you began! The Australian people won't vote for you. (Time expired) Taxation 55 14:46 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the strong endorsement the Prime Minister has given to his corporate tax cuts, will he commit right now to taking his $65 billion of big corporate business handouts to the next election? Ms Henderson ZN4 You endorsed them as well, remember? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite is warned. 14:46 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. We're looking forward to our enterprise tax cuts being passed in the Senate in this parliament. The Labor Party has opposed them. It opposed the tax cuts that were passed in the Senate previously, and they are tax cuts that are operating now. Right now in the honourable member's electorate of Maribyrnong 15,937 businesses are benefiting from the tax cuts that have already been passed. What the owners of those businesses want to know—most of them very small businesses, overwhelmingly family-owned businesses—is why their own member leads a party that wants to take those tax cuts away, that wants them to pay more tax. They're starting to see some green shoots in the economy. They're starting to see jobs growth. They're starting to see the better times that the Treasurer promised at the last budget. They're starting to see them, and they want to know whether those tax cuts— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 How are you going to get rid of them? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will state the point of order. Mr Shorten 00ATG It is on direct relevance. It was a very specific question: will he take his tax cuts to the next election, yes or no? The SPEAKER 00APG On that point of order, the question had a number of aspects to it. That was one part of the question. The Prime Minister is completely relevant in his answer. He stayed completely on the topic of tax cuts. Mr TURNBULL 885 We are looking forward to our tax cuts being passed in this parliament and, yes, we will go to the next election with the benefit of those tax cuts flowing through into the economy in thousands more jobs. The real question is about the ambiguity we have from the Labor Party and what they will do about the thousands of small businesses. We stand for competitive company tax in Australia, as Labor used to, and we remain committed to that, because we want Australian workers to get the benefit from the investment that only a competitive tax rate can deliver. The honourable member wants to fight us on tax cuts for business and fight us on jobs. We'll fight him here and we'll fight him at the next election on a platform that supports Australian business, Australian investment, Australian exports and the Australian jobs that he has abandoned. Health Care 56 14:49 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the action the coalition government is taking to support the health of all Australians, including my Redlands City constituents in the seat of Bowman? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:49 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Bowman, who, even to this day, is offering pro bono eye clinics to his constituents and others in the south Brisbane area. He would know that, over the course of the last year, we've been able to contribute to the health of Australians by bringing on board new drugs, such as Opdivo for lung cancer and Entresto for chronic heart failure; guaranteeing Medicare; and, in addition to that, delivering the highest bulk-billing rates on record. In particular, this year, we've already been able to start with a $110 million package for youth mental health; and 19 new breakthrough research programs for rare cancers and rare diseases, such as glioblastomas and other forms of brain cancer. We've been able to make huge strides, including the agreements we've had with the RACGP, AMA, Medicines Australia and the Pharmacy Guild; and the reforms of private health have delivered the lowest changes in 17 years—lower than any year under Labor. He also asks are their alternatives? Yes, there are alternatives to an approach of genuine reform and genuine delivery. The alternative on that side of the chamber is a very simple proposition—that is: Labor hates private health insurance, and Labor is willing to damage and destroy the public health system to carry out their ideology. What we saw on Sunday was a con job where Labor attempted to pretend, finally, that they were a friend of private health. The reality is very different. They have a proposal to strip away the lowest-cost private health policies, which would lead to a 16 per cent increase in private health. In addition to that, they would strip away the rebate. They would slash the rebate for pensioners, seniors and lower income Australians. What has been the response to this policy? Only yesterday the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority responded by saying, 'APRA does not consider industry profits or capital levels to be the primary drivers of rising premiums' for private health. They go on to talk about the need for genuine reform. Interestingly, what do they conclude? 'It is very much in the community's interests that the current reform process continues.' But other people have gone far further. You would imagine the Queensland Teachers Union Health Fund might support the Labor proposals. They said, in response to the opposition's announcement, 'Insurers might reduce benefits for certain procedures or restrict them.' What have the Members Health Fund Alliance said? They represent 23 not-for-profits. They described Labor's policy as 'Damaging competition, destroying jobs in small and regional communities and leaving consumers without health cover.' In other words— (Time expired) Employment 57 14:53 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Social Services. When will the government lower deeming rates for part-pensioners? 14:53 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to thank the member for her question, and thank the Speaker for the call. We will consider all options that will help Australians get a job. There are 1,100 Australians who are getting a job each day. They're getting a job each day. You know what that does? That means that we get a stronger economy. You know what happens when you get a stronger economy? It means that you can look after people. That means that, when it comes to pensioners, you can make sure that you can deliver them the income that they need. When it comes to those who are unemployed, it means that you can deliver for them. It means that, when you are in government, you do not have to move 80,000 people off the single parent payment to Newstart. We will continue to grow our economy and continue to deliver 1,100 jobs a day, because that's the best way we look after our pensioners. That's the best way we look after the unemployed. That's the best way we— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting! Has the minister concluded his answer? Yes. I call the member for Robertson. National Security 57 14:55 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a strong and consistent approach to the national security agenda, and how does this compare to alternative approaches? 14:55 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for Robertson for her question. It's a pity that when she was asking the question the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Oh, dear, let's talk about this,' and he turned around with a piece of paper, which I think is blank, and is pretending now to have a conversation with the shadow Treasurer and the member for Sydney, because, I suspect, he doesn't want to hear about this particular topic. The Australian public now understands that the Leader of the Opposition says one thing to an audience in one part of the country, because he thinks that's what they want to hear, but when he jumps on the plane he feels that he's cleansed himself and he travels north, normally to Queensland, where he says the complete opposite to that which he's just said in the south of the country. It's hard to keep up with the positions of the Leader of the Opposition, and the Australian public get that this guy is duplicitous at best. He has doublecrossed every colleague he has ever shaken hands with. He has worked for and against union bosses. You don't become the chief union boss of this country without skeletons in the closet, and this fellow has plenty of them. When it comes to border protection, we know that the Leader of the Opposition is down in Victoria, in the inner-city seat of Batman, where there's a by-election and where the Labor Party fears that the Greens will win that seat from the Labor Party, telling them that the Labor Party will go soft on border protection. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills and the member for Lalor. Mr DUTTON 00AKI He's saying that they'll bring people here from offshore detention centres, that they won't be turning back boats where it's safe to do so. They will abandon the policy that has stopped people drowning at sea. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Wills then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI You can imagine why it confuses people in seats like Longman, Petrie, Dickson and Brisbane in the state of Queensland, because there are many people, not just in Queensland but across the country, who support wholeheartedly the work we're doing in keeping our borders safe. If you can't keep your border secure, you cannot provide for a safe community. In addition to that, over the course of the last period we've cancelled 3,300 visas of noncitizens who have committed criminal offences against Australian citizens, including 170 visas of outlaw motorcycle gang members. We have cancelled more visas of criminals in the last 12 months than Labor cancelled throughout their entire two terms in government. If you're sitting in Longman or elsewhere in marginal seats around the country and you're confused by this Leader of the Opposition, fair enough. But know this: if you wonder what the difference is between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, know that the Labor Party are always soft when it comes to border protection and they are soft on law and order. They demonstrate it every day in their opposition to the plans that we've implemented successfully. We will keep Australians safe. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs is very loud. He not only disturbs me, when listening to the answer; he disturbs those around him. I call the member for Werriwa. Werriwa Electorate: Infrastructure 58 14:59 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Will the government ensure that, on the day of its opening, rail access will be available at Western Sydney Airport, along the north-south corridor, opening up jobs and economic opportunities from the north-west to the Macarthur region? 14:59 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for Werriwa for her question, and I'd like to thank her for her work on the Forum on Western Sydney Airport, which is the community consultation mechanism we have underway to make sure there is good community engagement in relation to Western Sydney Airport, a project which, to get underway, took a coalition government—a project which had been in the too-hard basket for 20, 30, 40 years. It took a coalition government to take a decision to proceed with Western Sydney Airport, and we have made the commitment to invest $5.3 billion of taxpayers' funds to get this airport built and delivered by the end of 2026. Already there is work underway on the site, with a high-voltage transmission line being undergrounded. That is a project of nearly $100 million. Already we have the head office of the company open and operational in Liverpool, in the member's electorate of Werriwa. Of course, we have a $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, involving the provision of excellent ground transport connectivity to Western Sydney Airport, including a new M12 that will run from the airport to the M7 and connect into the Sydney motorway network. The Northern Road will be upgraded to at least four lanes for all of its 35-kilometre length. At the same time, the two governments—the Commonwealth government and the New South Wales government—have work well advanced on a scoping study to look at the rail needs of Western Sydney and Western Sydney Airport. That has reported to the two governments, and we'll have more to say in the coming months. The airport site, of course, is planning to be rail ready, and that work is well underway. The Turnbull government is getting on with— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. It was a very precise, tight question. It asked: will the rail line be open when the airport is open? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler can resume his seat. He doesn't need to disclose to me he was the author of it. That's not necessary at all. The minister is being directly relevant to the question. Mr FLETCHER L6B I thank the shadow minister, who never delivered Western Sydney Airport, for that interjection. I thank the shadow minister, who was also, during that glorious period of 'Albonia', briefly responsible for the NBN as well. I thank the shadow minister, but, more importantly, I thank the member for Werriwa for her question. I do acknowledge the bipartisan support for Western Sydney Airport and the extraordinary transformations that are going on in Western Sydney infrastructure. Work by the Commonwealth and the New South Wales governments is well advanced in relation to a Western Sydney city deal. We have an overall, comprehensive policy approach to delivering infrastructure for Western Sydney, as we are doing around the country. The Turnbull government are delivering infrastructure for Western Sydney. We've got a track record that we're proud of, and there's a lot more going on. Welfare Reform 58 15:03 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Would the minister inform the House about the action the government is taking to assist welfare recipients with drug, alcohol and gambling addictions; and is the minister aware of any evidence supporting the expansion of those programs, particularly in my electorate of Grey? 15:03 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to thank the member for Grey for his question, and can I please acknowledge his commitment, especially to regional, rural and remote Australia. It is heartfelt, it is passionate, and he is a terrific advocate for his electorate. The member for Grey has seen how the cashless debit card has benefited Ceduna, in his electorate. The cashless debit card is a world first in the way welfare payments are delivered. It is a new program with a new approach for old problems. As the Prime Minister has said about this program, it is about compassion. It is about making sure the money for vulnerable people, through welfare payments, helps them as best it can. I know the member for Grey has had close contact with the community throughout the trial period, visiting Ceduna on many occasions. He was involved in the initial presentation to the communities and has been pleased with the reception it has received. Ceduna mayor, Allan Suter, has said of the cashless welfare card: There are irrefutably excellent results, for example 40 per cent of people on the trial indicated they are smoking or drinking or drugging or gambling less and most of the results are on those lines. It was particularly encouraging—it has improved people's lives and improved the situation for children. It is the best initiative I have seen in this field and it has made our community safer, particularly for families and drinkers. We are trying new programs and policies because we want to find a solution. I'd like the opposition to hear this: while the government appreciates the support provided by the opposition, while we appreciate your support in voting down the disallowance motion today in the Senate, we would like your support for continuing this program and rolling it out to new sites. We would like your support not only for the two existing trials but for rolling it out to new sites, because we know it delivers. Even former Labor Party members say that it delivers, and that is why we want you to support us. This is important for Ceduna. It's important for East Kimberley, but it's also important for the Goldfields and it's also important for Hervey Bay. We would like you to come along on this journey with us rather than trying to wreck it. Ms Macklin PG6 I ask that the minister table the document that he read word for word from. The SPEAKER 00APG Was the minister reading from confidential notes? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Why don't you stop interjecting and why doesn't someone jump? The member for Braddon. Tasmania: Hospital Funding 59 15:07 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the AMA's Public Hospital Report Card, since this conservative government came to office the average wait time for elective surgery in Tasmania has increased by 60 per cent to 72 days. Why should patients in Tasmania needing hip replacements have to wait even longer for surgery because of this Prime Minister's cuts to hospitals? 15:07 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member and make a very clear point: Labor don't just hate private health; they're 'medifrauds' as well. There's a reason. That is because, under us, what you have seen is record hospital funding every year, in every state and in every territory. Let me repeat that: record hospital funding every year, in every state, in every territory. If you want to understand about Tasmania, when we came to office, the figure that was given under the previous Labor government at the federal level was $299 million in 2013. Then, under us, it went to $330 million, $375 million, $387 million, $393 million, $408 million, $423 million and going up and up each and every year. That is what is actually happening: record funding under us and each year is a record year. An interesting thing, though, is that, since we have come in, our funding to state hospitals has increased by 34 per cent. How much has state funding increased to state hospitals? Ten per cent. So we have increased funding at more than three times the rates of the states. Our funding is up $103 billion over the current five-year period. It's at $103 billion. Under Labor, federally, in the entire six years that they were in government, it was $73 billion. But if you say, 'Gosh, gee, it's a little bit later in time. What is the growth rate?' I'll tell you. Under Labor it was six per cent; under us, it's 7.9 per cent. In other words, our growth rate is 1.9 per cent higher than under the previous Labor government. These people are not just haters of private health insurance; they're 'medifrauds'. You know what? There was a particular document that fell into my hands. It happened to be from the shadow minister for health and Medicare. It was after a meeting. An honourable member: Table it. Mr HUNT 00AMV I will table it. It was after a meeting, with the participation, as she says, of over 150 leading thinkers on health. It sounds a bit like the citizens assembly—coincidentally, exactly the same numbers. They then produced their document on their health policy. Ms Catherine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat is warned. Mr HUNT 00AMV It was 17 pages. Ms Catherine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the member for Ballarat will cease interjecting. Mr HUNT 00AMV There were 102 paragraphs. How much money did they commit for hospital funding? Zero dollars. They didn't contribute, propose or budget for a single extra dollar for hospital funding—not one extra dollar. Yesterday the member for Ballarat was asked about this and, in one of those disastrous press conferences, was utterly unable to commit a single extra dollar. So we've delivered $103 billion. The previous government delivered $73 billion. This is triple the rate of growth of the states. We're making a real difference. (Time expired) Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 60 15:10 Mr IRONS HYM Swan My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on action the government is taking to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse? How will this action help recognise the harm suffered by survivors and ensure these heinous crimes never happen again? 15:11 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for Swan for his question and, of course, for his advocacy over many long years on behalf of survivors. I would just say to him as my friend that there's nothing as powerful as advocacy that's anchored in someone's own endured experiences of some of the cruelties that were hidden under the roofs of these institutions. The Prime Minister this morning announced his commitment to a national apology for survivors of institutional child sex abuse. This event will be a significant national milestone. It will also be a critical healing event for survivors themselves. The apology will be developed with a group of survivor representatives and representatives of the government, the opposition and the Australian Greens, and a member of the crossbench, so we very much want this to be a truly bipartisan event and apology. The breadth and scope of the royal commission report is enormous. If I can just, in that spirit of bipartisanship, offer some indication as to how we are progressing with those recommendations. There are 409 recommendations in total, with 189 new recommendations. Of those new recommendations, 67 are directed at the Commonwealth. We've established and provided for a task force inside my department which will coordinate the implementation and the responses from states and territories towards a consistent national response. It will report regularly and transparently via a website for all Australians to track our performance in this area. Part of that, and critical, is the redress scheme. That itself addresses 84 of those 409 recommendations, so it is utterly critical. We, of course, with the help of members opposite, have introduced the legislation. The terms of the legislation are known. The scheme that we have put into this House is due to start on 1 July. It is funded. We have been utterly and completely transparent with the states, the territories, the churches and the charities. Having led that negotiation process over the last nine months, I will take this opportunity to say that the horrific circumstances that we are now dealing with came to be because of excuses—excusing the monstrous conduct of individuals and excusing the failures and outrageous wilful blindness of the institutions. What we cannot do now, at the critical point of creating a national redress scheme, is accept any more excuses. Excuses for failing to join the scheme must end. Lingering reasons for delay are now starting to look to any independent observer as if minor details are being manifestly and deliberately used as excuses for needless delay. Excuses are what created this problem, and they should not prevent the churches, the charities, the states and the territories from joining the redress scheme. 15:14 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On indulgence: I briefly associate the opposition with the remarks of the Attorney-General. We think it is very well said—no more excuses, no more delays. Certainly the opposition will work with the government. Workplace Relations 60 15:14 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Fair Work Australia terminated a Work Choices agreement struck by Laundy (Exhibition) Pty Ltd because it left workers worse off in relation to penalty rates, leave and overtime. The minister was a director of the company when this unfair Work Choices agreement was struck. Given the minister's previous support for Work Choices, does he plan on reintroducing any elements of that unfair legislation, or is he content to continue the government's cuts to penalty rates? 15:15 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the honourable member for his new-found interest in small and family business. I would expect that's the first question he's ever asked about one in his entire life. It's nice to be asked a question, given his strong association and history with small and family business. I don't know how many people he's actually employed—put his hand in his pocket and paid—in his time. I imagine the answer is not many, if any. The premise of his question about the agreement is fundamentally flawed. I thank him for his interest in my father's business. If he has questions that he wants to ask my father, feel free at any time. There are others on the opposition front bench who get on very well with him. He's more closely aligned with your side of politics than he is with mine. The agreement that was mentioned was let loose at the time because it was finished and terminated, but not for the reasons that he states. It was let loose because the hotel was taken over by Woolworths, and they can't have, because of their size and the cross-border market that they operate in, inconsistent workplace agreements. They like everything to be consistent. That said, in the 23 years that I spent working for my family's business I saw many, many times the impacts that raising wages have on businesses. Last year, 1.1 million small and family businesses made not one dollar in profit, and yet they employed people and paid salaries amounting to $39.5 billion. Yet those opposite want to sully the reputation of those people— Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr LAUNDY 247130 The member for Fenner is yelling out, 'They dodged their tax.' They didn't make a profit! They put their hands in their own pockets and employed people, day in and day out. That is the truth of what small and family business operators go through in this country. If the member opposite and the opposition leader, along with Sally McManus in 'McManusstan'—there it is, Tim, 'McManusstan'—increase the minimum wage by 28 per cent, then what will happen to those 1.1 million businesses, that $39.5 billion in wages? If you take it at the average wage, then around 570,000 employees would most likely immediately lose their jobs. These are the nut job policies of those opposite. The agenda has been hijacked by the union movement. The Leader of the Opposition and my opponent have lurched so far to the left and have made that many left-hand turns that they have completed a circle. The truth is that the small and family business operators in this country deserve respect, and they have it on this side of the parliament. Child Care 61 15:18 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister update the House on how many families across the country will benefit from the coalition government's new childcare package, including, Minister, those in my electorate of Barker? Minister, could you compare it to alternative approaches? 15:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Barker for his question. I know that he is fighting hard for his constituents, from Mount Gambier to Murray Bridge. More than 80 per cent of those families using child care in his electorate will benefit from the Turnbull government's reforms. Indeed, they're the most significant reforms in 40 years. Ms Rishworth interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL An additional $2.5 billion has been added to child care, and around one million families are benefiting. Our emphasis is on the lower- and middle-income families, and those where parents are working, studying, volunteering. They're the ones who will benefit from our childcare reforms. Ms Rishworth interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kingston is warned! Mr FRYDENBERG FKL We're delivering a fairer system. There are 370,000 Australian families with an income of less than $65,000 using child care. They will see their subsidy go up from 72 per cent to 85 per cent. We're delivering a more accessible system. Of the families using child care, 85 per cent have an income of less than $185,000, and we are abolishing the annual cap on the rebate. We will deliver a more affordable system, by introducing an hourly rate cap, which will deliver lower prices compared to when the Labor Party were last in office, when childcare prices went up by more than 50 per cent. A family in Australia with an income of $80,000, with two children under six years of age in child care five days a week, paying $100 a day, will be $8,000 a year better off under the Turnbull government's reforms. What do you think the Labor Party did? Do you think they voted for that legislation, for that reform? No; the Labor Party voted against it, despite the fact that 75 per cent of families using child care in the member for McMahon's electorate would be better off, despite the fact that 72 per cent of families in the member for Maribyrnong's electorate would be better off, despite the fact that 75 per cent of families in the member for Port Adelaide's electorate would be better off, and despite the fact that, in the electorate of the member for Kingston—the shadow minister responsible in this area—83 per cent of families would be better off under the Turnbull government's reforms. When it comes to child care—like with education, company tax, free trade and energy—don't look at what Labor says, look at what Labor does. Only the coalition can deliver a more affordable and reliable childcare system for Australian families. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 62 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Fenner claim to have been misrepresented? Dr LEIGH BU8 Most grievously. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fenner may proceed. Dr LEIGH BU8 During question time, the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation stated that I had accused small and family businesses of tax dodging. I said no such thing. If he had any decency, he would withdraw. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Charities 62 15:23 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fenner proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government undermining Australia’s charities. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:23 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner On Monday, Senator Louise Pratt, Labor colleagues and I met with dozens of charities concerned about the latest salvo in the Liberals' war on charities. They included the Australian Council for International Development, CHOICE, Red Cross, Oxfam, CARE Australia, the Consumer Action Law Centre, Financial Counselling Australia, ACOSS, World Vision, RESULTS Australia and Pew Charitable Trusts. There is bipartisan support for banning foreign political donations. Indeed, it's been a year since the Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill that would do just that. But banning donations to political parties should not entail cutting down free speech. We have had an extraordinary array of opponents to the government's attempt to include charities in the scope of its draft laws. These laws have been opposed by GetUp! and the Institute of Public Affairs—probably the only time in Australia's history when GetUp! and the IPA have agreed on the same thing. Credit where it's due—they have achieved the impossible. But it's not the first time they have brought together a range of people across the political spectrum. There have been two open letters to the Prime Minister complaining about attacks on charities. The most recent was signed by Volunteering Australia, Carers Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Community Council of Australia, Justice Connect, Philanthropy Australia and the Starlight Children's Foundation. Again, the Liberals are bringing charities together—against them. The fact is the latest bill conflates political campaigning and issue advocacy. Charities have told us about many concerns they have about how this might affect their operations. One charity told us about a program where they bring Indigenous leaders to Canberra, which might have to cease. Another talked about their anti-tuberculosis work, important not only in the Pacific but also in the Torres Strait, which may have to stop. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation currently funds parliamentarians on both sides to visit aid projects in developing countries. That might have to cease. Take the example of a New Zealand family whose child was helped by a local state based charity. They might be unable to give to that charity. Religious charities have said that the new laws might mean that, before passing around the collection plate on Sundays, they might have to a say, 'If you're a foreigner, don't put money in the plate.' That's Malcolm Turnbull's new Australia— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The member for Fenner will refer to members by their title. Dr LEIGH BU8 That's Prime Minister Turnbull's Australia—an Australia in which immigrants are excluded from putting money in the church collection plate. Consumer protection agencies have told us that they might have to cease their campaigning on product safety. And what international NGO would set up in a country with such draconian laws when it comes to dealing with foreign donations? A survey by Pro Bono has found that two-thirds of Australian charities are finding it harder to be heard by the federal government than they were five years ago. When you look at how the Liberals have spent the last five years, it's not very surprising. We've had five ministers in five years responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission: Kevin Andrews, Scott Morrison, Christian Porter, Michael McCormack and Michael Sukkar. And we saw a period, from 2011 to 2016, in which the Liberals tried to close down the charities commission, a body supported by four out of five charities. The Liberals have put gag clauses in social services agreements, have attempted to shut down the ability of charities to advocate and are now trying to expand the ban on overseas donations to political parties to also cover charities. To paraphrase the great Malcolm Tucker, those on the other side of the House have a rap sheet longer than a Leonard Cohen song. After a period in which Susan Pascoe, the well-respected head of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, had not been reappointed, the government decided to appoint well-known charities critic Gary Johns to head the commission. So proud they were of this decision that they announced it at the very same time at which this House was passing its historic vote on same-sex marriage. That's what you do when you're proud of an announcement. Appointing Gary Johns to head the charities commission is like putting Ned Kelly in charge of bank security; it's like putting Bronwyn Bishop in charge of transport for politicians. Let's go through some of the things on Gary Johns's track record. As he appointed Mr Johns, the minister admitted he hadn't read his work, so let's go through a few of the things Gary Johns has said. Gary Johns has said, 'The Abbott government should deny charity status to the enemies of progress.' Who are the enemies of progress? Well, who's to know which charity is in the firing line. He believes in the scrapping of the Charities Act 2013, which would take charities law back to the 1600s. The head of the charities commission would like to see charities law returned to the Shakespearean era. I love Shakespeare, but I think we can do better than the Shakespearean era when it comes to our charities law. He said, 'There is a great deal of impure altruism in the charity business.' And he has gone after specific charities. How do mental health charities feel about the fact that the new charities commissioner has attacked beyondblue for their work with LBGTI people? How would Indigenous charities feel about the fact that the charities commissioner has said: Look, a lot of poor women in this country, a large proportion of whom are Aboriginal, are used as cash cows, right? How would welfare charities feel about the fact that the charities commissioner said: If a person's sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit. How would Indigenous charities feel about the statement that the charities commissioner has made that: … Recognise, is the officially sanctioned propaganda arm of the Australian Government. How would multicultural charities feel about the fact that the charities commissioner has said: Australia is sucking in too many of the wrong type of immigrant … There is no doubt many Australians have considerable misgivings about Muslim immigration and the ability of many to fit in. How would environmental charities feel about the fact that the new charities commissioner has said: … we know for a fact that renewable energy is a cause of the blackouts. Labor has engaged with charities around the country, such as Welcome to Australia, whose founder, Brad Chilcott, characterised the Turnbull government's approach to charities by saying: The message that charities should not be involved in advocacy is akin to saying 'you can plant a tree but you can't protect a forest'. The advocacy voice of charities and not-for-profits is not only the voice of the various organisations—it is the voice of every Australian who donates, volunteers or is a member of a charity. When the voice of charities and not-for-profits are threatened, so is our democracy. The approach that the Turnbull government takes towards charities is that they should be seen but not heard, that they can serve out soup in a soup kitchen but can't talk about the causes of poverty, that they can plant trees but can't talk about deforestation, that they can assist Indigenous people on the ground but they can't possibly talk about the root causes of Indigenous disadvantage. The government want to put a velvet rope across the entry to the public square. They are hurting not only charities but also the very quality of Australian public debate, which demands a multiplicity of voices. Australian democracy isn't just about the voices of politicians; it's about the choices of charities who—let's be honest—enjoy far higher trust than traditional political parties. They have a right to be heard. Australians want them to be heard in the political conversation. While the government is continuing its war on charities, prompting open letters and protests from the sector, Labor is engaging with charities. Bill Shorten has created a portfolio of shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits. For the first time this important sector has been recognised by the Labor front bench. Labor is working with states and territories to encourage them to cooperate with the charities commission so our voluntary sector spends less time doing paperwork and more time engaging with the vulnerable. Labor supports Justice Connect's campaign to fix fundraising, moving from a patchwork of state based laws to a uniform national scheme operating within the Australian Consumer Law and giving a week per year back to charities, who no longer have to waste it doing unnecessary paperwork. Labor has conducted nine Reconnected forums across Australia, bringing together more than a thousand charities to explore new approaches to boosting community engagement. Wouldn't it be great if, the next time heads of charities came to Canberra, they were engaging with the government on constructive reform, not fighting yet another battle in the coalition's war on charities? 15:33 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin That is a grab bag of character assassinations, complaints and the shadow minister crowing about being the shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits. I looked at the MPI that he put forward earlier. Your title is longer than the entire remainder of this document. We have the Hon. Dr—or Professor, as we like to call him over here—Andrew Leigh, shadow assistant treasurer, shadow minister for competition and productivity, shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits, shadow minister for trade in services, member for Fenner. Was that your pay-off? You went to the Leader of the Opposition and said, 'Throw a couple more titles in there, just to make me feel better.' Character assassination is not going to cut it here, Member for Fenner. In that diatribe of complaints from the member for Fenner, we didn't hear any thought or concern for the people who fund charities: the donors. You never hear the member for Fenner talking about donors. All the member for Fenner does is enter into character assassination and, quite sadly—as I pointed out during your contribution—why would you attack a former Keating minister? Does this show how far your party has moved to the Left in that you are focusing all of your attention on attacking a former Keating minister—a minister that, quite frankly, will be remembered much more than you ever will be, member for Fenner. Someone said to me when I was first elected that the member for Fenner was the new attack dog. I was sitting here watching you then, and I saw a lot more chihuahua than German shepherd. Getting down to the range of unsubstantiated claims made by the member for Fenner—I won't go through the multitude of other titles—when we look at foreign donations, the member for Fenner used the most ridiculous examples and he didn't answer the basic question, which is what the Labor Party needs to answer: Do they think we should allow foreign individuals, foreign entities and foreign governments to directly participate in Australian elections or Australian political processes? The Labor Party will not answer this question. Do they fundamentally believe that there's a role for foreign money to enter our political sphere? We believe political parties, candidates and campaigners should be prohibited from receiving foreign donations. One would think that would be uncontroversial. One would think that the Labor Party would work constructively to try and ensure we could get that outcome. This ban has been carefully designed to prevent loopholes for foreign money. We believe foreign interests shouldn't be funding election advertising or how-to-vote material, regardless of whether that campaigning is undertaken by a political party or somebody else. I say to the member for Fenner, 'Focus on the objective.' We don't want political interference from anybody associated with a foreign entity, a foreign government or foreign interests, who don't necessarily have our best interests at heart. The member for Fenner should reflect on that and show some leadership. He should, like his very lofty title suggests, show some leadership, and try to pull his leader, who has lurched massively to the Left, into a sensible position on this. That would be leadership people would appreciate. Turning to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, I will say again that I've had a number of individuals contact me, who are very disappointed with the conduct undertaken by the member for Fenner. The character assassination of somebody appointed through a statutory process—a person serving the government—is quite outrageous. You would expect that a member with a constituency in Canberra would understand that. This process you're undertaking is discrediting you, member for Fenner. It's discrediting you. I think Dr Johns, as he has pointed out, will apply the law and will enforce the law as the ACNC is there to do. The ACNC is not an advocacy body for the sector. The ACNC, like ASIC and like any other regulator, is there to regulate the industry. The member for Fenner doesn't talk about donors. He never talks about the people who fund the altruistic activities of charities and not-for-profits. He couldn't care less, because he's captive to a very small group of individuals who have very close links to the Labor Party and very close links to the member for Fenner—quite dubiously close links, in fact. He shouldn't be trading on those. The Turnbull government's position is very clear. We obviously had a process over many years of seeing the ACNC in action. The member for Fenner referred to the former ACNC Commissioner—whom the government reappointed, I might add. He is someone who was respected. Now we have another highly respected individual, in Dr Johns, who will take carriage of the ACNC. The ACNC's job is to ensure that charities are used for the purposes for which they are on the register, the purposes for which they obtain tax concessions generously provided by taxpayers. The ACNC's job is to ensure that there is no 'set and forget' for charities. Once you are on the register, once you are entitled to generous tax concessions provided by Australian taxpayers, you must continue to act in accordance with what you've promised you're going to do. Ms Claydon 248181 We are. What are you suggesting? Mr SUKKAR 242515 Well, we've had 59 knocked off the register. Clearly, there are charities—and that's the whole purpose of the ACNC, I'd remind you— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SUKKAR 242515 Did you not vote for the ACNC when you were last in government? The whole purpose of the ACNC is to maintain and ensure integrity in the sector. That will clearly mean that, in egregious circumstances, charities will be knocked off the register. Why is that done? Because it maintains integrity in the entire sector. There are 55,000 charities. It doesn't take many charities—including those in the recent AUSTRAC ACNC report—to do the wrong thing to muddy the names of so many others. So I would suggest to you that the sector actually wants integrity because it engenders more trust and more giving from donors. I would say to the member for Fenner that this government has a very proud record of doing three things. We protect donors and ensure that we are engendering a spirit of giving through integrity in this sector. We also ensure that we are reducing red tape for charities. One of the most significant aspects of what this government has sought to do is to ensure that charities and not-for-profits can spend less time complying with paperwork, less time complying with government regulations and more time undertaking what it is they are there to do. Of course, with the foreign donations bill, we have to ensure that to obtain a very important public policy outcome—that is, no interference from foreign political interests—we assist our charities to comply with that. And we absolutely will. The test will be for the member for Fenner to see if he can get his party to a sensible outcome and if he can cease this disgraceful character assassination of the ACNC Commissioner, who is doing a wonderful job, who is already winning plaudits in the charities and not-for-profits sector. I'm very confident that, after his term is completed, the ACNC Commissioner will be remembered for the same high standards as the former ACNC Commissioner is remembered. 15:43 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Fenner, Dr Leigh, for his speech just now. I joined with the member for Fenner in meeting with representatives of dozens of charities in Canberra this week. Those representatives of dozens of charities came to Canberra because they are concerned about this government's latest assault on charities. Unfortunately, it is an attack that is being carried out on multiple fronts. The Liberal Party has a long history of attacking charities, going right back to the Howard government when Peter Costello, as Treasurer, tried to prevent charities, through the use of tax laws, from continuing their vital role in advocacy. The Liberal Party has never understood the proper role of charities in advocating for changes in government policy, which is why they attack charities that engage in advocacy and attempt to shut them down. As we've just heard from the member for Fenner, there are proposed amendments to our electoral donations law which will have a drastic impact on charities and the vitally important work that they do. That vital work that charities do has become even more important in recent years as the Abbott and Turnbull governments have driven up living costs and cut vital services, leaving more and more Australians in need of the help that charities provide. The government claim that they have to cut because there just isn't enough money. But, of course, they have no trouble putting together $65 billion to hand to the big end of town. The attack on charities in the donations bill was concerning enough, but the government has opened up another front, whether by design or inadvertence, in the form of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill is one of four national security bills in the package that was brought into the parliament on the last sitting day of 2017. This particular bill was introduced by the Prime Minister himself. Of course, we agree with the government that any attempt by foreign powers to disrupt or influence our democratic processes must be stopped. We accept the comments that are being made by ASIO about the work of foreign powers 'clandestinely seeking to shape the opinions of members of the Australian public, media organisations and government officials in order to advance their country's own political objectives'. Our commitment is, of course, to bipartisanship on national security matters, but it does not extend to giving the government a blank cheque to do what it wants. We'll engage with the government constructively on the national security laws. It is through the process in the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that we've successfully argued for a very large number of amendments to the various national security laws introduced by the government since 2014. We are adopting that same approach to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill, but it is a bill which introduces an onerous registration scheme for individuals or entities said to be undertaking certain activities on behalf of a foreign principal. Laughably, the member for Deakin has just had the gall to suggest that the government wanted to reduce red tape for the charities sector. This bill increases red tape for the charities sector. The effect of extraordinarily expansive definitions in the scheme means that the bill will capture Australian charities whose conduct, activities and purposes are entirely benign and completely benefit our nation. This will be imposed on charities despite the fact that these charities are all already closely regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. These charities contribute in an overwhelmingly positive manner to our society, but the effect of this bill, as it stands, will be to strangle many of them in wasteful and unnecessary regulation. I hope that that effect is only the unintended consequence of this bill—a consequence of sloppy drafting; the origin of which was made clear by the former Attorney-General's claim that he was closely involved in the formulation of the bill. But, if on the other hand, this is the intended effect of the bill—to silence charities—it is truly shameful. The proposed exemptions in the bill are exceptionally narrow and, with respect to charities, relate solely to an activity the person or entity undertakes in relation to humanitarian aid or humanitarian assistance. We in the Labor Party think that giving in to an assault by the government on Australian civil society is an abdication of our responsibility to protect and nurture the crucial role that Australian civil society plays in creating a fair and equal nation. I will finish with a letter I got from the Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, who said to me in that letter last week: 'The bill is drafted with significant breadth and will likely capture any charity— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— 15:48 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I always welcome the interjections of those opposite in arguing that I live up to the title of 'Freedom Boy'. It is a title I wear with pride—so I encourage you to keep doing so. But let's not get distracted from the substance of this MPI put forward by the member for Fenner, which is of course that we all support the purpose and mission of charities. Everybody in this place—on this side of the House and on that side of the House—does. I imagine even the crossbenchers and even the Marxist member for Melbourne may see some room for the private sector that private citizens or organisations can do charitable works. We all agree that, when donations are made in this country, they should, of course, go to the people to which they are served, to try to minimise overheads and to make sure that people can get the support and assistance they need and that, even if the money is given in pursuit of helping people overseas, it will see its same destination. Of course, we want people to participate in charities and be constructive and be part of it. But there are some things I would hope we also agree on. I would hope that we agree on the idea that, when people give money to charities, it's used, as I said, for people, and not for some people to get elected to parliament. We also believe that charities should not become siphons to fund political campaigns to distort our democracy. Those things are exactly what many of the bills that have been put before this parliament by this government seek to do. I am hearing a lot of complaining from the other side. There have been some very entertaining and somewhat hysterical over-reactions, but what I haven't heard is any solutions. What I've heard is a lot of complaints but no solutions. The offer is always there to those opposite to put constructive ideas on the table, but we're not actually hearing that one little bit. In the end, this whole MPI is setting up for one purpose, which is that the member for Fenner was given the task by his whip: 'Can you come up with a matter of public importance today?' He looked around and would have said: 'I've said so many things. I've talked about how you should cut taxes, so I won't do it on that, because that would embarrass me and make a fool of me. I looked around and realised that there was all this research which said I believe in free markets, so I can't attack the government on its economic policy, because that would make me look a fool. So often I've written about why I believe in cutting back red tape'—and he still couldn't find anything! So he thought, 'I know—I'm going to put forward an MPI that says the government is undermining Australia's charities and then come up with a long, purposeless list of confected outrage against a former Labor minister.' It's not normally my practice to support and defend Labor ministers. You normally would leave that up to those people on the other side, on the opposition benches. But the reality is they're now eating their own young. This is how it works in the modern Labor Party. Once you turn your back on them and accept an appointment from a coalition government to do work, to actually improve the future of this nation, to stand up and support the charities which will enable Australians to continue to donate with confidence, their response is to mock, to ridicule and to undermine. And they have the temerity to talk about the idea that they believe in free speech, while consistently demanding, saying he isn't up to the job, on the basis that he has opinions and has expressed them. This is the reality of the modern Labor Party. It is completely disconnected from reality and isn't focused on what actually needs to be done. There are laws that need to be introduced in this country to make sure we can have confidence in the charitable sector. We all agree with that. It is important that those laws are targeted and specific to make sure that the money that people donate to charities for pursuit of a cause actually gets delivered and helps the people that they care about. What there is concern about across the general community—and, yes, inside the parliament—is that that is not happening. In some cases, what we're seeing is charities engaging in activity that goes beyond their remit, that goes beyond the purpose of influencing and having a discussion around public debate and to improve the delivery of public services, which improves the lives of Australians, toward a process where you can see the risk where charities can become agents—as it's just been acknowledged by the shadow Attorney-General—for the pursuit of foreign interests. We have to stand up for our country and its interests. 15:53 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin The member for Deakin, in an interesting contribution to this debate, said that there were three things that the government had approached with consistency in this area. I probably shouldn't say, but I'd better get the record straight—he only actually got to two. The fact remains that there is only one element that can be said to be a consistent attitude of the government to the charities sector and indeed to civil society generally—that is, to shut it down. This government has been determined, under the member for Warringah and now under the member for Wentworth, to shut down any dissenting voices. Unfortunately, Member for Goldstein, this is a government that does not have the courage of its convictions. Those who were warriors for the cause of individual freedom before they came here seem to think that authoritarianism is the new black. Mr Conroy 249127 And now they're fleeing the chamber. Mr GILES 243609 Yes! It's unfortunate that there isn't more time for us to explore the confusion in government ranks on every aspect to do with charities regulation, bar their insistence of preventing any meaningful scrutiny or advocacy on issues that may affect Australian politics. But there are a few aspects of the member for Deakin's contribution that deserve examination, given his responsibilities. Firstly, and this is really troubling—I know he's a former lawyer and we should stick together in this club—he described the legislation as 'carefully drafted'. I cannot wait for Senator Cormann to find out about that, because he has said, quite rightly, that the legislation will need very significant amendment, which, of course, it does. So, bad luck, member for Deakin. Back to the drawing board. He also said, 'It doesn't take many charities doing the wrong thing to muddy all of their names,' or words to that effect. That's probably true. But he should reflect on what this means. What we have seen in opinion polling is that Australians have a very high, and increasing, level of trust in charities. The same cannot be said of this place, or indeed of political parties. The contrast is striking. I think this explains why this rudderless, 'agendaless' government is so determined to continue its crackdown on charities and any dissenting voices in civil society. Governments members know in their heart of hearts that not only is their agenda unpopular but any discussion of the issues it is prosecuting in the community through this place—when it can get its agenda through this place—is only going to drag it down further. It is a shameful, cowardly response to not having an agenda that resonates with Australians, because, frankly, this government's agenda says very little to the concerns of Australians. The member for Fenner has gone through the litany of attacks on the charities sector the government has engaged in from day one. They've also made a couple of comments in this debate that, I think, require examination. They talked about our unwillingness to offer solutions. Well, I say this to government members: since 2008 the Labor Party, as part of a wide-ranging reform to clean up our politics, has put forward proposals to ban foreign donations to political parties—10 years! Unlike this crazy bit of legislation that landed almost literally at one minute to midnight at the end of last year, without a proper regulatory impact statement and without any public consultation, the Labor proposals were generated through a proper green paper, white paper process. That's why they have stood the test of time and that's why this parliament should bring on the private member's bill in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and get to work on it. If they were serious about it, that's what they would do. If government members have concerns with particular elements of our proposal, let's have the debate. Let's bring that on and get on with removing foreign influence from our politics. In doing so, let's recognise a fundamental truth: that there is a big difference between those of us who seek to hold public office in the legislature and the executive and those who seek to hold us to account. Government members don't recognise that. They refuse to recognise that. But this side of politics welcomes a strong civil society. I know that the Shorten Labor government will welcome our engagement with critical voices not only in building an agenda to change Australia but in strengthening Australian democracy. It is such a pity government members have no faith in their cause. 15:58 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this MPI. I would like to start by saying it's regrettable that the member for Fenner has characterised this debate as 'charities struggling to be heard'. Three evenings ago, members of all parties gathered in Parliament House, under the leadership of Ovarian Cancer Australia, to listen to the plight of those with ovarian cancer. We heard about one of the deadliest cancers affecting so many women across this country, and the incredible inspiring story of Jill Emberson. Nearly every sitting day, a charity will come to this place or hold an event and talk to politicians about their needs, their hopes and their aspirations. Charities across Australia have and will continue to have a very important voice in this place. I can assure members opposite—for those who were there, joined by the women members of the press gallery—that Ovarian Cancer Australia was not concerned about this politicking. Ovarian Cancer Australia was concerned about the women dying from ovarian cancer across this country. The problem with this debate and Labor's conduct in this debate is that it's all about saying no. Nearly everything that this government does, Labor opposes. Company tax cuts to grow jobs, Labor opposes—it previously supported them. Our attack on multinational tax avoidance, Labor opposes. On our trade agreements, Labor cannot decide whether it's Arthur or Martha. There is our national energy guarantee. There is our cashless welfare card, which certain Labor members said they were going to support, but then, in a mad swing to the Left, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Labor is now opposing a policy which is changing the lives of kids in Indigenous communities. The government has announced a review of the legislation governing the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, and that is required by legislation. It is right and proper to do so. The review will provide a chance for the public, the not-for-profit sector and other stakeholders to contribute their ideas and experience to help improve how this sector is regulated. Why is this review important? Because charities must be held to account, like every other organisation. Most of the 55,000 charities across Australia do an incredible job, but we have seen many examples of those who don't. Why would Labor not fully support a process which drives integrity in the system? If they are going to be the recipient of generous tax deductions courtesy of the Australian taxpayer, it is right and proper that charities be held to account. The ACNC has the responsibility of maintaining, protecting and enhancing public trust and confidence in the charities and not-for-profit sector. That's what we are interested in—supporting the accountability and transparency of the sector. Frankly, it is extraordinary that members opposite, this shabby Labor Party, of which Paul Keating and Bob Hawke are now so ashamed, have stooped so low as to attack a former very fine Labor minister, Dr Gary Johns, who has been appointed as the full-time Commissioner of the ACNC for a five-year period. Contrary to a misleading and misinformed scare campaign, the foreign donations bill has no impact on the vast majority of charities. We've put protections in place to ensure the bill has no effect on foreign funding for charities' non-political activity or charities' political campaigning where it is funded by Australians. We are taking action to ensure that election advertising, including how-to-vote material and campaign robo-calls, is not funded by foreign interests. This should be the case regardless of whether campaigning is done by a political party, a campaign group, a business or a charity. It's long been a requirement for any individual or entity that incurs a significant amount of political expenditure to disclose this to the Australian Electoral Commission. I want to make this very important point: just seven of the 55,500 registered charities in Australia reported political expenditure in 2016-17, which is 0.1 per cent of Australian charities. So, far from targeting charities, the bill ensures the Electoral Act continues to apply to all participants in Australian elections. We are incredibly proud of the work we are doing to stand up and support the wonderful work that thousands of charities are doing across Australia. Mr Dick 53517 What a lie! Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the member withdraw that heinous comment that he just made. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Oxley will withdraw that interjection. Mr Dick 53517 I withdraw. 16:04 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I appreciate the opportunity to speak— Ms Henderson ZN4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I regret to say this but, when the member for Oxley sat down, he again repeated it and said I was a liar. That is disgusting. He just repeated it. Mr Dick 53517 I did not say that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Ms Rowland interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order, Member for Greenway! I did hear the member for Oxley— Ms Henderson ZN4 He just repeated the same slur, which just goes to show the integrity that we are seeing from those opposite. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! I did hear the member for Oxley— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! I did hear the member for Oxley withdraw. I didn't hear anything else. If there was, I didn't hear it. Ms KEAY 262273 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue because, in my electorate, local charities are the fabric of the local communities and, in every town, those charities are supported almost always by volunteers. They are there to support the disadvantaged and the vulnerable people in my communities who are doing it tough. But it is very clear that this government is continuing to undermine the very work of these very decent, hardworking volunteers as they go about doing this work in these communities. They already undermine these people to such an extent that local charities are too afraid to speak out on issues of importance. I know from conversations with many local groups that they are too afraid to speak out because they are worried that their funding will be cut. This is the climate of fear that they currently operate in thanks to the government sitting opposite. But now this government wants to go even further and stifle their voice and tie them up in bureaucratic knots. It is some sort of warped priority that this government could claim to be the advocates for free speech when at the same time they make it harder for charitable groups to express a public view. How is it that this government says it's alright for someone to be a bigot but it's not alright for a charity to call for increased funding to tackle homelessness? Once again, we see evidence that this Prime Minister continues to lurch to the far Right and become captive of the ideologues in the coalition. But, then again, when it comes to supporting our charities, this government has a track record that, by any reasonable measure, it could not be proud of. For six years the coalition had a policy to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The government already forces social services charities to sign gag clauses to prevent them from speaking out on policy issues. Since being elected, there have been multiple ministers responsible for charities, with one minister refusing to meet with the charities commission head. To top it off, before the end of last year, this government appointed as the head of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission a person who is opposed to the work of charities. Gary Johns might be a nice man—I have never met him—but, from what he has said about charities, he could not possibly be the right person for the job. Any person who attacks the work of beyondblue, supporting vulnerable young LGBTQI people, is clearly unfit for the role. It is clear that those opposite have not spoken to or engaged in any positive way with charities. Just seven days ago, Pro Bono released a survey and found that that many charities are unclear and uncertain about how they stand to be affected by the government's electoral funding and disclosure reform bill. In fact, 96 per cent of the respondents had not been consulted by the government on this bill. Last year I had the great pleasure to participate in the Vinnies CEO Sleepout. It is a national program, and I hope everyone has the same opportunity to participate. This campaign is to raise awareness of homelessness and the reasons that people themselves in this situation. Can someone from the other side please explain why this charity should be stifled and tied up in knots through a political disclosure regime? Why should they feel threatened to speak for the need for extra funding to address homelessness? I do agree that front groups for political parties should have a higher degree of scrutiny. In my state of Tasmania, in the middle of a state election, big, vested interstate interests groups are openly funding a third-party campaign against the opposition party. These types of activities certainly need proper scrutiny and a more timely reporting mechanism. The community should also be given the opportunity to know who is behind the campaigns and how much is being contributed. The community should have the right to know who the puppetmaster is who is pulling the Tasmanian Liberal Premier's strings. But that does not mean that charities such as beyondblue, Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul and many others should be caught up. The government needs to go back to the drawing board and redraft its legislation and maybe even talk to these charities. You could actually learn something for a change. Maybe then we could have a sensible conversation with those on the other side of this House. 16:09 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman It is a somewhat unclean debate today, given that both sides of this chamber are so strongly in support of the not-for-profit sector and many of us receive support from the not-for-profit sector ourselves. Given the almost 'political heritage' of having an MPI at the end of the week where the opposition screams that the government is bringing the world to an end, it is difficult to tease out exactly what the concern is. Obviously, to be traducing Gary Johns is disappointing. In a simplistic sense, I don't have a dog in this fight if Labor wants to tear apart a former Labor minister; but to tear down someone once he has taken up the position as ACNC Commissioner is I think one of the more disappointing positions these Labor MPs have taken. Sure, we can all dig through the comments someone has previously made; but, honestly, in a world of political poodles it is time someone spoke straight and said what they think. I admire Gary Johns for that, though I might not always agree with him; but he is now doing a very important job and all evidence points to him doing it with assiduous attention to detail. Indeed, that is precisely what he is commissioned to do. His job is to identify not-for-profits that have drifted away from their commission. It is an incredibly tiny number. There are 54,000 charities and only a dozen or two have drifted so far that, for reasons of misconduct or mismanagement, they have had to lose their status. Let no-one on either side forget that this gift of deductibility is from the Australian people, not from government. The gift of being able to raise money and not pay tax allows these entities to devote and invest more in what they're commissioned to do. Everyone supports that. All the people listening around Australia just want not-for-profits to get on with doing what their bread and butter business is. There is no disagreement there. Where there is this frisson of disagreement coming from the other side is the suggestion that stopping foreign money coming in and being involved in party politics is actually tying the hand of not-for-profits or stifling them. The government can't agree with that at all. I thought the contribution from the Labor MP who spoke just before me was a reasonably balanced assessment of that. She conceded that some of these third party entities are actually fighting the Labor Party. I know traditionally we have seen the very large developed ones fighting the right of centre, but she conceded that we do need a higher level of scrutiny for these entities. Let's go through it step by step. They take the gift of tax deductibility from the Australian government, and they take that money and engage not in their core business but in party-political activity. First of all, that activates the electoral laws on domestic donations, which rightly it should. But if it's coming from overseas—I seem to recall it was the Labor Party that was most vocal about stopping this foreign money from 'pouring in'. Labor were very concerned about fat cats coming in and influencing local elections. So here we have a simple manifestation of stopping it but, all of a sudden, Labor have just seen a spark of political opportunism where they can, firstly, take down Gary Johns and then, secondly, scare all 54,000 charities that can't bear to say a word in case they get shut down! This is such a distortion of the truth. Let's go right back to the simple facts. Nothing stops not-for-profits from advocating for their stated causes, the things for which they were commissioned to do. The bill allows them to continue to take foreign donations even, so long as they are not involved in political activity. There is no better party-political example than GetUp!. I love the word 'temerity'. They had the temerity to turn up to the Queensland election and fight against Adani. Did they turn up to fight against the Labor government that approved Adani? No, they didn't. They turned up in Queensland and they held out a piece of paper that said, 'Malcolm Turnbull, through the NAIF, is considering funding a rail line that runs to Adani, so please vote for the Labor Party'—please vote for the Labor Party, which approved Adani, because we hate so much a Prime Minister who was contemplating giving a loan, paid back with interest, to build rail infrastructure for this great nation! It would have been a concessional loan with interest. The interest rate on a concessional loan is slightly lower than the market interest rate, so it is every dollar, and interest, paid back to the Australian people for the first time ever to build rail infrastructure in this country using private money. And they fought to the death to stop it. GetUp! was at every polling booth I could see, telling everyone, 'Please, hate Malcolm Turnbull and vote for the party that approved Adani.' It is this completely distorted thinking, this political involvement with overseas funding, that will stop this legislation. That it is why we support it. 16:14 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I think we just heard the reason why the member for Bowman, a member of the government, wants this bill introduced. We just heard about the last state election. What happened in the Bowman electorate when this activism happened? The seat of Bowman returned Labor members of parliament; in fact, the LNP lost seats in the electorate of Bowman. We got the fantastic new member for Redlands, Kim Richards. So what does the LNP do? I'll put it like this. It is as if, in the PM's office, the Young Liberal apparatchiks who were sitting around, dreaming that when they got the brief they would do something in a constructive way about political donations to stop overseas donations, said: 'I know what we're going to do. We're going to get charities at the same time. We're going to roll that in. We're sick and tired of those Knitting Nannas. We're sick and tired of those people protesting outside the foreign minister's office demanding that foreign aid be increased and making demands on all those issues. We're sick and tired of walking around in the community and being criticised for our policies. You know what we're going to try and do? We're going to try and shut down the dissent. We're going to shut down the dissent!' And that's exactly what this bill and this government want to do. You would think they were the party of freedom of speech, the party that demand that we enable freedom of speech, but what do they do when this legislation comes in? They shut down freedom of speech. But we know that those opposite—and we saw it today in this debate, talking about everything, talking about tax giveaways, talking about multinationals handouts—are not interested in the charity sector. If they were, they would not be introducing this sort of legislation, and they would be supporting the over 50,000 charities to have a voice and to speak out on behalf of the tens of thousands of members that they represent. But not the modern Liberal Party. Not the party of Menzies. This is an extreme right-wing, conservative agenda that we're seeing time in and time out, and this is the latest attack, through the charitable sector in Australia. But I want to get to my other interest. We're seeing a collapse: the red tape that this government wants to introduce around charities. For those government members who are here, when you go back to your electorates, do a poll in your electorate for those people who donate to World Vision. Do a poll of those hardworking men and women who donate $4.80 a week to the charity of their choice—they may be sponsoring a child overseas. Your legislation, your changes that you're demanding that the Australian people support, will mean that the very people who donate $4.80 a week to World Vision will have to do paperwork of a declaration and have a JP or police officer sign that form each year. That's just for those people who want to donate to World Vision. That's what your legislation will deliver: an attack on free speech by those charities speaking out and criticising your government, and an increase in red tape. The extreme Right has been speaking today in this debate. I want to ask them: what's changed that you're delivering this to the Australian charities sector and delivering the new commissioner, Gary Johns? There's only one answer to that. You want to stop freedom of speech and the attacks on your government. We see it time and time again. This is the quote from the new Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commissioner, Gary Johns. He said: 'There is a great deal of impure altruism in the charity business. On the donor side, there is some self-regard and some agenda chasing. On the charity side, there is agenda pushing and organisation enhancement. No set of rules could hope to create a clean market of pure motives and perfect outcomes.' That is the person that you want overseeing the charity sector. That quote says it all. Well, I'm here to defend the charities in my electorate, those hardworking men and women who give up their time, selflessly delivering for the communities and for those right across the country. I know that, for the thousands of hours that people give up to volunteer their hard-earned time and money, they deserve much better than an attack on their organisations. Gary Johns's appointment signals a major escalation in this government's war on charities. It shows that this government is beholden to the far Right of its party. There's absolutely no denying it. I thank the member for Fenner for putting this in the public arena, because the public deserve to know what the government wants to do to the charity sector. You can hide behind your words all you want; the charity sector and the thousands of people are on to you, and we will keep supporting them. 16:19 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Thank you to the opposition for raising this important issue. I don't get enough time to talk about charities in this chamber. They fulfil a vital role in our society and in our communities, helping everyone when they need a hand. I work very closely with a large number of charities, both local and national, and I consider many of their staff and volunteers to be friends. I'd like to think that, if any of them were feeling undermined, they would tell me. I have nothing but praise for those who work or volunteer with charities. They are the most selfless, kind and caring members of our communities. I am very proud to have some excellent local charities in Bennelong, and I'm privileged to work very closely with them. Helen Crouch and her team at North Ryde Community Aid & Information Centre are wonderful contributors to the Ryde area. Every year my office and I take part in packing and delivering their Christmas hampers; it's a highlight of the year. I'm very proud to say that this is an immovable fixture in my calendar—hell, high water and even a by-election won't keep me away! This year my sisters Annette and Susan joined me, and we had a great time. Heather Pinto and her dedicated people at Christian Community Aid are just as vital to the residents of Eastwood and Epping. CCA helps with services ranging from transport to child care. Particularly impressive are the language-assistance classes and support they offer, helping the many people from Eastwood with English as a second language to access the vital services they need. There are many more local groups like these in our community, providing essential support for many locals. Sadly, I do not have time to mention them all; there are just too many generous people in the electorate. But Bennelong is also home to many other charities that don't just focus on helping locals, but extend their services more widely across the state or country. Our Stronger Communities Program grants have provided thousands of dollars across our communities, and much of it has been directed towards charities. We're aiming to give $43,000 to local charities in our latest batch of grants. In the last three weeks, I've had the pleasure of informing Jo-Anne Reeves of Parkinson's NSW that the government will be providing $20,000 to refurbish their community meeting rooms. I've also been able to tell Epilepsy Australia that we'll be giving them $10,000 to upgrade their IT so that they can reach more people touched by epilepsy. And Glyn Henman and Llew Morris of Young Life Australia will be getting $3,500 to help them engage with more young people and help them find their way in the world. We're also home to the excellent YouthSafe, run by the inimitable Warren Johnson. This group arranges training for our young people on how to stay safe in their daily lives, especially on and around our roads. Our road toll is too high, especially at this time of the year, so any work done in this area deserves all our support. I'm also a particular fan of the follically focussed charities. For many years I've sported a moustache for Movember, and just before my recent enforced absence from this place I had my head shaved by the students of North Ryde Public School for the Leukaemia Foundation. Just before the shave, I walked 100 kilometres around my electorate to raise money and awareness for this great cause, while this small school raised more than any other school. I had also previously done a similar walk, and raised nearly $10,000 for Motor Neurone Disease Australia. My time is almost up, but I'd also like to drop the names of Tanya Hall from hearts4heart, and Christine Nolan from Breast Cancer Network Australia. Both of these groups are dedicated to helping people with heart and cancer conditions, and I have been delighted to welcome both of these charities to this House in the last year, aiming to get more support for these causes. That's a quick run-down of 10 charities that we're not undermining, and if I had time I would love to go on and mention all of the selfless Bennelongians who are helping others in our community. Thank you everyone in Bennelong and across Australia who give time, money and support to a charity. The work you do is essential, and we can never thank you enough. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 72 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 72

Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Explanatory Memorandum 72 16:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I present, for the information of members, an addendum to the explanatory memoranda for the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016. Report from Federation Chamber 72 16:25 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. The bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 73 16:25 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017 73

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017

First Reading 73 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 73

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017

First Reading 73 Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017 73

Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 73 ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Holt Electorate: Australia Day awards 73 16:29 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I wanted to rise tonight here in this place to talk about an exceptional group of people and organisations that I honoured on Australia Day as part of the 14th annual Holt Australia Day awards 2018. We honoured 27 outstanding individuals and seven local organisations for their contribution to the community at the 10th annual Day of the Nations celebrations in Hampton Park, which was organised by the Hampton Park Progress Association and supported by the City of Casey. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Holt Australia Day Awards Committee, which consisted of Chris Drysdale, Judy Owen, Leanne Petridis, Mladen Krsman and Ron Webb, for selecting the award recipients. Australia Day, in my view, is a day where we can honour those that really do make this country a great place. When people ask me what it is to be an Australian, my first thought is that we live in a place of such breathtaking beauty and diversity, of arid deserts, of mountain ranges, of tropical forests and amazing coastline. I lived on the edge of the desert as a young man in Kalgoorlie for some seven years. Apart from the physical characteristics of Australia, what I think makes the country great is the characteristics of its people. I really do believe that we are an egalitarian country, committed to equality of opportunity and accepting all of those who come to this boundless country, asking only that these people share our values of tolerance, diversity and respect for community, its institutions and the rule of law. You could really say that citizens of this country are truly equal in the eyes of God, regardless of race, regardless of colour and regardless of beliefs. On that Day of the Nations on Australia Day, we celebrated those who I thought truly encapsulated what it means to be an Australian—those who believe in sacrifice, those who believe it is their duty to make a contribution for the better of the wider community. We awarded some very exceptional people the Australia Day award. If I can read quickly into the record those whom we honoured: Aaron Grant, Carol Bosward and Sandra Rotunno, Casey Garba, Christopher Klepacz, Pastor Decal Nono, Ellie Blackburn, Elyse Cumine, Heather Triffett, Hispana Ventana—Spanish Window—Jean-Marie Jean-Pierre, John Cooper, John Foy, Josh and Eden Carell, Julie Cini, Karen Alsop, Pastor Keith Vethaak, Pastor Kerrigan La-Brooy, Lyn and Barry Leeds, Mary-Ann Spencer, the National Servicemen's Association of Australia South East Sub Branch, Pastor Phil and Pastor Norma Cayzer, Cranbourne-Narre Warren Relay for Life, Ruth Croft, South East Melbourne Vietnamese Associations Council, Southern Masters Cycling Club, Star News Group, Sue Owen, Tammie McKill, Tareq Bakhtani and Zoe Panagiotopoulos. Those names I've read into the parliamentary record are names of people and organisations that didn't seek the limelight for the work that they did to make their community a better place. I think that is one of the other truly defining characteristics of the Australian character. Those who pull together for the common good, those who sacrifice for their community—even some of the recipients who fed the homeless out of their own funds, who decided to be a role model in what they chose to do so—didn't do this in a way that sought publicity; they did it in a quiet, quintessentially Australian, understated way. When we have a discussion about what it means to be an Australian, Australia Day is a good time to celebrate those people. You would notice I read a number of names of people that came from all walks of life and all corners of the globe. I really do believe that the diversity of this country is the strength of this country and that, as I said to those that attended the Australia Day awards honouring their achievements, this country's best days are yet to come, and having people like these will ensure that this country reaches its great future. Illicit Drugs 74 16:34 Mr IRONS HYM Swan It's appropriate that the minister for law enforcement is in the chamber to hear this speech. The use of drugs in Australia costs our economy $4.4 billion a year. This cost is made up of not only the crime aspects but also the health costs of treating people who abuse drugs and the other general economic losses. In early January, only a street away from my office in Victoria Park, nine backpackers overdosed on prescription medication used to treat motion sickness. These nine youths not only have to deal with the financial costs of their decisions, and rightfully so, but also, hopefully, have learnt a lesson about what the misuse of drugs can do. I would say to the constituents in my electorate, and probably all Australians: if you have a white envelope turn up at your house that's not addressed to you, do not open it. Do not snort it up your nose or swallow it because you think it's some substance that might give you a bit of a lift for a short while. These nine youths all ended up in hospital. If there'd only been four of them, they would have all been dead. So the message is: give it to the police or destroy it, but don't stick it up your nose. During the nine-month period between November 2015 and July 2016, the Cloud 9 stores in Perth, including the East Victoria Park store in my electorate of Swan, were raided by police, allegedly for selling synthetic cannabis as well as for issues with compliance checks. During these raids, a total of 8.3 kilograms of synthetic drugs was seized across Perth, and the owner of the Cloud 9 stores pleaded guilty to importing over 2,000 glass pipes to be used for smoking methamphetamines. I applaud the previous state Liberal government for their strong anti-synthetic-drug laws under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2015. This proactive law outright banned all recreational psychoactive drugs and closed loopholes that allowed new types of synthetic drugs to be legal until the law caught up with them. The previous government also enacted laws that made Western Australia the first state in the country to ban the synthetic cannabis drug Kronic and the synthetic drug MDPV, a similar drug to methamphetamine. In 2016 I became aware of an organisation called Sideffect. Sideffect aims to educate youth and save lives through early intervention. Sideffect was set up by Rodney Bridge, whose son Preston died in 2013 after taking synthetic LSD at an afterparty following his school ball. I believe that that drug was purchased through Silk Road. Rod travelled to China in 2015 to explore the synthetic drug trade at its source, where the drugs are manufactured under the guise of research chemicals. As a result of Rod's trip to China, the Chinese government cracked down on the manufacturing of these drugs, with 116 products banned from being manufactured in China and 27,000 people charged. The work of Rod has been vital in reducing the amount of synthetic drugs manufactured in China and, in turn, smuggled to the rest of the world. Rod has since dedicated his time to Sideffect alongside the former CEO of Greyhounds WA, David Hobbs, and former West Coast Eagles player Chris Waterman. This organisation seeks to educate those most at risk of taking synthetic drugs about the harms of synthetic drug use, particularly in schools and rural towns, where drug use is common. We have seen overseas that education plays an important role in fighting the scourge of drugs in our community, and Sideffect is at the forefront of educating those most susceptible to drug use. Last year, Sideffect launched its drug awareness campaign in Western Australia and received support through the community for its work. This included support from schools and from businesses like the ABN Group and Rio Tinto, as well as the Master Builders Association. In the sporting world, there was excellent feedback and some collaboration developing with the West Coast Eagles. Rod, David and the team are now in the process of launching the orange card program. The orange card program is the first of its kind in Australia. It is an online drug awareness and education platform. The objectives of the program are based around creating a safer work environment by educating employees on the harms of synthetic drug use. The objective would lead to less drug use, therefore creating an environment less likely to be at risk of workplace accidents and in turn reducing the amount of workers compensation, insurance claims and premiums. I could go on, and I've got some more to deal with, but I'm sure I'm going to catch up with the minister for law enforcement, because these programs are fantastic. They want it to become like a white card so that you can't go on a construction site until you have an orange card as well. Unfortunately, at the moment, they have received no support from any level of government in Australia. I think it's a program that well deserves it. Politics 75 16:39 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner This has been one of the most emotional weeks that I've seen in politics in my 7½ years in this place, a tough week for people on both sides of the House, where the personal has melted into the political, when private lives have been splashed across the front page and pulled apart in this very chamber. The incredibly brave member for Longman was yesterday forced to relive one of the hardest experiences of her life: the moment when, as a six-year-old, her mother dropped off her school and never came back to pick her up. Her gracious speech, given in the face of intense scrutiny, her capacity for forgiveness instead of hatred, is what we should strive for as politicians. Politics provides an opportunity for us to be a better version of ourselves. After all, as Aristotle put it some 2,000 years ago, politics is simply the art of working out how to live together. That's something we all need to get better at. It hasn't escaped the notice of our friends in the press gallery. Annabel Crabb has noted the 'hostile, scratchy feel' of modern politics. Laura Tingle has claimed: … our public discourse have become noticeably angrier. We've seen a lack of compassion spill over recently into the debate over African Australians, and comments from the immigration minister, who said people in Melbourne were 'scared to go out to restaurants' because of 'African gang violence'. What followed included a young South Sudanese Australian family being followed home from child care by a man hurling racist obscenities, so-called patriots threatening to take back the streets, police intervening after a photographer began harassing a group of African teens. This is the Australia of the Cronulla riots, not the Australia I want to live in. We've seen anger in America too, where insults are a frequent feature of political debates, where neo-nazis no longer hide their political allegiances, where people can buy T-shirts threatening political journalists with nooses. Anger has been rising in Britain, where, in the lead-up to the Brexit vote, Labour MP Jo Cox was fatally shot by a man who had been shouting, 'Death to traitors; freedom for Britain!' This week we saw another person charged for threatening a Scottish politician by referencing the death of Ms Cox. Brendan Cox this week issued a warning to politicians, 18 months on from the death of his wife, urging us to reject extremism amid the debate over Senator Jim Molan's sharing of divisive videos by hate group Britain First. It's the same racist hate group that the US President was widely condemned for promoting when he'd shared their inflammatory anti-Muslim videos. We know that at least one of the videos shared by Senator Molan is a fake, but we're yet to hear an apology from him for circulating these mistruths, designed to divide. As Brendan Cox has said: …politicians cannot claim ignorance and must not be allowed to walk away from the effects of their actions. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that the views put forward in the videos are repugnant, and Senator Wong, when she said: … bigotry and divisiveness has no place in our society and it certainly has no place in our parliament. As Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, wrote earlier this week, we politicians have a responsibility to avoid the promotion of prejudice, bigotry and hatred. In the US Congress now, partisanship is at the highest level since the reconstruction era. Partisanship has been rising in Australia too. We should get better at promoting what's good about politics, the lasting friendships across the chamber and the matters that bring us together. I spoke in 2016 at the Collins Street Baptist Church about these challenges, living up to that Greek notion of agape, to the ideas that have been expressed by thinkers going back to Soren Kierkegaard, Mahatma Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Martha Nussbaum, bel hooks and Vaclav Havel, and more recently by young New Zealand thinkers Max Harris and Philip McKibbin. When we look at issues like the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, they remind us of our deepest responsibility as community leaders. They remind us, as the commissioner said in his final address: It is the responsibility of our entire community to acknowledge that children are being abused… The tragic impact of abuse for individuals and through them our entire society demands nothing less. As the opposition leader said this morning: … politics should be about doing the right thing, making good wrongs and helping the vulnerable. It is up to the country's leaders to come together and set an example for Australia. As Martin Luther King wrote: Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that. Banking and Financial Services 76 16:44 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes This week we've seen the Productivity Commission's report expressing concern about competition in our banking sector. What better example of lack of competition in our banking sector than what we've seen from our big four banks, with their anti-coal rhetoric, their appeasement of extreme left-wing, anti-coal zealots, and the statements they have made supporting the war on coal? I could pick any of the four big banks, but in the time available I'd like to look particularly at what the National Australia Bank have done in this area in their war on coal. Last year, the National Bank admitted to sending out a press release saying that they were not going to lend any money to the Carmichael coal mine. That's fine. But it turns out that they were never even asked for a loan. So they sent out a press release saying they weren't going to lend money to a project, but they hadn't been asked to and had no idea of the parameters of it. They did so simply to fill their anti-coal rhetoric to appease extreme greens. Secondly, just before Christmas we had a press release from the National Australia Bank saying: NAB has an important role to play in the orderly transition to a low carbon economy. This statement is nothing other than politically correct absolute nonsense. Regarding this so-called transition to a low-carbon economy, if we look at the numbers from the International Energy Agency we see that wind and solar currently make up 0.8 per cent of the world's energy supply. Their prediction, with all the billions and billions of dollars of subsidies, is that by 2040 the number for wind and solar will get to 3.6 per cent of the world's energy supplies. In 2040, all the predictions are for more coal, more oil and more gas. Recently, the US Energy Information Administration put out their projections to 2050. At the moment, the US economy is 85.2 per cent driven by fossil fuels. Their prediction, throwing in again all the subsidies and all the wonderful new renewable resources that will come on board, has it at 79.2 per cent by 2050. This idea that there is some transition to a low-carbon economy is simply a myth. The NAB press release continues: 'It is critical to ensure Australians can have access to secure, reliable and affordable energy.' Continue to have access to affordable energy? The state of South Australia has the highest electricity prices in the world! Today The Daily Telegraph ran an article about AGL in which they compared the price consumers pay for electricity in New South Wales, which is close to 40c a kilowatt-hour, to that paid in the US state of Virginia, where the CEO of AGL comes from, where they enjoy a price of 15c a kilowatt-hour—less than half the price. Is it any wonder why? When we look at the figures for Virginia, whose electricity is supplied through the PJM market, yesterday at 3.30 pm just one per cent of the supply of electricity going to Virginia was from renewables—99 per cent was coming from coal, gas or nuclear. That's why the prices in the US are so much lower. So, rather than running their anti-coal rhetoric, I think the best thing for our big banks is to look at some of the numbers, which show how misguided that is. Last year thermal coal prices were 33 per cent up for the year, exports to Japan from Australia grew 50 per cent, and China's coal consumption was up 5.2 per cent. The International Energy Agency is forecasting that world demand for coal will increase by another 200 million tonnes to the year 2022, yet we have our big banks running anti-coal rhetoric, coal being one of our most important exports and one of the most important competitive advantages this nation has. It is not the job of the big banks to try to appease extreme left-wing green groups. This harms the economy. The best thing the banks can do for our economy is to ensure that Australian businesses can take advantage of what are the true competitive and comparative advantages this nation enjoys—and that used to be low-cost energy. It is no longer, because of this war on coal. This war on coal must end. Van Stuivenberg, Mr Hank, Bartolo, OAM, Mr George 77 16:49 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham We returned to parliament after the Christmas period. I know many of us in our communities will have had the opportunity to celebrate with locals who received awards around the Australia Day events. Also we've clearly lost people in our communities. I want to acknowledge the many beautiful tributes to Michael Gordon, a member of this community in this place. In that spirit I would like today to put on the nation's record another wonderful local, an Illawarra Mercury snapper who we very sadly lost over the break. Illawarra Mercury photographer Hank Van Stuivenberg was known to his colleagues as 'Honky' or 'Sensational Hank' because he had a very regular big smile and because he replied, 'Sensational!' whenever anyone asked how he was. A beautiful tribute was paid to Hank by his boss of many years, Kirk Gilmour, in the paper. These are Kirk's words: The Sensational Hank Van Stuivenberg was a much loved and well respected member of the Illawarra Mercury and its photographic department. …   …   … In the Merc's photographic department Hank was our elder statesman and Kid Eager rolled into one. Possessing an amazing news sense, Hank was always keen to get out the door to take pictures. Countless times arriving at breaking news events before the emergency services. Hank possessed the ability to communicate with anyone from any walk of life. Politicians, academics, the well heeled or the famous were equal to emotionally broken victims of crimes or people doing it tough on struggle street in Hank's eyes. Hank could strike up a chat and have a conversation with anyone. Hank was an awesome work colleague and a dear friend. His lost has impacted on many in the Illawarra community. He just had such a positive outlook on life. I regularly met Hank even after he left the Mercury at events with the Bellambi surf club where Hank was a well-loved and respected life member. He'd given years of service to the movement. Sadly, Hank's long battle with cancer overcame him on 24 January, and his family asked those who were able to attend his funeral to donate to the Australian Cancer Research Foundation. My personal condolences are extended to his wife, Eva, and his children and grandchildren. These are Eva's own words to the Illawarra Mercury, with which I profoundly agree: He gave so unconditionally of himself to people. He didn't judge people. And time for friendship was a huge thing for Hank. He was 'what you see is what you get'. Our community was the richer for Hank's work and his volunteer activities, and we will miss him as we extend our love and support to his family and his very many friends. I have to acknowledge that there were also many locals celebrated in the Australia Day awards. Six local people were recognised in the national awards this year. They all made a wide and varied contribution to our community and nation, and I congratulate them all. Today I’d like to share a wonderful story of one of those honoured: George Bartolo. I've known George a very long time as he is a life member of the Australian Labor Party. George's dedication to his beloved party is a reflection of his strong commitment to taking responsibility for helping out wherever he sees people in need. George received the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the Maltese and multicultural communities of New South Wales. The award comes on top of many years of awards recognising George's tireless efforts on behalf of his community. I am always happy to see George's smiling face at Multicultural Communities Council of Illawarra functions. George has been a founding member since 1975, a senior vice-chairman since 2004 and a life member since 2005. He's also been a much-valued and active member of the Illawarra Dog Training Club, the Wollongong Agricultural, Horticultural and Industrial Society, and the George Cross Falcons Club. George is one of those wonderful but humble people that keep our communities going. He told the Illawarra Mercury: I mean, you don't go out of your way to do things so you'll get recognised and get a reward. It's not like that at all. You do it because you like to do it and you want to work with the community, whether it is the Maltese community or the community in general. You just want to help. Well, George, we are all so happy you got on that boat in 1959 and came to make Wollongong your home, and we, like your family, are so proud of your well-earned Australia Day award. I haven't got much time left, so finally, I'd just like to congratulate all the winners of the City of Wollongong's Australia Day awards who also exemplified the community spirit and selfless volunteerism we take such pride in in our city. Energy 78 16:54 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would just like to take this time to make the Australian public aware of some of the radically higher prices that Australian consumers are paying for electricity compared to what is available in the United States of America. We know from an article in TheDaily Telegraph published in Sydney today that, in the state of Virginia, they're enjoying residential retail prices of around 15c a kilowatt hour. It wasn't that long ago that Australia enjoyed equivalent or even lower prices for electricity compared to the USA. But, compared to the 15c a kilowatt hour that consumers in Virginia enjoy, consumers in Australia are paying upwards of 40c a kilowatt hour. The prices we pay are not 25 per cent or 50 per cent or even 100 per cent higher; the prices that Australian consumers pay are more like 150 per cent higher. It is not just the state of Virginia. I have here a table from the US Energy Information Administration. It lists the average price for electricity to end-user consumers. Looking at a few other states, in Illinois, the price—these are in US cents, converted to Australian cents—is A16c a kilowatt hour; in Florida, US12.12c, the equivalent of A15.3c; Georgia, A14.4c; North Carolina, A14.8c; Kentucky, A13.8c; Louisiana, A12.3c; and Oklahoma, A13.9c. How are we going to have a competitive economy and attract investment, going forward, if we have electricity prices that are two and three times higher than they are in America? Then there's the corporate tax rate. We've seen the US reducing their corporate tax rate to 21 per cent. We've seen a flow of investment as a result of that into the USA. We've seen companies giving out $1,000 bonuses to their workers because of the reduction in the corporate tax rate. And yet we have members on the other side of the parliament that won't even agree to the smallest of corporate tax rate reductions in Australia, from 30 per cent to 27½ per cent. Getting back to the price of energy, the simple reason the cost of electricity has exploded in Australia is the lack of base-load coal generation. You can see it in all the numbers. The maths is there. When the Northern Power Station was closed down, prices in South Australia skyrocketed. It was closed down and actually blown up—physically blown up. When the Hazelwood power station closed down and was not replaced with base-load power, the prices throughout the states in the national grid skyrocketed. In fact, if we go back just a few years to 2012, the average wholesale price for electricity in New South Wales was $29; in South Australia, $30; and, in Victoria, $27. For the first month of this year, in New South Wales—after having that average of less than $30 in 2012—it was $84. In South Australia, the average price was $101. In Victoria, the average price was $99. That's the wholesale price of electricity. Today we've seen AGL release their profits. We should always try to encourage companies and congratulate them when they report high profits. But, in this case, the additional profits that AGL have made have simply been the result of higher wholesale prices in the market which flow through to consumers as higher retail prices. We need to fix up— (Time expired) House adjourned at 17:00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.

Thursday, 8 February 2018

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 79 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Aged Care 79 10:00 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce The growing crisis in aged care is a disgrace, and we must speak out and not accept this as okay. The latest figures that I've seen reveal that more than 100,000 Australians are now languishing in limbo, waiting for home care packages so they can get appropriate care. There are more than 60,000 senior Australians now with no package at all—nothing; zip. More than 40,000 have a package at a lower level than they actually need. This includes nearly 80,000 older Australians waiting with higher needs, many with dementia. Numerous people in my electorate in recent months have been stuck at home with no care. Their families are now coming to our offices in despair and in distress. In light of this, what did the minister responsible for this crisis, this calamity, suggest that people do? He said, 'Even if, after you've waited a year, the government hasn't properly assessed your circumstances and you get an offer below what you actually need, then just take what you can get'—take what you can get. He said, 'I would encourage people on waiting lists that, whatever level you're offered, you should just take that offer'—like it or leave it. The government have known about this problem for over a year and have done nothing. It has just crept up on them, with no action. The minister's a decent man—he is—but he's not up to the job, and he's just repeating now the government's nonsense. When asked about this, he said, 'Well, senior Australians can't be cared for because of budgetary pressures and fiscal constraints.' Yet this is a member of a government who voted to give himself a tax cut, to give the high-income earners of Australia a tax cut, and now he's voted to give a $65 billion handout to big business, for negligible benefits to the economy—maybe one per cent economic growth in 20 years. It is an old trick, isn't it—tax cuts for the rich and multinationals, while you cut services and raise taxes on poor and working people. It's not good enough. Even worse, there's no plan. There's no end in sight for the backlog. And the waiting list, the government has said, will just continue to grow. The Turnbull government's own website states that the most vulnerable Australians will be waiting, now, more than one year for a package. It's shocking that this crisis has been worsening for months and yet the government has done nothing. The government could have made a genuine financial commitment in the midyear budget update. They could have done that. Instead, they've done nothing. They've buried their heads in the sand, despite Labor's calls for over a year to address the problem. It is incredibly distressing for people in my community. One of the most distressing things I do—I'm sure it is a distressing thing that other members do—is to talk to families with no hope in sight. The uncertainty surrounding the lack of a plan makes it impossible for families to even plan for the care of senior Australians while they wait, and wait. The mess can't be fixed overnight, but the government needs to find the funding and announce a plan and a timetable so that families at least know what to do. It comes on top, of course, of its complete lack of response to the revelations last year in the residential aged-care sector, which—while state and territory governments are responsible for this regulation—also needs a national approach. (Time expired) Dental Health 79 10:03 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Continuing the health theme this morning: as I have alluded to earlier in the week, there is an absolute refusal from the Queensland government to sign up to the national partnership agreement for dental care. Of course, the federal government provides about 20 per cent of the total dental investment, so it's only a relatively small fraction of the whole, but, for some reason, Queensland is holding out—the last state remaining that won't accept the $240 million national partnership agreement that other jurisdictions have actually described as 'generous'. Not a single state has said it can't deliver their dental services without the help of the Commonwealth, and yet Queensland simply won't sign up. What does that mean on the ground? It means that the 80-plus-year-old mum of a lady in my electorate called Joyce, who phoned me a couple of weeks ago, can't get an appointment for an extremely painful tooth and can't even chew on that side of her mouth. For an 80-plus-year-old lady, that's obviously very traumatic. For many of us here, on reasonable salaries, it means just making a single phone call and getting care the same day from a dentist. But it's different— An opposition member interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H No, in fact—I'll take the interjection—it was the Labor government that scrapped the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, for the simple reason that it was too effective. And this really does bring out— An opposition member interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H and I'll accept the interjection—this very important difference: for the Labor Party, it's fundamentally about treating poor people, and, for the coalition, it's fundamentally about treating sick people. As soon as there was this notion that someone on the minimum wage might have the temerity to access dental care, Labor shut it down. I was in Tasmania, visiting Launceston, and there was this young woman working on the minimum wage who needed at least four bridges because of serious, serious cavity disease. She simply would not be treated by the Tasmanian government, who said: 'No, you have a job. Go away.' She couldn't provide a healthcare card that allowed her to have that emergency treatment done and she had to go through the humiliation of going to a service club. The local Lions Club raised the money for her to get the dental care she needed. So it's not about how severe your disease is in the Labor world; it's just about whether you are carrying a concession card. Then, of course, the door will open. If you are in Queensland, that's not the case. In Queensland, no matter what you carry, no matter who you are, you cannot get a dental voucher that's funded by the Commonwealth for the simple reason that this state Labor government wants to bicker with Canberra. This is the kind of sideline melee we are all getting sick of. Fundamentally 90 per cent of this money is state money, but if you phoned today and asked for an appointment the answer would be, 'Yes, we can give you an appointment in six weeks or two months time.' It is as good as saying, 'Go away,' isn't it? And they'll say, 'There's no guarantee that we can give you a voucher for that visit.' This must be crushing for pensioners. The government can say, 'We offered the patient an appointment,' but they are making it practically impossible to get that care. What is being committed—$240 million—is significant, of course. It allows for 80,000 more dental cases to be carried out. But, fundamentally, in Queensland, they're not even doing what Victoria does for the same amount of money. There are 22,000 fewer dental cases delivered. That lack of value for money should be of great concern for all Queenslanders. (Time expired) Macquarie Electorate 80 10:06 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie From gymnastics to touch football, equestrian sports to ice-skating, our young athletes in Macquarie, the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains are smashing their goals in their beloved sports. I was thrilled to be able to give out 19 grants as part of the AIS Local Sporting Champions grants program at the end of last year. I'm sure Melissa Elliot, a netballer from Blaxland, speaks for all of her fellow sportspeople when she says she lives and breathes her sport. Jed Drew, also from Blaxland, competed in the national youth championships for soccer. Renee Hardy from Windsor, Jackson Sharp from Wentworth Falls and Springwood's Georgie Purcell all competed in the Australian All Schools Championships for athletics in Adelaide in December. Maraylya's Meeri Lee and Ebenezer's Kallista Plummer both received their grants to help them get to the Australian interschool equestrian championships in Toowoomba. Griffin Barry from Ebenezer was selected for the Football Federation Australia's National Youth Championships, while Winmalee sisters Ellie and Annie Smith competed in the junior state cup for touch footy. Emma Kannengiesser grew up watching her mum and older sisters play rep netball. She has now been part of the Pacific School Games herself. Blackheath's Shona Daley and Mount Riverview's Zachary Hunter also attended this national tournament, competing in basketball and touch football respectively. Emily Robertson-Hahn from Cattai and North Richmond's Molly Mamo, who were both coached for hours and hours every week by local gym KSTP, attended the world age group championships for tumbling in Sofia, Bulgaria. Molly won gold after she pulled off—I'm quoting her here—'a round-off, whip, double tick, whip, three flips and another tuck'. And she landed on her feet! Molly, I hope I got that right! Caleb Jackson-Brown from Mount Riverview was hoping to impress international soccer scouts at the 2017 National Training Centre Challenge for boys, while Simone Aubrecht from Springwood competed in the national figure skating championships in Brisbane, then went on to Bratislava in Slovakia to the grand prix. She is now on her way to Abu Dhabi to compete in yet another ice-skating tournament. She is one to watch. Kelsey Otto from Wentworth Falls swum against her idols at the 2018 Hancock Prospecting Australian Swimming Trials. Her next challenge? She is off to the Commonwealth Games trials. So there is someone we should keep an eye out for in breaststroke. Her achievements are testament to both her own and her family's hard work. I congratulate those who have already competed on their outstanding effort and results. I pay tribute to the families for the effort they put in to make this possible for their kids. I wish all of the competitors from the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains the best of luck in their upcoming competitions. Queensland: Health 81 10:09 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman You may be somewhat over the sight of me at this point of time in the morning, but I did want to extend on my comments on dental health to talk about the bigger picture of Queensland health and hospital funding. An opposition member interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H The member opposite should be careful: I will turn to Victoria and it's even messier picture down there. Certainly, both sides would agree that, over time, the Commonwealth's great challenge is that, as it sequentially increased funding in social policy, often the states have soft-pedalled in return. For every dollar we'd push in—you'd recall this, even from the Rudd-Gillard era—often it was very hard to be sure that the states would match that funding and not pocket the difference. There are many ways to deal with that, but my concern is that it continues to happen in Queensland. What's certainly not in dispute is the massive increase in funding for hospitals coming from the Commonwealth side. It's worth reflecting here that that increase has been from $16.5 billion to Queensland hospitals during the Rudd-Gillard era to $28.4 billion during the equivalent coalition period. They're big increases. Obviously, the economy grows in size as well, but it does put to bed this notion of cuts—because, wherever the Labor Party are looking for some kind of political opportunity, we know over this side that they normally pick a social policy, insert words and follow them with 'cuts' or 'cut to the bone' or 'rip the guts out of'. Usually, they focus test it with a few groups and then they let it rip. In reality, we know that both sides are strong funders of hospitals over time, but, increasingly, it's appearing that the coalition, through better economic management, is putting more money where it matters—and for hospitals it's quite simple: $16.2 billion into the Queensland health system. All of that increase between 2016 and 2017 was the Commonwealth component. As I alluded to before, what we found out was that, at the same time, the Palaszczuk government cut their funding contribution by about $63 million in their own budget papers, but they can still crow about increased spending overall. The record down here in Canberra isn't much better. Bill Shorten promised $57 billion but has only ever shown us where $2 billion of that would come from. A $55 billion black hole is also something of concern because, in tough economic times, those kinds of sums are pretty hard to find. We doubt that Labor will ever find them. These unfunded commitments are not dissimilar to what we saw from the Labor Party with Gonski—the first four years just having modest increases and then back-ending all of that funding into the last two years, when you knew you never had to find the money. We're increasingly seeing that the Labor Party's approach has been found out. When voters get lied to about cuts, when in fact funding's going up, and then discover that they have been lied to, they will go after that party. We stuck with the Gonski agreement for four years, but for the funny money in the never-never period, we didn't. Now that is the last remaining claim that Labor can make about funding cuts. If you want to talk about a negative funding cut, because we're actually increasing funding, you're welcome to do it. Good luck with your next scare campaign. I think you'll struggle. Herbert Electorate: Drought 81 10:12 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Over the summer break, I conducted a survey in my electorate of Herbert where I asked local residents what the most important issue was for them. Of the 722 respondents, the No. 1 issue, by an overwhelming 70.5 per cent, was water. Water was the No. 1 issue. At the very first sitting of parliament this year, I am proud to stand in this place on behalf of Townsville residents to bring their demands to Canberra. The facts are plain and simple. Water is the No. 1 issue, and Townsville is currently on level 3 water restrictions. The Ross River Dam is at less than 16 per cent. It is currently costing the Townsville City Council $35,000 a day to pump water from the Burdekin Dam, and because of this they are more than $2.8 million in debt. Our so-called wet season has come and gone with very little rain. The Turnbull government's lack of action on water is crippling the Townsville economy. Just last month, Day Dawn Nursery, a business that had operated in our community for more than 30 years, closed its doors. The owner of the nursery said it was an example of how Townsville was paying the price for poor water management. Townsville businesses should not have to pay the price for the Turnbull government's lack of commitment to water security. Then there are our turf farmers. The turf industry in the greater Townsville region has more than halved since this drought started. Last year, I met with turf farmers Lachlan and Sacha, who own Paragon Gardens. Lachlan and Sacha have worked so hard to keep their business afloat, and they have sought help to diversify. They had to let their apprentice go, which nearly broke their hearts. It is not easy to sit with a couple who are both reduced to tears because they are wondering how they are going to keep their business going. They deserve better. They should not have had to terminate their apprentice, especially with our youth unemployment rate as high as 20 per cent. At least half of our turf farmers have closed their doors. The worse thing about this is that none of these businesses had to close. No-one should have had to close their doors. No-one should have had to lose their job, because the solution to Townsville's drought problem lies in the construction of stage 2 of the Burdekin Dam. Stage 2 of the construction would give Townsville a long-term water supply. Labor has committed $100 million towards long-term water security. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has listened to our community, has heard our cries and he responded with cash on the table. We have not had one word from the Turnbull government, despite the fact I have made 15 speeches about water in this place since I came here in 2016. This government is so out of touch. In fact, no-one from the Turnbull cabinet or government has said anything or delivered one thing for water in our community. It is only Labor that is committed to addressing Townsville's water security, and I urge the Turnbull government to match our commitment. Harris, Mr David 82 10:15 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia So many of us spend our lives trying to avoid danger. We make decisions based on which option will have the least chance of danger, and we often worry about whether our decisions will be the right ones. This is only natural. It is part of the human condition that we want to live as long as possible and as well as possible. Dangerous things and situations place this fundamental desire at risk. I think this natural aversion to danger is in every one of us, making the story of David Harris all the more amazing. David is a Rockhampton local, a man who has worked hard as a truck driver and someone who, in October 2015, failed to concern himself with safety. It was nearing midnight. David and his son Joel had had a day of fishing and were returning home when they decided to stop at a service station to grab a cold drink. They pulled up at the Shell servo at the corner of Musgrave Street and High Street and went inside to raid the fridge. As David and Joel turned and exited the door, they spotted a scene difficult to believe for anyone not there that night. A desperate man stood at a bowser, a petrol nozzle in each hand, like six-shooters, with petrol charging from both alight. This was clearly someone suffering very poor mental health and obviously affected by unnatural substances. The man was screaming and began to swing the bowser nozzles around, spraying petrol and violent flames in all directions. Rather than turn tail and flee, David and Joel sprung to action. In what can only be described as a stupidly brave action, David went directly into the path of danger to disarm and restrain the crazed arsonist. It is worth noting that David Harris was, at this point of his life, using a cane to walk after a car accident left him with severe whiplash spinal injuries. He was not a well man. For him to subdue this arsonist is nothing short of incredible. As David wrestled with the crazed man, his son, Joel, just 14 at the time, hit the emergency stop button to stop the petrol from pumping—quick thinking for a young man. David and Joel were now joined by Matthew Hull who helped secure the criminal, holding him down with David until police arrived and performed an arrest. After this kerfuffle, David was unable to move. His body was racked with chronic pain and drained by the exertion. He was crippled. He chose, though, not to receive medical attention—he'd had enough of hospitals. David's story is incredible and more than worthy of the bravery awards he has been honoured with. He is uneasy with the limelight and shuns attention when it shines his way. David is a hero though and deserves all the praise sent his way. Hotham Electorate: Cost of Living 82 10:18 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Over summer, I held a number of mobile offices around my electorate and I wanted to report to the House today there was one issue that came up again and again when I spoke to families and the people that visited me. That was the rising cost of living. There are many people in my community and around the country who are struggling today to pay the basics. I spoke to older Australians who are unable to put on the air-conditioning in the absolute searing Melbourne summer we've just experienced. I spoke to lots of families, mums and dads, who talked to me about the difficulties they are facing just making ends meet with rising childcare costs, rising medical costs and the rest of it. Late last year I was contacted by a local school about one of the families in this situation. I wanted to share their story. The mum is a volunteer at the school council and has two kids who are working incredibly hard in class—great kids, who are volunteering their own time running lunchtime activities for their classmates. The two students had been excited all year to go to school camp with their friends. What kid wouldn't be? A great adventure with all their buddies? But what happened was the mum's car broke down and the money that had been put aside for school camp had to get spent on that. I don't want to think about the position that the mum was in, having to talk to her kids about the fact they were not going to be able to go to school camp. In this instance the local community was able to band together and support that family so the kids could realise that exciting experience. But what I feel is just not understood on the other side of the House is that there are many families in our country right now who are in this situation and who have a story like this. Yet we see no action from the Turnbull government on this, because, unless you're a big business, the Prime Minister doesn't care about your rising costs. He wants to cut $65 billion in taxes to big business while he gives a $44 billion tax hike to lower- and middle-income families. It is abundantly clear to me and to those of us on this side of the House that it's not business that needs the help right now. It is working Australian families. The people in my community have experienced some of the following issues over the life of this Turnbull government. There has been an $8 rise in the cost of every GP visit, on average. There are 700,000 people around the country who face penalty rate cuts, which will mean their wages go down. We have seen an average increase of $134 per year on electricity bills. We have seen wage growth at two per cent while business profits are growing at 20 per cent. We have seen a tax hike that will cost average families $400. We put people first on this side of the House. We believe that it's families that need help right now, not big business. That's reflected in our policy positions. Employment 83 10:21 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to quickly talk about the success of the PaTH program for young people and encourage members in this place to embrace it in their electorates. I recently got a letter from Nicola Saad in my electorate. She is a parent of young adults, and she has seen firsthand how difficult it can be to break into the job market as the number of entry-level jobs is drying up. She says, 'We have one child who graduated high school with a diploma in business. Another has done a diploma in floristry at TAFE, applies for hundreds of jobs per week and has got nowhere. It can be incredibly disheartening for young people.' I understand. I remember, years ago when I wanted to be a sales executive, I applied for probably 50 to 80 jobs before I landed a job as a sales executive with Sony Australia. I was terribly disappointed when I went for jobs: I knew I was a great applicant, but I wasn't landing them. With persistence I got there and went on to do great things there. I want to talk quickly about the PaTH program because I feel it's a really good program for people that are unemployed, young people aged between 18 and 24. Last week I met with participants in the prepare phase from local training organisation Designer Life in Deception Bay. They're doing great things with these young people. Participants were writing cover letters for jobs. They were doing a three-week course where they learned how to write a resume. They learnt about interviewing techniques and other important skills to help them become employable. I had the chance to address them and to chat with them quickly. The next phase is the trial, where the participants spend some four to 12 weeks in a business. The PaTH program, for the first time, gives young people the opportunity to work in the private sector, mix with other people that are wearing a uniform, have KPIs and turn up to work on time. That rubs off on them. I was at a place last week, PR Cleaning Rags, a Clontarf business run by Mr and Mrs Enfield, and met a young woman there, Gillian Dawes from Margate. She was a lovely young woman. Gillian was in her 20s; she had been unemployed; she now has a full-time job with PR Cleaning Rags. There was another young woman, Emma, who had been with that company for a few years, who was mentoring her as well. It is a really good program. In Petrie we have had about 285 people placed. Actually only 50 completed the trial, but 164 have been hired. When I dug a bit deeper as to why only 50 had completed the trial, they told me that businesses had put them on for a few weeks and said, 'They're pretty good; let's offer them a job straightaway.' So much for taking advantage of them, as some members have said that this program would encourage. I want to encourage businesses in everyone's electorate to look at the PaTH program and find a young person you can mentor and train. And I want to encourage young people to get into it. There are great opportunities for you, and this is a good way to kick off your career and get some experience. Gorton Electorate: Gorton Young Leaders Awards 83 10:24 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Last year I once again celebrated the achievements of some outstanding young leaders from Melbourne's west with the annual Gorton Young Leaders Awards. I established the Gorton Young Leaders Awards program in 2009 to recognise the year 12 students from the electorate of Gorton who have shown an exceptional commitment to public service, specifically through involvement in voluntary work, student leadership or community service. In the most recent round, I congratulated the winners in my electorate office in Caroline Springs at an event which brought together 14 winners, their families, college principals and teachers from seven local schools in the electorate of Gorton. The winners were: Maddison Fenech and David Dous of Lakeview Senior College, Irene Mach and Jorel Basangan of Gilson College, Brandon Lee and Sarah Broederlow of Copperfield College, Courtney Semini and Zephan Hocking of Melton Christian College, Nikita Davies and Ethan McIntosh of Staughton College, Madison Tibos and Leyton Bush of Kurunjang Secondary College, and Anna Cicalese and Fernando Rios-Rodriguez of Catholic Regional College in Melton. The work of these students and their commitment to our community is truly inspirational. The Gorton Young Leaders Awards is one way to recognise and encourage local young people who have demonstrated a commitment to active public leadership within their schools and their communities. Now in its ninth year, I am forever impressed with the remarkable achievements of the prize winners, with their fantastic local talent, who call Melbourne's west their home. This is an award that provides me with an opportunity to meet future leaders of this country—future leaders of their communities. It is a useful way to recognise these young people. Too often young people are demonised publicly by the media. There are too often stories about why young people are not contributing in a particular way. Quite often, there's a distortion in the public discourse about young people. If members of parliament can provide a platform to recognise selfless young people, who want to help others and want to show leadership, then it's an important thing to do. I can assure the House that we'll continue to have the Gorton Young Leaders Awards while I'm the member, and I will be watching these young people closely as they become leaders of the future and an inspiration for those who follow. Petition: Carmichael Coal Mine 84 10:27 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise today to present a petition from a number of my constituents in the electorate of Farrer regarding Adani's Carmichael mine proposal. This is a very important and emotional issue for many of them. As their local member in this place, I respect their views, their right to have those views and to express them, as they have to me, very forcefully, so I table the petition in the parliament today. I take this opportunity to make a few comments around this issue. There's a wide difference in positions about whether our country should continue to produce fossil fuels. Some say we should ban the production of coal altogether. Our government's position on this is pretty clear. We cannot even consider this sort of path until alternative forms of baseload power have become part of the mix and are included in a product that is affordable and reliable for Australian households and businesses. As members of parliament, we have to look at all of the facts in front of us, consider them carefully and then make a decision. As members of the Liberal-National coalition, we also need to be careful before imposing the dead hand of authority simply because we might have the power to do so. So here are the facts. The board of a private company, Adani, has given the green light to pursue options of mining coal for its own domestic use in India from Australia's Carmichael mine. It's estimated that this project could create over 11,000 jobs and inject millions of dollars into the Queensland communities of Rockhampton and Townsville. Australian coal is high quality and creates lower emissions for the planet than comparable coal. One of the questions I ask the opponents of Adani who come to see me is this: if the company doesn't use our country's natural resources and they simply go elsewhere, mining a much dirtier coal in a much less reliable jurisdiction, how much more damaging to the environment would this be? And how do they feel about that issue? Make no mistake: if we don't fill the market internationally with our coal exports, then another country in our region or in the rest of the world certainly will. The Labor Party—both in Queensland and, it would seem, here in Canberra—have turned their backs on Australian workers, vetoing any government support. You may not like our position, but at least we are consistent. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:29 to 11:16 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The document presented by the member for Farrer before the division will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for their consideration, and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with standing orders. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 84 CONDOLENCES Walker, Mr Ronald Joseph, AC, CBE 84 11:17 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to pay my respects following the passing of Ronald Joseph Walker AC, CBE, otherwise known as Mr Melbourne, a man who was celebrated in life and will be mourned in death, a friend to many and somebody who was deeply committed to his local community, to his state and to the betterment of those who were less fortunate than him. He is survived by his wife, Barbara, and their three children, Joanna, Campbell and Candice. We send our warmest wishes at this difficult time. Ron Walker was, in a way, bigger than life. I was fortunate to know him and talk to him regularly about the Liberal Party and, during his battle with cancer, about the listing of the drug which prolonged his life beyond what many thought. He was always passionate about the causes he supported. He thought deeply and he was brave. In terms of his record, as a businessman, as a party official and as a proponent of Melbourne in attracting events to our city and our state, he had very few equals. He was elected to the Melbourne City Council, aged 30, in 1969. He was the Lord Mayor of Melbourne from 1974 to 1976. He was the Liberal Party's honorary national treasurer, which the Prime Minister has described as the most challenging job in politics, having himself held that role. Ron fulfilled that responsibility between 1987 and 2002. He was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire for his service to local government, and the citation for his Companion of the Order of Australia read: For service to business, the arts and the community, and to raising the profile of Australia internationally with significant benefit for tourism and employment. His success in attracting the Grand Prix to Melbourne and other major sporting events and his ability to reach across the political aisle to the new Premier of Victoria at the time, Steve Bracks, showed that he wasn't deeply partisan when the interests of his community demanded a different approach. We pay tribute to his vision for Melbourne and to his philanthropic activities, which were far and wide, many of which are not known more broadly, for that is the way Ron wanted it. And we thank him for what he did for Melbourne, what he did for the Liberal Party and what he did for the country. May he rest in peace and be remembered fondly for all that he achieved. 11:21 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It's a melancholy duty to speak on condolence in relation to a hero of our country, a hero of Melbourne, a hero of the Liberal Party and a hero of so many communities. Of course, I'm speaking about Ronald Joseph Walker AC CBE—or 'Big Ron', or Ron Walker, as he was more commonly known. I will say firstly to Ron Walker's wife, Barbara, and their three children and three grandchildren that we send our warmest wishes and thoughts at this obviously difficult time. And I say it's melancholy because, on one hand, as a city—Melbourne—and as a country we mourn the loss of such a great man as Ron. But we inevitably—and I think it's important that we do—rejoice in his life and see it as an example for all of us to try to emulate. The truth is that very few of us will be able, in any way, shape or form, to emulate what Ron Walker was able to do. And I refer to the contribution of my good friend the member for Kooyong, who outlined so many of the achievements of Ron Walker. I think each of them can be marked by service to others—service to our community, service to our city and, of course, service to our country more broadly. Ron was a giant of Melbourne, literally and figuratively. He resurrected the city that was unflatteringly known as 'moribund Melbourne' in the early nineties, in the dark days of the recession. He played a role in delivering so many of the institutions that people like me, who grew up in Melbourne in the eighties, take for granted and that so many Melbournians, thankfully, take for granted as just being the fabric of our culture. He chaired the Victorian Major Events Company. He secured the hosting rights for the Grand Prix—and I will say how important that was, as a young man growing up in Melbourne, for our sense of identity and for the re-emergence of Melbourne and the re-emergence of Victoria in a very figurative way. It gave us a sense of confidence. For those of us who remember very fondly the Kennett years, when our numberplates said, 'Victoria—on the move', Ron Walker and the work that he did through the Victorian Major Events Company embodied that and absolutely gave us that sense of confidence and pride. We are very parochial and proud as Victorians and Melbournians, and Ron Walker gave us so much to be proud of. He was truly a stalwart in business and politics, serving as lord mayor in the seventies, and he dedicated his very scarce spare time to the Liberal Party and our causes. He was a man who embodied our values: entrepreneurship, hard work, aspiration, pulling yourself up from your own bootstraps, doing it yourself. Ron was someone from humble beginnings who achieved so much. He embodied what we stand for, and it was a great honour for our party to have somebody of his status and stature support so many members of parliament and support our Liberal cause more broadly. This was a man who served his community in countless ways. Towards the end of his life, his generous philanthropy and work for causes such as access to life-saving and life-extending medicines came to the fore. No doubt, Ron Walker had engaged in philanthropy in those ways throughout his adult life, but he gained greater notoriety and greater public acclaim, particularly for the work that he did campaigning to get the drug Keytruda added to the PBS. There will be countless Australians who benefit from that campaign whom you can add to the list of countless Australians who, in some way, shape or form, benefitted from Ron Walker's life, benefitted from the work that he did on behalf of others. I, therefore, again, extend my deep condolences to Barbara Walker, their three children and three grandchildren, and thank them for supporting Ron to enable him to make a difference to the lives of so many. We've lost a true giant of our country, of Melbourne and of the Liberal Party. May he rest in peace. God rest his soul. 11:27 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise to join my colleagues in acknowledging the life and work and achievements of Ronald Joseph Walker, to join with the many who, over the past few days since his death, have provided wonderful accolades of his service to the community, and to extend my condolences to his widow, Barbara, and members of the Walker family. In the many accolades that have been given about Ron Walker, both in this place and elsewhere in the last few days, there obviously has been great emphasis on his service to the community, particularly in Melbourne—to his work, firstly, as a successful businessman, his term as Lord Mayor of Melbourne and, more significantly, his chairing of the major events activities in Melbourne, including the Commonwealth Games and the Grand Prix, and then subsequent charitable work, particularly for others less fortunate than himself. It's just one other, I suppose, in the life of Ron Walker, relative minor episode that I want to remark upon today which goes to the character of the man. It relates to a small country town in the north-east of Victoria named Walwa. Walwa is hundreds of kilometres from any major centre. It's on the Murray River, in the valley there—a beautiful spot in north-eastern Victoria between Albury to the west and Towong and the Snowy Mountains to the east. There had been, and indeed still is, a country bush nursing hospital at Walwa for many decades. Walwa's a small town. At the 2006 census, the population was listed, I think, as 268. There are undoubtedly more people in the surrounding farming areas, but you get the sense of a remote community in this beautiful part of Victoria. There'd been a local doctor as well as the bush nursing hospital at Walwa for more than 20 years. But, due to funding constraints, there was a question about whether or not that hospital could continue to operate. Indeed, in about 1998-99, there was a real crisis in terms of the continuation of services in the community. I remember one day, when I was the Minister for Ageing in about 2001 or 2002, getting a phone call from Ron Walker asking, 'Can't we do something about keeping this hospital open in Walwa?' Why was he interested? It was because there had been a story in the Herald Sun in Melbourne highlighting the plight of people in this remote community if they were to lose their doctor, which they'd had for many decades, and, indeed, if they were to lose their hospital. He said that he would do whatever he could to ensure that this hospital remained open. I think it was at the urging of his wife, Barbara, to do something for the locals there, not that he had any particular connection with them. He was urging me as the minister from the Commonwealth level to try to do something with the states as well. To cut a long story short, Ron Walker pledged $150,000 for the maintenance of this hospital, a pledge which he subsequently renewed some years later. In many ways, he was the saviour of the Walwa bush nursing hospital, so much so that by 2006, through a period of development, what came out of that was a medical centre, an accident and emergency 24-hour response centre and, in addition to that, independent living units that in effect brought together hospital and aged care. His frustration in conversations I had with him at the time was that, if the states and the Commonwealth could only get together, we could provide these services rather than having a division between the two. Through his championing of this through his personal financial contributions and his continued interest, the people of Walwa in north-eastern Victoria today continue to have medical and aged-care services that otherwise they wouldn't have. That would mean for them, for the farmers and for the townspeople in Walwa a journey of an hour or an hour and a half at least to a major centre such as Albury or further afield to get those services. As I said, this small episode in a wonderful life is an indication of the character of a man who saw a problem in a remote rural town and decided that he could do something about it not just in his contribution of finances to the continuation of the hospital but by getting on the phone to the likes of me and the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Kay Patterson, to see what we could do and, by working with us, come up with a solution. The other thing that is said about Ron Walker is that, even though he was a lifetime Liberal and a great contributor to the Liberal Party, not just financially but in other ways as well, he nonetheless had an ability to work with people on all sides of politics. He did that when he was the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, he did that through the major events and developments in Melbourne and he did it in a lot of other ways. He did it by bringing people together and heading towards a goal, less concerned about the political differences than achieving the goal. He was able to achieve a huge amount for Melbourne, for Victoria and for many ordinary people. We stand in his debt. I extend my condolences once again to his wife, Barbara, and to members of his family. May he rest in peace. 11:33 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I join with my colleagues, both on this side of the chamber and opposite, to pay tribute to Ron Walker, a great Australian, a great Melburnian and a well-loved constituent in my electorate of Higgins. He was a man who achieved so very much in his more than 50 years of public life. The fact that people flocked from all over Melbourne and across the nation to be at Ron's state funeral speaks volumes about his contribution and lasting legacy. Despite his deep affiliation with the Liberal Party, people from both sides of politics and from all walks of life came to pay their respects. He was a man of extraordinary vision and was renowned for his determination, capacity for hard work and commitment to public service. As Ron's lovely son, Cam, said of his dad this week, 'If someone said it could not be done, he worked even harder to make sure that he succeeded.' I think there is a lesson in that for all of us here in this place. Ron's contribution to Melbourne and Victoria is the stuff of legend. Ron was not known as Mr Melbourne for nothing. So many have said so much about his contribution, but I want to highlight a couple of things. Matthew Guy has said that Ron was the greatest premier that Victoria never had, and I think it is an apt description. There is no doubt that his work helped Melbourne become the modern capital that we all know and love. Following Ron's passing, his partner at Hudson Conway, Lloyd Williams, was quoted as saying, 'I don't think there is anyone who has done more for the City of Melbourne for 200 years.' As we know, in the 1960s and 1970s, Ron served as a councillor of the City of Melbourne, followed by a stint as Lord Mayor. He very famously brought the Formula 1 Grand Prix to Melbourne in the 1990s. Whether you loved it or loathed it, there is no doubt that it was more than just about motor racing; it was about putting Melbourne on the map, promoting this great city, our great city, to the world. As the chairman of the Melbourne major events corporation, Ron was instrumental in bringing the Commonwealth Games to Melbourne. Under his stewardship Melbourne went on to host what is considered by some to be one of the best Commonwealth Games ever. Notably, Ron made a significant contribution to public health. In 1990, his wife, Barbara, suffered chronic pain after a breast cancer operation. After a long search across the globe for a cure to her pain, Barbara eventually entered the ADAPT course. Ron and Barbara were so impressed with this treatment program that they founded the Barbara Walker Centre for Pain Management at St Vincent's Hospital to give others the same treatment that she had received. In 2012, after being diagnosed with cancer, Ron took part in a trial of a breakthrough drug, KEYTRUDA. Less than two years later, Ron was cancer free. Oncologist Grant McArthur treated Ron's melanoma. This week Grant wrote that he quickly learned that during his appointments Ron would want to focus on the latest research developments in the field before moving on to discuss how other patients could get access to the same treatment. For Ron Walker it was not just a personal journey, but a mission on behalf of his fellow Australians. As Grant put it, Ron was simply relentless in his pursuit of opportunities for good health for all Australians with cancer. As we know, Ron then, happily for everyone, successfully lobbied the Federal Government to ensure that KEYTRUDA was added to the PBS, making it available to the general public at an affordable price and saving so many lives. Ron was renowned for his generosity, but he was also very humble. Reports since his passing suggest that Ron's true contribution to philanthropic causes will never really be known. Such was his humility that he would often make anonymous donations to support people in need. Of course Ron was a giant of the Liberal Party. For many years he served as the party's honorary federal treasurer, and he was an immense fundraiser. He has been someone that Liberal Prime Ministers, Premiers and ministers have frequently turned to for advice over a period of many years. On a personal note, I can say that he was exceptionally kind to me in both my local and ministerial capacities. His unswerving commitment to our party has been nothing but colossal. My deepest and sincerest condolences to Ron's family, including his wife Barbara and his adult children, Campbell, Jo and Candice, and their children. We share your sense of loss, but I know that his proudest achievement is his family. There is no doubt that Ron Walker will forever be remembered for his contribution to our great city, our state and our country. His legacy will live on. Vale Ron Walker. 11:39 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to reflect on the life of a giant of the great state of Victoria and of Melbourne, Ron Walker. The truth is that I didn't know Ron Walker that well. He was one of those people that I knew from a distance, as a child growing up in the 1990s watching the state of Victoria enter into new energy and dynamism after the period before. Ron Walker was one of those people that, as a young child, I watched on television, watched in newspapers and read about as a giant of the state who was doing amazing things in helping to revitalise our great city. Of course, there was nothing that embodied the revitalisation for many people, particularly somebody as young as myself, so much as the symbolism of the Grand Prix, which made itself to Melbourne courtesy of Ron Walker efforts and the efforts of many others. In fact, that became the symbol not just for the revitalisation of a city but for the people and the energy that came with it, and you can never take that legacy away from him. He was the champion of that cause and was tasked with getting the Australian F1 Grand Prix away from Adelaide in the mid-1990s. He served as chairman of the Australian Grand Prix for nearly 20 years and leaves behind an incredible legacy, where it continues to operate today. But the legacy isn't just of the event; it is of the spirit. It was only later in my life that I started to learn a bit more about Ron Walker and his contribution to the rebuilding of Victoria. He was part of, shall we say, a group of people at the time who seized the opportunity to turn a rust-bucket state into a shining jewel that continues to guide this great nation, and that is part of his legacy. That's why Jeff Kennett said recently that, without Ron Walker, Melbourne—and Victoria—would not be what it is today, and I wholeheartedly share those sentiments. But it was only later in life that I really came to terms with the full legacy of Ron Walker and what he has done for our great state. He was elected the Lord Mayor of Melbourne City Council from 1974 to 76, having served on the council since 1969. During that time, he was named as Victoria's Outstanding Man of the Year during his lord mayoral term, as well as Victorian Father of the Year in 1976, Victorian of the Year in 1994 and many other incredible honours. He, of course, also had a highly successful career in sports administration, which began off the back of a successful business career. He even led Melbourne's bid to host the Olympic Games in 1996. But, when it comes down to it, he was a family man, and that becomes clear as you listen to and hear the eulogies and read many of the things that have been said since his passing. And it's that spirit that I want to acknowledge, and I pay my condolences to his wife, Barbara, and his children for their sad loss. But having grown up with Ron Walker as a pre-eminent figure in Victoria and Melbourne throughout my childhood, as I got towards the latter stages of my life—or the present stages of my life today— An honourable member interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I know, I'm still fit and healthy!—I actually did get to meet Ron Walker a couple of times. It was in the mornings as he did his regular routine of walking around the botanical gardens track, the Tan, and anybody who has lived in and around the south Yarra area will know that the Tan is incredibly popular with the community, particularly for residents in nearby areas, as a part of an ordinary morning fitness routine. Ron fulfilled his surname by being one of the most regular walkers who covered the Tan most mornings—although I do remember the gaps and absences when he was getting treatment and care because of his health conditions. So, to Ron: I remember you as a man who made a great contribution to the state of Victoria, a man who made incredible contributions not just to our state, not just to our city, but, of course, to our nation—somebody whose life will barely be replicated by others, because the task ahead of him and what he achieved was so great. But what I will always remember you as is a man who walked in the mornings around the Tan with humility and purpose, and now you walk into the sunset. 11:44 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise to express my condolences upon the passing of Ron Walker AC CBE. I first met Ron Walker when I was a young journalist with Channel 7 news in the 1980s, during the days of Hudson Conway when Crown Casino was under construction. He was a giant of Victoria then. He saw in this particular project a project which would transform Melbourne, and that's exactly what has happened. I recall that Lloyd Williams, his great friend and partner in the project, took me on a tour when Crown Casino was under construction. I walked into the main foyer and said, 'I'm a bit worried about the design. There are no windows.' Lloyd said, 'That's the whole idea, Sarah.' They were transformational days. As we've heard in this debate today, Ron Walker was a giant of Victoria. He chaired the Victorian Major Events Corporation. He secured the Grand Prix for Victoria, which was monumental at the time. He served as the chairman of the Grand Prix Corporation. He was the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, and in 1988 he was appointed as a commissioner for Melbourne's 1996 Olympics bid. He worked very closely with former Premier Jeff Kennett. They had a wonderful friendship and they had a great vision for Victoria, and together they achieved great things. The mark of the man was that Ron Walker also worked very closely, and with a great sense of bipartisanship, with former premiers Joan Kirner and Steve Bracks in particular. As chairman of the Melbourne Major Events Company, which managed the bids for both the Grand Prix and the 2006 Commonwealth Games, Ron Walker made a lasting impression on Melbourne and, of course, on Victoria. He was an extraordinary man, but, as we've heard in this debate, much of his contribution to Melbourne and to Victoria was through his philanthropic contributions and, in the more recent years, his contributions to cancer research. Once Ron Walker determined he was going to do something, he certainly did it. He made an extraordinary contribution to the Liberal Party of Australia and he was a great mentor to many members of the Liberal Party. I didn't have so much to do with Ron when I entered politics, but my mother was a minister and the member for Geelong in the 1990s and worked with Jeff Kennett, and she worked very closely with Ron Walker. He made an impression upon me as a young journalist in the 1980s and he's still making an impression with his legacy. He left such a mark on Melbourne and on Victoria. He was a visionary and, for that, he is to be forever commended for the incredible work that he did for our state. I wish to express my sincere condolences to his beloved wife, Barbara, and his children, his grandchildren and his other family members. May he rest in peace. BILLS 89 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 89

Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Second Reading 89 11:48 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra As the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity and defence, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016. The amendments will address legislative inconsistencies in areas relating to mutual assistance, proceeds of crime and extradition—all issues that will be faced with the international characteristics of the types of crime I see emerging in the cybersecurity portfolio. The bill also proposes amendments in a number of areas that Labor has a very strong track record on: international crime cooperation, support for vulnerable witnesses, slavery, forced labour and forced marriage, anti-money-laundering and federal policing. While the amendments are welcome, there are also emerging crimes that will pose challenges to our legal frameworks, both domestically and internationally. These are in the areas of cybersecurity and also in the increased focus and increased exposure of sexual violence in conflict as a war crime under the United Nations women, peace and security agenda. The technical amendments in this bill highlight the increased prevalence of technology and its use in both the commission of crime and, on the flipside, the monitoring, surveillance and prosecution of crime. Amendments align the existing provisions under the mutual assistance act and the telecommunications interception act, authorising the sharing of information with foreign countries, with the International Criminal Court Act. The type of material that may be shared with the International Criminal Court could be stored communications, historical telecommunications data, prospective telecommunications data and surveillance assistance. As the shadow minister I welcome the changes, because cybercrime activities—in all their forms, from cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism and cyberespionage through to child pornography and exploitation, ransomware, phishing and spear phishing—in this global world, through the internet, are cross jurisdictional activities. There is no doubt that there will need to be greater focus on what international cooperation will look like when it comes to prosecuting people and organisations for these crimes, some of which are new or emerging types of crime that present a challenge to our traditional legal procedures, precedents and frameworks. Not only will it be a telling exercise for the preparedness and responsiveness of countries, when it comes to their cybersecurity frameworks, but also for the cooperation between governments in terms of data and the compulsion to release it. While a cooperative and collaborative relationship exists between government and corporations in Australia's e-safety regime, we need to constantly look at how we can further enhance our cooperation in these areas at the international level. It will be an interesting test to see how much of these frameworks will emerge in an international environment, when it has been difficult to establish regulatory norms for cybersecurity. Fortunately, this is still the Holy Grail that we're trying to establish. We have the Tallinn manual that outlines the range of international law that applies to the cybersecurity space. The UN GGE has been unable to meet agreement on cybersecurity norms and how the norms should operate in cyberspace. Without that sort of multilateral framework, we are now faced with having to try and get those norms established at a bilateral, quadrilateral or regional level. I note we have the minister here. In the absence of those UN GGE multilateral norms, that usual UN framework that governs so much—the sea, telecommunications and so many international regulations and norms—we do need to focus our efforts. Given the absence of the UN reaching resolution on what we're going to be doing on cyberspace and cyber norms, we do need to be acting very aggressively, because this is changing rapidly. So we need to very aggressively, with a sense of urgency, engage in mechanisms, in architecture, at the regional, bilateral and quadrilateral level to establish and agree on those norms, and to use existing architecture, possibly through ASEAN and APEC, through the Indian Ocean Commission, through the Pacific Island Forum—to use the existing architecture that we have. Given the urgency on this there's no need to reinvent the wheel in terms of cybersecurity architecture; so we need to use the existing multilateral regional architecture that we have to drive resolution on agreed norms. Without that UN framework, we have a significant gap. Yes, there is a lot of discussion at the G20s and at the APECs and through the communiques that come out of those multilateral regional events. There is a lot of agreement on what should be done, but what we really need to do is agree those norms. It is vital that we get everyone singing from the same song sheet in terms of how we're going to govern and agree to our behaviours in the cybersecurity space. It's a perfect opportunity, now that the minister has walked in, to urge him to act. He's got his ambassador there; you've got people down in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade busily working on this. Please, we need to get those norms established. Ideally it would be at that multilateral UN level, but—given that we haven't been able to achieve that, despite a lot of concerted effort over many years—I do implore the minister to see what we can do in terms of agreeing norms amongst the Five Eyes community, quadrilaterals and regionals and using the existing architecture that I mentioned before. I was also keen to talk about this piece of legislation and the amendments because of another area that I'm concerned about, and that I have been advocating on very strongly, which is sexual violence in conflict and the prosecution of those who participate in sexual violence in conflict. It's an important issue that I have been working on with the Women, Peace and Security community—the women in that community—and the Prosecute Don't Perpetrate community, because we know that Daesh has used sexual violence as a tactic of war. Sexual violence is a war crime, and we should treat it as such. The occurrence of systematic rape is well documented in Iraq and Syria. It is a crime against humanity, it is a crime again women, and we should treat it as such. We should be speaking about sexual violence in conflict—which is what I'm speaking about here—and sexual violence more generally, and we should be holding the perpetrators to account no matter where they are. This is why I'm a strong advocate for and a strong participant in the Prosecute Don't Perpetrate campaign—to get those foreign fighters back here and get them prosecuted under sexual-violence-in-conflict legislation and norms. Over 100 Australians have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight with Daesh and other extremist groups. We need to investigate and prosecute the sexual violence they've perpetrated as war crimes, as crimes against humanity, for these are all crimes under Australian domestic law. The amendments to this bill don't cover off this issue, but, in terms of providing material to the United Nations, they do cover off issues to do with the International Criminal Court. Again, I'm putting it out there that we need to prosecute those who have committed sexual violence in conflict. It's difficult. I'm the first to admit that it's difficult—as we see from looking at the history of prosecution of sexual violence in conflict over the years, such as the rape camps that happened in the Second World War in Eastern Europe. There have been a number of instances where sexual violence has been used as a tactic of war, as a tactic of terrorism, as a tactic of genocide, and it is very, very difficult to prosecute those crimes. It requires a great deal of bravery from the witnesses. Most importantly, it's very difficult to get the evidence, particularly when you're in a conflict environment. Who collects the evidence? If a witness is brave enough to come forward, then who actually collects that evidence? Is it a soldier in the field? Is it someone who is there working on the post-conflict transition? Who collects that information? Is it a civilian working in this space in a conflict environment? That's the real challenge. Not only do we need a sense of urgency and real will to prosecute these crimes—and those are there—but getting the evidence is the real challenge. So we need to set up frameworks, systems, guidelines and procedures so that we can collect the evidence and bring these crimes to the courts. I know that armies and defence forces around the world have been examining a range of different mechanisms to get that evidence collected. I encourage the Australian authorities on this. I know we have a very active community through the Australian Defence Force, and also, in New York, we have a very active military community which is working on the Women, Peace Security agenda. But we do need to constantly look at the mechanisms through which we can get the evidence. That's the real challenge—how to get the evidence in a conflict environment. One of Labor's core values is a fundamental belief that everyone should have access to justice, no matter what their postcode, no matter how much their parents earn, no matter what their background, no matter what their race or religion, and that includes providing adequate support for vulnerable witnesses. This bill corrects an anomaly introduced back in 2013 and extends the current offence of identifying a child witness or vulnerable adult complainant to the identification of a child complainant. The support and protection available for victims and witnesses in future criminal proceedings, regardless of when the alleged conduct occurred, is also clarified. This is a significant step in a number of ways. If we are to tackle abhorrent crimes like human trafficking and slavery, it is essential that vulnerable witnesses, like those women who are victims of sexual violence in conflict, be given protections and support in proceedings before the courts. In its submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill, Anti-Slavery Australia said: Victims and witnesses are often reluctant to give evidence, as they or their families may have been subjected to, or threatened with violence. Providing support and protection for vulnerable witnesses and complainants is absolutely necessary in ensuring access to justice. The government has stated that the purpose of the bill is to: … enhance Australia's position globally in the fight against crime, making improvements to our international crime cooperation arrangements and our ability to assist international courts and tribunals. The amendments in this bill go some way towards enhancing Australia's position, but, as I've mentioned, there will be ongoing and emerging challenges to Australia's position in the fight against crime. We need to act, not just speak out, against those perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict. We need to not just speak out against it; we need to actually start prosecuting, if we can. We need the evidence for that, and we need the guidelines and the frameworks to be able to collect that evidence. There is also an emerging challenge, a constant daily challenge, to enhance our cybersecurity frameworks to not only prevent but to identify and prosecute cybercriminals wherever they may be. These amendments will go some way towards harmonising Australia's domestic laws with international laws. Labor supports the amendments in this bill. 12:01 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I rise to commend the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 to the House. Labor has a strong record in many of the areas that are covered by this bill: the fight against slavery, anti-money-laundering measures and international crime cooperation. I want to make a point about Australia's law enforcement agencies and the excellent international reputation that they have. I commend them for their high level of skill and say that this is a great source of pride for Australia. A good example of that is the international cooperation of the AFP with law enforcement of our closest regional neighbour, Indonesia. A report by ASPI written in March 2014 called A return on investment: The future of police cooperation between Australia and Indonesia mentions some of the broader benefits of such cooperation beyond just law enforcement. It says: The benefits of past AFP-POLRI cooperation have been felt largely in the transactional dimension of crime fighting, but the police-to-police relationship benefits other government agencies and the broader bilateral relationship too. Benefits have also accrued to the community and businesses in both countries, and the police-to-police relationship has promoted Australian and Indonesian interests in Southeast Asia. That quote encompasses the ripple effect of cooperation in law enforcement. It doesn't just impact the transactional dimension of international crime fighting but has effects into the communities as well. Indeed, international and transnational crime in today's environment is not only much more extensive than it has been in the past; it's also much more complex because it's more fluid. To take the case of terrorism, for example, it's not unthinkable that an attack could be planned in one country and executed in another country using funds diverted from a third country with perpetrators from fourth or fifth countries. We've had examples of that in the past with international terrorist incidents and transnational terrorist incidents. In fact, the landscape of transnational and international crime is far more challenging in today's environment than it has been in the past. That is why it's essential that we continue to ensure that our police and law enforcement agencies are able to operate in an international context in ways which are not unnecessarily impeded by legislation or by processes. Although this bill makes some relatively technical amendments to the various Commonwealth acts, these amendments actually have the capacity to make some real differences in facilitating international cooperation in practice. The bill will assist in the investigation and prosecution of people responsible for some of the most serious crimes under international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The member for Canberra, who spoke before me, spoke extensively to this part of the bill. But the bill will also further ensure that vulnerable people, particularly children, are protected by extending the current provisions to make it illegal to identify child complainants. This is especially relevant to cases involving online child exploitation where such cases often involve victims who are not witnesses in a trial—that is, victims who are children and who are classed as complainants. In addition to that, many of the victims of human trafficking and slavery fear for their safety if they assist in an investigation and this can be, and often is, a challenge to successful prosecution. So extending the protections for victims will encourage and assist in these matters as well. This bill addresses some of the ambiguities and inconsistencies in offences relating to slavery and it expands the definition of debt bondage so that it allies more closely with slavery-like offences. Anti-Slavery International describe debt bondage, also called bonded labour or debt slavery, as the most common form of modern slavery, even though it is one of the least known. Debt bondage is when a person is forced to work to pay off a debt and is conned into working for little or no pay, with no control over their debt. The money that they earn is taken off them to repay the debt, so they have to keep working in order to pay off the money that they borrowed. They also face coercion, violence and intimidation if they try to leave. The main amendments under this schedule of the bill also expand the list of matters considered in determining whether a victim was coerced, threatened or deceived. These measures provide further protection for victims and, importantly, make our legislation more consistent with relevant international instruments. Debt bondage is most widespread in South Asian countries. I understand that the International Labour Organization estimates a minimum of 11.7 million in forced labour in the Asia-Pacific region, the majority of whom are in debt bondage. It's most common in areas such as agriculture, brick kilns, mines and factories. I also note that an element in this schedule in the bill relates to forced marriage. I want to speak a little bit about that, because the bill will clarify the test for victims incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony. I give heed to the many women's groups doing some very extraordinary work on the ground in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and India around forced marriage. Forced marriage is particularly disturbing when it also involves a child. But I would also like to see that the test include an element to prove that a victim was incapable of understanding the effect of a marriage ceremony, and that element would, hopefully, include cases where marriage ceremonies are performed in a language that the victim doesn't understand as well as without her consent. Sadly, this is happening way too often as young girls raised in Western countries, such as Australia or the UK, are taken overseas by their parents and married off to complete strangers without their knowledge. They have no idea what's going on in a language that they lack competency in. The marriage ceremony can be performed in Arabic or Urdu. Often these young girls are raised in Australia and their first language is English. They have little command of their parents' mother tongue. They are sent back to these countries where they are married off and partake in a marriage ceremony with very little knowledge of what's happening because they don't understand the language. I commend any of these measures and anything that we can do to make it easier for us and the international community to assist victims of forced marriage, who may be too young to understand what's going on, who may have a disability or an impairment that prevents them from understanding what's going on, or who may not understand the significance of the ceremony that they are taking part in. They might not know that it's a marriage ceremony. They might not have been told that it's a marriage ceremony. If we are going to be serious about our commitment to improving the conditions of women and girls throughout the world, which I believe we are—and I believe we have a bipartisan approach to improving those conditions for women and girls—we need this kind of legislation. I'd like to move on and talk about the anti-money-laundering provisions of the bill, because they provide the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission with direct access to AUSTRAC information around financial intelligence. This amendment will allow the ACNC to fulfil its due diligence before registering charities and not-for-profit organisations and to monitor registered organisations, which will help them to ensure that organisations are not being used in the commission of serious crimes, including terrorism, or for money-laundering purposes. I'd like to finish by again paying heed to the great work that our police forces do in their international efforts. As many of you know, I am the wife of a former police officer, a man who has dedicated his life to law enforcement. I'm obviously very proud of my husband and the work that he has done in law enforcement. I'm also very proud of the work that his colleagues do and, indeed, the dedication and commitment that all of our law enforcement professionals have. I've also had the privilege of seeing firsthand the work that our Federal Police do in Pakistan and in other countries internationally in three key areas. Firstly, in the area of collaboration, they broker collaboration with international law enforcement agencies to drive investigations and support bilateral or multilateral cooperation. Secondly, they cooperate with them in the area of intelligence gathering, through the collection and exchange of criminal intelligence in support of international law enforcement efforts. Thirdly, in capacity building—which I think we are particularly proud of in this country—they enhance the capacity and the capability of international law enforcement agencies to combat transnational crime. I strongly support any measures that are going to help our law enforcement agencies and our law enforcement professionals continue to conduct this valuable work unfettered and do this work to the best of their capabilities. I commend this bill to the House. 12:13 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the honourable members for their valuable contributions to this debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016, which will make significant improvements to the Commonwealth's criminal justice system. I really appreciate the comments that have just been made and those by the member for Canberra a moment ago, particularly her comments on cybersecurity, where I think we can maintain a spirit of bipartisanship in dealing with what is a very serious, significant issue for Australia and Australians. The bill will strengthen Australia's international crime cooperation arrangements to ensure that we're in the best possible position to work with international partners to combat crime both here and abroad. The amendments in the bill will ensure that Australia can respond effectively to requests for assistance from foreign countries and international bodies in accordance with our international obligations. The amendments will assist Australia to avoid becoming a safe haven for foreign proceeds of crime and also ensure that criminals can't evade justice by moving evidence across borders or fleeing jurisdictions, and I take the former speaker's point that increasingly fluid borders are a very serious issue in dealing with criminals. The bill introduces amendments to ensure vulnerable child complainants are afforded the same protections as adult complainants when giving evidence in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. It amends the AFP's internal drug and alcohol testing regime and integrity framework to allow the AFP to maintain the integrity of its workforce and ensure it can enforce its zero-tolerance policy regarding illicit drug-taking. Amendments will authorise the commissioner to extend the date of resignation for appointees under investigation for serious misconduct or corruption, again reinforcing the integrity of the AFP workforce. It includes amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 to provide additional flexibility to departing travellers reporting movements of physical currency and improve information-sharing between Commonwealth agencies. The bill includes minor consequential amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act to facilitate the use of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission as an alternative name for the Australian Crime Commission. It makes amendments to the AusCheck Act to enable AusCheck to conduct and coordinate background checks on individuals in relation to declared major national events. This bill will strengthen Australia's criminal justice framework, both domestically and internationally, ensuring that law enforcement and justice agencies are equipped with the necessary powers to fight crime at home and abroad. It will strengthen the government's ability to detect and address serious national security and other risks in relation to large-scale national events. It will enhance the Commonwealth's anti-human-trafficking and anti-slavery regime and the protections afforded to vulnerable witnesses within our criminal justice system. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has considered the bill and made recommendations for amendments, subject to which the committee recommends the bill be passed. The government has moved amendments that will implement the committee's recommendations. We also had consideration of this bill by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the government notes the Human Rights Committee's view on the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Extradition Act. We are committed to ensuring that Australia operates in a manner that is consistent with Australia's international law obligations, including international human rights obligations. I'd like to thank these committees for their consideration of the bill. I'd also like to assure the House that, consistent with these reports, the bill contains appropriate measures balanced by sensible and appropriate safeguards. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 93 12:18 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 and ask leave of the Federation Chamber to move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together: (1)   Schedule 8, item 15, page 111 (after line 28), after subsection 40P(2), insert:    (3)   If the regulations make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating a matter contained in a standard as referred to in subsection (2), the Commissioner must ensure that the text of the matter applied, adopted or incorporated is readily available, free of charge, to each AFP appointee.    (4)   Subsection (3) does not apply if the text cannot be made so available without infringing copyright. (2)   Schedule 8, item 20, page 113 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute: 20 Subsections 30A(6) and (7) Repeal the subsections, substitute:    (6)   If one or more notices under subsection (2) have been given to the AFP employee in relation to the notice of resignation, the Commissioner may, by written notice to the AFP employee, substitute a day as the day on which his or her resignation is to take effect.    (7)   The Commissioner may give a maximum of 2 notices under subsection (6) to the AFP employee in relation to the notice of resignation.    (8)   To be effective, the first notice given under subsection (6) in relation to the notice of resignation must:    (a)   specify a day no later than 30 days after the day specified in the most recent notice given under subsection (2) in relation to the notice of resignation; and    (b)   be given to the AFP employee before the day specified in the most recent notice given under subsection (2) in relation to the notice of resignation.    (9)   To be effective, any second notice given under subsection (6) in relation to the notice of resignation must:    (a)   specify a day no later than 30 days after the day specified in the first notice given under subsection (6) in relation to the notice of resignation; and    (b)   be given to the AFP employee before the day specified in the first notice given under subsection (6) in relation to the notice of resignation. Note:   The effect of subsections (2) to (9) is that the latest day that may be specified in a notice given under this section is the day 150 days after the day specified in the notice of resignation.    (10)   On or before the day specified in the most recent notice given under this section in relation to the notice of resignation, the Commissioner must:    (a)   accept the AFP employee’s notice of resignation; or    (b)   terminate the AFP employee’s employment under section 28.    (11)   If the Commissioner accepts the notice of resignation under paragraph (10)(a), the AFP employee’s resignation takes effect on the day on which the Commissioner communicates acceptance of the resignation to the employee.    (12)   The Commissioner must:    (a)   cause a review of the operation of this section to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this subsection; and    (b)   give the Minister a report of the review. These amendments are to schedule 8 of the bill, which amends the Australian Federal Police Act. The government amendments are twofold. Firstly, there are amendments to the drug-testing provisions of the bill, which reflects a request made by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Secondly, there are amendments to the deferred resignation provisions of the bill, to address a concern raised by the Australian Federal Police Association, the AFPA, and by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Briefly, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee recommended the government make an amendment to require the AFP commissioner to ensure the relevant standards for alcohol and drug testing. If those standards are incorporated into the regulations, they would be available to all AFP appointees. The government has agreed to this recommendation by the Senate committee. The amendments require the commissioner to make relevant standards freely available to AFP appointees, subject to any copyright infringement. In practice, the AFP actually already makes the relevant standards available to AFP appointees through the AFP intranet. But what this will do is ensure that all persons who are bound by the standards will be able to freely and readily access the standard that must be adhered to for alcohol and drug testing. Now to the deferred-resignation amendments: the AFPA made a submission to the committee expressing strong opposition to the original proposal to extend the period to postpone resignation. The amendment would have provided the AFP commissioner with the power to postpone resignation for another 90 days on top of the original 90, for a total of 180. But, following very productive discussions between the AFPA and the AFP, mutually suitable amendments were agreed to, to address the concerns while still achieving the desired policy outcome. Indeed, the amendments that have just been put forward provide the commissioner with the power, in addition to the current maximum deferral of 90 days, to approve an extension to defer resignation for up to 30 days, and that's permissible on two occasions, which would allow a total possible postponement of 150 days. The amendments also provide for the review of the operation of these new deferred resignation provisions as soon as practicable after the fifth anniversary of their commencement. The committee recommended that amendments to the same effect be made. The government's amendments therefore address the committee's concerns as well as the AFPA's. The government amendments strengthen the bill and reflect an appropriate balance between transparency and fairness and legitimate law enforcement integrity measures. 12:21 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham On behalf of the opposition, I'll just make some brief comments on the amendments to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 that have been put forward by the government. Labor is happy to support the amendments to schedule 8 of the bill. The original provisions in schedule 8 sought to extend the period that the AFP commissioner is authorised to postpone an employee's date of resignation in cases that involve allegations of serious misconduct or corruption from 90 days to 180 days. The minister has outlined some of the discussions that took place while this bill was working its way through the legislative process. The Australian Federal Police Association, the Labor opposition and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee raised concerns about this aspect of the bill. During the briefing that was provided to us by the department we were able to suggest that the parties could perhaps work this out, rather than having a big blow-up in the parliament on this matter. It's very pleasing to see that a compromise has been reached and the government's been able to move amendments that will give effect to that compromise. It's an example—perhaps a rare one—of the legislative process working at its effective best. The amendment proposed by the government will permit the commissioner or delegate to postpone an employee's resignation by an extra 30 days. That extension can occur only twice, making the maximum postponement of a resignation 150 days rather than the 180 days initially proposed by the government. Importantly, under these amendments any extension must be properly justified. The government has also agreed to a statutory review of these changes after five years so we can be sure that the amendments to this scheme are working properly. Labor does support these changes and the bill as a whole. They make some minor, though important, improvements to the way federal criminal law operates. Thank you. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. ADJOURNMENT 95 ADJOURNMENT Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation 95 12:24 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra At the end of last year an important new Australian educational institution was launched. That is the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. I was proud to be present at the launch, not only as a board member but also as the architect of the centre's program, mission and structure. The centre's mission is to instil in Australians a knowledge of and appreciation for the cultural heritage of Western civilisation, which has shaped our society. The centre hopes that with that knowledge more Australians will understand and be influenced by a tradition which has given the world liberal democracy and the rule of law and has preserved and advanced individual freedoms to speak, to worship, to associate and to choose one's own destiny. Anchored in traditions which come to us from Greece, Rome and Jerusalem, burnished in the crucible of Britain and its legacy to Australia, and adapted to our own conditions, the Western tradition has been downplayed in educational circles for the best part of 30 years. The foundation of any education in the humanities must be Western civilisation and its tradition of debate, discussion and deductive learning. Leaving aside Indigenous history, prior to 1788 Australian history was British history. It includes the Judeo-Christian roots of the West and its pre-Christian roots in the ancient world. Knowledge of Western civilisation is not confined to history and philosophy, but includes theology, literature, music, art, architecture and the history and philosophy of science. Studying the great texts leads to an engagement with fundamental questions about what it means to be human and how one should live a good life. Both the factual content and the method of debate and discovery that underpins the pedagogy of Western civilisation are equally important. Providing Australians with knowledge of Western civilisation should lead us to better decisions being made, as Australians will develop a deeper appreciation for past debates and the universal challenges which confront leaders, decision makers and ordinary citizens. A sound grounding in Western civilisation should help students be better able to think for themselves. It's important to remind Australians of the origin of our culture and traditions, or we are doomed to undervalue our institutions, to take them for granted without realising the important role they play in society, or to be prepared to jettison them or to repeat historic errors by making decisions without understanding their consequences. Unlike in America, Australians have never had the opportunity to study, deeply and broadly, concepts of Western civilisation. That's why the Ramsay Centre is so important. The Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation is made possible because of the generous endowment from healthcare entrepreneur the late Paul Ramsay AO. Paul Ramsay had a clear vision for the Australia he wanted to leave for the next generation. He mixed with a wide variety of Australians in business and through other public and charitable activities. As Paul met people from government, business and the professions, he became increasingly concerned that so few of them had a full appreciation for the culture which had shaped the society they prospered in. Fewer still had a desire to protect and preserve that culture. Paul came to the view that Australia's culture needed shifting. Paul's vision was to create a new generation of leaders with a knowledge and appreciation of Western civilisation. Personally, I'm proud to have played a very significant part in the creation of Paul's vision. In early 2014, with my background in university administration and my enthusiasm for Western civilisation, at the recommendation of Tony Clark and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Paul commissioned me to undertake a scoping study to examine what would be needed to bring about his vision for education in the Western tradition. As part of that project I met with academics, foundations and university and scholarship administrators in Australia, the US, the UK and Canada. I visited famous institutions like Columbia, Chicago and Yale, liberal arts colleges like St John's at Annapolis, and, in the Catholic tradition, Loyola and Boston College, which all had versions of programs in which undergraduate students learn about Western civilisation. It was clear there is much to be gained from similar courses in Australia and I recommended as such in my report. The Ramsay Centre, which was launched last year, will have four major streams, Bachelor of Arts degrees in Western civilisation in collaboration with two or three Australian universities. It will support these degrees through a suite of Ramsay undergraduate scholarships and through the creation of new academic positions. It will endow a number of Ramsay postgraduate scholarships, open to graduates from a range of disciplines for study at prestigious international universities. And it will establish a program of summer schools, distinguished visiting lecturers and other events designed to promote a wider appreciation of Western civilisation. The centre is led by Professor Simon Haines, who is the executive director and has a board of management that comprises luminaries such as John Howard, Kim Beazley and Tony Abbott. Thanks to Paul Ramsay, tomorrow's leaders will be instilled with the intellectual, cultural and spiritual formation that yesterday's leaders were fortunate enough to take for granted. I commend the Ramsay Centre to the chamber. Western Sydney Rail 96 12:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise today to once again support Western Sydney Rail. I do so because it is an essential component of improving liveability and boosting productivity and job creation in Western Sydney. At present, there are only 0.75 jobs for every local worker. As a result, one-third of Western Sydney workers—more than 300,000 people—have to travel to other parts of the city, particularly to the CBD, daily for work. Travel times can be up to two hours each way. The other thing that doesn't work about Western Sydney is that, because of the nature of Sydney's growth, it works in a hub and spoke, with the hub of Sydney's transport being the CBD, with the spokes going out. There are no north-south public transport rail links in Western Sydney. That's why the north-south corridor from the main Western Sydney line extending up to the north to Rouse Hill but then down through to the Macarthur region is so critical and why Labor declared our support for such a project prior to the last federal election. We reconfirmed that in a visit I had with Bill Shorten last year. The fact is that, to travel one way by train from Marsden Park or Riverstone south to Camden or Campbelltown can take as long as 2½ hours. What that means is that there's great car dependency in Western Sydney. The high dependency on the car means the average Western Sydney family currently spends approximately $22,000 a year on transport costs, according to the Australian Automobile Association's Transport Affordability Index. The study of the benefits of Western Sydney Rail done by Deloitte and Arup on behalf of the Western Sydney Rail Alliance and the Committee for Sydney found this: The economic benefits of the corridor are clear. From 2024 to 2040, north-south rail will add $44.7 billion in benefits to the economy, reaching $3.6 billion per year by 2040. …   …   … There can be no doubt that a north south rail solution is crucial to the sustainable development of the Western Sydney Growth Corridor and its future as a smart city. That's why we need to do two things. We need to extend the south-west rail link from Leppington via Bringelly to the new Western Sydney Airport, and we need that new outer-orbital line from Macarthur in the south to St Marys in the north through the Western Sydney Airport. This must be available from day one so that we can maximise the economic benefits, the job creation, of not just the airport itself but the employment lands around the airport that we see, particularly in that corridor to the north of the Badgerys Creek site right through to Penrith. A lot of great planning has been done by the councils in the region. The councils have all supported that north-south corridor for a rail line. This is an important part as well of overall city planning. Labor, of course, supports making the concept of the 30-minute city a reality. This is a one-off opportunity in Western Sydney to grow the economy, to grow jobs and to get it right on what are, in many areas—such as the employment lands to the north as well as the airport site—greenfield sites. Projects like the science park being developed by the private sector will deliver in themselves some 12,000 jobs. We want those jobs to be available to people who live in Penrith and Campbelltown, and that's why this corridor is so critical. Now, after many decades of prevarication and dispute, the Western Sydney Airport is moving forward as a reality with bipartisan support. An area of disagreement is this issue of public transport. Public transport must be available on the day that the airport opens, and that's why I call upon the government to commit to it. This is an essential infrastructure project. Murray-Darling Basin 97 12:35 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I'm rising to discuss the most important issue in the electorate of Farrer, which is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the games that the Labor Party is playing in an effort perhaps not to derail the plan but to ensure that they have maximum chance of winning the federal seat of Batman, which is a long way from the Murray-Darling Basin. For the first time since Federation—and you would know this well, Mr Deputy Speaker—the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys are in the same electorate, so, for me, the plan, water, irrigated agriculture and the future of our farming families is front and centre, and it's an issue about which I will make no compromise. To see what is happening to the communities that I have represented, some only since the last election but many for nearly 18 years, is quite heartbreaking because we have been through so much and given so much and hurt so much only to see, at this almost final stage, a game being played for political advantage in a community a long, long way from the Murray-Darling Basin. I heard the opposition's water spokesman on the radio yesterday morning, and it dawned on me that, in all of the muddled conversation he was having, what he was doing was putting this whole thing in a holding pattern—calling for another review—until after the Batman by-election on 17 March. If he is doing that, I guess the 17 March isn't that far away and, hopefully, after that we can get back to normal. But make no mistake. What this tells us is that Labor is always prepared to sacrifice the interests of rural people for its own political advantage, even around something as substantial and important and 'signed on for' by Labor as the very bipartisan Basin Plan. There is just so much misunderstanding about the Murray-Darling Basin, the communities in it, environmental watering, the health of the environment and so on. So it's vital at this point in time to trust those of us who live, work and raise our families in the basin and be up-front, honest and genuine. None of these things are coming from Labor, and it is incredibly disappointing. We talk in a language all of its own when you talk about water, and I don't really want to do that today in the time that I have, but the place that we've arrived at now is not bad. We have communities that have signed on to the plan, many of them reluctantly—farmers who know that it's a compromise, but it's a compromise they can live with. They need the certainty going forward because they run businesses and they have multimillion-dollar investments in some cases—or maybe not so large in others if they are small family farmers, but they want that certainty. The plan should deliver them that certainty, but that certainty is off the table at the moment. The 605 gigalitres of down water, which are savings that have been made through projects that state governments have submitted and had approved by the MDBA—which effectively means that that amount of water doesn't have to now be recovered from farmers—has brought broad acceptance in the southern basin. What Labor is doing is disallowing the northern basin review, which is about a separate amount of water—70 gigalitres—that a really rigorous scientific process has demonstrated is not necessary for the health of the environment, because the science wasn't really very well developed at the time that the figure was determined. But the two have become conflated, as has the 450 gigalitre of up water, a deal that was done to look after South Australia. Let's be really honest about that; we all know that's why it was done. But that 450 gigalitres of up water belongs to 2024, not to the here and now. If I see Labor somehow bringing back the 450 gigalitres of up water and telling the communities that I represent that they have to start recovering that water now—and I've heard that sort of line coming out of Labor—then I will do something that I never thought I would: I will call on the states to withdraw from the Basin Plan, in spite of everything that we've been through, because I am not going to turn around to my communities and tell them that we are coming to get another 650 gigalitres of your water. I can't do that. I won't do that. And I know that the water ministers and the agriculture ministers—and one is a Labor government—in both Victoria and New South Wales are seriously considering it. So, while Labor plays the political games here, have no doubt about the really shocking effect that those games are having in the real parts of rural Australia—parts that I wish my Labor colleagues could spend more time visiting. But I'm here to look after and represent those communities. (Time expired) Mayo Electorate: Aged Care 97 12:40 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Today I wish to speak about aged care in my electorate. Mayo is the oldest electorate in South Australia and the eighth oldest in the country, with a median age of 46 years. Over 22 per cent of my electorate is aged over 65 years. Compare this to South Australia's rate of 18.2 per cent and the Australian rate of 15.8 per cent and you start to understand that my community feels the impact of aged-care policy more than most. To be honest, the federal government's handling of the My Aged Care rollout has been troubling. There are over 100,000 people in the queue for appropriate home-care packages. My office has supported many constituents who have had to wait more than 12 months to get a package. By the time they do, they often find the package offered to them doesn't suit their current needs. Nowhere is the government's need to better address aged care highlighted more than in the town of Strathalbyn in my electorate. Currently there are just 30 home-care packages being delivered to the people of Strathalbyn. Population data suggests that the township needs 50 packages right now and, by 2021, 97 packages will be needed. If home-care packages aren't being delivered then elderly people are more likely to have spells in hospital and to need access to residential care, which is far more expensive. Unfortunately, Strathalbyn has seen a dramatic reduction in the availability of aged-care support. The closure of Kalimna Hostel led to its 24 Commonwealth-government-funded aged-care beds being placed in limbo. In January 2017, an update of the fire safety code resulted in the building being no longer fit for purpose. The closure meant that its residents were moved to towns sometimes hundreds of kilometres away from their families in Strathalbyn. It also led to the deactivation of the 24 aged-care beds. While these beds are still technically designated to Strathalbyn, they are currently lost. One year on and only six of those Commonwealth-funded aged-care bed licences have been reactivated. Those beds have been designated to the Strathalbyn hospital, and I'm reliably informed that, as a result, they are unable to be used for their aged-care purpose as the hospital requires the beds for the treatment of patients. This is not good enough. While the federal and state governments delay providing support to the community, the people of Strathalbyn contact me nearly every day concerned about their future or their parents' future, as they grow older with little or no support available to them in their home town, the home town many were born in. This is good cause for concern. According to the 2016 census, there are 1,060 people living in Strathalbyn who are older than 70. Population projections show that this number will rise to more than 2,100 people by 2021 and, by 2031, there will be over 3,000 people aged over 70 in this small town. That is a 190 per cent increase over the next 13 years. Following the closure of Kalimna Hostel, the Kalimna Working Group was established to identify a solution to the problem and provide recommendations on how to best address the growing aged-care needs in Strathalbyn. The final report revealed some frightening statistics. As many of my colleagues here will know, the federal government controls the number of aged-care places used under the aged-care provision ratio. I understand that, by 2021, the goal is to have 125 aged-care places per 1,000 people aged 70 years or over. Nationally, there are 112 operating aged-care places per 1,000 people aged over 70 years. Of the 112, 81 are residential packages. There are currently 104 high-level aged-care places in Strathalbyn and, based on population data, there should be 134 now. In 2021, there should be 167, and by 2026, which is not that far away, there should be over 200 places. Strathalbyn needs our support, and I urge Minister Wyatt to expedite the process of reactivating the remaining 18 beds and I urge him to ensure that the licences are available and are used in practice. I call on the federal and state governments to work together to fund the construction of a new 36-bed facility in Strathalbyn to meet its growing needs. Strathalbyn is just one of my communities where we need to do better for our elderly residents. Finally, I am pleased that Minister Wyatt has verbally accepted my invitation to visit my electorate to meet with stakeholders and meet with my community. The lack of aged-care support is not an issue that appears on the front of our newspaper and it's rarely mentioned in the evening news, but it should be. It's an issue that drastically affects our senior citizens and their families and we need to give them the support that they so richly deserve. Tangney Electorate: Roads 98 12:45 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I rise today to speak about the Murdoch Drive Connection. This $100 million project comprises the extension of Murdoch Drive, south from Farrington Road, to provide connections to the Roe Highway and the Kwinana Freeway. It's a good project that has been planned in many forms over the last 10 years. It will provide better access to Fiona Stanley Hospital and help the Murdoch activity centre meet its economic potential as a major employment and research centre. The federal government is funding the construction of the Murdoch Drive Connection to the Roe Highway and the Kwinana Freeway, but the state government is responsible for design and construction. The state government has let us down in the design phase, unilaterally changing their original 2017 plans which were expected to be the final design by many residents. They were available for public consultation through local information sessions. Instead, the WA state government have changed the plans, still agreeing to build the Murdoch Drive Connection but with locals denied full access to it and the full benefits of it. The state Labor government have made these changes without consulting the wider community and the people that will be affected most. Residents will be forced into longer travel times and more congestion. The 2017 concept plans would have provided direct access from Bibra Drive and Farrington Road to the Roe Highway and the Kwinana Freeway using the Murdoch Drive Connection. But, disappointingly, the state Minister for Transport, Rita Saffioti, has been influenced by a noisy minority and has decided to remove that direct access from Bibra Drive and Farrington Road to the Roe Highway and the Kwinana Freeway using the new Murdoch Drive Connection. This will mean that residents will be denied that full access to the new road and they'll have to continue to use the congested South Street, Berrigan Drive, Farrington Road and Karel Avenue to access the Kwinana Freeway or the Roe Highway, making their travel times longer. The 2017 concept designs would have put an end to many people living in the suburbs west of the Kwinana Freeway from having to drive through Leeming to access the Roe Highway. This was great news for the residents of Leeming and would have meant that Leeming local roads would be there for use only by locals. It would have made the Leeming community safer, with less traffic, and without a doubt it would have improved the value of homes in the area. When you compare the two designs—the 2017 design with the final design approved by the minister—Main Roads WA's own traffic modelling shows an extra 4,000 cars on Karel Avenue from Leeming each and every day and extra cars on South Street and Berrigan Drive. Labor's opposition to safer roads in my community is disgraceful. I wrote to Minister Saffioti requesting a short period of public consultation on the final 2018 plans, but my very reasonable request was refused. This is despite the minister knowing that the consultation could have taken place side by side with the construction that is occurring now. There was nothing stopping that consultation taking place. It wouldn't have affected the construction. In the last week, there have been a number of community information displays by Main Roads WA at a local shopping centre. The displays are not consultations. They are solely there to reinforce the new plans and the effect on our communities. Minister Saffioti and other state Labor members of parliament, such as Peter Tinley and Yaz Mubarakai, have the influence to change this. Minister Saffioti claims they got the balance right, but they have not. Peter Tinley claims that he wanted to ensure the new link didn't overload what is already a tight space, but this plan will only increase congestion on access to our freeways. Further consultation would not have affected construction, yet it has been denied. As construction is in the early stages, changes still can be made. The state government must give local residents better access to the local Perth road network to reduce congestion and improve road safety. I have launched a campaign aimed at reinstating the original plans. Two petitions launched last week have already gathered just under 3,000 signatures as of today. It's clear the community need to be consulted, and they are behind a plan to change back the plans to what they were consulted on in 2017. Labor in WA should put our communities and our families first, and they must get this vital project right. It is not too late to do the right thing and revert to the 2017 plans that were supported by the community. Canberra Electorate: Broadband 99 12:50 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Curtin is a suburb that is between five and 10 kilometres from Parliament House. It's a suburb in which a friend of mine lives. He was on the phone just recently to Telstra complaining about his internet connection while he was standing on his back porch looking at Parliament House. This friend of mine who lives in Curtin can't get speeds strong enough to be able to work from home. He and his wife—his wife works from home—cannot get speeds that are fast enough to be able to download big documents. There they are in Curtin, five to 10 kilometres from Parliament House, in the nation's capital in 2018, and my friend has to go into the office on the weekend to download documents, or he has to email the documents to a friend to download, rather than being able to download big documents at his home, because of the appalling internet speeds he is receiving. That couple, my friend and his wife—she's a friend too—have spent more time watching that little circle go round and round than is fair for anyone. They are incredibly frustrated. They are tearing their hair out. And they are not alone. Here in the nation's capital in 2018 we have households five, 10 and 15 kilometres from Parliament House that are receiving less than a one-megabit-per-second download speed. This time last year, despite these parlous speeds, Canberra was just one big blank space on the NBN rollout map. But, thanks to the campaigning that I did with the community, we managed to finally get on the NBN rollout map, and Canberra was very much looking forward to overcoming the digital divide by finally getting decent speeds. We were due for NBN rollout in the first half of this year, but then that moved to the right, and we were advised that the NBN was going to rollout at the end of this year. Last week we received information from NBN Co that, 'Woops! Sorry. We've got a bit of a delay.' It is not only one delay. It is the second delay. We're now looking at a rollout between June and September next year. In the nation's capital in 2018 where people are experiencing less than one-megabit-per-second download and upload speeds, it's absolutely appalling. My community is frustrated. I am frustrated. I have a community that is tearing its hair out. We got in touch when we heard the news from NBN Co that there were going to be further delays—the second round of delays. We tried to get in touch with NBN Co, not once but twice, but we couldn't get through. I spoke about this issue, and I raised my serious concerns and my frustration about this issue in parliament, and that picked up a bit of media attention, which isn't really surprising. The NBN Co confirmed to The Canberra Times that the delay for Canberra suburbs was due to a lack of contractors to complete the work. One would have thought that, given that the rollout map clearly states when things are going to be rolled out, NBN would have amped up the contractors. They knew this was coming online. But instead, as a result of their poor planning or for some other reason, Canberrans are being denied decent speeds. I hear from installers—I hear a range of reasons—there is complete frustration. I have heard from a gentleman who works installing NBN in Canberra's new suburbs, who finds it totally unacceptable that a brand-new house in Denman Prospect will be getting a minimum of 20 times faster internet than he does after living in Canberra for 12 years. He was looking forward to the NBN upgrade after the ALP rollout plan, which was to hit his area by no later than this time last year. Last time he checked, under the LNP plan, it won't happen until at least this time next year. This person is basically making the very good point that those areas in Canberra that have the poorest speeds should be prioritised. I've been calling on the government to do this, but the response of the minister for communications and NBN Co is: further delays, because of no contractors, because of poor planning. My community is being disadvantaged by this absolutely shameful, appalling NBN rollout, and it's causing a digital divide. I'm calling on the Turnbull government to end the digital divide in Canberra. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:55   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 101 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Cambodia (Question No. 850) 101 850 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 October 2017: (1) What will the Government do to encourage Cambodia to return to democracy and improve its human rights record (a) bilaterally, (b) through its newly acquired United Nations Human Rights Council membership, and    (c) at the Australian-ASEAN Special Summit in March 2018. (2) Has the Government contacted the Indonesian and French co-chairs of the Paris International Conference on Cambodia to see whether there is interest in reinvigorating the mechanisms under the Paris Peace Agreements; if not, why not; if so, was there any such interest. (3) Has the Government considered attaching conditionality to its bilateral aid program with Cambodia in respect of seeking improvements in Cambodia's democracy and human rights record. (4) Are Australian Government arrangements with the Cambodian Government concerning asylum seekers hampering efforts to encourage democracy and human rights in Cambodia; if so, how is the Government overcoming this obstacle. Ms Julie Bishop 83P The answer to the member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Australian Government will continue to raise our concerns, through diplomatic channels, about the political situation in Cambodia. (b) Australia made interventions to express our concerns at the 36th session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in September 2017. We will continue to raise human rights concerns through the HRC, the Universal Periodic Review process, and the UN General Assembly Third Committee.    (c) The ASEAN-Australia Special Summit is an opportunity to discuss the full range of cooperation between Australia and ASEAN member states. (2) No. This is a matter for the UN Secretary-General. (3) Australian aid supports the Cambodian people, and is directed to support sectors, such as agriculture and health, where there is significant need. (4) No.